Hateful 8

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 57 seconds ago
Oh there’s definitely some fans on here that owe an apology, no chance of that happening though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps, but I'd rather those be dug out individually, based on what they've said, than this projection of poor little City who have been unfairly treated type scenario.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
Oh there’s definitely some fans on here that owe an apology, no chance of that happening though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it’s your.club and it’s grubby criminal owners and chairman that needs to be issuing a grovelling apology. Have they even done that yet?

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 hours, 28 minutes ago
What do people think City are guilty of? Is anyone willing to state the reasons why they dislike City, and what it is exactly that they believe City have done that goes against their own principles in regards to the game?

Because a lot of what I’m hearing is a lot of people say “cheats” without being willing to go into any detail as to how they feel City have cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm impressed that this thread is still going with general civility of conversation.

I don't dislike City but they, alongside the likes of PSG and RBL, appear to be a lightening rod for dissatisfaction with the modern game and the dominance of money.

The Augsburg club president, Klaus Hofmann, said “football has to decide whether it wants to be a sporting competition again or if it just wants to be an entertainment industry”. That's said in the shadow of Bayern dominance and dislike of RBL but I think that's a neat summary of where football is personally. Those that want the sport to be more about level playing field will vilify clubs that distort it through investment (even allowable investment).

The reality though is that even the 'state owned' clubs (as that clown Tebas calls them) have income that is not substantially different to other major clubs. So unless they're just plain hiding income (which I don't believe) there's no real substance to the argument. The likes of City, PSG and Chelsea before them have just gate-crashed the party.

So is there a genuine reason to dislike City or PSG more than Utd or Liverpool or Juve or Bayern? Not really, they still use money to buy success - every big team does. The only argument put forward is one of organic growth v's financial doping but every major club has had financial advantages at some point in their development.

Personally I'd like football to be a competitive sport but am accepting that the lid is off pandora's box now. In fact given the lid is off I'd probably be in favour of allowing more owner investment, at least then more teams might be able to join the party. It's not like the major European league are competitive right now so what are we trying to protect?

I think there’s a slightly different argument there too, I’m reserving full judgment til I see the full CAS verdict but there could well be a case of being unfairly treated by Uefa - its that sentiment that led to the second part of the judgment being upheld ultimately.

In terms of on here though, yes it should be individually ideally. There’s been quite a few that based it of Uefas judgment that seemingly now aren’t quite as willing to do the same from an independent arbitration panel instead.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 56 seconds ago
I think there’s a slightly different argument there too, I’m reserving full judgment til I see the full CAS verdict but there could well be a case of being unfairly treated by Uefa - its that sentiment that led to the second part of the judgment being upheld ultimately.

In terms of on here though, yes it should be individually ideally. There’s been quite a few that based it of Uefas judgment that seemingly now aren’t quite as willing to do the same from an independent arbitration panel instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Naby,

The irritating thing to me is there was a perfectly good set of rules in place that properly protected clubs that were ripped up when clubs started circumventing them and setting up plcs and forced the authorities hands. It’s that that started to open the Pandora’s box.

Personally I’d like to see greater distribution of wealth within the game. The prIze money on offer for the CL has created far bigger issues and Uefa sorting that out would have done much more good for the game than ffp. They don’t really care about the domestic leagues though and nor do most of the clubs involved in their competitions (ourselves included)

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Naby8 (U6997)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 hours, 28 minutes ago
What do people think City are guilty of? Is anyone willing to state the reasons why they dislike City, and what it is exactly that they believe City have done that goes against their own principles in regards to the game?

Because a lot of what I’m hearing is a lot of people say “cheats” without being willing to go into any detail as to how they feel City have cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm impressed that this thread is still going with general civility of conversation.

I don't dislike City but they, alongside the likes of PSG and RBL, appear to be a lightening rod for dissatisfaction with the modern game and the dominance of money.

The Augsburg club president, Klaus Hofmann, said “football has to decide whether it wants to be a sporting competition again or if it just wants to be an entertainment industry”. That's said in the shadow of Bayern dominance and dislike of RBL but I think that's a neat summary of where football is personally. Those that want the sport to be more about level playing field will vilify clubs that distort it through investment (even allowable investment).

The reality though is that even the 'state owned' clubs (as that clown Tebas calls them) have income that is not substantially different to other major clubs. So unless they're just plain hiding income (which I don't believe) there's no real substance to the argument. The likes of City, PSG and Chelsea before them have just gate-crashed the party.

So is there a genuine reason to dislike City or PSG more than Utd or Liverpool or Juve or Bayern? Not really, they still use money to buy success - every big team does. The only argument put forward is one of organic growth v's financial doping but every major club has had financial advantages at some point in their development.

Personally I'd like football to be a competitive sport but am accepting that the lid is off pandora's box now. In fact given the lid is off I'd probably be in favour of allowing more owner investment, at least then more teams might be able to join the party. It's not like the major European league are competitive right now so what are we trying to protect?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really a sport is it, it’s f*cking showbiz.

And it can’t truly be about protection without also assessing balance sheets, which it shouldn’t do.

Ultimately, it shouldn’t be for Uefa at all to be implementing financial fair play if their only concern is for those that enter their competitions. Their own competitions by their very nature are financially unfair to most because of the huge amounts of prize money on offer to those within them compared to those that aren’t.

What they should be doing is reducing the prize winnings and distributing more to all of the domestic leagues. It won’t happen though, partly because the ECA is predominately made up of those clubs at the upper table anyway and they won’t change it.

*should do, that first line should have said