The Footie Thread

[GB72]

To be clear the issue isn’t clubs being rich and being able to spend money

Its clubs ignoring rules and believing they can use expensive lawyers to get away it

That’s exactly what happened with the UEFA charges - they were found guilty and were able to get away with due to the tactics employed by expensive lawyers

When the likes of United , Blackburn and Chelsea spent lots of their owners money it was done within the rules of the sport at the time

Just because a club doesn’t like the rules doesn’t mean they are ok to go ahead and ignore them

120 plus charges - no other club has ever had that level of charges against them

I have less of an issue with it. City had a very clear goal of getting to the top table and were faced with an unfair set of rules and regulations that served only to protect those already at the top. The took the approach of risking the punishment rather than asking permission and what has that achieved, they are now established at the top with a support and income that can fund the club and a level of global recognition that would take a decade of failure to erase. When faced with a biased system, they made a decision to get to a position that would have otherwise taken decades to achieve and at the same time have opened the debate on FFP protecting a cartel of top clubs. In that position, I think a lot of people would have made the same decision.

So what happens now, point deductions and fines. Relegation, maybe but would the championship and the clubs there want that, everyone taking a hammering from City and one less club getting a chance at promotion. It is not as if City cannot pay their players enough to suffer one season in a lower league. But, realistically, the premier league wants clubs to spend and so there is not a chance that there will be anything done to challenge that or to put off potential investors.

 

[Tashyboy]

Newcastle were last years. They had to sell Anderson, that hurt them. Minteh is a good prospect lost as well. I doubt they wanted to sell either but had to to balance FFP.

Re Newcastle, it’s a shame they got the owners 10 years to late, otherwise they could now be in a similar situation to City.
Not sure who said on here that too big a punishment ( for City if guilty) could keep big investors away from the premier league. FFP has stopped Newcastle from spending more money, which would of been kept in football, unless you have Glaziers and Agents taking it out. And that last bit emphasises my point that does the Prem leagues FFP rules or restrictions whichever way you look at it hinder a clubs business plan. But also break UK/ EU buisness laws.

 

[Tashyboy]

Most football supporters are glory hunters anyway, simple enough to change which team they support.....
Hate football with a passion but have a grudging respect for fans of low level teams who turn up every week.

You would of loved City in the 90’s and 00’s then

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I have less of an issue with it. City had a very clear goal of getting to the top table and were faced with an unfair set of rules and regulations that served only to protect those already at the top. The took the approach of risking the punishment rather than asking permission and what has that achieved, they are now established at the top with a support and income that can fund the club and a level of global recognition that would take a decade of failure to erase. When faced with a biased system, they made a decision to get to a position that would have otherwise taken decades to achieve and at the same time have opened the debate on FFP protecting a cartel of top clubs. In that position, I think a lot of people would have made the same decision.

So what happens now, point deductions and fines. Relegation, maybe but would the championship and the clubs there want that, everyone taking a hammering from City and one less club getting a chance at promotion. It is not as if City cannot pay their players enough to suffer one season in a lower league. But, realistically, the premier league wants clubs to spend and so there is not a chance that there will be anything done to challenge that or to put off potential investors.

Doesn’t matter if a club thinks it’s “unfair” they still broke the rules

Were you ok with Saracens breaking the financial rules in rugby which allowed them to wipe the board for years

Cant allow clubs to ignore rules just because of a feeling they are “unfair”

If they don’t like the rules then look to change them

 

[HomerJSimpson]

You would of loved City in the 90’s and 00’s then

Try being a Fulham fan in the old 4th division and very nearly getting relegated from that. Proper hard yards invested so anytime we are in the PL now its a bonus. Seem to have found a degree of stickability

 

[Bdill93]

I have less of an issue with it. City had a very clear goal of getting to the top table and were faced with an unfair set of rules and regulations that served only to protect those already at the top. The took the approach of risking the punishment rather than asking permission and what has that achieved, they are now established at the top with a support and income that can fund the club and a level of global recognition that would take a decade of failure to erase. When faced with a biased system, they made a decision to get to a position that would have otherwise taken decades to achieve and at the same time have opened the debate on FFP protecting a cartel of top clubs. In that position, I think a lot of people would have made the same decision.

So what happens now, point deductions and fines. Relegation, maybe but would the championship and the clubs there want that, everyone taking a hammering from City and one less club getting a chance at promotion. It is not as if City cannot pay their players enough to suffer one season in a lower league. But, realistically, the premier league wants clubs to spend and so there is not a chance that there will be anything done to challenge that or to put off potential investors.

Personally I think the best sanction for city is a set number of years where they start the league on around -30 points.

Little to no chance of a top 4 finish before a ball is kicked.

Relegating them slows them down for 2 seasons (if down to the Championship)

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Personally I think the best sanction for city is a set number of years where they start the league on around -30 points.

Little to no chance of a top 4 finish before a ball is kicked.

Relegating them slows them down for 2 seasons (if down to the Championship)

Bin them down to the bottom in the same way Italian teams have done - if found guilty on a significant amount of charges

Also remove the trophies won during the period of the charges

And this hasn’t just affected the teams that may have missed out on trophies in that period but may have impacted teams that were relegated

 

[Bdill93]

Bin them down to the bottom in the same way Italian teams have done - if found guilty on a significant amount of charges

Also remove the trophies won during the period of the charges

And this hasn’t just affected the teams that may have missed out on trophies in that period but may have impacted teams that were relegated

I appreciate that, I just cant see it happening, unless they do look at other examples across all sports and follow suit

 

[birdiemachine]

You would of loved City in the 90’s and 00’s then

Worked with a lad who was a big city fan, started going as a boy with his dad. He said true City fans were used to suffering and real joy was a wet, cold midweek night at the likes of Stockport.
The joy went for him once the money came and they started winning and the plastic fans started crawling out of the woodwork.
This was the Club he loved, his dad stopped going and he lost a lot of interest, it wasn't about winning for him.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I appreciate that, I just cant see it happening, unless they do look at other examples across all sports and follow suit

The findings from the inquest/case etc are going to have massive ramifications for the league whichever way it goes

 

[RichA]

I appreciate that, I just cant see it happening, unless they do look at other examples across all sports and follow suit

Also, it screws up the lower divisions for those teams that are competing fairly for League 2, League 1 and Championship titles and promotion.
Your -30 points for x seasons is the best idea I've heard.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Also, it screws up the lower divisions for those teams that are competing fairly for League 2, League 1 and Championship titles and promotion.
Your -30 points for x seasons is the best idea I've heard.

Even if City were relegated to league 2 they'd win at a canter and so is that really a deterrent. I can't see what effect getting rid of the wins serves. Money doesn't guarantee success. Look at PSG and their pursuit of the CL

 

[GB72]

Doesn’t matter if a club thinks it’s “unfair” they still broke the rules

Were you ok with Saracens breaking the financial rules in rugby which allowed them to wipe the board for years

Cant allow clubs to ignore rules just because of a feeling they are “unfair”

If they don’t like the rules then look to change them

Saracens broke rules that did not overly benefit some clubs in the league but, honestly, I am pretty ambivalent to it. I very much see the salary cap as a different animal to FFP as well but that may be just me.

As I said though, on a purely business basis, City made the right call. Spend 10 or 20 years getting to where they are now whilst also letting the current top table pull away further or just roll the dice and take the punishment and get there in a few years. Only one decision makes sense

When the sport is pretty much now based on money above all else, it is very hard to care that one team spent more than they should. Was the club ever in financial jeopardy, no, so not sure what FFP should ever have to do with it.

 

[GB72]

Also, it screws up the lower divisions for those teams that are competing fairly for League 2, League 1 and Championship titles and promotion.
Your -30 points for x seasons is the best idea I've heard.

Actually I like that as well, basically just keeps them out of the champions league for a year. They then just qualify for the Europa, go full bore at that, win it and they are back in the Champions League anyway

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Saracens broke rules that did not overly benefit some clubs in the league but, honestly, I am pretty ambivalent to it. I very much see the salary cap as a different animal to FFP as well but that may be just me.

As I said though, on a purely business basis, City made the right call. Spend 10 or 20 years getting to where they are now whilst also letting the current top table pull away further or just roll the dice and take the punishment and get there in a few years. Only one decision makes sense

When the sport is pretty much now based on money above all else, it is very hard to care that one team spent more than they should. Was the club ever in financial jeopardy, no, so not sure what FFP should ever have to do with it.

They broke the rules ( allegedly but proven by UEFA).

Saracens broke the rules as well , and financials in rugby have caused big issues

Doesn’t matter if the rules are fair or not , they were put in place with all the clubs have a vote on them - every single club gets a say.

 

[Bdill93]

Actually I like that as well, basically just keeps them out of the champions league for a year. They then just qualify for the Europa, go full bore at that, win it and they are back in the Champions League anyway

They'd struggle to do that too though, just using last year as an example - 8 teams had 60 points or more, City had 89, remove the 30 and they finish 8th - no European football.

Impose that over 5 years or so and the lack of European money will harm them, players wont want to go there as they wont be competing for anything significant, real damage.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

One of the big weaknesses of the current system is that there doesn't seem to be a clear set of sentencing guidelines. No one really knew what would happen to Forest or Everton, we are all guessing about City (if found guilty). The punishments should be clear so that everyone knows the consequences.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

One of the big weaknesses of the current system is that there doesn't seem to be a clear set of sentencing guidelines. No one really knew what would happen to Forest or Everton, we are all guessing about City (if found guilty). The punishments should be clear so that everyone knows the consequences.

Yep - it does need a huge overhaul to ensure it’s both fair and uniform

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The thing is even if City are prevented from playing in Europe and even relegated and the top players leave as a consequence they will be able to construct another side to compete. I can't see it changing too much. It might take a few seasons once back in European competitions to get up to that level but I am sure they will.

 

[GB72]

They broke the rules ( allegedly but proven by UEFA).

Saracens broke the rules as well , and financials in rugby have caused big issues

Doesn’t matter if the rules are fair or not , they were put in place with all the clubs have a vote on them - every single club gets a say.

Yes, I know, I know but from a business standpoint, it was the right decision to make but all this hand wringing is pretty irrelevant. The Premier League wants money, clubs spending big attracts money, big money owners are dissuaded by rules that stop them spending. The punishment will be just enough to seem stern but not make any real difference and City will remain established at the top but now with a sustainable model. They spent to get to where they are probably a decade or more earlier than they could without, right decision to make. You could take all the trophies etc away (nobody would see the new winners as the true champions) and they would still be at the top table and winning again. Everything they did makes perfect sense.

In reality, do the clubs below the top 10 really care what City spend, I doubt it, that has very little bearing on them. The only ones who complain are those who may not be able to keep pace with the big spenders in the future and, realistically, the league will be decided by state owned, oil financed or oligarch owned clubs.