- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Man City charged by Premier League
Posted on 2/7/23 at 3:34 pm to BleedPurpleGold
Posted on 2/7/23 at 3:34 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
I'm not sure they're being outmanaged, as much as out-bought.
Again, look at the net transfer data.
Even if you go back 10 years, they're not #1. Hell, they're not even the #1 team in Manchester the past 10 years
1
Posted on 2/7/23 at 3:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Even if you go back 10 years, they're not #1.
At the end of the investigative period (2018), and the start of the 5-year period you are picking to use (2018), they are. Objectively, they are. And by a wide margin.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 3:48 pm to BleedPurpleGold
You’re arguing with someone who’s only hobby in life is arguing on an online sports message board.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 4:09 pm to OldmanBeasley
Posted on 2/7/23 at 11:23 pm to cwil177
Kdb,Salah,Hazzard, all on the same team and under 24 years old and like a dream it's gone....
Posted on 2/8/23 at 6:05 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
At the end of the investigative period (2018), and the start of the 5-year period you are picking to use (2018), they are. Objectively, they are. And by a wide margin.
LINK
This has Man U at -1.181B and Man City at -979B the past 10 years.
I posted the link earlier with the 5-year rankings, but the link above basically confirms the same.
Are you just cherry picking specific years to fit your argument and not responding to what I'm actually saying or something?
Posted on 2/8/23 at 6:06 am to OldmanBeasley
quote:
You’re arguing with someone who’s only hobby in life is arguing on an online sports message board.
Well that's not true
Posted on 2/8/23 at 6:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Going back to my post/question earlier in the thread, he appears to be using the actual timeframe that caused the investigation while you continue to use a timeframe that includes a period of time that they were under investigation, and presumably more on the up and up.
Are you just cherry picking specific years to fit your argument and not responding to what I'm actually saying or something?
Posted on 2/8/23 at 7:51 am to MOT
quote:
Going back to my post/question earlier in the thread, he appears to be using the actual timeframe that caused the investigation while you continue to use a timeframe that includes a period of time that they were under investigation, and presumably more on the up and up.
I can only go back 10 years for the data. That should include enough of both.
But my point hasn't been repudiated. They had to spend a ton to make up the gap with legacy clubs. Nobody is denying that. Once they "caught up", they have been a model team and have been more financially responsible than the majority of the EPL.
So all of this "they are ruining the league" is bullshite. Man U spends more money than Man City. Why aren't these allegations directed at them? Because revenue sourcing is different? You really think that is the driver of "ruining the league?? C'mon. That also just furthers my argument that the rules are primarily set up by the legacy clubs (in power) to protect legacy clubs.
What we are seeing is that it does cost a lot of money for a non-legacy club to "catch up". However, once they do, they can be run better than the legacy clubs. How is this a negative for the EPL (unless you're a supporter of a legacy club)?
And if people want to shift this from transfer data to salaries, they're only #3 in wages this year. Who is #1? Again? Man U.
*ETA: that wage data goes back to 17-18. Man City has not had the #1 payroll in any year during that period. Man U was #1 literally every year.
This post was edited on 2/8/23 at 7:54 am
Posted on 2/8/23 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But my point hasn't been repudiated.
There’s nothing to repudiate. Your whole argument is based on ignoring the timeframe in which the charges relate to. Your entire argument is irrelevant.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 9:12 am to OldmanBeasley
quote:
Your whole argument is based on ignoring the timeframe
I provided 5 and 10 year data
Is there good data further back? I couldn't find any
quote:
which the charges relate to
I don't care about the charges. My whole point is the regulations that create those charges are bad and bad for the EPL.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 9:17 am to OldmanBeasley
quote:That’s the point I’m getting at or asking to clarify.
Your whole argument is based on ignoring the timeframe in which the charges relate to. Your entire argument is irrelevant.
Also, doesn’t one of the charges against them involve “shadow contracts”? So who cares what the stated wages are, and in particular who cares what they were the last three years since they aren’t even covered as part of the investigation?
Posted on 2/8/23 at 9:31 am to MOT
quote:I haven’t read to much into the exact charges but I know this is one of the big deals coming from the investigation. The transfer fees and contracts that are on paper were not accurate and people were being paid through other means (whether that was under the table or by other intermediaries).
Also, doesn’t one of the charges against them involve “shadow contracts”? So who cares what the stated wages are, and in particular who cares what they were the last three years since they aren’t even covered as part of the investigation?
Posted on 2/8/23 at 9:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This has Man U at -1.181B and Man City at -979B the past 10 years.
You do understand that Man Utd has way more global reach and earns way more money than City ever has? You can spend what you earn and they were making the money to do that. City was not and had to cheat the system to even get close to Man Utd which was illegal and still is.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 9:50 am to ButchJonesFB
City fans are objectively ignorant if they do not understand why this is happening to their club. Imagine if the Clippers all of the sudden started thinking they were on the same global scale as the Lakers and were spending as if the revenue they were generating was the same. Now imagine them going way over the salary cap (over financial fair play rules) and building a roster so good it won 6 NBA titles in 12 years. MAN Utd will always be a bigger club than MAN City globally.
This would never happen but it did with MAN City and they should face punishment for that because it ruins the integrity of the league and has changed history forever.
I feel bad for the City fans but to sit here and not acknowledge wrong doing in the slightest is arrogant and ignorant.
This would never happen but it did with MAN City and they should face punishment for that because it ruins the integrity of the league and has changed history forever.
I feel bad for the City fans but to sit here and not acknowledge wrong doing in the slightest is arrogant and ignorant.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 10:10 am to SlowFlowPro
City's past hundred year has been of constant relegation between the divisions.
And who cares about net spend if they are fudging their numbers anyway and fudging the values they sold players and taking money from other clubs to pay managers under the table?
They fricking cheated to get where they are at today. And their accounting i guarantee isnt up to scratch.
And who cares about net spend if they are fudging their numbers anyway and fudging the values they sold players and taking money from other clubs to pay managers under the table?
They fricking cheated to get where they are at today. And their accounting i guarantee isnt up to scratch.
This post was edited on 2/8/23 at 10:14 am
Posted on 2/8/23 at 10:19 am to dgnx6
Wonder how closely Newcastle is watching this outcome with city
Newcastle Employee "Oh I see so we can't do that....."
(Quickly reshuffles financials to avoid whatever comes for city)
Newcastle Employee "Oh I see so we can't do that....."
(Quickly reshuffles financials to avoid whatever comes for city)
Posted on 2/8/23 at 10:48 am to ButchJonesFB
quote:
You do understand that Man Utd has way more global reach and earns way more money than City ever has?
What does this matter when we're talking about spending being bad for the EPL?
Posted on 2/8/23 at 10:53 am to ButchJonesFB
quote:
if the Clippers all of the sudden started thinking they were on the same global scale as the Lakers and were spending as if the revenue they were generating was the same. Now imagine them going way over the salary cap
Literally what's going on today
Clippers have a much more massive luxury tax payment and have for years.
The Lakers are trying to decrease their luxury tax bill.
The Lakers generate more revenue but are a small, family operation and the Clippers are owned by a super billionaire.
Posted on 2/8/23 at 11:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Lakers generate more revenue but are a small, family operation and the Clippers are owned by a super billionaire
So let's use this exact example in English Premier League purposes. Man Utd generate more revenue but are not owned by a large "super billionaire group/country". Man City are owned by "super billionaire group/country" but generate much less revenue.
So how has Man City been even remotely close to Man Utd in terms of spending when by rule you can only spend as much as you make?
Being owned by Billionaires does not automatically mean they can spend and do whatever the hell they want against all rules
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News