Man City Charges

[RMH]

Clubs were going into administration for decades before FFP and no rules were ever considered to limit spending.
A wealthy owner spending his wealth on a club with no expectation or desire for it to be repaid doesn't put the club in financial jepordy anyway.
It's not a coincidence that it was only after Roman's Chelsea emerged that spending restrictions were seriously considered

Exactly this. Why would anyone think that after all these years, City owners would want to leave? The same chance that Utd sh*tshow haven't stopped them from purchasing players, or what if Arsenal owner decides to sell, would they be able to buy Rice with the income from ST holders, selling shirts, or shirt sponsorship alone? Also, City may not have become as successful as it has, on the pitch and commercially (there's no doubt they've grown in support worldwide), if they'd not splashed the cash required to compete for top trophies. Teams like Arsenal are just pissed off because teams like us and City, whom they've always considered to be not contenders to anything, have won the CL and they haven't.
And to think that Chelsea would have become the force that we were had the financial restrictions been in place when Roman bought the club is, to say the least, very naive. They wouldn't have let us challenge. They're still whinnying about us, for gods sake!

 

[The Rising Sun]

As City will fight this to the bitter end (maybe years away) and with the scale of the rule breaking and ramifications for many clubs over the years, is there a scenario where teams refuse to play them? I'm guessing not, but until this is fully and properly concluded, City's participation almost feels untenable.

Oddly, I think this makes them more likely to win the league this year (which I already thought they would) as it'll increase the old siege mentality that often works well.

The owners of our Premier League clubs don't want to give up match day revenues to make some moral stand..And anyway it would be against the rules, and rules have to be obeyed !!

 

[bisright1]

Clubs were going into administration for decades before FFP and no rules were ever considered to limit spending.
A wealthy owner spending his wealth on a club with no expectation or desire for it to be repaid doesn't put the club in financial jepordy anyway.
It's not a coincidence that it was only after Roman's Chelsea emerged that spending restrictions were seriously considered

A lot less clubs go into administration since these rules were brought in.

The issue isn't the wealthy owner asking to be repaid. The issue is when wealthy owners no longer bridge the gaps.

Annual costs don't disappear when an owner stops giving wealth. They are locked into contracts. If a club can't sustain itself without an owner pumping money in EVERY year, it's a problem. That is what PSR is supposed to prevent

 

[bisright1]

So not the £150m+ a year they get from Broadcast rights, plus more from sponsorship etc? It may have levelled things out mid table but all it has created is a glass ceiling for every club other than the big 3 or 4, who can keep spending as much as they want while getting deeper and deeper into debt.
If these amazing altruistic people really wanted to level the playing field and save clubs from themselves there would be a salary cap along with a spending cap, strangely there isnt.

I don't know why so many people are determined for a club like Bournemouth to be on a level playing field with Man United.

They are a small club with no fans. They have no right to win things.

 

[El regreso]

Didn’t think Karma would hit the Enzo rats so quickly c**ts

 

[bisright1]

Roman buys Chelsea
Roman pumps millions in to buy players.
We see some of the best in Chelsea Blue
And us Chelsea fans have the best 20 years ever winning trophy after trophy .

Alternative timeline

We don't make champions league in 2003.

Our debts become insurmountable. Because we've been spending way outside our means in the hope we will keep winning.

Roman doesn't buy us. No one buys us.

A fire sale happens. Terry goes to United. Lampard goes to Liverpool. We fall down the leagues.

We don't see premier league football again. We become a laughing stock like Sheffield Wednesday.

I think we were one game away from that scenario. And that would because of no PSR. We benefited from there being no rules, but we were also incredibly close to being absolutely f**ked.

 

[dkw]

I don't know why so many people are determined for a club like Bournemouth to be on a level playing field with Man United.

They are a small club with no fans. They have no right to win things.

Where did I mention Bournemouth, how about we look at villa. tried to better themselves with investment, get into europe then are asset stripped by the so called bigger clubs and have to rebuild. They will then no doubt get asset stripped again, all becvause they have the temerity to have owners who want to put money into makng the club better.
Remember when FFP/PPS/WTF was going to see big clubs playing young academy players more, these self same players who are now a clubs most saleable asset so they can continue to buy £100m players.
The clubs pushing all this are the same ones that pushed to remove shared ticket income, jumped on the G14 bandwagon to get more money from european games for the big teams, wanted to go to a super league etc. The clubs removing lower cost tickets, season tickets etc in place of corporate and day tripper tickets to get more money in, f**k the fans.
This is nothing to do with looking after the cubs from themselves and anyone who thinks that is deluded.

 

[The Rising Sun]

Alternative timeline

We don't make champions league in 2003.

Our debts become insurmountable. Because we've been spending way outside our means in the hope we will keep winning.

Roman doesn't buy us. No one buys us.

A fire sale happens. Terry goes to United. Lampard goes to Liverpool. We fall down the leagues.

We don't see premier league football again. We become a laughing stock like Sheffield Wednesday.

I think we were one game away from that scenario. And that would because of no PSR. We benefited from there being no rules, but we were also incredibly close to being absolutely f**ked.

Yes, you are correct in most of that.
Ken Bates had used a £90million Eurobond loan to finance our spending and it was nearing the repayment date. Although with Ken, no.one really knew exactly what was going on .
The Chelsea Independent at the time initially believed a disaster was near, but then it was thought that Ken would merely refinance the loan ..
I think we would have been ok . Without Roman we would have been ok too I reckon, a cup team now and again. I thanked Bates in a letter once for giving us the most exciting Chelsea team I had witnessed. That era ..JFH, Gudjohnson Zola, Gullit, Vialla etc etc were great to watch never going to win the PL let alone a CL !
If it had continued like that, that would've always been good enough for us .
Anyway mate, we have different views on the Citeh thing and FFP etc , but thanks for your reply.

 

[The Rising Sun]

I don't know why so many people are determined for a club like Bournemouth to be on a level playing field with Man United.

They are a small club with no fans. They have no right to win things.

Bournemouth have been in administration a couple of times. Think 1990s ? . No financial spending restrictions were considered to prevent it happening again.
Until.......Chelsea emerged as an elite club because of Roman's millions . Only THEN was spending to be restricted

 

[Zeta]

I don't know the ins-and-outs of this whole situation, other than the overview that they've been faking sponsership money. We've done some dodgy sh*t as well, like selling things to ourselves, though I guess that was more bending rules than breaking them.

 

[axman2526]

Rules can be framed any way they like to as means to "protect" clubs from themselves. The timing of them coming in a few years after Roman bought us, pissing of the Red Cartel, as well as Europe's heaviest hitters, is no coincidence.

Same rules have been used to stop Newcastle using their enormous wealth to compete and, likely overtake, everyone else.

The rules are there for the primary reason of protecting Arsenal, Liverpool and United. For that reason alone I hope cities fancy lawyers find an appeal loop hole and beat these charges.

The FFP rules are wrong, and there for the wrong reasons, it is anti competitive, and makes the league poorer for it.

City are "cheats" for breaking these "laws of the game", United, Liverpool and Arsenal are cheats for using them to protect themselves from competition.

 

[Sconnie Blue]

Where did I mention Bournemouth, how about we look at villa. tried to better themselves with investment, get into europe then are asset stripped by the so called bigger clubs and have to rebuild. They will then no doubt get asset stripped again, all becvause they have the temerity to have owners who want to put money into makng the club better.
Remember when FFP/PPS/WTF was going to see big clubs playing young academy players more, these self same players who are now a clubs most saleable asset so they can continue to buy £100m players.
The clubs pushing all this are the same ones that pushed to remove shared ticket income, jumped on the G14 bandwagon to get more money from european games for the big teams, wanted to go to a super league etc. The clubs removing lower cost tickets, season tickets etc in place of corporate and day tripper tickets to get more money in, f**k the fans.
This is nothing to do with looking after the cubs from themselves and anyone who thinks that is deluded.

In contrast, look at Arsenal. Winless for 5 years under Arteta yet have the highest net spend within that period.

 

[RMH]

I don't know why so many people are determined for a club like Bournemouth to be on a level playing field with Man United.

They are a small club with no fans. They have no right to win things.

This is wrong on so many levels and such a classist view that it wouldn't surprise me coming from a scouser or an arsenal fan.

 

[dkw]

In contrast, look at Arsenal. Winless for 5 years under Arteta yet have the highest net spend within that period.

Yeah its just ridiculous really.
Man Utd are the team I use. Been utterly shambolic for a decade, yaks bought them with debt loaded onto the club. Spend ridiculous amounts of money each year with very little success, they are around £750m-£1b in debt and pay huge dividends out each year to the american owners.
Yet this is ok apparently, totally allowed, as long as they have a good level of income. doesnt matter that the income isnt used in any way to service the debt, that debt just keeps getting bigger and bigger while they keep winning sod all and spending.

 

[Snedger]

The owners of our Premier League clubs don't want to give up match day revenues to make some moral stand..And anyway it would be against the rules, and rules have to be obeyed !!

That's true. And as you say, that would break the rules and then that would make everyone as bad as City - well, maybe not that bad.

 

[Sconnie Blue]

Yeah its just ridiculous really.
Man Utd are the team I use. Been utterly shambolic for a decade, yaks bought them with debt loaded onto the club. Spend ridiculous amounts of money each year with very little success, they are around £750m-£1b in debt and pay huge dividends out each year to the american owners.
Yet this is ok apparently, totally allowed, as long as they have a good level of income. doesnt matter that the income isnt used in any way to service the debt, that debt just keeps getting bigger and bigger while they keep winning sod all and spending.

Spurs also almost get relegated twice and have outspent everyone

 

[yaz]

Had a good laugh at this.
But in all seriousness I hope this City ordeal serves as a cautionary tale for Clearlake.

 

[Sconnie Blue]

Pep a man of his word lmao.

In 2022, Guardiola said of these accusations/his owners: "I said to them, 'If you lie to me, the day after I am not here. I will be out and I will not be your friend any more.'"

 

[The Rising Sun]

I don't know why so many people are determined for a club like Bournemouth to be on a level playing field with Man United.

They are a small club with no fans. They have no right to win things.

FFP isn't designed to make a level playing field.
It's designed to do exactly the opposite, it won't let anyone try to become on a level with United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc .
What about Newcastle, Villa etc ? Don't they have the right to win things either??

 

[The Rising Sun]

1992. George Graham took a £425,000 bung...
I can't remember the Arsenal being sanctioned or punished over it .
If it had been Chelsea though.....



Bung allegations and match-fixing rumours plagued English football during the early 1990s. George Graham, manager from 1986 to 1996, was busted accepting an illegal payment of just over £425,000 in 1992 from Rune Hauge, the notorious football agent from Norway. This occurred when Arsenal Football Club signed two of Hauge’s clients, Pal Lydersen and John Jensen.