Super League and cheating by ManCity and PSG

[JeffreyLFC]

It's easier for Spurs fans like me who didn't grow up in the UK to root for Arsenal...anyone....over City. I only know a handful of Arsenal fans here and there isn't any hate about it.

Agreed it seems most US based Man City fan are Gen Z. Insuferrable.

 

[KJS14]

It's easier for Spurs fans like me who didn't grow up in the UK to root for Arsenal...anyone....over City. I only know a handful of Arsenal fans here and there isn't any hate about it.

Agreed. I know that I'm supposed to hate Spurs, but for me it will always just be a rivalry that I don't relate with as much as a UK fan could.

I would much rather see Spurs win the title next year than City. I don't know that I would have said the same a week ago, and maybe that's naive of me. It's one thing to cheat to financially dope your club (which still frustrated me), but it's another thing to file a lawsuit against the rest of the league because they won't let you funnel the assets of an authoritarian nation into your club to spend infinite money. Not only did they cheat the rules to "grow" their commercial revenue by 1100% since the takeover (surely fair market value lol), but they're arrogant enough to think that they should be able to cheat more and any denial of that is discrimination.

 

[JPBolts]

Chelsea will support it since they've been using loopholes for the past few seasons.
Newcastle are state owned so it would directly benefit them to be able to do what city did.

Everton is an interesting one, the club might support City, but I think the fans will be against them


edit: seen that Villa are the other one. Guessing that's due to them having to potentially sell of players to meet FFP this summer

yep, qualify for the Champions League for the first time in 40+ years and we need to sell to balance the books. I think that NSWE, villa's owners, are sympathetic to the fact that Abu Dhabi can't spend all the money they would want to -- as NSWE would be spending a lot more money as well if it were in the rules.

I have a lot of thoughts about financial rules and regulations, but it always leads me to the fact that no matter how stringent or relaxed & non-existent rules are, clubs are going to be mad at them.

 

[bluesfan94]

I think it is interesting to note that Aston Villa has spent the 7th most (6th on net) since they've been promoted. I get that they're historically big, but I don't think it's shocking they've run afoul of PSR regulations with a spending record like that., especially given COVID effects.

 

[KJS14]

The thing that irritates me the most is when you see groups of Villa or Newcastle fans siding with City and arguing that the current rules were only put in place to protect Arsenal, United, and Liverpool and keep the other teams from reaching their level. Meanwhile they forget that Arsenal spent a decade having to sell our best players to rivals (literally to City and Chelsea) to balance the books, just like they have to do now. Liverpool have consistently had to sell to spend, and United are being hampered by PSR right now too.

And if this whole "protect the historical big clubs" thing was true, then why are 15 clubs voting against increasing the PSR allowable losses? Shouldn't it be 17 votes for vs 3 against if that's the case? I get that it's frustrating for Villa fans that want to see their team improve, and the rules are by no means perfect (105M over 3 years is such an arbitrary number) but supporting City's case isn't going to help them. I don't care how rich Villa's owners are, because they aren't rich enough to compete with the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

 

[JPBolts]

I think it is interesting to note that Aston Villa has spent the 7th most (6th on net) since they've been promoted. I get that they're historically big, but I don't think it's shocking they've run afoul of PSR regulations with a spending record like that., especially given COVID effects.

yep, we've been notoriously run terribly up until these owners who have had to put in massive investment. Especially spending when most of our promoted squad was on loan.

 

[JPBolts]

guess we'll have this loophole for another year

 

[hatterson]

guess we'll have this loophole for another year

Does to even matter if City succeed.

No reason to sell a hotel when you can just have the hotel be the official back of the shinguard sponsor for 50 mil a season.

 

[JPBolts]

The thing that irritates me the most is when you see groups of Villa or Newcastle fans siding with City and arguing that the current rules were only put in place to protect Arsenal, United, and Liverpool and keep the other teams from reaching their level. Meanwhile they forget that Arsenal spent a decade having to sell our best players to rivals (literally to City and Chelsea) to balance the books, just like they have to do now. Liverpool have consistently had to sell to spend, and United are being hampered by PSR right now too.

And if this whole "protect the historical big clubs" thing was true, then why are 15 clubs voting against increasing the PSR allowable losses? Shouldn't it be 17 votes for vs 3 against if that's the case? I get that it's frustrating for Villa fans that want to see their team improve, and the rules are by no means perfect (105M over 3 years is such an arbitrary number) but supporting City's case isn't going to help them. I don't care how rich Villa's owners are, because they aren't rich enough to compete with the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

the rules weren't put in place to protect those clubs, but entrenching those six clubs at the top was an effect of the tying of revenue to what clubs can spend. I do, however, think that the Arsenal, Liverpool, Man United of the world were hoping that they might slow down Man City (Chelsea to an extent but they were already miles ahead just looking at revenue). There has not been a sustained challenger to the "sky six", in fact only 3 teams outside of those 6 have qualified for the Champions League since FFP was implemented in 2011: Leicester when they won the title, Newcastle last season, and Villa this season.

I just had a look at the club accounts from the '09-'10 season and the gap in turnover from the 6th highest(City) and the 7th (Villa) is 62m.

the whole PSR losses thing is weird for me as well, as I'm pretty sure those rules (if they had hypothetically voted in), would not have counted until next season.

 

[KJS14]

the rules weren't put in place to protect those clubs, but entrenching those six clubs at the top was an effect of the tying of revenue to what clubs can spend. I do, however, think that the Arsenal, Liverpool, Man United of the world were hoping that they might slow down Man City (Chelsea to an extent but they were already miles ahead just looking at revenue). There has not been a sustained challenger to the "sky six", in fact only 3 teams outside of those 6 have qualified for the Champions League since FFP was implemented in 2011: Leicester when they won the title, Newcastle last season, and Villa this season.

I just had a look at the club accounts from the '09-'10 season and the gap in turnover from the 6th highest(City) and the 7th (Villa) is 62m.

the whole PSR losses thing is weird for me as well, as I'm pretty sure those rules (if they had hypothetically voted in), would not have counted until next season.

Agreed - that wasn't the intention of the rules, but it did benefit the big clubs that already had a larger commercial presence. The intention was to prevent the bottom half teams from getting into an endless cycle of outspending each other beyond their means to stay in the PL, because if they didn't stay up or boomerang back up, then they'd be on the brink of bankruptcy.

And the reality is that removing the current rules is not going to get a Villa or Everton closer to consistently challenging for UCL spots or the title, because they aren't outspending oil nations. If anything, putting more restrictions via a fixed cap would be more beneficial to them.

Supporting City's agenda is just a short-sighted decision due to current PSR status.

 

[#37]

.

 

[Jussi]

Does to even matter if City succeed.

No reason to sell a hotel when you can just have the hotel be the official back of the shinguard sponsor for 50 mil a season.

Speaking of hotels, the one next to Old Trafford, that is all Neville brothers, Giggs, Scholes etc. and an investment group, no United involvement?

 

[Chimaera]

Why would they be? We follow the rules to a fault.

The only ones against are either state owned and/or about to fail PSR.

That’s the theme here

No, they don't. They got caught with their hands stealing data from City's scouting. They're not above grey lines. They follow financial rules as far as it helps their own stated bottom line and desire to not spend a dime they don't have to spend... but they're not above anything that's not exactly against policy. Liverpool would see it as creative, more so than out and out cheating.

I was responding to the clubs turning data on City. Liverpool would be at the forefront of that if they knew anything.

 

[Savant]

No, they don't. They got caught with their hands stealing data from City's scouting. They're not above grey lines. They follow financial rules as far as it helps their own stated bottom line and desire to not spend a dime they don't have to spend... but they're not above anything that's not exactly against policy. Liverpool would see it as creative, more so than out and out cheating.

I was responding to the clubs turning data on City. Liverpool would be at the forefront of that if they knew anything.

The city scouting thing was so funny. People tried to make its sound like there was like a massive cyber security attack with hackers and shit. We hired a guy from City and they didn’t delete his password. Many years ago and was handled. Would have been a lot more interesting if it was hackers

 

[hatterson]

Accessing an account and data you know you don’t have a right to is still illegal. But yea it’s a lot less cool of a story than hacking.

 

[Chimaera]

They've also done some more than a little shady stuff with signing kids (and got in trouble for it).

They're not squeaky clean. They're just not spending a penny of money they don't have to do so.