Manchester City Euro Ban Overturned.

Barrymoped said:
If a billionaire came in and wanted to invest almost unlimited cash with no danger whatsoever to the club then you would consider giving up being a bear.
Really?

I think you would be in a very small minority.
Click to expand...

No, I said I might not be back to watch them.

I'd prefer not for Rangers' prospective success to be tainted by association with (in Newcastle's case) famine, bombing, human rights abuses and assassinations.

I think having proper custodians in charge of a financially solvent club is more important than having some human right's abusers in charge who'd be able to take us closer to winning the League Cup.
 
TommyV said:
Extrapolate that to Scotland then should we have some sort of mechanism to stop us overspending to win the SPL.

You either believe in the concept of financial fair play and apply it everywhere or believe in the right for owners to invest as they see fit
Click to expand...

No one said anything about overspending - I talked about correct and proper financial management, accountable to the governing bodies and in the long term interests of the club. You know, the kind of management that's not build on "for every fiver Celtic spend, I'll spend ten."
 
Barrymoped said:
There does, but not with sugar daddies who are spending their own cash. This rule should be to protect the clubs against utter charlatans like what happened to us, not genuine billionaires who are improving their club, not harming it.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Stricter fit and proper tests should be introduced and the process could be regulated by UEFA if possible. The FA have allowed in so many owners who have destroyed clubs, yet they are making the Saudis jump through hoops because of an issue with TV rights. The clubs should always take priority.

I can understand the FA's concern surrounding the Saudis BTW, but it's not the interest of the club they are concerned about.
 
BucksBear said:
FPP is a nonsense anyway. if a billionaire wants to pump gazillions into football, then let them. as long as its money and not debt. the real people to watch are the likes of the glaziers who are sucking money out of football
Click to expand...

FFP was brought in as a means of attempting to rescue a crumb of sporting competition; to make clubs spend figures which were in some way related to their revenue and NOT just mind-blowing sums from oil oligarchs.

Whilst it was miles from perfect, it was preferable to shite like City spending cash from Arabian royalty.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
No one said anything about overspending - I talked about correct and proper financial management, accountable to the governing bodies and in the long term interests of the club. You know, the kind of management that's not build on "for every fiver Celtic spend, I'll spend ten."
Click to expand...

Difference is that here Man City owner is spending his tenners, Murray spent ours or the banks.

Man City and teams like them have access to TV and other commerical deals that mean their level of spending is roughly proportionate to what we outlay compare to the commercial deals we get.

I understand why we wouldnt want to be back in the Murray days but Man City arent watching their owner use the banks money to fund their spending whilst dismantling all of the clubs commercial levers and pass them to himself or family members like Murray did.
 
Last edited:
BucksBear said:
FPP is a nonsense anyway. if a billionaire wants to pump gazillions into football, then let them. as long as its money and not debt. the real people to watch are the likes of the glaziers who are sucking money out of football
Click to expand...
Pumping money is fine while it lasts. As soon as the taps are switched off, the wage bill will cripple most clubs.

modern football is an arse
 
TommyV said:
Difference is that here Man City owner is spending his tenners, Murray spent ours or the banks.

Man City and teams like them have access to TV and other commerical deals that mean their level of spending is roughly proportionate to what we outlay compare to the commercial deals we get.

I understand why we wouldnt want to be back in the Murray days but Man City arent watching their owner use the banks money to fund their spending whilst dismantling all of the clubs commercial levers and pass them to himself or family members like Murray did.
Click to expand...

I maybe wrong, but I’d assume that the owners of city, in all their business dealings are well insulated against personal repercussions
 
TommyV said:
Difference is that here Man City owner is spending his tenners, Murray spent ours or the banks.

Man City and teams like them have access to TV and other commerical deals that mean their level of spending is roughly proportionate to what we outlay compare to the commercial deals we get.

I understand why we wouldnt want to be back in the Murray days but Man City arent watching their owner use the banks money to fund their spending whilst dismantling all of the clubs commercial levers and pass them to himself or family members like Murray did.
Click to expand...

Rich businessmen spending their own money on their own business is cheating. Sky TV money, which over inflates clubs' income by a ridiculous amount is ok though?

The Championship has clubs operating with wage bills 120% of their revenue because they are so desperate to access the TV Money.

Rangers were a powerhouse in British football before TV Money came in and ruined it. Sky have caused more damage to the competitiveness of football than any individual rich owner that's for sure.
 
ekgXTGU.gif
 
Another nail in the fitba coffin for me, not that it needed it, only fitba I watch is us and pish like this is one of the main reasons.
 
They have virtually strangled all opposition thanks to their sugar daddy. Did you see the FA Cup final last season? Watford were humiliated & couldn't get out of their own half-shocking!!! Why bother to fine them if they did nothing wrong? The 1st investigation was legit & legal but now it's worthless-why?
 
RaoulDuke11 said:
FFP was brought in as a means of attempting to rescue a crumb of sporting competition; to make clubs spend figures which were in some way related to their revenue and NOT just mind-blowing sums from oil oligarchs.

Whilst it was miles from perfect, it was preferable to shite like City spending cash from Arabian royalty.
Click to expand...
To be fair, they have invested the money in order to build an academy, community involvement. Pretty sure they are doing more for Manchester than United are.

FFP is designed to make the rich clubs stay at the top
 
Drumchapel-Bear said:
Rich businessmen spending their own money on their own business is cheating. Sky TV money, which over inflates clubs' income by a ridiculous amount is ok though?

The Championship has clubs operating with wage bills 120% of their revenue because they are so desperate to access the TV Money.

Rangers were a powerhouse in British football before TV Money came in and ruined it. Sky have caused more damage to the competitiveness of football than any individual rich owner that's for sure.
Click to expand...
That's it all the big Clubs Rangers included in days gone by where that way because of the huge supports they had ,when selling replica strips became big Rangers where right up there then came shirt sponsorship now none of this really matters with the money Sky put about it ,makes me mad when supporters of the smaller Premiership Clubs think because of the cash they get that this makes them bigger than us.
 
But how could this have happened?!?!?!

£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
 
The rules and regulations are pointless as no team ends up serving their initial ban/suspension which makes a mockery of the sport.

UEFA pretend to slap them on the wrist knowing their going to get a sh*tload of cash from it.
 
TommyV said:
Difference is that here Man City owner is spending his tenners, Murray spent ours or the banks.

Man City and teams like them have access to TV and other commerical deals that mean their level of spendong is rpughly proportionate to what we outlay compare to the commercial deals we get.

I understand why we wouldmt want to be back in the Murray days but Man City arent watching their owner use the banks money to fund their spending whilst dismantling all of the clubs commercial levers and pass them to himself or family membera like Murray did.
Click to expand...

The allusion to Murray was intended as an example of financial mismanagement, not to invite specific comparisons between them.

However, it's folly to suggest that a system of financial management that is predicated on using large sums of inherited and national wealth to fund a football club is some kind of robust and solvent way to manage, either. And that's before you get onto the ugly and as of yet totally unacknowledged fact of where this money is coming from in the first place. (Anyone interested in taking that one up, by the way? Nah, thought not.)

FFP is meant to be in the club's best interests, not the owner's. I'm not sure how anyone who has supported Rangers in the last ten years could not support, in principle at least, owners being accountable for their clubs. The it's-my-money-and-I'll-do-what-I-want-with-it idea doesn't really hold, anymore.

That's also not to say that there are other things in football that need addresed as well. I don't think anyone is saying that Sky pumping vast amounts of money into the game is good for it, either.
 
Bear all said:
That's it all the big Clubs Rangers included in days gone by where that way because of the huge supports they had ,when selling replica strips became big Rangers where right up there then came shirt sponsorship now none of this really matters with the money Sky put about it ,makes me mad when supporters of the smaller Premiership Clubs think because of the cash they get that this makes them bigger than us.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

It's Sky and their TV money that have created a situation were the likes of Bournemouth can seriously outspend historically huge clubs like ourselves, Ajax, PSV, Porto, Benfica, Sporting Lisbon etc etc.
 
Drumchapel-Bear said:
If Sky collapsed a lot of English Teams would be in real danger of going bust over night. You have Championship Clubs with wage bills 120% of their revenue because they are trying to force their way into the EPL and access the huge TV Money that is available.

I'd say the disproportionate TV deals certain countries have is more of an issue with regards to Financial Fair Play than a rich owner spending his own money on his business.
Click to expand...
The root of it all. All the greed and all the corruption endemic in football today stems from one man and one organisation.
 
BucksBear said:
To be fair, they have invested the money in order to build an academy, community involvement. Pretty sure they are doing more for Manchester than United are.

FFP is designed to make the rich clubs stay at the top
Click to expand...

It's a fine line, I guess - are we prepared to further sacrifice sporting competition and turn a blind eye to it in order to build a better infrastructure in the blue half of Manchester?

In the end, it's sport. Community involvement is great, but it all counts for fu*k all if the game itself is completely lacking integrity. Many will argue that integrity is long gone anyway.

Man City have spent over £1.5b on players in the last 10 years. I don't have their "community investment" figures, but i'd hazard a guess it's dwarfed in comparison.

The game's fu*ked when a relatively average sized club - indeed, small compared to Rangers - can spend that level of cash. At least FFP attempted to correlate income with expenditure.
 
Drumchapel-Bear said:
Rich businessmen spending their own money on their own business is cheating. Sky TV money, which over inflates clubs' income by a ridiculous amount is ok though?

The Championship has clubs operating with wage bills 120% of their revenue because they are so desperate to access the TV Money.

Rangers were a powerhouse in British football before TV Money came in and ruined it. Sky have caused more damage to the competitiveness of football than any individual rich owner that's for sure.
Click to expand...
Yeah we used to be a power house but times change with England having a league millions around the world want to watch amd the financial benefits that brings.
 
Money in England has totally changed the league & made it the most competitive in Europe.

It would have stayed Man Utd vs this season challenger without it.
 
Drumchapel-Bear said:
Exactly.

It's Sky and their TV money that have created a situation were the likes of Bournemouth can seriously outspend historically huge clubs like ourselves, Ajax, PSV, Porto, Benfica, Sporting Lisbon etc etc.
Click to expand...
And it won’t end any time soon as Sky are owned by Comcast and who’s revenue last year was £108 billion give or take a few hundred mill . Second largest multimedia company in the world and largest in the US .
 
£10m fine is hilarious.

Also SKY deal is financial doping, It is well overdue that football imposes a maximum income cap. My ideas:

Turnover maximised at (for example) £400m for any one club
Wages have to be 50% or less of income
Academy players have to be bought, NOT a £100,000 pittance handed over, i.e. sell on clauses and payments on targets etc....like any transfer
Youth deals standardised so we don't have one country (England) able to offer kids pro deal at 16 while Spain, Italy and Germany can't.
Wage cap can bed spent how you like but any 'star' player means less on average for rest of squad.
 
Earl of Leven said:
£10m fine is hilarious.

Also SKY deal is financial doping, It is well overdue that football imposes a maximum income cap. My ideas:

Turnover maximised at (for example) £400m for any one club
Wages have to be 50% or less of income
Academy players have to be bought, NOT a £100,000 pittance handed over, i.e. sell on clauses and payments on targets etc....like any transfer
Youth deals standardised so we don't have one country (England) able to offer kids pro deal at 16 while Spain, Italy and Germany can't.
Wage cap can bed spent how you like but any 'star' player means less on average for rest of squad.
Click to expand...
Something has to be done , as I stated above the gravy train ain’t ending any time soon .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top