Super League and cheating by ManCity and PSG
- Thread starter spintheblackcircle
- Start date
East Coast Bias
Registered User
Ha I like Evilo.
I'm not saying it's not possible. It wouldn't shock me. But from everything around the deal, it was way more about incompetence and a guy who was trying to be bold than anything else.
I agree. It is useful to have someone that can tell you to "make searches" if you are lost on your way to the truth.
When you know more than me about what I know about things there really isn´t much more to say is it. Never mind me. I´m a lost cause. Let us help East Coast Bias together.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/L.-Ron-Hubbard/e/B000AP9H6S
Some books I think he should read. A good foundation to understand the world properly.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/L.-Ron-Hubbard/e/B000AP9H6S
Some books I think he should read. A good foundation to understand the world properly.
KevFu
Registered User
It is pretty interesting to me that the European nations tend to be more socialist and less capitalist, and their form of escape from reality: Sport, is extreme capitalism. While the closest thing the USA capitalist society has to socialism is... the revenue sharing/draft of pro sports (our escape from reality!)
KevFu
Registered User
Also, the primary reason that I - as a Manchester City fan - have zero problems with violating FFP is the sheer ludicrous nature of the why UEFA instituted FFP in the first place.
For decades, you had “The Big Four” at the highest level of English soccer. United was the richest club in the world from 2002-2005, with Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool in the top 10. Those four have remained the top 10.
The Big Four dominated the Premier League. From 1999-2009, they combined for 34 of 40 top four finishes. The other six finishes were: three fifth place, two sixth place and one seventh place.
Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan bought Manchester City and began pumping money into the club: over a billion pounds into players and infrastructure.
And all the sudden, this business of Financial Fair Play comes up. No one had any problem with the richest dominating and spending. But when someone else starts spending and joining the elite, now this is a problem Europe must solve!
UEFA President Michel Platini: “If you depend only on a rich benefactor however, then the financial model is too volatile."
Which is absolute crap. By having a rich benefactor invest, City rose from a team that didn’t generate top 20 revenue to one that’s in the top seven in the world.
What other way is there to create an elite club if you’re not allowed to invest in it?
And of course, England and France are the only two leagues that make payments from their revenues to lower division leagues. About 14% of the Premier League TV rights go to relegated clubs, The Football League, and other organizations within the umbrella of English soccer. These payments are not exempt from FFP calculations, despite England’s constant lobbying.
For decades, you had “The Big Four” at the highest level of English soccer. United was the richest club in the world from 2002-2005, with Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool in the top 10. Those four have remained the top 10.
The Big Four dominated the Premier League. From 1999-2009, they combined for 34 of 40 top four finishes. The other six finishes were: three fifth place, two sixth place and one seventh place.
Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan bought Manchester City and began pumping money into the club: over a billion pounds into players and infrastructure.
And all the sudden, this business of Financial Fair Play comes up. No one had any problem with the richest dominating and spending. But when someone else starts spending and joining the elite, now this is a problem Europe must solve!
UEFA President Michel Platini: “If you depend only on a rich benefactor however, then the financial model is too volatile."
Which is absolute crap. By having a rich benefactor invest, City rose from a team that didn’t generate top 20 revenue to one that’s in the top seven in the world.
What other way is there to create an elite club if you’re not allowed to invest in it?
And of course, England and France are the only two leagues that make payments from their revenues to lower division leagues. About 14% of the Premier League TV rights go to relegated clubs, The Football League, and other organizations within the umbrella of English soccer. These payments are not exempt from FFP calculations, despite England’s constant lobbying.
What other way?
You use top 4 as the argument. How did Spurs end up there? Pretty sure Spurs would have had more titles if it hadn´t been for City and Chelsea so..
You build your team for long term success. Can´t blame a team like United being hugely popular for so long etc.
KevFu
Registered User
No one is saying United is to blame for FFP. It's just extremely suspect that when NEW members join the club of rich teams, it's some kind of financial crisis everyone wants to address. FFP was designed to thwart billionaires from buying a team, investing their own money into payroll, raising their quality and improving their lot in life.
It was okay for wealthy sugar daddy J.H.Davies to pump his own money into a club on players, making the team elite and therefore raising revenues and turning the team into a super club when he did it… because he did it in 1902; but someone else doing it in 2006-2009 is suddenly unacceptable.
Spurs got new owners in 2001. They’ve spent the sixth most amount of money in the history of the Premier League, routinely spending more than Arsenal and United half the time. They aren’t spending “obscene” money like City has…
But spending money is how you win in professional sports. Spurs has slowed their spending because what money they made from increased performance after buying good players got invested into the academy so now they produce more of their own good players.
That’s how sports works. No one is going to sign with you if you’re spending medium money if you’re a below average club. You make yourself a destination by spending money to become a good club.
And FFP basically locks teams into their economic station in life. It’s status quo legislation.
But all of us as fans would love for our losing teams we root for to be purchased by an uber wealthy person who spares no expense making the team an elite team in the league. FFP is designed to thwart exactly that.
I view violating FFP like I view the Yankees of the 2000s. The MLB owners passed a CBA that created a luxury tax for big spending teams. They set the dollar amount literally “beyond what teams 2-30 could afford” and only limiting the spending of the Yankees. George Steinbrenner was the only owner to vote against it, and his response was to make a mockery of it, sign everyone’s best free agent (and trade for A-Rod). He didn’t care if spending $175 million cost him $225 million. I’m a Mets fan, but I respected the hell out of that.
The whole “super league” rumors are the logical response to sanctioning the biggest clubs for FFP. The owners of PSG and City have more money than they know what to do with, so they’re spending it on soccer. If they get fined for FFP violations, they don’t care. They can constantly break the rules and buy their way out of trouble by paying massive fines they can afford. In the event that UEFA says “Well, you can’t play in this competition or that competition,” these clubs are strong enough brands to say “We don’t need you. We can create our own competitions.”
I love the condescending tone. And that you are trying to educate me on Spurs. I can’t be bothered to answer all of it as I don't think you are very well informed, but two things are obviously wrong and/or misleading. Then again we all need to justify our own believes and I can see why a City-fan would feel this way.
We can take the last thing first. Absolutely untrue. Personally I think football clubs should be owned by their members - like they used to (at least in Europe). I don't know what I would do if Spurs were bought by some country from the Middle East (or any other country for that matter). I could see my interest just fading.
I have no idea where you got your numbers from. Not that "spending" is very interesting as that depends as much on who you are selling as the players you are buying. Spurs have sold more high level players than most comparable teams at the time they were sold. All the way back to the likes of Carrick Spurs have received big fees for players sold. Spending that same money means in your world that Spurs are closer to the likes of City than they really are.
Premier League Club Netspend From 2003 - Transfer League
I honestly do not know when that table stopped, but my guess somewhere along 5 years ago.
If you look at net spend Spurs are closer to the likes of Brighton and Bournemouth since ENIC/Levy took over. Yes, Spurs got rich owners, but they have never spend one dime of their own money, or their company's, on the club - so completely different to City, Chelsea and possibly Liverpool.
Then you got the last 10 years. Once again - how rich the Spurs owners are is a bit irrelevant.
Premier League - Transfer balance and five-year comparison
| Team | 19/20 | 18/19 | 17/18 | 16/17 | 15/16 | 14/15 | 13/14 | 12/13 | 11/12 | 10/11 | Total |
| City | -79 | -24 | -226 | -178 | -141 | -72 | -105 | -18 | -60 | -146 | -1049 |
| United | -72 | -52 | -153 | -138 | -54 | -146 | -75 | -67 | -48 | -12 | -817 |
| Chelsea | 74 | -138 | -60 | -24 | -3 | 7 | -53 | -84 | -64 | -105 | -451 |
| Arsenal | -3 | -72 | 3 | -103 | -24 | -91 | -37 | 10 | 13 | -15 | -319 |
| Liverpool | 22 | -141 | 21 | 5 | -35 | -52 | -26 | -60 | -44 | 4 | -305 |
| West Ham | -32 | -86 | 12 | -43 | -34 | -31 | -23 | -19 | -2 | -11 | -269 |
| Leicester | -85 | -19 | -40 | -26 | -40 | -23 | 1 | -2 | -17 | -3 | -253 |
| Everton | -19 | -71 | -77 | -25 | -38 | -38 | 14 | -3 | 20 | 5 | -232 |
| Wolves | -48 | -89 | -18 | -33 | 6 | -2 | 4 | 15 | -9 | -14 | -189 |
| Brighton | -24 | -75 | -67 | -9 | -13 | 9 | 5 | -1 | -4 | -1 | -179 |
| Aston Villa | -101 | -3 | 15 | -40 | -2 | -12 | -12 | -25 | 23 | -9 | -165 |
| Borunemouth | 15 | -69 | -34 | -15 | -54 | -1 | -4 | -1 | 1 | 2 | -161 |
| Crystal Palce | 55 | -12 | -46 | -51 | -23 | -28 | -33 | 15 | -1 | -1 | -125 |
| Watford | -6 | 22 | -53 | -12 | -74 | -8 | 2 | 4 | 7 | -1 | -118 |
| Southampton | -33 | -38 | 37 | 16 | -7 | 28 | -35 | -42 | 9 | -3 | -69 |
| Newcastle | 36 | -12 | -25 | 37 | -103 | -21 | 22 | -17 | -10 | 28 | -66 |
| Burnley | -7 | -25 | 14 | -44 | -5 | -13 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 1 | -65 |
| Tottenham | -49 | 5 | -18 | -31 | 17 | -4 | 14 | 0 | 34 | -24 | -57 |
| Norwich | -3 | 32 | 19 | 10 | -26 | -1 | -25 | -11 | -15 | -5 | -24 |
| Sheffield United | -25 | 6 | -6 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 2 | -8 |
This idea that top 4 would be unbreakable without teams like City is just completely false. And it is completely ridiculous when teams that historically have been smaller than Spurs in terms of popularity (City and Chelsea) have over the last 10 years outspend Spurs 20x in the transfer market while at the same time paying higher salaries.
All hail the billionaire lottery.
spintheblackcircle
incoming!!!
- Mar 1, 2002
- 67,448
- 13,284
https://www.apnews.com/acf6283284254cfe965946f35d51785c
Changes to the Champions League are unlikely to be decided this year after UEFA on Thursday called off joint talks with the heads of European clubs and leagues who have spent months arguing over potential radical overhaul of the format of European competitions.
Changes to the Champions League are unlikely to be decided this year after UEFA on Thursday called off joint talks with the heads of European clubs and leagues who have spent months arguing over potential radical overhaul of the format of European competitions.
Though to be fair transfer balance does not tell everything about the situation and Tottenham is down the table only because of their massive sales like Bale & co. They've still spent much bigger than West Ham which is sixth on the list. Brighton is in top ten despite never spending over £20 million on a player.
What is your point?
Only because?
Some seem to think it is only about how much a team buys for. I find that utterly ridiculous. Spurs could have sold Kane for 200m and Son for 100m for then to buy Lukaku for 100m and Iwobi for 50m. Some would then say Spurs have "invested" by spending 150m.....
Haha. Yeah I loved that Arsenal obsession with "net spend".
I have never felt insulted when people say Spurs are rich (which obviously they are compared to 99.9% of all teams - just not compared to the handful that got more money). Of course Spurs are rich and in many ways pay obscene amount of money for players and their salaries, but I am "capitalistic" enough to accept clubs spending the money they generate. I have no issue with it.
If Spurs spend more than any other team next summer and then win the league. Some will say "they bought the title". Sure, but as long as they bought it for their own money I don´t see the problem. If you got the money spend it. Giving it to the owners like Man Utd are doing is hardly any better than spending it on the team.
My point is that the Spurs have one of the most expensive lineups in the league, so instead of trade balance one should better look at how much each XI costed.
spintheblackcircle
incoming!!!
- Mar 1, 2002
- 67,448
- 13,284
Court rules UEFA, FIFA can't block Super League
The European Union's top court ruled on Thursday that governing bodies FIFA and UEFA were abusing their dominant position by forbidding clubs outright to compete in a European Super League.
Vasilevskiy
The cat will be back
They just had a live stream where they announced the format of the competitions and the streaming app. They didn't talk about specific teams in any moment
spintheblackcircle
incoming!!!
- Mar 1, 2002
- 67,448
- 13,284
hockey20000
Registered User
- Dec 23, 2018
- 4,897
- 2,913
