were Man City and PSG not Arab owned...

lol

The general feeling among City fans appears to be that it would be great if we could just buy every top player and pay more than everyone else and win everything without the club earning anything themselves. That is not an achievement. Must be racist for Galatasaray and Zenit as well,nicely thought out by the rich sheff weds fans.

user 19359 you obviously do not know any city fans with the stupid comment just posted. We as supporters have been to hell & back through our lives following City. since 1966 I have seen the good times the not so good the down right awful to the fantastic times we are currently enjoying. The football we played this season is some of the best I have ever witnessed as a city fan so if that means buying players to compete t the top level and keep me entertained I say bring it on. Your post spouts of the green eyed Monster.

To answer the OP, yes - FFP would have been different.


When it was set up, it was done so to try and protect clubs from going out of business. FFP has since been modified, to stop any club from spending beyond what it earns in income. The difference being that FFP in the first instance was to stop a club spending more than that club could afford. The second instance being to stop owners investing into the clubs that they own an amount more than the club would earn in revenue.

The first instance of FFP had the best interests of clubs at heart. The second instance of FFP does nothing but stifle investment into the game.

If anyone ever had any doubts as to the intention of FFP, then they need only look at the punishments that they have given out to clubs. Financial punishments. FFP will line the pockets of UEFA, and that's exactly what UEFA want. UEFA want to make money out of FFP. And they will do. And that money, in terms of fines, will go right into the back pocket of those who are on board. Platini et al.

ripleyscat yes I'm sure - but I wonder if they would be so punitive if it were 'western' owners

RoberTncUSA

Are you serious? You've got it all completely backward.

how so ?

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 hours, 24 minutes ago
To answer the OP, yes - FFP would have been different.


When it was set up, it was done so to try and protect clubs from going out of business. FFP has since been modified, to stop any club from spending beyond what it earns in income. The difference being that FFP in the first instance was to stop a club spending more than that club could afford. The second instance being to stop owners investing into the clubs that they own an amount more than the club would earn in revenue.

The first instance of FFP had the best interests of clubs at heart. The second instance of FFP does nothing but stifle investment into the game.

If anyone ever had any doubts as to the intention of FFP, then they need only look at the punishments that they have given out to clubs. Financial punishments. FFP will line the pockets of UEFA, and that's exactly what UEFA want. UEFA want to make money out of FFP. And they will do. And that money, in terms of fines, will go right into the back pocket of those who are on board. Platini et al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, boo-hoo....., FFP has got nothing to do with whether a club is owned by the middle-eastern investors / playboy princes.., its everything to do with accountability and governing clubs against excessive financial profligacy. Long may it continue..., and I look forward to my own club embracing FFP next season.

Your club should have e,braced FFP this season. Spurs should be up in arms that you've got away scot free. I'm surprised Levy hasn't taken someone to court over this.

...and I look forward to my own club embracing FFP next season.

No problem - Just get FSG to quietly give you another soft £50m 'loan' whilst you pontificate about Fair Play and all that bullshít.