Manchester City

[BIGTOE3]

I'm really looking forward to P45mustang"s reply to mrbojangles' very clear post...what time we expecting him on here next?

When he has drank his first dozen Changs.

BT

[P45Mustang]

I'm not evading anything. They say that we broke the rules and we have been punished. OK fair enough, we will have to comply. Accepted, no evading the point. Crystal clear, no grey area.

You've been let off easy

In your view but not in mine. What do you think we should have got?

What Platini said rulebreakers would get.

A ban from European football every year you breach the rules.

This should apply to every team that does it.

The loss of revenue would be the fine.

Yep. Spot on.

[P45Mustang]

Chelsea have been FFP compliant since 2010.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge of things Chelsea but I did say 3 years ago so wasn't far out. It therefore took you approx. 7 years to get your books straight after him throwing money at you. We are just following the pattern but being punished for it due to FFP.

I

Did Chelsea spend before then put us at an unfair advantage in 2013-14?

Well it certainly did 10 years ago, wouldn't you agree?

You are evading the point mrbojangles.

Once FFP came in, Chelsea became compliant. Since 2010 Chelsea have been playing to the whistle.

City haven't. They have been nicked for breaking the rules since 2010. They have been given a yellow card. Some people might argue it should be a red.

Chelsea's big spending between 2003 and 2010 has got nothing to do with City's failure to comply with UEFA regs.

Chelsea have been compliant. City have not.

Your apparent sympathy for less well off clubs is perverse and hypocritical.

The point I was making is that now FFP has come in, no other club will ever the benefit that both Chelsea and Man City (to name just two) have had, in that a rich owner can no longer come in and invest a huge amount of dosh in a club, to try and play catch up with the big boys at the top.

Not totally correct. FFP does not prohibit Levy from spending big money to catch up. Or Everton's owners.

Liverpool will spend max within FFP to catch up/keep up. Arsenal have been FFP compliant and presumably know the rules and how much they can spend. If they've got the wonga to hand.

UNITED look to be about to shell out 200mil in the transfer window. Big money.

The big advantage UNITED and Spurs have got is they aren't going to qualify next season for the CL so they can spend as much as they like.

555.

FFP does NOT preclude owners with big money spending it.

[Bredbury Blue]

No trick question, I'm just very interested to read his response to mrbojangles very clear and valid comments.

[P45Mustang]

Yep. Chelsea wouldn't be where they are without Abramovich money.

Have I missed anything Bredbury Blue?

[Bredbury Blue]

Disappointed. I was looking forward to reading P45Mustang's resonse to this comment by mtbojangles...

"Surely you cannot deny that without the money Abramovitch put in the club 10 years ago, you would not be where you are now. I'm not having a dig at Chelsea, they (and City) have been lucky to effectively have won the lottery. However, now with the FFP no other club will be able to do that".

I always get a feeling that Chelsea supporters belive they've always been a top 4 club hence my interest.

[mrbojangles]

P45, you are missing my point. The majority you have named above are still at the top table or there abouts. They are all big or quite big clubs generating quite big revenue. One season away from the Champs League doesn't mean United are alienated from the top table, they are one of the biggest in the world and can easily afford to spend big this summer whilst remaining comliant.

Scenario I am on about. If I was a multi-billionaire and for some (strange)reason wanted to bank roll say Bolton Wanderers, I wouldn't be able to do it now and still play in the Champs League or Europa. The catchment area and marketing prospects just doesn't generate enough revenue to comply with the break even target thresholds, particularly in the rules timeframes.

Even if I was extremely generous and said I would not put the debt on the club and I would bankroll it personally, I still wouldn't meet FFP requirements because they only allow an owner to put so much in for the purpose of the balance sheet. Here is an extract of what they can do:-

For the 2013/14 season when the FFP rules come into force, an owner can inject up to 45m over two seasons to cover the losses of the club. After the 2013-14 season an owner can on average exchange only 15m worth of cash for shares each year to spend on transfers and wages. That figure is reduced to 10m per season (30m over three seasons) for the 2015-16 season. Should a club wish to pass the FFP break-even requirement, and it makes for example a 35m combined loss for the first monitoring period (13-14), the owners will have to inject 35m worth of equity into the club. If they do not, that club will breach the rules.

So you see, Bolton and the majority of other clubs are destined to only ever eat from the trough and never from the top table.

[P45Mustang]

Got your answers above Bredbury Blue.

Let me know if anything is not to your satisfaction.

You remind me of the ordained one. Must be a Manchester thing.

[P45Mustang]

P45, you are missing my point. The majority you have named above are still at the top table or there abouts. They are all big or quite big clubs generating quite big revenue. One season away from the Champs League doesn't mean United are alienated from the top table, they are one of the biggest in the world and can easily afford to spend big this summer whilst remaining comliant.

Scenario I am on about. If I was a multi-billionaire and for some (strange)reason wanted to bank roll say Bolton Wanderers, I wouldn't be able to do it now and still play in the Champs League or Europa. The catchment area and marketing prospects just doesn't generate enough revenue to comply with the break even target thresholds, particularly in the rules timeframes. Bolton and the majority of other clubs are destined to only ever eat from the trough and never from the top table.

Even if I was extremely generous and said I would not put the debt on the club and I would bankroll it personally, I still wouldn't meet FFP requirements because they only allow an owner to put so much in for the purpose of the balance sheet. Here is an extract of what they can do:-

For the 2013/14 season when the FFP rules come into force, an owner can inject up to 45m over two seasons to cover the losses of the club. After the 2013-14 season an owner can on average exchange only 15m worth of cash for shares each year to spend on transfers and wages. That figure is reduced to 10m per season (30m over three seasons) for the 2015-16 season. Should a club wish to pass the FFP break-even requirement, and it makes for example a 35m combined loss for the first monitoring period (13-14), the owners will have to inject 35m worth of equity into the club. If they do not, that club will breach the rules.

FFP is about stopping clubs overspending with money they have not got in order to compete with the big boys.

If a rich Sheik bought Sunderland he could spend as much as he wanted trying to replicate Chelsea or City, so long as he has got the wonga.

I repeat. FFP does NOT preclude owners with big money spending it.

Especially if you are not top 4 and subject to UEFA regs.

There is nothing stopping any EPL club doing what Chelsea did 10 years ago.

Invest big and get in the big time.

Edited May 18, 2014 by P45Mustang

[BIGTOE3]

Mr Bo I would give up trying to explain to someone who can't read or understand English. He obviously has NO STABILITY in his small world.

BT

[P45Mustang]

Mr Bo I would give up trying to explain to someone who can't read or understand English. He obviously has NO STABILITY in his small world.

BT

Stop with the personal stuff BigToe and read my reply to mrbojangles please.

[mrbojangles]

Mr Bo I would give up trying to explain to someone who can't read or understand English.

I concur.

[P45Mustang]

BTW. FFP penalties given to Man City set a precedent. City have been let off easy.

If a seriously rich owner bought Sunderland and got them in the CL he may very well be quite happy to pay the UEFA penalty.

Especially if he has spent a billion getting them there.

Chelsea got in the big time with Abramovich money.

Since FFP came in Chelsea have been compliant.

In my book that is fair play.

We have played to the whistle.

Yes, we have money.

So do RM, Barcelona, PSG and Bayern.

[P45Mustang]

Mr Bo I would give up trying to explain to someone who can't read or understand English.

I concur.

You remain unhappy with my response to the issues you have raised regarding FFP mrbojangles? Edited May 18, 2014 by P45Mustang

[P45Mustang]

Mr Bo I would give up trying to explain to someone who can't read or understand English.

I concur.

Nice work Bojangles.

Here's a video.

[mrbojangles]

You remain unhappy with my response to the issues you have raised regarding FFP mrbojangles?

Yes. Because I took quite a bit of time to write my response above and you are not taking the time to read what I actually wrote. You keep on mixing two completely different issues. The Premier League doesn't currently have FFP (although they might introduce it in the near future) and so PL clubs don't have to adhere to UEFA rules.

In particular, it's your comments like below when you say City have been let off easy. How do you know we have been let off easy? We aren't privy to the exact details of how much we failed the test by. And the rules don't just apply to how much you have spent or earned. There is a 90 page document on the subject and it covers all sorts of areas like paying your taxes on time and paying wages on time etc.

BTW. FFP penalties given to Man City set a precedent. City have been let off easy.

It is stated in the rules that "punishments can be as lenient as a warning or reprimand or as heavy as exclusion from European competition or being stripped of a title. The latter are seen very much as a last resort by Uefa, which wants to help clubs fulfil their obligations." Therefore. looking at our punishment it seems we fell somewhere in the middle. For other clubs failing in the same manner this might be the norm. Whereas Malaga (I think it was but happy to be corrected) got booted out because they failed to pay the players wages.

[P45Mustang]

Up to you mate.

You aren't reading my points, so forget it.

OK. City got a harsh penalty, if that is what you want to hear.

Won't stop others doing the same if they have money to burn.

[mad mary]

Anyone got a dead horse spare?

You need to mention his club & the manager at least 5 times to grab his attention.

Edited May 18, 2014 by mad mary

[P45Mustang]

Anyone got a dead horse spare?

Nope. But the camel with two humps is gonna get stuffed next season.

[P45Mustang]

You remain unhappy with my response to the issues you have raised regarding FFP mrbojangles?

Yes. Because I took quite a bit of time to write my response above and you are not taking the time to read what I actually wrote. You keep on mixing two completely different issues. The Premier League doesn't currently have FFP (although they might introduce it in the near future) and so PL clubs don't have to adhere to UEFA rules.

Exactly what I said in my previous posts, pea brain.

Edited May 18, 2014 by P45Mustang

[redrus]

Bredbury Blue.

You remind me of the ordained one.

Must be a Manchester thing.

BooooooooooooooooooM

redrus

Ps, Hahahahahahaha

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[P45Mustang]

I wasn't wrong was I.

Ordained one cast bad spell on City for winning the league.

[redrus]

I wasn't wrong was I.

Ordained one cast bad spell on City for winning the league.

Eh, how's that work, they won it....? And, out of them Chelsea n Liverpool, they were my second choice.

redrus

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[P45Mustang]

I wasn't wrong was I.

Ordained one cast bad spell on City for winning the league.

Eh, how's that work, they won it....? And, out of them Chelsea n Liverpool, they were my second

Redrus

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Well you'd better get back on the UNITED thread with maximum positive energy, cos you are gonna need all the help you can get.

Edited May 18, 2014 by P45Mustang

[redrus]

I wasn't wrong was I.

Ordained one cast bad spell on City for winning the league.

Eh, how's that work, they won it....? And, out of them Chelsea n Liverpool, they were my second

Redrus

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Well you'd better get back on the UNITED thread with maximum positive energy, cos you are gonna need all the help you can get.

Not like you to evade the question.

Night night.

redrus

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[P45Mustang]

It's going to be hilarious when City, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea are fighting for the Prem and Glazer is saying "what the ... is going on here?"

Happy Christmas.

Edited May 18, 2014 by P45Mustang

[wilai]

I'm really looking forward to P45mustang"s reply to mrbojangles' very clear post...what time we expecting him on here next?

Be careful what you wish for

[Bredbury Blue]

Go go then P45Mustang, ive got to ask, who is the ordained one? Ive no idea.

[redrus]

Go go then P45Mustang, ive got to ask, who is the ordained one? Ive no idea.

Me mate.

redrus

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[mrbojangles]

Just having a chat with a Saudi mate of mine about the game the other day in Abu Dhabi when we played Al Ain. He said "did you notice that there was three players from Al Nasser playing"? Al Nasser is a local Riyadh team and those three players are they best they have and merely wanted to play against the EPL champions

It's a bit like Barcelona going to play say Celtic and Celtic's team included Sturridge, Suarez and Sterling or Aguero, Toure and Silva. Only in the middle east eh.