re: Man city confirmed to be cheating count

quote:

---

You can strip their titles in that time frame to accomplish that.

---

we shall see, would make sense

2012*

2014*

2018*

I feel sympathy for the smaller clubs that lost out on crucial revenue, missed out on trophies, and suffered relegations that may well not have happened without all this. For that alone, the punishments must be severe.

I must say I personally don’t feel much sympathy for the bigger clubs and what they’ve lost on, as I’ve always felt PSR/FFP was designed to protect them from competition. I personally do not think any titles that are stripped from City should be awarded to anyone else.

quote:

---

I must say I personally don’t feel much sympathy for the bigger clubs and what they’ve lost on, as I’ve always felt PSR/FFP was designed to protect them from competition.

---

Correct.

Why didn't city grow their global fanbase under the same rules United did?

Manchester United had not won a premier league or champions league in 1992.

They just ended up being the best team during the growth of satellite tv. Nothing was stopping other clubs from doing this. Just needed to be better than United. You weren't.

quote:

---

I must say I personally don’t feel much sympathy for the bigger clubs and what they’ve lost on, as I’ve always felt PSR/FFP was designed to protect them from competition. I personally do not think any titles that are stripped from City should be awarded to anyone else.

---

100%

The whining by a bunch of American fans of the red teams is kind of funny.

quote:

---

Why didn't city grow their global fanbase under the same rules United did?

---

Because time machines don't exist

quote:

---

If an owner can't inject money into the club, then why does it matter if the owner is a millionaire or a billionaire? Didn't Couhig sell off Wycombe b/c he didn't have the money to give them a better chance at getting to the Championship and staying there, and possibly beyond? What's an owner spending money on?

---

An owner can spend money on his club, but clubs can only spend so much in relation to their revenue at each level of football. There are certain things that don't count towards "1st team" spending: Academy, training grounds, etc. and it's actually one of the things City does the best because their owner isn't afraid to spend

There's rules about associated party transactions (APT) and how they are counted, and also that sponsorships need to be somewhat of a market value.

Part of what City ran into is that they had giant deals with Ethiad & other UAE companies that those companies weren't actually paying most of the sponsorship monies, they were coming from the Owner/Govt Entity.

If I recall their initial big agreement with Ethiad was the largest sponsorship agreement in all of sports at the time ($600M+ for 10 years) and signed in 2011, long before what they are today (good at football, and before their historic 2012 PL win). Turned out that Ethiad funded about 10-15M of that per year and the other 45-50M was pure owner/govt funding.

So they were artificially inflating revenue so they could spend more. There's other things that went on as well (like having unreported contracts with coaches, players, agents), bit the additional funding was the big deal.

Impossible. We’ve been told that city are squeaky clean since 2019

quote:

---

There’s some stuff going around X today that the fee for Haaland was actually much higher than the 51 million that was reported Take it with a grain of salt but it’s being stated that as part of the deal that BVB would not state anything related to the actual fee to anyone, but it’s come out the real fee at the end of the day was 250 million Seems fishy if that’s true obviously

---

Pretty sure that was a fake Ornstein account. It also makes no sense. 51 million was the release clause. Why on earth would City pay more than that?

quote:

---

The story I saw said that Chelsea and another club both offered more than the 51m, something like 75+. Ultimately a player has to agree to a move even if a release clause is triggered. I don't put a lot into those stories I imagine it wasn't much different than the Mbappe deal, with lots of signing bonus, agent/family payments, etc, etc

---

This is correct, which is why it makes no sense to offer a cent more than the 51 million. Haaland agreed to join City, so there’s absolutely no reason for them to offer Dortmund a penny more, nor does it matter if other clubs were willing to pay a higher fee.

Haaland is the one they needed to incentivize, not Dortmund, so anything outside the 51 million would go to Haaland’s camp to sweeten the deal, not BVB.

I also remember it being pretty clear at the time that he wanted to join City. The move wasn’t shocking, so I think some accounts are probably trying to stir the pot for engagement.