Kompany says it

Inb4 fans of old money clubs say the rules are "needed to protect the game" or some other such nonsense.

Anti-free market

I'd argue that aggressive transfer strategy Man City employed placed an emphasis on the players and not a long term vision based around a coach and a philosophy. Thus they spent wildly on middling players while also getting some excellent players. If you look at other English clubs success, it is all based on investment combined with vision (Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho), whereas Man City's only plan was to build a team as quickly as possible and throw whoever in at manager. A more pragmatic approach would have been wise, but they got the success they desired at the price they were willing to pay. They haven't been aggressive in the youth market, nor have they had a particular academy focus, and in the 6 years where they spent wildly, they haven't seemed to build the infrastructure necessary to sustain their success without massive expenditures (again). While FFP might seem to target them and PSG specifically, they are also to blame for being less prudent with some of their purchases. It would be silly to blame all their woes on FFP. They've had a rather poor transfer strategy in general.

quote:

---

I'd argue that aggressive transfer strategy Man City employed placed an emphasis on the players and not a long term vision based around a coach and a philosophy. Thus they spent wildly on middling players while also getting some excellent players.

---

quote:

---

While FFP might seem to target them and PSG specifically, they are also to blame for being less prudent with some of their purchases.

---

So what? It's their money, why shouldn't they be allowed to spend it as they see fit?

quote:

---

Chelsea was in the same boat and have basically circumvented FFP by investing heavily in youth and selling players abroad.

---

No, they did it by having a much bigger head start before the rules were put in place.

quote:

---

maybe a bit of forced pragmatism would do them a good deal of good, in the long term.

---

This mentality is so fricked. Just because YOU think they should have built their team a certain way doesn't mean that you should have the right to prevent them from doing it by some other means. Who cares if they want to put their money into veterans instead of younger players? It's their money!

quote:

---

No, they did it by having a much bigger head start before the rules were put in place.

---

Where did I deny that? But look at the business Chelsea have done since 2009 and look at what I wrote. To break it down for you, Chelsea changed their operational mode in the transfer market since they were pragmatic enough to realize what the consequences of FFP were when Man City didn't.

quote:

---

This mentality is so fricked. Just because YOU think they should have built their team a certain way doesn't mean that you should have the right to prevent them from doing it by some other means. Who cares if they want to put their money into veterans instead of younger players? It's their money!

---

Are you intentionally misreading what I'm saying? I think reckless and profligate spending is fricked, but my opinion aside, asking them to play by the rules that they themselves agreed to isn't fricked. Nor is it if they spend money more wisely instead of 25 mil on Jovetic, Navas, and Negredo. Long term that's what they are going to have to do. Again, they agreed to these rules in 2009. They had a half decade to put a plan in place. At what point do the choices they make have consequences? Or is having consequences to decisions you make, reckless or pragmatic, also fricked? Again, they chose to agree to these rules. Actions have consequences. If they weren't smart enough to prepare for this, why shouldn't reckless behavior be punished? Or are they above reproach for decisions they made?

quote:

---

I'd argue that aggressive transfer strategy Man City employed placed an emphasis on the players and not a long term vision based around a coach and a philosophy. Thus they spent wildly on middling players while also getting some excellent players. If you look at other English clubs success, it is all based on investment combined with vision (Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho), whereas Man City's only plan was to build a team as quickly as possible and throw whoever in at manager. A more pragmatic approach would have been wise, but they got the success they desired at the price they were willing to pay. They haven't been aggressive in the youth market, nor have they had a particular academy focus, and in the 6 years where they spent wildly, they haven't seemed to build the infrastructure necessary to sustain their success without massive expenditures (again). While FFP might seem to target them and PSG specifically, they are also to blame for being less prudent with some of their purchases. It would be silly to blame all their woes on FFP. They've had a rather poor transfer strategy in general.

---

This is literally exactly what I've been telling DS, down to the letter. Its useless to try to explain any of it to him. His opinion won't ever change. It is what it is.

I've usually avoided the threads but if he doesn't understand that it appears Man City made all their decisions the last half decade knowing this could happen then I don't know what to tell him. Just because they have money doesn't mean they should be insulated from poor decision making.

quote:

---

You keep criticizing their plan like that matters to me. It's not about their strategy. i don't care if they did it the right way or the wrong way or any kind of way. What i care about is their ability to run their team they way THEY want to, not the way you want them to.

---

So did they not agree to the FFP rules in 2009? How we want them to run is irrelevant. They chose to agree to the rules, and thus they should live with the consequences of poor decision making, if it leads down that road. There are undoubtedly many things they could have done, but they chose a specific path. Choosing that path had certain long term implications. And that is where we stand.