Man City Banned From Europe

[BirkenheadBlue]

Chelsea are not on the list lad.. any way super league will never happen, it's pure obvious that Real and Barcelona would quickly get into a position of a monopoly, at the moment the wages and the worldwide popularity of the PL is what has PL teams able to compete with those 2 in Europe take away the PL draw and make everything even then most players would rather the weather and lifestyle that Spain offers over England, it wouldn't be too long until all but the Spanish 2 would want out.

Ok. To be fair you can shorten my list to Utd and the RS and my statement still holds.

those two (as distasteful as we might find it) account for a huge % of the foreign interest in the PL - which is what keeps the whole thing afloat.

 

[Pudsey]

Agree totally, without those two and their stories/history the worldwide attraction of the Premier League is a bit like Scotland without Rangers and Celtic. Incomes/sponsorship/advertising would reduce hugely.

 

[Nobby Nobbs]

Look Everton should have sought legal action in 1985. I find it highly unlikely we wouldn't do so now if we were treated poorly

Wasn't it the British government that banned teams not UEFA.

 

[Big_Duncs_Fod]

Wasn't it the British government that banned teams not UEFA.

Heysel was the straw that broke the camels back as far as UEFA and the authorities were concerned. The english ban was a result of Heysel but also due to the years of English hooliganism in the 80's in mainland europe.

 

[DixieScoresAgain]

Spot on - the Kopite Lurkers love throwing the Euro super league around without realising it would destroy them.

Imagine the Prem having Man City, Chelsea, Spurs, Usmanov backed Everton, Leicester and Wolves all competing for the title every year it would be great.

The super league on the other hand would get boring very quickly, the atmospheres in the ground would be dead as only rich fans and corporates could attend especially the away games it would kill them.

Sooner they leave the better - but they wont they'll just keep trying to take a bigger slice of the pie in their domestic leagues as they all know they need clubs like Burnley and Newcastle to be able to beat regulary in order to satisfy their glory hunting hordes - getting beat by Barca and Juve every few weeks would soon get boring.

The thing is though if there is a Super League, then the TV companies will throw money it as the biggest clubs/fixtures/best players will be in it.

The likes of SKY and BT will jump ship to the Super League and PL will be back on terrestrial TV with the PL tv deal being much much lower than SKY/BT pay.

 

[carolinablue232]

But why should clubs with good commercial deals be treated the same as clubs with poor?

I mean just imagine how far ahead City would be without it.

The point is there’s actually ways to make it “fair” and FFP doesn’t do that. Was never the intention.

 

[carolinablue232]

It promotes the organic growth of clubs through more sustainable methods, such as growing their revenue streams in order to be able to spend more. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say Citys owners ploughing £2.7b into a previously League One club through a variety of dubious methods is against the spirit of the game.
FFP isn't perfect as a system but I think it has the right idea at its core. Its preferable to nothing clubs suddenly skewing the whole landscape for a few years whilst they launder their ill-gotten petri-dollars, anyway. To me at least.

And City have had this in the post for a while, and for the arrogance with which they've gone about it, screw em.

How would a spending cap not do the same thing you’re promoting? While at the same time leveling the playing field more than just keeping the giants on top.

 

[Nobby Nobbs]

Heysel was the straw that broke the camels back as far as UEFA and the authorities were concerned. The english ban was a result of Heysel but also due to the years of English hooliganism in the 80's in mainland europe.

Yeah I get that, but it was still the government that banned English teams, would UEFA have given out the ban, possibly but at the end of the day it was the government.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

The thing is though if there is a Super League, then the TV companies will throw money it as the biggest clubs/fixtures/best players will be in it.

The likes of SKY and BT will jump ship to the Super League and PL will be back on terrestrial TV with the PL tv deal being much much lower than SKY/BT pay.

But REAL fans wouldnt care as the league in England would still have packed out grounds with real derbies / rivalries and atmospheres and the TV companies would still likely want a slice of the pie in a league that still has top teams competing rather than a super league with Barca and Real at the top - do you think Utd fans will stick around for too long if they are bottom of the league under a crap manager? Or Liverpool lose Klopp and appoint someone awful like Gerrard and they are getting hammered every week?

Also if your a REAL Lfc or Man Utd fan who can no longer afford to go the game / away games anymore its ruined football for them. For the gloryhunters who never go the game and watch from a stream everyweek it'll be okay but once the novelty wears off and they are getting hammered most weeks in half empty and dead stadiums with little atmosphere interest will soon wane.

As I said I hope it happens as long term the league left behind would imo grow and prosper whereas the super league whilst strong would die out within 10 years imo.

Its like the Old Firm argument - them pair leaving scotland would be the best thing to happen to that league in terms of competitiveness and interest.

 

[mill]

If they are inconsistent, it will be taken to an impartial court. They will not want that.

Look Everton should have sought legal action in 1985. I find it highly unlikely we wouldn't do so now if we were treated poorly.

Wasn’t it something like Philip Carter was promised a knighthood if he didn’t kick up a fuss?

 

[Goat]

The point is there’s actually ways to make it “fair” and FFP doesn’t do that. Was never the intention.

No, they dont want fairness.

Fairness involves sensible spending and doesnt involve multi billion pound business.

 

[ToffeeDan]

In my view this misses the bigger point that FFP is fundamentally not fair. Certain clubs can spend 250m a year on players, other clubs less than 100m.

This is not fair in a sporting sense, it is enabling clubs with historic success and therefore revenues to outmuscle others and keep themselves at top and on the euro gravy train year on year.

For fair play rules see rugby - a salary cap that is the same for all. Break it and get punished a la sarries, however if a 'lesser' club gets a new owner they can choose to invest up to this consistent and level limit. That is FFP, uefa rules are nothing of the sort and thus a sham.

I am inclined to agree. My model would have been a net spend of £X Million plus £Y per cent of turnover to facilitate some sort of level playing field over time. It would be amenable to the bigger clubs as it still gives them some sort of advantage.

But this debate is about City ignoring rules. You can't just ignore them and then plead you haven't when you clearly have done so.

 

[Goat]

I am inclined to agree. My model would have been a net spend of £X Million plus £Y per cent of turnover to facilitate some sort of level playing field over time. It would be amenable to the bigger clubs as it still gives them some sort of advantage.

But this debate is about City ignoring rules. You can't just ignore them and then plead you haven't when you clearly have done so.

With your model we couldnt have bought a single player the last few years.

 

[ToffeeDan]

With your model we couldnt have bought a single player the last few years.

If it's Net £20M plus 20 percent of Turnover (as an example) that's - to use current figures about £50M pa for Everton and £80M for City etc. Taken on a three year average it limits City from splurges of £200M on players to just buy the title. Whatever figure you use means the big boys only spend double not eight or ten times as much.

 

[Goat]

If it's Net £20M plus 20 percent of Turnover (as an example) that's - to use current figures about £50M pa for Everton and £80M for City etc. Taken on a three year average it limits City from splurges of £200M on players to just buy the title. Whatever figure you use means the big boys only spend double not eight or ten times as much.

You do realise we have spent more than most teams in Europe the last few years?