Manchester United top world football money list

[carmine]

5 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

  

 

I tell you carms both bb and bj are both so bias and delusional when it comes  to City and the only one who is not bias and delusional and talks sense is jd.

 

 

In the 16 years before the Mansour takeover, Man City had spent 273.86 million Euros on transfers. In the 10 years since, they have spent 989.94 million Euros on transfers. In the last two years, Man City have spent 252.10 million Euros on defenders alone. This season, Man City have spent 178.50 million Euros on defenders. That’s more money than the entire defense budget of Bosnia-Herzegovina (140 million Euros), where they have real guns, soldiers, tanks and planes.

The chart also shows the two seasons that Man City didn’t spend huge sums of money, 2012 and 2014. In 2012 Man City was still pretending to care about Financial Fair play rules but by 2014 they simply paid a £50m fine and resumed spending. Since paying that fine, Man City have spent 490.92 million Euros, net, on transfers.

 

No doubt they will say that money came out of profit's 

 

Again, you are wasting your time!

 

And no doubt in the next 48 hours another 57m will be hemorrhaged on a defender.......why, because they can.......FFP, what they hells that old nonsense anyway!!!!!

 

I don't blame Pep mind, if you can you can but don't try and bullshit that its anything other than pure financial muscle.

[Bredbury Blue]

A (a) "fact" or (b) "myth" that 'Man city are by far the RICHEST club in the world due to the finances of their owners'? I raised the question as I don't know which it is. Several posters getting their knickers in a twist over this but at the same time can't provide the FACTS whether (a) or (b) applies. Over to you.

[BangrakBob]

On 1/24/2018 at 11:56 AM, carmine said:

A creepy dimwit at that.  Unfortunately i still see his posts when someone replies to him!  Must be a way round that.

block everyone 

[carmine]

2 minutes ago, BangrakBob said:

block everyone 

Nah, just the three of them.  Not like i'm missing anything is it!!  

 

Anymore from the creepy one wanting a chat in my ear and all those amateur dramatics and i'd have to put the deluded <deleted> on his arse, as it were!!!

[mrbojangles]

10 hours ago, alfieconn said:

  

 

I tell you carms both bb and bj are both so bias and delusional when it comes  to City and the only one who is not bias and delusional and talks sense is jd.

 

Figs from July 2017 so doesn't include 117m net spend in Summer 2017.

In the 16 years before the Mansour takeover, Man City had spent 273.86 million Euros on transfers. In the 10 years since, they have spent 989.94 million Euros on transfers. In the last two years, Man City have spent 252.10 million Euros on defenders alone. This season, Man City have spent 178.50 million Euros on defenders. That’s more money than the entire defense budget of Bosnia-Herzegovina (140 million Euros), where they have real guns, soldiers, tanks and planes.

The chart also shows the two seasons that Man City didn’t spend huge sums of money, 2012 and 2014. In 2012 Man City was still pretending to care about Financial Fair play rules but by 2014 they simply paid a £50m fine and resumed spending. Since paying that fine, Man City have spent 490.92 million Euros, net, on transfers.

 

No doubt they will say that money came out of profit's 

 

That post confirms to me that you know absolutely nothing, zero, nada about our finances, how we have been investing and how FFP works. We have explained on several occasions but you choose to ignore what we say due to your bias against City.

 

For me, I ain't wasting my time no more, on responding to a single post you make.

[mrbojangles]

10 hours ago, carmine said:

And no doubt in the next 48 hours another 57m will be hemorrhaged on a defender.......why, because they can.......FFP, what they hells that old nonsense anyway!!!!!

 

I don't blame Pep mind, if you can you can but don't try and bullshit that its anything other than pure financial muscle.

I arms

 

If, as you say, FFP means nothing to us and we can throw money around at will. Pray tell why we didn't just buy Sanchez at any cost?

 

I think it us who are wasting our time on trying to explain the situation as your bias clouds any reasonable debate

[carmine]

11 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

I arms

 

If, as you say, FFP means nothing to us and we can throw money around at will. Pray tell why we didn't just buy Sanchez at any cost?

 

I think it us who are wasting our time on trying to explain the situation as your bias clouds any reasonable debate

 

I believe you didn't buy Sanchez because of his ridiculous wage demands and the adverse effect it might have had on the squad.  But make no mistake about it, IF Pep was set on signing Sanchez funds would have been made available and he would have gotten his man.

 

As i said before i believe,  and again, as said on the United thread, United have themselves a very fine player but its still a gamble with regards the possibility of upsetting the giant egos of some players.

 

I'm afraid it seems like the rest of the country is clouded in bias and doesn't understand the situation.  And frankly, i see nothing unreasonable in anything i've said and don't understand why you would think that.  You finanacial clout is a modern day reality, same as PSG and copying what Real Madrid and Barca have been doing for decades.  So be it.  The big difference is City fans trying to make out that there different in some way when infant they are no different at all bar the fact they are richer.

 

OOH ooh our defense isn't good, lets go and spend 110m on two full backs.  Come january...ooh ooh our defense might be a little vulnerable....ok lets spend another 57m to plug the gap!!

 

I think its fair to say everyones gets it bar City fans......

[Bredbury Blue]

"The big difference is City fans trying to make out that there different in some way when infant they are no different at all bar the fact they are richer." Apart from the spelling errors, what do you mean by "City fans trying to make out that there different in some way"? I don't believe City fans are any different than any other fans so in what way do you see we are different?

[Bredbury Blue]

"our defense isn't good, lets go and spend 110m on two full backs". We had 4 fullbacks in their 30s - remember? - it was therefore necessary to replace them so we tried to buy 4 but ended up with 3 including only *1 LB.

"defense might be a little vulnerable....ok lets spend another 57m to plug the gap!!" I thought you knew everything about City Carmine? If you do you must realise we have Kompany (permanently injured, in his 30s, out of contract soon, so we need to replace him soon), Mangala (nobody in the club wants him, out of contract soon, so he needs replacing), Tosin (a kid who needs slowly bringing through if he's good enough - I've seen him a few times and I'm not as confident as the club about him) and Stones and Otamendi. We are therefore a bit thin at CB and at LB as we have only *1injured LB and his standin is also injured.
We are therefore trying to bring in Laporte to cover 2 positions; he's young, tall which we seriously lack, and we tried to sign him before. So we're a bit short in 2 positions, the window allows all clubs INCLUDING SPURS AND CITY to buy players so we want to bring one in.

[alfieconn]

13 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

That post confirms to me that you know absolutely nothing, zero, nada about our finances, how we have been investing and how FFP works. We have explained on several occasions but you choose to ignore what we say due to your bias against City.

 

For me, I ain't wasting my time no more, on responding to a single post you make.

Do you think i'm bothered  whether you respond to my post's or not ?  for the record i will continue to post on here for the neutral to read oh and the unbias one jd !

[jellydog]

2 hours ago, carmine said:

 

 

 

I think its fair to say everyones gets it bar City fans......

I get it but I don't care. It is the reality. Besides, money talk bores the tits off me. If there was more football talk in the football forum and less money talk I'd be surprised... and happy.

 

 

[alfieconn]

4 minutes ago, jellydog said:

I get it but I don't care. It is the reality. Besides, money talk bores the tits off me. If there was more football talk in the football forum and less money talk I'd be surprised... and happy.

 

 

Well if you get it, can you explain it to bb and bj please  

[jellydog]

2 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

Well if you get it, can you explain it to bb and bj please  

No money talk from me Alfie. Life's too short !

[carmine]

11 minutes ago, jellydog said:

I get it but I don't care. It is the reality. Besides, money talk bores the tits off me. If there was more football talk in the football forum and less money talk I'd be surprised... and happy.

 

 

If the others on the City thread posted this then there wouldn't be any money talk because they would be acknowledging what you and everyone else knows.  Its the way it is, not necessarily fair, not good for the game but it is the way it is.  Everyone else bar United and Chelsea have to punch above their weight......we live with it but <deleted> don't deny it is what it is.

[mrbojangles]

2 hours ago, carmine said:

 

I believe you didn't buy Sanchez because of his ridiculous wage demands and the adverse effect it might have had on the squad.  But make no mistake about it, IF Pep was set on signing Sanchez funds would have been made available and he would have gotten his man.

 

As i said before i believe,  and again, as said on the United thread, United have themselves a very fine player but its still a gamble with regards the possibility of upsetting the giant egos of some players.

 

I'm afraid it seems like the rest of the country is clouded in bias and doesn't understand the situation.  And frankly, i see nothing unreasonable in anything i've said and don't understand why you would think that.  You finanacial clout is a modern day reality, same as PSG and copying what Real Madrid and Barca have been doing for decades.  So be it.  The big difference is City fans trying to make out that there different in some way when infant they are no different at all bar the fact they are richer.

 

OOH ooh our defense isn't good, lets go and spend 110m on two full backs.  Come january...ooh ooh our defense might be a little vulnerable....ok lets spend another 57m to plug the gap!!

 

I think its fair to say everyones gets it bar City fans......

Carms, I've never denied our "financial clout" in fact I have praised the lord about it. We were extremely lucky to get owners who invested in us so heavily.

 

What I'm contesting is the overall view of our richness. As said many times before, due to FFP coming, Mansour HAD to either invest heavily early on or he couldn't do it at all So yes, we won the lottery but it also had a clear business plan of becoming profitable and living within it's own means. That plan has paid off and we have posted record revenues for the last 3 years. We are now generating our own money to buy these players. In the main that has increase has come from broadcasting and commercial streams. Believe it or not, that investment has meant we are in bigger paying competitions, meaning more people want to watch us and big companies want to sponsor us. We have a great commercial team, which is something we have always lacked.

 

Pep understands he has a budget and it's probably upto him how he spends it, which is why he chose to get a defender instead of Sanchez.

 

 

[carmine]

2 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

Carms, I've never denied our "financial clout" in fact I have praised the lord about it. We were extremely lucky to get owners who invested in us so heavily.

 

What I'm contesting is the overall view of our richness. As said many times before, due to FFP coming, Mansour HAD to either invest heavily early on or he couldn't do it at all So yes, we won the lottery but it also had a clear business plan of becoming profitable and living within it's own means. That plan has paid off and we have posted record revenues for the last 3 years. We are now generating our own money to buy these players. In the main that has increase has come from broadcasting and commercial streams. Believe it or not, that investment has meant we are in bigger paying competitions, meaning more people want to watch us and big companies want to sponsor us. We have a great commercial team, which is something we have always lacked.

 

Pep understands he has a budget and it's probably upto him how he spends it, which is why he chose to get a defender instead of Sanchez.

 

 

 

He prioritized correctly.  You needed a quality defensive signing more than a midfielder.

 

(Unlike wenger who is doing what he always has, needing to beef up the defense he goes and buys another striker and Arsenal's woes will continue...)

[mrbojangles]

11 minutes ago, carmine said:

we live with it but <deleted> don't deny it is what it is.

I really need you to explain exactly what it is I deny. Do I deny we have a lot of money....No. Do I deny we have an endless money pit.....Yes

 

I've said above why we don't have a endless money pit, hopefully that clears that bit up.

 

If it's anything other than that, please tell me exactly the bit I deny and I can give you my view.

[carmine]

1 minute ago, mrbojangles said:

I really need you to explain exactly what it is I deny. Do I deny we have a lot of money....No. Do I deny we have an endless money pit.....Yes

 

I've said above why we don't have a endless money pit, hopefully that clears that bit up.

 

If it's anything other than that, please tell me exactly the bit I deny and I can give you my view.

A manager that been in the job for only a couple of years,  yet has spent in excess of 450m suggests a never ending money pit.  But hey, if it isn't never ending who cares because with that level of spending sanctioned,  whatever the supposed limit is isn't worth discussing.

[mrbojangles]

1 minute ago, carmine said:

He prioritized correctly.  You needed a quality defensive signing more than a midfielder.

I totally agree but why did he need to if we have money to burn?

[Bredbury Blue]

Carmine "If the others on the City thread posted this then there wouldn't be any money talk...".

Seems to me that the money talk ALWAYS originates from ONLY Spurs fans, is always about City and no other club, which requires City fans to respond. If Spurs fans stopped obsessing about money in the game and especially City's money, then there wouldn't be any money chats. So have about you Spurs fans cease.

Ps. When I'm next at my computer I'll be posting a nice little article about City's spending and FFP.

[carmine]

1 minute ago, mrbojangles said:

I totally agree but why did he need to if we have money to burn?

who says he needed to?  Theres nothing to say he needed too.  As i said earlier, i think its more a case of not wanting to take a risk of rocking the boat.  You are saying he had to prioritize but theres actually no evidence that he's ever had to prioritize and his level of expenditure suggests that.  Saying he has a spending limit is nothing more that a pleasant fiction.

[Bredbury Blue]

Carmine, are you aware of FFP?

[mrbojangles]

3 minutes ago, carmine said:

who says he needed to?

Well it's no secret that Pep had been courting Sanchez since last summer and really wanted him

 

[mrbojangles]

11 minutes ago, carmine said:

yet has spent in excess of 450m suggests a never ending money pit.  

Of course I can see why it would suggest that. Which is the reason I am trying to explain the reality.

 

The bit that is being forgotten, is that we were given lots of money up front as an investment to turn our club into one of the top teams but with a clear business plan of being self sustainable. We can afford to spend big but within our own means, due to the revenue we now generate and not by our owners simply throwing more money at us.

[carmine]

1 minute ago, mrbojangles said:

Well it's no secret that Pep had been courting Sanchez since last summer and really wanted him

 

Yes but theres still no evidence whatsoever of any spending cap.  If he weighed it up and decided he wanted Sanchez he would have got him.  Pep is shrewd and more than likely had issues relating to the potential unsettling of a settled squad and i make him right on that.  

 

United on the other hand really needed the spark that Sanchez will bring.  It was clearly viewed as a risk worth taking, even though if reports are true, Pogba's already kicking off about wanting parity.

[Bredbury Blue]

 

Manchester City spending fast so they don't fall foul of UEFA tricks

 

•UEFA's Financial Fair Play 2.0 is the same old garbage that we are used to
•It's an attempt by the established elite to place restrictions on new money
•That is why Manchester City are doing big transfer business yet again
•The whole City project has been accelerated by UEFA's attempts to shut it down

 

By Martin Samuel - Sport for the Daily Mail

Published: 29 January 2018 

UEFA call it Financial Fair Play 2.0. Makes it seem like a reboot, an update, a new model. It’s not. It’s the same old garbage: an attempt by the established elite to place restrictions on new money and new challenges.

 

Another grab for power by the forces of entitlement. And as UEFA are terrified of the marquee names in their Champions League draw, no doubt they will capitulate and wave it through.

 

That is why Manchester City are doing transfer business again. That is why there is a rush to advance the transfers of Aymeric Laporte and Fred. They have to get inside the castle before the drawbridge is raised — and that’s not new, either.

 

The whole City project has been accelerated by UEFA’s attempts to shut it down. Other members of the City Football Group are not placed on this free-spending fast track; only the club that must comply with UEFA’s ever-changing moods and the restrictive practices of their rivals.

 

If UEFA were truly interested in competition, they would discuss wealth redistribution via Champions League prize money. More for the leagues, less for individual clubs. They don’t. They continue to kill domestic competitions around Europe by delivering huge sums to super clubs, making them untouchable.

 

Bayern Munich and Juventus are on the longest sequence of title wins the Bundesliga and Serie A have known. Olympiacos have won 19 of the last 21 titles in Greece, BATE Borisov the last 12 in Belarus.

 

The first incarnation of FFP did nothing to address this. It was merely a device to negate the impact of new money in old leagues.

 

The European Clubs Association couldn’t care less that BATE are usurping the traditional dominance of Dinamo Minsk in Belarus. They just don’t want Manchester City sitting where Manchester United should be. FFP is about nothing more than preservation of an elite.

 

Before FFP 1.0, there was FFP 0.0, the original vision of Michel Platini that had among its targets leveraged buyouts such as the Glazer takeover at Manchester United. That, however, veered a little too close to home, so Platini was manipulated into taking on owner investment instead.

 

The Glazers, who saddled United with enormous debt, were given a free pass; Sheik Mansour, who brought new money into football and greatly benefited the local area, was the enemy.

 

The elite clubs knew emerging forces such as Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain did not yet have the revenue streams of the establishment, so attempted to stunt their growth.

 

Transfers, wages, amortised agreements, finance costs and dividends would be set against gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, disposal of tangible fixed assets, finance, player sales and prize money. Clubs could only lose £26million, balanced over a three-year period.

 

That way City’s spending could be tied to income — and the income of a club that last won the league in 1968 could not possibly compete with the likes of Manchester United. The new clubs would be left to wither, unable to invest to grow. Even Chelsea backed this plan, having got where they needed to be under Roman Abramovich.

 

Buying in, he was now terrified of the competition if others did the same. Abramovich used to be the owner that Platini railed against. Then they ended up on the same side. That should have been the clue.

 

Fortunately, it did not work. Parts of FFP collapsed at the first legal test and Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain were smarter than UEFA and their rivals had imagined.

 

They moved fast, recruited well, achieved success and balanced the books. Revenue increased through sponsorships, TV deals, merchandising, prize money. They could win and also comply.

 

This is why FFP 2.0 is on the table in May. It is the latest attempt by Barcelona and Real Madrid, among others, to return to the good old days. If it fails, they will shift criteria again for FFP 3.0.

 

So, how will it work this time? Now FFP is going to be purely about transfers. The rest of it, all those revenue streams that were considered so vital to the efficient running of a club, are being as good as abandoned.

 

If the current proposals are accepted, there will be a simple calculation, outlawing a transfer loss of more than £90million in one season. This won’t just affect Manchester City, but all Premier League clubs, as Europe seeks to limit the impact of the new television deal.

 

It terrifies La Liga that Leicester are now within £1m of Atletico Madrid in the 2016-17 revenue tables; Serie A are appalled that their league leaders Napoli are pegged behind Southampton in riches.

 

If revenue is no longer factored in, the Premier League television deal can be contained and the established elite will sign up for this, even in England, as a way of reining in Manchester City.

 

To hear Antonio Conte complain about the financial power of the Manchester clubs is to hear the conversations that go on behind closed doors. ‘These two big clubs can be seriously dangerous for other teams in the world,’ he said. ‘They are very strong already, and want to invest.’

 

Indeed, as Chelsea once did. Just because Conte has spent January looking at players who would simply not be considered in Manchester does not mean the system is wrong. It just means Abramovich has got what he wants from it and now hopes to scale down the arms race. Tough. You started it.

 

And, who knows, if Chelsea had not spent in the region of £80m sacking managers since Abramovich’s arrival, maybe they would have been able to join the bidding for Alexis Sanchez?

 

This explains why City are in a hurry again, rushing to complete deals for Laporte and Fred this January. It should not be hard to comply with a net loss of £90m, but at the current rates, significant upgrades are expensive. City spent £220m remodelling Pep Guardiola’s squad in the summer, and even bringing in £90m on transfers they were still £130m down — and £40m outside the new UEFA spending deficit.

 

In the current climate, losses are not unimaginable.

 

Suppose Liverpool think they need another Virgil van Dijk, because one alone isn’t working. If the going rate is the same, that is £150m on central defenders — and how might Liverpool raise £60m without losing another of their key players?

 

Yes, selling Philippe Coutinho more than balances the books, but that was a one-off. How often do deals of that nature come around?

 

Indeed, while Arsene Wenger is always up for economic sanctions on everybody else, the £90m limit may come as a shock to his employers when he leaves and the grand rebuilding begins. How much do Arsenal need to get competitive again? A lot more than £90m, that’s for certain.

 

Chelsea, with their production line academy — Christian Atsu played seven minutes for Newcastle at Stamford Bridge on Sunday, which is seven minutes more than he played there in almost four years as a Chelsea player — will be rubbing their hands together. Abramovich, back in the game.

 

Say what you like about the way he handles players and managers, like so many in the favoured elite, he certainly knows how to get the best out of UEFA.

 

 

[petermik]

8 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Seems to me that the money talk ALWAYS originates from ONLY Spurs fans, is always about City and no other club, which requires City fans to respond. If Spurs fans stopped obsessing about money in the game and especially City's money, then there wouldn't be any money chats. So have about you Spurs fans cease.





 

BB..........."if Spurs fans stopped obsessing about money" its a diversionary tactic used to deflect from the more serious issue of "what have we won (spurs) lately".........stop replying to them,its like pi**ing into the wind

[alfieconn]

3 hours ago, jellydog said:

I get it but I don't care. It is the reality. Besides, money talk bores the tits off me. If there was more football talk in the football forum and less money talk I'd be surprised... and happy.

 

 

Well you need to have a word with bb because it was him who put up this thread about money !!!

[alfieconn]

.

 

[mrbojangles]

4 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

 

Manchester City spending fast so they don't fall foul of UEFA tricks

 

•UEFA's Financial Fair Play 2.0 is the same old garbage that we are used to
•It's an attempt by the established elite to place restrictions on new money
•That is why Manchester City are doing big transfer business yet again
•The whole City project has been accelerated by UEFA's attempts to shut it down

 

By Martin Samuel - Sport for the Daily Mail

Published: 29 January 2018 

UEFA call it Financial Fair Play 2.0. Makes it seem like a reboot, an update, a new model. It’s not. It’s the same old garbage: an attempt by the established elite to place restrictions on new money and new challenges.

 

Another grab for power by the forces of entitlement. And as UEFA are terrified of the marquee names in their Champions League draw, no doubt they will capitulate and wave it through.

 

That is why Manchester City are doing transfer business again. That is why there is a rush to advance the transfers of Aymeric Laporte and Fred. They have to get inside the castle before the drawbridge is raised — and that’s not new, either.

 

The whole City project has been accelerated by UEFA’s attempts to shut it down. Other members of the City Football Group are not placed on this free-spending fast track; only the club that must comply with UEFA’s ever-changing moods and the restrictive practices of their rivals.

 

If UEFA were truly interested in competition, they would discuss wealth redistribution via Champions League prize money. More for the leagues, less for individual clubs. They don’t. They continue to kill domestic competitions around Europe by delivering huge sums to super clubs, making them untouchable.

 

Bayern Munich and Juventus are on the longest sequence of title wins the Bundesliga and Serie A have known. Olympiacos have won 19 of the last 21 titles in Greece, BATE Borisov the last 12 in Belarus.

 

The first incarnation of FFP did nothing to address this. It was merely a device to negate the impact of new money in old leagues.

 

The European Clubs Association couldn’t care less that BATE are usurping the traditional dominance of Dinamo Minsk in Belarus. They just don’t want Manchester City sitting where Manchester United should be. FFP is about nothing more than preservation of an elite.

 

Before FFP 1.0, there was FFP 0.0, the original vision of Michel Platini that had among its targets leveraged buyouts such as the Glazer takeover at Manchester United. That, however, veered a little too close to home, so Platini was manipulated into taking on owner investment instead.

 

The Glazers, who saddled United with enormous debt, were given a free pass; Sheik Mansour, who brought new money into football and greatly benefited the local area, was the enemy.

 

The elite clubs knew emerging forces such as Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain did not yet have the revenue streams of the establishment, so attempted to stunt their growth.

 

Transfers, wages, amortised agreements, finance costs and dividends would be set against gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, disposal of tangible fixed assets, finance, player sales and prize money. Clubs could only lose £26million, balanced over a three-year period.

 

That way City’s spending could be tied to income — and the income of a club that last won the league in 1968 could not possibly compete with the likes of Manchester United. The new clubs would be left to wither, unable to invest to grow. Even Chelsea backed this plan, having got where they needed to be under Roman Abramovich.

 

Buying in, he was now terrified of the competition if others did the same. Abramovich used to be the owner that Platini railed against. Then they ended up on the same side. That should have been the clue.

 

Fortunately, it did not work. Parts of FFP collapsed at the first legal test and Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain were smarter than UEFA and their rivals had imagined.

 

They moved fast, recruited well, achieved success and balanced the books. Revenue increased through sponsorships, TV deals, merchandising, prize money. They could win and also comply.

 

This is why FFP 2.0 is on the table in May. It is the latest attempt by Barcelona and Real Madrid, among others, to return to the good old days. If it fails, they will shift criteria again for FFP 3.0.

 

So, how will it work this time? Now FFP is going to be purely about transfers. The rest of it, all those revenue streams that were considered so vital to the efficient running of a club, are being as good as abandoned.

 

If the current proposals are accepted, there will be a simple calculation, outlawing a transfer loss of more than £90million in one season. This won’t just affect Manchester City, but all Premier League clubs, as Europe seeks to limit the impact of the new television deal.

 

It terrifies La Liga that Leicester are now within £1m of Atletico Madrid in the 2016-17 revenue tables; Serie A are appalled that their league leaders Napoli are pegged behind Southampton in riches.

 

If revenue is no longer factored in, the Premier League television deal can be contained and the established elite will sign up for this, even in England, as a way of reining in Manchester City.

 

To hear Antonio Conte complain about the financial power of the Manchester clubs is to hear the conversations that go on behind closed doors. ‘These two big clubs can be seriously dangerous for other teams in the world,’ he said. ‘They are very strong already, and want to invest.’

 

Indeed, as Chelsea once did. Just because Conte has spent January looking at players who would simply not be considered in Manchester does not mean the system is wrong. It just means Abramovich has got what he wants from it and now hopes to scale down the arms race. Tough. You started it.

 

And, who knows, if Chelsea had not spent in the region of £80m sacking managers since Abramovich’s arrival, maybe they would have been able to join the bidding for Alexis Sanchez?

 

This explains why City are in a hurry again, rushing to complete deals for Laporte and Fred this January. It should not be hard to comply with a net loss of £90m, but at the current rates, significant upgrades are expensive. City spent £220m remodelling Pep Guardiola’s squad in the summer, and even bringing in £90m on transfers they were still £130m down — and £40m outside the new UEFA spending deficit.

 

In the current climate, losses are not unimaginable.

 

Suppose Liverpool think they need another Virgil van Dijk, because one alone isn’t working. If the going rate is the same, that is £150m on central defenders — and how might Liverpool raise £60m without losing another of their key players?

 

Yes, selling Philippe Coutinho more than balances the books, but that was a one-off. How often do deals of that nature come around?

 

Indeed, while Arsene Wenger is always up for economic sanctions on everybody else, the £90m limit may come as a shock to his employers when he leaves and the grand rebuilding begins. How much do Arsenal need to get competitive again? A lot more than £90m, that’s for certain.

 

Chelsea, with their production line academy — Christian Atsu played seven minutes for Newcastle at Stamford Bridge on Sunday, which is seven minutes more than he played there in almost four years as a Chelsea player — will be rubbing their hands together. Abramovich, back in the game.

 

Say what you like about the way he handles players and managers, like so many in the favoured elite, he certainly knows how to get the best out of UEFA.

 

 

A top article BB. Hadn't seen that before but fully supports what we have been saying. Hopefully, others will read and digest.

 

The bit on Arsenal is bang on. IF they don't hurry up and strengthen, the rules won't enable them to and could end up a mid-table team for years to come. At least that'll cheer up the Spurs fans