Welcome to the LTLF Forest Forum.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 89

Thread: The demise of Manchester City

      
  1. #26
    Sage
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chester
    Posts
    8,547

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by GOBIAS View Post
    Chelsea are the worst. They were a much smaller club than City ever were (again in my time) but they are now seen as one of the big boys. They just happen to have done it a decade or so before City so they get a pass.
    The only way anyone can win is to buy success or wait once in a generation like Leicester. Me personally I love Chelsea and City upsetting the apple cart anything to piss off Aziz the Liverpool fan from Leicester or Tim from Cambridge the united fan.

    If the world was right we'd have have salary caps and limit the amount a team can spend to stop glory supporters from ruining the game but hey ho we have what we have.


  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many

  3. #27

  4. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    'ull
    Posts
    12,869

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by EmmersonForest4 View Post
    The only way anyone can win is to buy success or wait once in a generation like Leicester. Me personally I love Chelsea and City upsetting the apple cart anything to piss off Aziz the Liverpool fan from Leicester or Tim from Cambridge the united fan.

    If the world was right we'd have have salary caps and limit the amount a team can spend to stop glory supporters from ruining the game but hey ho we have what we have.
    I’m just pointing out that Chelsea aren’t seen as as bad as city to united or Liverpool fans because they got there first. City have put enough groundwork now off the field so it won’t be undone now. In Manchester I have friends there whose kids classes are now mainly city fans. That is a remarkable turn around from ten years ago.


  5. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashley View Post
    A lot of people laughing at Man City, but let's be perfectly clear; the FFP rules are to protect the big boys (Liverpool, United, Madrid, Barca, Bayern, etc) from clubs like Man City upsetting the established order of football's top competition. It's no different to the FFP rules in the Championship, which makes the odds massively in the favour of parachute payment clubs.

    City's ban from European competition is nothing to celebrate at all.
    I disagree maybe you are reading too much Fatty Samuel. This wasn't brought in for that at all Clubs all over Europe were going under due to owners buying clubs, committing to expense but then losing interest or money. A club as big as Glasgow Rangers went bust. Man City broke the rules in the most brazen way possible and if anything the punishment is light. Clubs are too important to be risked ffp is right and proper and most of the leagues in Europe have rules in place.


  6. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by GOBIAS View Post
    I’m just pointing out that Chelsea aren’t seen as as bad as city to united or Liverpool fans because they got there first. City have put enough groundwork now off the field so it won’t be undone now. In Manchester I have friends there whose kids classes are now mainly city fans. That is a remarkable turn around from ten years ago.
    Chelsea is different, always huge potential there with a massive catchment, now the club is self sufficient and turns a profit. Man City is different they will have to scale back to a more realistic model and spending a lot of time in Manchester the majority support in greater Manchester will always be United, so City will never be a real big club, they just don't have the support.


  7. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    4,220

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by mattw View Post
    I disagree maybe you are reading too much Fatty Samuel. This wasn't brought in for that at all Clubs all over Europe were going under due to owners buying clubs, committing to expense but then losing interest or money. A club as big as Glasgow Rangers went bust. Man City broke the rules in the most brazen way possible and if anything the punishment is light. Clubs are too important to be risked ffp is right and proper and most of the leagues in Europe have rules in place.
    Clubs are still going bust or struggling, look at Bolton and Bury for example. FFP hasn't made a blind bit of difference in that regard. Bad owners send clubs under, not investment.

    All FFP has done is increased the gap between the haves and have nots. As fans of a Championship club without parachute payments, I am surprised that Forest fans of all people would be in favour of FFP and the unlevel playing field it has created.


  8. #32
    Not that type of player
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Mixer
    Posts
    37,738

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by mattw View Post
    Chelsea is different, always huge potential there with a massive catchment, now the club is self sufficient and turns a profit. Man City is different they will have to scale back to a more realistic model and spending a lot of time in Manchester the majority support in greater Manchester will always be United, so City will never be a real big club, they just don't have the support.
    This isn't correct. If anything you have it the wrong way around. Chelsea are the club who's success is built on sand.

    Revenue from ticket sales is a small proportion of an elite clubs income. Man city may have overstated the commercial income, as UEFA say, but that still leaves the best part of half a billion a year total income, and a more than sustainable wage bill which is currently around 60% of income. Compare that to many championship clubs, including ourselves, who carry wage bills which are in and around 100% of income.

    Their owners have spent many millions building up the 's club in terms of infrastructure… They have one of the best academies in Europe in their Etihad Campus.

    This ruling won't affect Man City's status as one of the elite clubs of Europe.

    Stand Firm And Strike Hard

  9. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashley View Post
    Clubs are still going bust or struggling, look at Bolton and Bury for example. FFP hasn't made a blind bit of difference in that regard. Bad owners send clubs under, not investment.

    All FFP has done is increased the gap between the haves and have nots. As fans of a Championship club without parachute payments, I am surprised that Forest fans of all people would be in favour of FFP and the unlevel playing field it has created.
    We don't in English football have proper FFP protections in place, they do in Germany and France for example. A fairer distribution of the PL tv money would solve a lot of problems and as a Forest fan I remember the last owner and yes there should be protections in place.


  10. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravi View Post
    This isn't correct. If anything you have it the wrong way around. Chelsea are the club who's success is built on sand.

    Revenue from ticket sales is a small proportion of an elite clubs income. Man city may have overstated the commercial income, as UEFA say, but that still leaves the best part of half a billion a year total income, and a more than sustainable wage bill which is currently around 60% of income. Compare that to many championship clubs, including ourselves, who carry wage bills which are in and around 100% of income.

    Their owners have spent many millions building up the 's club in terms of infrastructure… They have one of the best academies in Europe in their Etihad Campus.

    This ruling won't affect Man City's status as one of the elite clubs of Europe.
    Disagree totally with respect. Chelsea are now a self sustaining genuine top club, that generates profit. City have done 2 things overstated the commercial income, much of which comes from Abu Dhabi and hidden some of the wage costs. When you look at the genuine commercial deals for kit etc they are mid-table Premier League. This ruling will effect them big time and what does the academy produce, so far way behind Chelsea, which really is the best. I think they will drop to their real status quite quickly bearing in mind the CL TV money will go, giving youth a real chance from the academy might keep them up there but odds against.


  11. #35

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Of course it's tongue in cheek but it's almost as fair as the playoffs and there would be an outside chance of Arsenal, Chelsea, Man U and Liverpool spending time down in the lower Leagues despite their money.


  12. #36
    Not that type of player
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Mixer
    Posts
    37,738

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by mattw View Post
    Disagree totally with respect. Chelsea are now a self sustaining genuine top club, that generates profit. City have done 2 things overstated the commercial income, much of which comes from Abu Dhabi and hidden some of the wage costs. When you look at the genuine commercial deals for kit etc they are mid-table Premier League. This ruling will effect them big time and what does the academy produce, so far way behind Chelsea, which really is the best. I think they will drop to their real status quite quickly bearing in mind the CL TV money will go, giving youth a real chance from the academy might keep them up there but odds against.
    Both clubs make a profit. They're in the EPL with it's huge tv revenue.

    Chelsea have invested heavily in the team since Abramovic arrived, but relatively little in the rest of the club.
    Man City's owners invested heavily in the team and invested heavily in the club itself to make the club sustainable as a top club.

    That's the difference.




    Chelsea turnover 448m, income from matchday 16% of total, wage bill 55% of income
    Man City turnover 500m, income from matchday 11% of total, wage bill 52% of income

    City can lose many millions off their income and still be a sustainable elite club.


    The embargo on Chelsea for breaking the rules may help them in the long term as they've had to rely on the academy rather than signing new players.
    The same may happen at City.

    They will take a short term hit if this UEFA ruling sticks, but the idea that they will miraculously regress to where they were 20-30 years ago is fanciful.

    Last edited by Ravi; 17-02-20 at 12:16.

  13. #37
    Not that type of player
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Mixer
    Posts
    37,738

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Any clubs who genuinely challenge the status quo, whether it's City or another club, will always have to deal with: hostility from the traditional big clubs who want to maintain their cosy closed shop, and envy from clubs lower in the hierarchy (including many of their fans who will convince themselves that feeling self righteousness and taking the moral high ground is better than being successful).


  14. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    4,220

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by mattw View Post
    We don't in English football have proper FFP protections in place, they do in Germany and France for example. A fairer distribution of the PL tv money would solve a lot of problems and as a Forest fan I remember the last owner and yes there should be protections in place.
    If you are referring to things like Germany's 50+1 rule then that isn't FFP.

    FFP was around when Fawaz was in charge and didn't protect us one bit, if anything it made things much worse with the embargo and the knock on effect it had on the following season (which saw us almost relegated and headed for an even worse crisis).

    The way to stop clubs going down the shitter is better fit and proper persons test for prospective owners, not preventing investment and protecting the established clubs from would be challengers.


  15. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravi View Post
    Both clubs make a profit. They're in the EPL with it's huge tv revenue.

    Chelsea have invested heavily in the team since Abramovic arrived, but relatively little in the rest of the club.
    Man City's owners invested heavily in the team and invested heavily in the club itself to make the club sustainable as a top club.

    That's the difference.




    Chelsea turnover 448m, income from matchday 16% of total, wage bill 55% of income
    Man City turnover 500m, income from matchday 11% of total, wage bill 52% of income

    City can lose many millions off their income and still be a sustainable elite club.


    The embargo on Chelsea for breaking the rules may help them in the long term as they've had to rely on the academy rather than signing new players.
    The same may happen at City.

    They will take a short term hit if this UEFA ruling sticks, but the idea that they will miraculously regress to where they were 20-30 years ago is fanciful.
    What you are missing is City inflated turnover with Abu Dhabi money, which is not genuine turnover and hid extra wages payments to Pep and the rest. Published accounts of course show none of this. That is why they have been sanctioned. They never will make a genuine profit under the current model and now they have been rumbled and dealt with they will have to change, or carry on cheating, his is the second time they have been done. What they do in the future will depend on the decisions made to overcome the current mess and yes I doubt they will be a yo-yo club again anytime soon but I also doubt they will dominate English football . Trouble is Liverpool probably will.


  16. #40
    Not that type of player
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Mixer
    Posts
    37,738

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by mattw View Post
    What you are missing is City inflated turnover with Abu Dhabi money, which is not genuine turnover and hid extra wages payments to Pep and the rest. Published accounts of course show none of this. That is why they have been sanctioned. They never will make a genuine profit under the current model and now they have been rumbled and dealt with they will have to change, or carry on cheating, his is the second time they have been done. What they do in the future will depend on the decisions made to overcome the current mess and yes I doubt they will be a yo-yo club again anytime soon but I also doubt they will dominate English football . Trouble is Liverpool probably will.
    Again, this post is mostly guesswork and conjecture.

    I haven't missed the "inflated turnover". It is Commercial revenue which UEFA say has been inflated, as I mentioned, but that doesn't mean all their commercial revenue will disappear. Far from it.

    I never claimed they would continue to dominate English football, merely that they will continue to be one of the elite clubs, albeit with a financial set back.

    I don't know why you think making a profit is so important. They are a football club, not a supermarket. Liverpool are about £150m in debt for instance, but it is sustainable because like the other big clubs, they bring in far more than that amount.


  17. #41
    Not that type of player
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Mixer
    Posts
    37,738

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashley View Post
    If you are referring to things like Germany's 50+1 rule then that isn't FFP.

    FFP was around when Fawaz was in charge and didn't protect us one bit, if anything it made things much worse with the embargo and the knock on effect it had on the following season (which saw us almost relegated and headed for an even worse crisis).

    The way to stop clubs going down the shitter is better fit and proper persons test for prospective owners, not preventing investment and protecting the established clubs from would be challengers.
    More responsible and accountable ownership is what is needed, rather than restrictive financial regulations which maintain the status quo.

    The 'Hedge Funders' who asset strip clubs, the Glazer types who mortgage clubs to the hilt, or the chancers who treat clubs like playthings which they then trash when they've had enough, like Fawaz. Football clubs need protecting from these kinds of abusive owners.


  18. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    4,220

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravi View Post
    More responsible and accountable ownership is what is needed, rather than restrictive financial regulations which maintain the status quo.

    The 'Hedge Funders' who asset strip clubs, the Glazer types who mortgage clubs to the hilt, or the chancers who treat clubs like playthings which they then trash when they've had enough, like Fawaz. Football clubs need protecting from these kinds of abusive owners.
    Completely agree. Owners should be allowed to invest as much as they like (after all, you can invest as much as you like in other businesses, football should be no different). However bad owners like those examples you mentioned are the biggest threat to a football club's existence or being run in a proper fashion.


  19. #43
    Left Winger
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Lufthansa Business Lounge
    Posts
    86,176

    Default The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravi View Post
    More responsible and accountable ownership is what is needed, rather than restrictive financial regulations which maintain the status quo.

    The 'Hedge Funders' who asset strip clubs, the Glazer types who mortgage clubs to the hilt, or the chancers who treat clubs like playthings which they then trash when they've had enough, like Fawaz. Football clubs need protecting from these kinds of abusive owners.
    Agree completely with Ravi here.

    The German „50+1“ model is really nothing at all to do with fair play, instead, it is to ensure that German clubs - the vast majority of whom were founded by a group of individuals - can never be wholly taken over by an unscrupulous owner (like the aforementioned Glazers) who strips revenue out the club by various means.

    Here in Germany, constitutionally (with a couple of historic exemptions for Wolfsburg and Leverkusen) the clubs can never „sell“ 50% (or more) of their private shares because they simply aren’t able to.

    Even FC Bayern, Germany’s richest club, who generated a profit of €146m in their last accounts, are beholden to their 293.000 members.

    VfB Stuttgart, where I am a member, have 69.900 members, and are set up in the same way.

    The important thing is that each season, every club has to submit its audited accounts and a business plan to the DFB (German FA) before the season starts, in order to get a license to play. If that business plan doesn’t make sense, the club doesn’t get a license and can be demoted (this most recently happened to that venerable old club 1860 München, who were demoted to the fourth-tier because essentially they ran out of money).

    The German model is to protect the clubs very existence, not to insulate them from competition.

    Bayern‘s recent dominance has come about mostly because - commercially - they can raise more money than any other club, and that allows them to buy the best players (and often, other teams best players too). They have an enormous number of commercial partners (from memory, their commercial income is about €750m a season) and every seat at the 75.000-capacity Allianz Arena is sold out (they sell out their entire away allocation for every Bundesliga match, too).

    (Indeed, anyone who has perused the „European and other football...“ thread will recall my despair when Bayern swooped to buy Benjamin Pavard, Stuttgart‘s best player, who I’d be raving about for three years, for €35m).

    Last edited by Strummer; 17-02-20 at 14:49.
    „I believe in socialism because it seems more humanitarian, rather than every man for himself and 'I'm alright jack' and all those arsehole businessmen with all the loot. I made up my mind from viewing society from that angle. That's where I'm from and there's where I've made my decisions from. That's why I believe in socialism“

    — Joe Strummer

  20. #44
    Sage
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chester
    Posts
    8,547

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by mattw View Post
    I disagree maybe you are reading too much Fatty Samuel. This wasn't brought in for that at all Clubs all over Europe were going under due to owners buying clubs, committing to expense but then losing interest or money. A club as big as Glasgow Rangers went bust. Man City broke the rules in the most brazen way possible and if anything the punishment is light. Clubs are too important to be risked ffp is right and proper and most of the leagues in Europe have rules in place.
    You see you have it wrong though because Citehs owners aren’t giving the club the money as a loan. That’s the main difference it’s a gift but that’s not allowed on the balance sheet for FFP so they broke the rules by putting under sponsorship. I’m all for big magnates donating money to clubs like Citeh all FFP should do is to make sure that contributions are not loans and potentially you have to pay a bond down when you buy the club. That way you won’t get clubs going bust and citehs owners can continue to give money.


  21. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Terra Incognita
    Posts
    3,726

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Fuck em'.


  22. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by EmmersonForest4 View Post
    You see you have it wrong though because Citehs owners aren’t giving the club the money as a loan. That’s the main difference it’s a gift but that’s not allowed on the balance sheet for FFP so they broke the rules by putting under sponsorship. I’m all for big magnates donating money to clubs like Citeh all FFP should do is to make sure that contributions are not loans and potentially you have to pay a bond down when you buy the club. That way you won’t get clubs going bust and citehs owners can continue to give money.
    If the money stops coming from Abu Dhabi, City are doomed, they wouldn't be able to pay the contracts and bills. Happened to other clubs, that is why the rules are in place. I hope they get a longer ban, even if it helps Liverpool and I detest them with a passion. No way are they getting off though, completely bang to rights.


  23. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    People’s republic of Southwick, Sunderland
    Posts
    341

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo View Post
    Fuck em'.
    Hahahahaha.....a person of few words, but when the person speaks you listen


  24. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    4,220

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by mattw View Post
    If the money stops coming from Abu Dhabi, City are doomed, they wouldn't be able to pay the contracts and bills.
    Every club (Forest included) is doomed if their owner pulls the plug and no one else takes over. City are not unique in this regard.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattw View Post
    Happened to other clubs, that is why the rules are in place.
    Except FFP rules provide absolutely zero protection against this. They are designed to restrict investment, the owner pulling the plug or not paying the bills is the exact opposite of investment and FFP does absolutely nothing to prevent this. In some cases FFP might even cause an owner to become disinterested and toss a club aside, as they would be restricted from pursuing their ambitions for the club.

    Last edited by Ashley; 17-02-20 at 19:12.

  25. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    202

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashley View Post
    Every club (Forest included) is doomed if their owner pulls the plug and no one else takes over. City are not unique in this regard.



    Except FFP rules provide absolutely zero protection against this. They are designed to restrict investment, the owner pulling the plug or not paying the bills is the exact opposite of investment and FFP does absolutely nothing to prevent this. In some cases FFP might even cause an owner to become disinterested and toss a club aside, as they would be restricted from pursuing their ambitions for the club.
    The Championship rules don't I agree, that is because impossible to introduce proper FFP or it would be the same 3 up and down every year. UEFA very different and Manchester City are bang to rights.

    Last edited by T.B.T.; 17-02-20 at 20:40.

  26. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    People’s republic of Southwick, Sunderland
    Posts
    341

    Default Re: The demise of Manchester City

    I wonder if there’s any other club(s) nipping at the moment thinking we are guilty of similar practices but sitting tight


 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •