PDA

View Full Version : NHC Man city could get baned from champs. league



Tha Cabbage Kid
25-08-2010, 08:26 AM
An article in the Gaurdian claims that City could find themselves band from the champions league because of their spending! crazy when you think about what they have spent recently to try to buy success, bit ironic dont you think?



http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/sV_ii6GEc3Jbe3RtcOrYA_w/view.m?id=545441&tid=120787&cat=Search

down-the-slope
25-08-2010, 08:41 AM
the footie authorites got into bed with TV and created the Monster......now they realise the monster is getting too big to control....tough as its too late

Its also ironic that those at the top of the current G20 who have 'bought' success for years are the ones to be complaining the loudest.

I hope Man City win League and then CL...as its the only way that the other big clubs will seriously look at a squad wage cap which is the only chance of football not eating itsself

Future17
25-08-2010, 09:16 AM
An article in the Gaurdian claims that City could find themselves band from the champions league because of their spending! crazy when you think about what they have spent recently to try to buy success, bit ironic dont you think?



http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/sV_ii6GEc3Jbe3RtcOrYA_w/view.m?id=545441&tid=120787&cat=Search

The rules are designed to prevent clubs from spending outwith their means, going bankrupt and all the hassle that goes with it. They are not rules designed to level the playing field as has been reported in some places.

Man City are not spending outwith their means as long as their owner can afford it. To avoid recording the losses detailed in the article, the club would just require to receive a cash injection from the owner. It would be a very expensive business, once you factor in the tax implications, but if he can afford it then it's not a problem.

khib70
25-08-2010, 09:18 AM
the footie authorites got into bed with TV and created the Monster......now they realise the monster is getting too big to control....tough as its too late

Its also ironic that those at the top of the current G20 who have 'bought' success for years are the ones to be complaining the loudest.
I hope Man City win League and then CL...as its the only way that the other big clubs will seriously look at a squad wage cap which is the only chance of football not eating itsself
Spot on. How dare anyone challenge their little monopoly. Spiteful, jealous fuds the lot of them:grr:

Still , I eagerly await this thread attracting the usual quota of bitter and twisted rags and scousers, keyboard revolutionaries and the "modern football is rubbish" non-intelligensia.

Are these tossers so scared of facing City on the football field that they have to resort to bureaucratic manouveres? Pathetic.

Austinho
25-08-2010, 09:38 AM
Spot on. How dare anyone challenge their little monopoly. Spiteful, jealous fuds the lot of them:grr:

Still , I eagerly await this thread attracting the usual quota of bitter and twisted rags and scousers, keyboard revolutionaries and the "modern football is rubbish" non-intelligensia.

Are these tossers so scared of facing City on the football field that they have to resort to bureaucratic manouveres? Pathetic.I'm sure you weren't at all bitter when Livingston spent big and won the Cup, or when Hearts did the same.
I'm sure you'd happily just accept it if Motherwell, Dundee United or Aberdeen got rich foreign investors, killing our chances of ever challenging for third, despite how well run we are.
I bet you've never been at all bitter of the fact Rangers spend without their means, and are still light years ahead of us, or that Hearts still beat us and finish above us regularly.

Or are you just a hypocrite when it comes it big spending Man City?

khib70
25-08-2010, 09:53 AM
I'm sure you weren't at all bitter when Livingston spent big and won the Cup, or when Hearts did the same.
I'm sure you'd happily just accept it if Motherwell, Dundee United or Aberdeen got rich foreign investors, killing our chances of ever challenging for third, despite how well run we are.
I bet you've never been at all bitter of the fact Rangers spend without their means, and are still light years ahead of us, or that Hearts still beat us and finish above us regularly.

Or are you just a hypocrite when it comes it big spending Man City?
I think you're way out of line here. You're equating Hibs wtih AC Milan, Inter, Real Madrid and the other G20 giants who see their lucrative stranglehold on European footbal being challenged? Don't be silly.

And if a big investor came in and took Hibs above the OF, you'd be horrified, would you? Who's the real hypocrite here?

I was bitter when Livingston won the cup because we played garbage in the final. So we have an automatic right to third place, and people are only allowed to spend money on their team if it doesn't threaten it? Rangers have spent practically nothing until very recently, and to compare Man City with Hearts is just ludicrous. Romanov is a financial poseur riding a tightrope. Sheikh Mansoor is possibly the richest man in the world. It's his money and he can do what he damn well likes with it.

Anyone has a right to invest their cash, provided it's legally acquired in anything they choose. There's nothing sacred about football. It's a free market out there (thank God). Everybody buys success. Deal with it.

jgl07
25-08-2010, 11:46 AM
I'm sure you weren't at all bitter when Livingston spent big and won the Cup, or when Hearts did the same.

Livingstone were in administration when they won the League Cup.

They used money they didn't have to sign players that Hibs could not afford. Manchester City certainly can afford the spending.

Manchester City are doing exactly what Chelsea and plenty of other clubs have done in the past.

If anyone seriously think such rules will withstand a legal challenge they will be in for a surprise.

It is not even a proper article. It a few scribbled notes on the online blog. The Guardian would be more circumspect if they were publishing the story.

The cozy closed shop at the top of European football will be in for a big surprise.

Gatecrasher
25-08-2010, 11:50 AM
Livingston were in administration when they won the League Cup.

They used money they didn't have to sign players that Hibs could not afford.

Manchester City are doing exactly what Chelsea and plenty of other clubs have done in the past.

If anyone seriously think such rules will withstand a legal challenge they will be in for a surprise.

The cozy closed shop at the top of European football will be in for a big surprise.

Fixed that for you, just a wee bug of mine :greengrin

Sir David Gray
25-08-2010, 12:08 PM
Presumably, in order to be banned from the Champions League, Manchester City would need to qualify for it first. :greengrin

Phil MaGlass
25-08-2010, 12:41 PM
Teams like Real Madrid, AC Milan can have no complaints they have been 100,s of millions in debt for decades, look at the state of ManUre, they are only complaining because the status quo is now humped. These clubs will start losing income due to other clubs such as ManCity, Chelsea and Russian clubs getting larger slices of the pie, the further in European tournaments these clubs get again less money for the socalled G20.

7Hero
25-08-2010, 02:00 PM
I'm sure you weren't at all bitter when Livingston spent big and won the Cup, or when Hearts did the same.
I'm sure you'd happily just accept it if Motherwell, Dundee United or Aberdeen got rich foreign investors, killing our chances of ever challenging for third, despite how well run we are.
I bet you've never been at all bitter of the fact Rangers spend without their means, and are still light years ahead of us, or that Hearts still beat us and finish above us regularly.

Or are you just a hypocrite when it comes it big spending Man City?

im not sure about this because i dont feel bitter about any of the things above, if any of those teams spent big and won i dont think it would upset me at all, id probably laud there fans like man city as they have had naff all to celebrate ever so fair play to them, enjoy the experience, i know i would..

As for the old firm well i'm just used to them spending and getting everything there own way, when i was 12 years old i think it really got on my nerves and i was probably bitter but then you grow up (don't you ??) I mean how anybody who has being to games for years can let rangers and celtics actions / refs biasedness or anything else upset you is beyond me, its been the same for 100 years, you are wasting your time and enrgy worrying about it or trying to change it im afraid.

i wont even mention hearts anything they do other than during a derby i couldn't give 2 flying hoots about, similar to the old firm the less i think or care about them the better.

Skanko79
25-08-2010, 02:29 PM
if they ban city then i would fully expect real, chelsea and all the other big spenders to be banned also.

Sylar
25-08-2010, 02:43 PM
Good on UEFA/FIFA for taking the decision to promote such a rule into the game.

I find it absolutely hilarious reading some of the Man City fans' responses to this - they're like kids who have been told they can't do something wrong, because other kids have been doing the same.

Just because the likes of Man Utd, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Barcelona etc have all spent ludicrous amounts of money on players/infrastructure throughout the years, doesn't mean it's acceptable and it also shouldn't be used as a basis for other clubs/private investors to do similar.

It might be a great step in the short-term, seeing million upon million being spent on short-term fixes, but consider the wage/spending structure of a club like Man City - they don't have the fanbase/commercial income to sustain their spending - it's ALL in the hands of this Arab sheikh. What happens when he gets bored? I bet all the City fans will be running collection buckets at games trying to get fans to invest/donate to the future of their club - let's see how load they're all bleating then!

With their financial attraction, players will (ultimately) move to Eastlands, play one or 2 seasons, and be able to either retire or request a move elsewhere, claiming to be "unsettled" (look at the rumoured figures of Ibrahimovic's move - £26 million earned in one season, for kicking a ball about a patch of grass!).

In the long-term, it'll destroy the domestic game and international potential, as these clubs will preferentially spend rediculous amounts of money, which could be invested in a long-term vision of youth academies and grass-roots schooling/local clubs. Man City (and Man Utd) are both part of a large Manchester community - perhaps instead of paying £xxx million per season on players, it might be prudent to return some investment to the local kids who come along and pay £x'00 per season to watch you.

City aren't quite deserving of the mass hysterical criticism they're receiving (particulary when loaded from hypocrites like Alex Ferguson), but they (along with the many other clubs in the same position, who have created an unbreakable elite-financial league), should be forced to run their business within a sustainable long term manner. If Sheikh Mansoor were to be smooshed by a bus tomorrow, City and their fans would be ****ting themselves.

jgl07
25-08-2010, 03:22 PM
Good on UEFA/FIFA for taking the decision to promote such a rule into the game.

I find it absolutely hilarious reading some of the Man City fans' responses to this - they're like kids who have been told they can't do something wrong, because other kids have been doing the same.

Just because the likes of Man Utd, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Barcelona etc have all spent ludicrous amounts of money on players/infrastructure throughout the years, doesn't mean it's acceptable and it also shouldn't be used as a basis for other clubs/private investors to do similar.

It might be a great step in the short-term, seeing million upon million being spent on short-term fixes, but consider the wage/spending structure of a club like Man City - they don't have the fanbase/commercial income to sustain their spending
And Chelsea have the fanbase? Their ground holds less than 42,000.

There was nearly 48,000 at Eastlands on Monday. The ground will be increased in capacity in the near future perhaps up to 78,000. Only Manchester United and Arsenal are likely to have bigger crowds this season.

Other investment planned will link the City's Metrolink tram system to the stadium by 2012. This forms one element of a partnership with the City Council in a £500 million urban renewal programme covering the area around the stadium.

The spending on infrastructure appears to indicate that they are in for the long run.



City aren't quite deserving of the mass hysterical criticism they're receiving (particulary when loaded from hypocrites like Alex Ferguson), but they (along with the many other clubs in the same position, who have created an unbreakable elite-financial league), should be forced to run their business within a sustainable long term manner. If Sheikh Mansoor were to be smooshed by a bus tomorrow, City and their fans would be ****ting themselves.
The ownership resides with the Abu Dhabi Investment Trust so I would think that things would carry on regardless.

It is always going to be more expensive to break into the elite group than to stay there. I suspect that the flurry of spending is intended to achieve that objective before the new rules from UEFA come into effect.

lucky
25-08-2010, 04:20 PM
These rules are very easy to get round as they are based on turnover. Man city only need to sell a corporate box to the sheik for £100m and the problems solved.

More of a worry is Man utd and Liverpool whose owners bought them on the never never using the club as collateral for the debt.

On a Scottish side Rangers have had massive investment from davis Murray but his company is struggling as such he longer has the funds for his toy. But rangers are servicing their debt but the only way out for them is a buy out or exit to the EPL or a fantastic run in the CL two/three years in a row.

Hearts on the other hand are in real bother as MadVlad has not given them the money a bank has loaned it and as such they would fall foul of the rules. As for Hearts going into administration that is wishful thinking, do you think Vlad's bank shareholders will accept 10p in the pound? no chance as such they will continue to service the debt and Vlad has a toy and is making money out of them with interest on the loans whilst taking the land that PBS stands on

jgl07
25-08-2010, 04:37 PM
These rules are very easy to get round as they are based on turnover. Man city only need to sell a corporate box to the sheik for £100m and the problems solved.

That point struck me.

Alternatively pay the players a maximum of £1,000 a week each and top this up with sponsorship directly from the investment trust or an intermediary company set up for this purpose.

Another way is to set up a shell club who hold all the players' contracts and loan them to the team concerned at a notional cost.

Corporate lawyers and accountants will drive a coach and horses through whatever rules UEFA dream up.

Owain_1987
25-08-2010, 04:46 PM
At the end of the day Man City can buy who they like I do not think they will ever be better than Man UTD as at the end of the day what ever you do you can't buy history, you can't buy a success mentality and for all the millions you have it does not mean you can buy 11 world class players who can all gel together. Yes Man City on paper have a great side but will they play well enough together to win the league I don't think so. I feel the reason Chelsea have done so well is because the centre of their side is around English players who know the league so well and know how to win the games on a cold winters night up in Newcastle, will Man City have this in them this season?

I know going slightly off topic there I just think it is short sighted do assume millions buys you success. Just look at Real Madrid last season. On the money side let them buy who they like and if it goes tits up well :greengrin:greengrin

Sylar
25-08-2010, 04:54 PM
And Chelsea have the fanbase? Their ground holds less than 42,000.

There was nearly 48,000 at Eastlands on Monday. The ground will be increased in capacity in the near future perhaps up to 78,000. Only Manchester United and Arsenal are likely to have bigger crowds this season.

Other investment planned will link the City's Metrolink tram system to the stadium by 2012. This forms one element of a partnership with the City Council in a £500 million urban renewal programme covering the area around the stadium.

The spending on infrastructure appears to indicate that they are in for the long run.


Again with the reference to other clubs - other clubs who spend ludicrous volumes of money aren't an example to follow. UEFA SHOULD be introducing rules to stifle ALL clubs who spend silly money on players/salaries.

"Planned Investment" - I seem to recall the council and Hearts talking positively about rejuvination of the area surrounding Gorgie, extension of the trams to incorporate traffic through this area, not to mention the infamous hotel/casino complex replacing their Main Stand. Until the planning is accepted at Manchester City Council, it's a tad premature to be using this as such an example (the pedant notices that until Man City actually sign/lodge an offer for Ibrahimovic, that my example of ludicrous salary is also premature - point conceded).

I've no doubt that many companies/private financiers will come forward to further support City, when success becomes apparent, both on and off the park, but surely the point of this rule is in regard to transfer fees/salaries? Capping spending on players in the international market is something which SHOULD be introduced, based on the turnover of a club - and I mean ALL clubs, not just Man City. Investment in the surrounding area of the stadium, local youth programmes etc, benefitting those who support the club on a weekly basis is a great way to spend money and maintain the longevity of the club. Spending £180k/week on some unknown Italian forward with an ego the size of the Trafford Centre isn't exactly prudent in my eyes.

Doesn't it bother you that this new owner would rather throw his money about like a man with no arms, spending ludicrous amounts of money on new players from all over the globe, rather than introducing an academy-setup which will give local/national kids the chance to be trained by these highly paid stars/coaches, thus providing a viable resource for years to come? There may well be a good academy setup in place at Man City, but with so many high-calibre, bankrolling signings, these kids are hardly going to get any scope to prove themselves at the top level, are they?

I'm happy that Hibs have proved time and time again that our youth academy is much more effective than buying and selling players - how much money have we made on the players we've brought through our system? Compare this with Man City's approach - they spend stupid money on players, who will eventually be loaned out or sold on at a loss (based on their recent activities) - the over-the-odds approach, for the sake of showing that they can, brings a massive depreciation rate onto player value and doesn't exactly bode well in a business sense.

UEFA have been on a trip about respect, fair-play etc for years - I'm delighted that they've decided to extend fair-play to considering the economic viability of squads who are competing for high level competitions. Christ, they won't introduce video technology, "because it can't be rolled out at all levels", so it's about time money was tackled, as it's very much an elite few who benefit.

It's a double-edged sword though - I agree that Man City are only trying to break into a well established monopoly, and for that, I say good on them, but by resorting to the same tactics of outspending everyone else, isn't the way it should be done, as they're now part of the problem.

jgl07
25-08-2010, 05:02 PM
At the end of the day Man City can buy who they like I do not think they will ever be better than Man UTD as at the end of the day what ever you do you can't buy history, you can't buy a success mentality and for all the millions you have it does not mean you can buy 11 world class players who can all gel together. Yes Man City on paper have a great side but will they play well enough together to win the league I don't think so. I feel the reason Chelsea have done so well is because the centre of their side is around English players who know the league so well and know how to win the games on a cold winters night up in Newcastle, will Man City have this in them this season?
Yes not an English player in sight apart from:

Joe Hart, Micah Richards, Joleon Lescott, Wayne Bridge, Sean Wright Phillips, Gareth Barry, James Milner, Adam Johnson, Michael Johnson.

By comparison Chelsea have:

Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard, Daniel Sturridge, John Terry, err that's it.

Oh dear!

Owain_1987
25-08-2010, 05:12 PM
Yes not an English player in sight apart from:

Joe Hart, Micah Richards, Joleon Lescott, Wayne Bridge, Sean Wright Phillips, Gareth Barry, James Milner, Adam Johnson, Michael Johnson.

By comparison Chelsea have:

Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard, Daniel Sturridge, John Terry, err that's it.

Oh dear!

Yes the thing is though three of those Chelsea players are stand outs in the league, not one of those City players are although Milner may get there. Hart is good and may be first choice at City the rest will not get near the side. So well done for trying to make my point sound nonsense but I still stand by it.

jgl07
25-08-2010, 05:30 PM
Yes the thing is though three of those Chelsea players are stand outs in the league, not one of those City players are although Milner may get there. Hart is good and may be first choice at City the rest will not get near the side. So well done for trying to make my point sound nonsense but I still stand by it.
You may wish to do so but you point is nonsense as the figures demonstrate.

Chelsea have three aging England internationals and one young prospect. that is hardly a team built around English players.

It matters little what the nationality of the player is but their experience does count.

The likes of Tevez. Kolo Toure, Adebeyor, etc have performed successfully in the EPL for some years. Those who seem unable or unwilling to adapt such as Robinho are being moved on.

The point made by Andy Gray on Monday night was that the difference between City at Spurs and against Liverpool was down to two players coming in to the team. One was Adam Johnson the other was James Milner. The first goal was scored by Gareth Barry. Those three could be seen as the core of the future team.

blackpoolhibs
25-08-2010, 05:33 PM
At the end of the day Man City can buy who they like I do not think they will ever be better than Man UTD as at the end of the day what ever you do you can't buy history, you can't buy a success mentality and for all the millions you have it does not mean you can buy 11 world class players who can all gel together. Yes Man City on paper have a great side but will they play well enough together to win the league I don't think so. I feel the reason Chelsea have done so well is because the centre of their side is around English players who know the league so well and know how to win the games on a cold winters night up in Newcastle, will Man City have this in them this season?

I know going slightly off topic there I just think it is short sighted do assume millions buys you success. Just look at Real Madrid last season. On the money side let them buy who they like and if it goes tits up well :greengrin:greengrin

Of course they will. If the arabs are here for the long term, they will outbid Man U for every player that they both want. Chelsea have done it recently, and City will do the same, but bigger.

blackpoolhibs
25-08-2010, 05:34 PM
Yes the thing is though three of those Chelsea players are stand outs in the league, not one of those City players are although Milner may get there. Hart is good and may be first choice at City the rest will not get near the side. So well done for trying to make my point sound nonsense but I still stand by it.

Why would any team want to build the base of their team with English players?

boris the blade
25-08-2010, 08:54 PM
FIFA and uefa are doing everything they can to make life hard for English clubs.

ScottB
25-08-2010, 09:11 PM
In many ways, the ONLY financially stable top European side is... Man City.

Enough of this 'oh when the Sheik dies they are stuffed' theres the far more pressing 'what if the bank has enough' statement you could aim squarely at the likes of Liverpool and co. Man Utd are shouldering a massive debt, Real and Barca are broke, Milan are broke... For these clubs to start complaining about spending is an utter joke. Real spent an utter fortune last summer despite not being able to afford it. Man City can pay in cash for every player they've bought, which is the more finacially unstable exactly?

Don't get me wrong, I think some of the spending is getting way out of hand, but ultimately that's that isn't it, they'll never stop it, they will always find a way round it. Clubs shouldn't be allowed to spend money they don't have, risking administration and wiping themselves and other companies out of existence. Currently, Man City can afford what they are spending.


For the record, as there seems to be some sort of paranoid witch hunt going on on here at the moment, I'm not a City fan, nor a fan of any English team.

lEXO
25-08-2010, 09:12 PM
I,d find it a bit strange if Real Madrid were complaining about the amount of cash being spent by anyone.They paid £70 million on Ronaldo, plus the cash for guys like Kaka, Benzima and plenty others over the years.Any of the top european clubs that dont like Man City,s spending should get a grip.
Sure the money being spent in football, and wages are obscene.But they are doing the same as these other teams, so why should,nt they buy the best to compete with them.Smacks of hypocrisy.

blackpoolhibs
25-08-2010, 09:13 PM
In many ways, the ONLY financially stable top European side is... Man City.

Enough of this 'oh when the Sheik dies they are stuffed' theres the far more pressing 'what if the bank has enough' statement you could aim squarely at the likes of Liverpool and co. Man Utd are shouldering a massive debt, Real and Barca are broke, Milan are broke... For these clubs to start complaining about spending is an utter joke. Real spent an utter fortune last summer despite not being able to afford it. Man City can pay in cash for every player they've bought, which is the more finacially unstable exactly?

Don't get me wrong, I think some of the spending is getting way out of hand, but ultimately that's that isn't it, they'll never stop it, they will always find a way round it. Clubs shouldn't be allowed to spend money they don't have, risking administration and wiping themselves and other companies out of existence. Currently, Man City can afford what they are spending.


For the record, as there seems to be some sort of paranoid witch hunt going on on here at the moment, I'm not a City fan, nor a fan of any English team.

:top marks:agree: