there IS a long list, you plum. There just wasn't a long list of billionaires willing to take an equity share whereby they have to do all the heavy lifting whilst the Glazers keep a majority share for doing nowt. If the club was up for sale in its entirety, it'd sell within days.
Probably a wrong example. There were few who wanted to buy it... but, from a buyer perspective, Glazers were very annoying sellers... changed the price few times on the go too i believe?
Even if you have all the 20 teams taken over by billionaires; three billionaire clubs are going to be relegated every season. Spending more money doesn’t make the league any better if rules are not enforced.
18 of the 20 clubs are owned by billionaires 😂. 16 owned by multi billionaires. This is a battle between huge global corporate bodies. It's not about football and fairness. Perspective.
What's the point in having billionaire owers when you can only spend what you generate?!! LOL! Platini and Blatter handicap PL clubs specifically through FFP.
Yeah Newcastle are owned by the riches owners the difference is they are actually playing by the rules that we currently have and Man City allegedly haven't been so there's a huge difference. But if you use your own money by third party means there's got to be something in place to stop you doing that because it's just circumventing the rules and is basically cooking the books.
This should be a slam dunk. When their owners bought this club, they agreed to the rules of the league. They were part of the process of making those rules. No case. End of story.
The rules regarding sponsorship was changed after they bought city. 2021 rules were changed to stop Newcastle doing what city and Blackburn and multiple other clubs benefit from inflated sponsorship. They got scared of the massive wealth behind Newcastle's owners and wanted to stop them being able to compete at the top. So city complaining about these is fine as this rule has only been in place for 3 years.
@@Genekellystand You cannot even sell out your stadium!!! City fans are actually delusional. I remember when City was a real club not some plastic cheating farce.
Probably just for legal clarity. This is a completely separate case, not like they are countersuing the 115. Although it can directly benefit them in alleviating the 115 charges down the road.
Because even if they win the case against the PL, it won’t affect the ruling of the charges. It’s either they broke the rules as it was at the time or they didn’t. Everything else is secondary and separate
They are separate cases but they are very much linked, if city win then the new rule in 2021 has a lot of doubt in it which it could be argued that the laws that a substantial amount of the charges is thrown into doubt, it's like if this rule is bad now why was it good then
We need to understand the overall aim of the rule. 1) to prevent clubs going bust 2)to keep a competitive league Different rules are required for the above
@@derrickwinter9737its sad that there were united fans pro qatar not realising the awfulness behind it. These are people on par with North Korea. Killers, dictators, extorters.
What id like to see as a rule change is a cap on how many players a club can have and on youth players so it stops teams just buying them all up and in turn would reduce spending a bit most likely but do that and scrap ffp its ruining the game clubs and the league again maybe just cap it at 2 or 3 hundred million a season
It's not 115. It's a lot less but they've duplicated charges onto the start of every new season Simon Jordon said. It's 9 or 10 serious charges which is still a lot but not 115
You notice now that nobody mentions FFP is there to protect clubs getting into financial difficulties like Leeds did, now it’s true purpose is clear, to prevent any club other than yank owned clubs from investment, knew it all along
The problem is not the billionaires, but countries like UAE or Qatar that have turned european clubs (like Manchester City or PSG) into state-owned companies with unlimited access to money, way beyond any given rules.
City are not owned by a state, they are owned by a company called the city group, the main man is not the top man in the country, he's deputy prime minister.
@@pauldowney4280 Yeah right. So why are the government of the UAE putting pressure on the UK government. Why have they arrested a Royal Marine for spying (which is absolute BS) and he is currently in a prison there? They're bullies who think oil can get people to kowtow to them.
They dint want this because instead of paying 8 billion for 8th place and a leaky roof, somone could spend 200m on a 'smaller' clubs and invest 1-2 billion and end up in a better position.
Man City has just become the most hated club in the country. They've found out they can't just break the rules so now they're trying to get rid of them so that they can win every competition until the end of time. They have no problem destroying football itself if it gets them a few more titles. UK football is currently being controlled from Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi.
Imagine watching Leicester win the league without cheating. Oh wait, i forgot they needed hundreds of millions on wages and transfers..... Wait again... Effort, discipline, team work and not giving up or complaining wins a match not paying £100k - £450k x 25
It was a one off and they ended up in the championship. Only four teams have won the Premier League more than once and they have all spent an absolute fortune. The exception doesn't make the rule. The people that have spent the most money have won the most trophies.
Thing is everyone is forgetting when man city was first sold to the Saudis... These concerns where all brought up. The worries being they would ruin competition and completely destroy fair play in English football. But the premier league ignored all of it because they wanted the benefits of Saudi ownership for the first few years. Massive names coming to England. Huge money being spent. Spanish league used to be on the premier leagues heels when cr7, Bale and modric went to Madrid to compete with Barcelona and athletico. We had a 3 horse race the same as they did.. Chelsea, man united and Liverpool. Arsenal and spurs were miles off. City were nothing. But afterwards we cemented ourselves as the best league in the world. We took primary appeal over barca and Madrid. But doing so we opened the door to the devil and now we're complaining about how hellish it all is. What did you expect???
The assumption that this will ruin the league is media driven, it will not. What it will do is allow the balance of power to shift to anyone there to compete instead of just protecting the elite clubs that have all the power. If anyone thinks it is a fair vote, you are wrong, votes are lobbied for, it's like politics. The sad thing is the way things are with PSR stopping anyone else competing against the elite clubs, the best players are no longer wanting to come to the league, we can see already the knock on effect, we are less competitive in Europe this year. If you stop clubs being able to pay top wages and top transfer fees then it will only get worse. PSR should be something that works in the background to make sure owners are fair, not something ruining the game for fans, any kind of success and the following season they are forced to sell their best players, cut price to the elite clubs who maintain all the power, and so it goes on and on til someone questions it. Good luck City.
To me this smells like knowing impending doom is looming with the 115 charges… quick lets get rid of the rules that have founded a lot of these charges in the hope it helps our case.
@@platnumjA foundation of success by potentially cheating the system and taking liberties. Look at the squad Man City has and they’re unhappy with APT rules because it’s “limiting their potential” They’re going to look foolish next week
Which means they'll spend to make more money down the line. It's not a bottomless pit it's calculated investment. Who complained about more competition in technology, distribution, insurance etc? The only way to break into an established market is big investment initially. Football is no different and should not be allowed anti-competition "rules"
@@nightowl7459Manchester city had won just 9 Trophies before their sugar daddy came in 2008 and don't forget Manchester city were in the 3rd Division of English football just over 20 years ago Manchester city Chelsea Newcastle United PSG and the Red Bull clubs are nothing but sportswashing football clubs
@@Genekellystand You sure will. Single handedly with an Arab Prince's money. Off the backs of human rights violations. Good for you. Don't be upset when chickens come home to roost. See Chelsea.
@@drubry1854If it was nonsense they wouldn’t be taking the premier league to court next week. If the Man City owners had it their own way they would have an infinite amount of money to spend on transfers and use their own companies to pump more money into an already rich club
@joshuaw9675 Do u know how much the Etihad deal is? For naming rights to the ground, naming rights to the training ground, main shirt sponsor, access to the CFA clubs and also women's team, and all this for the best team in world football, you'd think like 500m a year or something crazy, Answer is only 80m
@@drubry1854 until one deal isn't what we should be looking at but imagine if this case is win then Aby rich owner can have his club be sponsored by his company in billions
well what's stopping everyone else from doing what they want also? The biggest winners aren't even City. Its newcastle and ipswich as they have money but can't spend it If City lose = so what, we've already made it to the top and we'll carry on doing what we've been doing
People are stupid! Most premier clubs have rich owners, what Newcastle & City have are Oil rich countries as owners. Even if Everton can spend 2 Billion on transfers, City would be able to spend 100 billion. This needs to be stopped now!
firstly can and would are two separately different things City could spend 100 billion and then make negative profit so they've fucked themselves. Or they spend as much as they need to cause lets be honest how many players are you buying a transfer window Not to mention that if a club is trying to sell a player for 200 million, City would walk away if they don't evaluate the player at 200million and then go get someone else Secondly what's the difference from right now? City earn more so they can pay more than a club like everton By removing FFP, all you are actually doing is removing the limitation on a club like everton so that if they do have the money then they can pay a little more than what they've been allocated to spend which will let them catch up to the bigger clubs if they spend well and invest wisely. Thirdly FFP wasn't around 20 years ago and it was fine Why is it a problem now?
@@colonelcider8292 you missed the part where you are owned by a state. The money means nothing to these guys. They don't care if they lose money every single year. Its a hobby to them not a business. If City had done this the right way and still had the success they had then the legal cases would not be happening. City's owners actually think they are bigger than the league that the club plays in. City should just leave and go play in Saudi or start their own league since they don't respect the one they currently play in.
@marksedman2267 it is a business, which is why the city group has multiple clubs across the globe. The fact that the City group has built up not only the club but the whole infrastructure just shows that it isn't just a hobby. You wouldn't need to work nearly as hard if it was just a hobby. As for not caring about money. Be real, that's the only thing our owner is interested in. Showed up for the champions league final but never to any of the other games. This just shows that the owner doesn't care about the football so what does he care about? It's very rare to have an owner that doesn't value making money :/ Money means nothing is the most delusional thing you've said.
It doesn't need a genius to work out Villa are the other club...Wealthy owners trying to break the big 6 but up to the FFP limit...Addidas are Villa's kit sponsor next season and one of the owners owns part of this sportswear manufacturer.
@@philbarton2832I wouldn't be so sure, man city tried to bring forward a vote to change the FFP rules, villa were one of the fee teams that agreed with city. Villa are on the limits of FFP
@@philbarton2832I think Newcastle on different votes sided with the premier League. Oddly enough I don't think it's them. Especially since the owners hate each other
Aren't these legal proceedings almost as good as an admission of guilt for the 115 charges? City know now they can't get away with allegataly fiddling the books in relation to sponsorship, so want to change rules to benefit them in the future, after, as we all know, they get their slap on the wrists and moderate fine for the possible breaches.
all the issues in the league atm stem from jealous clubs like Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs, Utd, Arsenal not wanting City to get stronger and then not wanting Newcastle to be able to spend because then there'd be even less chance of them getting in the top four. If the shoe was on the other foot and they had the rich owners they'd be kicking off too. cried like mad to have rules brought in to put a leash on them. disgusting from those clubs. PL are a joke
Actually agree the whole voting thing is flawed. The clubs don’t vote for what’s best for the league, only themselves. That being said city should be relegated to league 2 and stripped of their titles
Ruining 🇬🇧⚽️. I surport United and that would not b fair to less rich owners of ⚽️ clubs. City spent what they wanted for yrs but every else worrying about ffp? Why was newcastle not allowed to spend? City broke rules that THEY AGREED to. And now there caught the rules r wrong.🤣Relegate them. Scottish Rangers settings
Coz we make fortunes... We gt 1.2 billion from ADDIDAS in july and £236mill from sir jim. Legal checked by prem money . If they pay it happy days. Glazers wont. Jackels all of em
End of the day the PL has tried to ensure only the branded clubs with history stay at the top, why can’t we have a level playing field, it’s not what the PL want. The PL is corrupt and has been for years, change is needed
These clubs thst you speak of have had over a hundred years to become a branded club, just like Liverpool, United and Arsenal. And here you are now hoping for a sugardaddy to give a quick fix. Bore off.
These clubs thst you speak of have had over a hundred years to become a branded club, just like Liverpool, United and Arsenal. And here you are now hoping for a sugardaddy to give a quick fix. Bore off.
Wont benefit the smaller clubs when United Liverpool and Arsenal use the same ruling to get individual TV rights leaving the small clubs with even less money
Sport is a competition. Having a team win the PL because they just happened to be bought by a country means it's no longer a competition, we might as well just look at who is richest and give them the trophy. If Man City's owners had bought Luton Town instead of them they'd be the first to complain
The last caller 😂 im sure he completely flipped on what he originally said 😂 and he also says ipswich and villa wont get rich investors already got them 😂
Yea, you get callers with no balls to back up their opinions. Or they don't actually know what they think. Anybody that thinks totally removing spending caps is a good idea, Is absolutely brain dead. It would totally destroy anything good that is left in the EFL. It will become another mockery Saudi League.
Allow it run riot until we start buying players for 500m then everyone will learn their lesson. City owners are worth 30 billion what if one player costs 10 billion then only Newcastle will exist
Except City's transfers have been excellent value. They never pay more than they think a player is worth. They are regularly outbid by other clubs, and walk away.
@@alistairmonro paid 100m for Grealish didn't really care bought Doku for 60m next got Nunes for 55m has failed this season no problem this summer you'll buy another that's what we mean
@@denisako6493 Grealish has the English player tax, plus he was big news at the time. Doku is absolutely worth 60m he's young exciting and skips past fullbacks. Nunes was a strange one but seemed to be a reaction to loosing gundo. We can all list a few players who haven't met expectations for every club on the planet. The point you seem to be trying to make is City could spend 500million and get who they want. Maybe, but they don't because that's not City's model. It's the exact same for United in the past buying a few 30-50m (was a lot at the time) players each season and seeing what fit and getting rid of the others. And it kinda still happens now but because they're not winning everyone just laughs.
@@alistairmonro the difference is other clubs regret their financial mistakes city doesn't care. They'll go ahead and buy another 60m player or even more just like that
As much as I want Citeh to answer their charges, Football is dead. Chelsea bought the league and their success years ago. Mid table teams being given blank cheaque books should never of been allowed.
What is the financial gap between Utd and Brentford ATM? How is club like Brentford ever compete with the clubs like utd, Chelsea, arsenal, City, Spurs etc. Please do explain
You don’t have a God-given right to compete. How are you gonna compete with Djokovic or Floyd Mayweather or Michael Jordan? Every sport has the elite. What do you think will happen if somebody comes into all of the clubs in the Premier league and spends billions and then what you can only have one team in the league and then you got all these billionaires that are very unhappy because they’ve blown their brains out. And who remains there the fans for generations and generations these people are just passing through temporary custodians of our clubs. We need the German model.
It would be insanely difficult, but it is possible in theory. Clubs have built their clubs up over time and increased their revenue like Tottenham for example or even Brighton. No one will ever build revenue or have owners rich enough to compete with Saudi Arabia. At least the current rules keep the money to what it is naturally achievable in the sport.
@@nirvanabliss9247 No we complained with Chelsea as well, but City were irrelevant then so you probably didn’t pick up on it. But remember City is a nation state so it’s not like a Bloke like Jack Walker or Steve Gibson spending their own money. And cities Royal family have £400B. So that’s why we’re complaining about it. And now City are playing the victims, “the tyranny of the majority” have you heard such rubbish in your life? There’s not much democracy in the Middle East is there.
Good explanation. Thanks guys. I can see both sides. The horse bolted with Chelski, its now hard to put it back in the box. If this was Brentford taking the PL to court we wouldn't say anything.
Why don’t they take an average of the turnover of all clubs and set that for all clubs. This would increase over years as all the clubs became wealthier but would limit the bigger clubs…
Manchester city was not an attractive club when they was brought by sheikh mansour back in 2008 ,man city need to win this case to benifit the smaller clubs who can be be brought by rich owners and propel them up to greater things just like city
If there were a lot of billionaires that wanted to buy small clubs, then a lot of small clubs would have been brought before any financial restrictions were applied.
30 years ago Blackburn were spending more money on players than most EPL teams while playing in the Championship. Then got promoted and went even more crazy in the transfer market signing the likes of Shearer, Batty, Warhurst, Flowers, Le Saux and Sutton - most expensive English player at the time. But hey most people don't remember that and think of Blackburn as the team that stopped Utd's dominance for a season without even realizing what they're actually supporting.
Why can't they allow teams to spend over the cap but have to match that as a fine that is share among other clubs who are below. They would in turn cannonly spend that on players.
Seems fair I'd go with that. I was thinking the owners should put 100% of a transfer fee + contract cost into a separate pot. That would protect the club from owners pulling the plug and decimating the club (which is what they were supposed to be for).
The idea of playing in America might appeal to American owners like at Liverpool and Man United. But in terms of player logistics and fatigue it could have a negative effect to the final position in the league.
This conversation is insane. What the world needs is for premier league to get even richer and spend even more money. Insanity. The football can only be so good, regardless of how much you pay for the players. Football is supposed to be a hobby, not the meaning of life.
Personally I agree with city’s point. Let clubs spend what they’re able to spend and then let the football do do the talking. My only fear is that you’ll get American ownership and sooner or later we’ll have a closed shop premier league similar to the NFL with no promotion or relegation
Surely competition law applies, you can't supress wealthy investors just because you don't like it. The Premier League didn't care about fair market value when Sports Direct paid nothing to Newcastle for their sponsorship, but it's suddenly a problem when the Saudis want to put money in the poorest region of England, neglected for decades by Labour and Conservatives.
Did Leicester have to sell Mahrez, and Kante after they won the league? Did Southampton have to sell Van Dijk, Pelle, Cedric, Hoijburg, Romeu, Tadic etc, when they were beating Inter Milan 2-1 at home in the Europa League? No, they had a strong core they could’ve built on but their intentions was always to sell. This includes Brighton, Spurs, West Ham etc The problems aren’t based on the current rules (though I don’t agree with them all), I believe the problem is the selling teams lack of ambition. City have literally bought players who were doing well in their teams, e.g. Nunes and Philips, and just bench them. Where is the competitiveness in that? Why not promote academy players to fill those roles? Manchester City are corrupt and deserve punishment at the highest level if you want to keep the magic of the premier league alive.
No need to explain how it would work. City already did it. Nothing they did was based on a fair market value, that’s how we got to this situation. The PL knew this would happen when Chelsea were the club spending like crazy. The PL love all the money coming in.
City knows they are wrong.. They are trying to wriggle out of the 115 charges... Its not fair at all on the smaller clubs. If they can't follow the rules they should go and play in a next league in the UAE or somewhere else.
"Nothing to do with 115" Theyre literally suing because the premier league rules are illegal... (the rules they mightve broke) "Were innocence and we can prove it!" "Well prove it then!" "No! Were gonna get say the rules are wrong instead!"
These callers saying city need to win for the good of English football are CRAZY. City’s owners have unlimited money. It will make the gap BIGGER. How are people not getting this? Anyone can invest in Ipswich if they want to. That’s not the issue here. It’s if Ipswich were owned by a country and then that country, with more wealth than anyone, decides that their airline wants to pay 500m a year to sponsor them instead of roughly about 30m a year. No one is stopping an investor from approaching any club and saying they want to sponsor them.
The new rules are to prevent small clubs from getting big. Also since when does a business needs to be audited multiple times by the prem, and a director of the sponsor has to go before the prem to explain. A product is valued by what someone is willing to pay not this whole what everybody else feels it is worth
Wage caps and transfer caps. It’s really quite simple. Tell UEFA to implement the same or they’ll walk. EUFA won’t allow English teams to leave European competition. If you want to play in Europe, here’s the budget cap
The Premier League was so much better without Man City and their money. People forget how ridiculous their spending was when they originally became rich.
I wonder how much man utd liverpool arsenal have spent compared to city since the start of football. Pretty sure city are Miles behind. Nobody cared when Blackburn bought the league
Man city complaining about fairness when they’ve won 4 in a row- that should be the 1 and only argument. All 3 promoted clubs that came up, went straight back down should be argument number 2. I can’t imagine they’d need to hear anything further.
Spending money in the transfer market does not guarantee success, yet that's always the focus. Additional income will go on improved youth facilities, training ground, and the stadium. The problem is that the money generated always goes on new players due to the threat of relegation and the massive drop-off in finances.
Chelsea are doing the same trick selling a hotel and training ground (no market value evaluation) to a related company. Newcastle should just selling car park places to the Saudis at 1 billion each and if anyone stops them say Chelsea started it.
Listen to this, let the richest league get richer, and have ownerships that only in it to make money billionaires become bigger billionaires all in all losing touch with the fan base rising ticket prices in a cost of living crisis nurses doctors real heroes getting a friction of what's in the Premier league it's sickening, la liga has scaled back on spending look at Girona and Athletic club and sociedad well coached teams competing weres similar premier league teams just want to take short cuts and spend spend spend!
If City are succesful, and then other state-owners buy clubs. You will essentially have a two or three-tier league. There'll be 3 or 4 clubs (Chelsea, City, Newcastle) who will be able to use money to do ANYTHING. Player looking great at Villa = unsetlle the player with 20m a year salary and offer 100m to Villa, they will do that with every club and every player. Any time a team below them starts to look good, they'll be picked apart. Clubs in that bracket below will only aspire to the odd domestic cup.
You'd swear City bought Messi, Neymar, Mbappe, Pogba, Dani Alves, Ramos, Iniesta, Xavi and Pique Just because almost all players City buy become world class is the reason for this noise, if City never won anything we wouldn't be here or the they had a British manager winning all these trophies.
Seeing English football fans calling for Man City to be massively reprimanded for breaking FFP rules is just pure self flagellation. FFP is purely there to handicap Premier League Clubs and protect the European Clubs outside of the PL, in particular the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona. Would Real Madrid have got such a clear shot at Mbappe this Summer if Newcastle had been able to table a £500m transfer fee and £5 million a week wages last Summer? In my opinion, a resounding No. Do we ever hear about £1 billlion in debt Barcelona's profit and sustainability when they're still buying players for 30 million euros last summer?. There's a reason why these European Giants outside of the PL are calling so boisterously for a European Super League, even going as far as to sue English Clubs for not going ahead for a European Super League a few years ago. They all want a piece of the huge TV Rights pie that solely the PL can generate and until we're prepared to share, FFP is there to make sure our clubs can't splash the cash as much as we could. Football fans, no matter your Club, should be calling for FFP's abolition, not its enabling, because its there to punish your Club too.
sounds like you want City to make the super league Real Madrid already wanted it. Bet the Italian teams would like a larger payout. Barca would probably agree Some English clubs were already flirting with the idea If City do piss off and make the super league then don't cry about it later
@@colonelcider8292 except the only people that care if City are in the prem are City fans. Go play in the super league you will not be missed, trust me.
@marksedman2267 trust me if City do join the Super league, that won't be the only prem club. If the Super league happens then the prem, la liga, serie a, etc. are dusted.
I'm a nobody, but I'm not even watching anymore if they are not held accountable. We used to exclude kids in the neighborhood who refused to play by the rules. How difficult is it to not CHEAT!?
Nice argue from Andy but he forgetting it doesn’t matter how much the club owner is worth ,what matters is how much income the club generates because that’s what supposed to use to run the club … not outside money pumped into it … that kills the competition
It's been going on for years. The rules were changed after the city owners took over. And then tightened when the newcastle take over happend. There is no doubt the premer league has broken the law.
FFP was brought up by the PL to stop a Chelsea happening again. Upsetting the status quo. City want people to be able to spend what they want as long as it's investing and not loans. If a player cost 50m and the contract costs 50m over the course then 100m should be put in by the owners. And protected from being spent elsewhere. It's quite a simple solution.
Can’t compete with man united? Last 12 years: Man united prem titles - 1 Manchester city prem titles - 8 Oh yeah, poor old city just can’t compete with the big boys under these rules. Lets unlock the rules so city can win the quadruple every season, sounds exciting to watch😂
