Anyone want to spend 10 mins reading this article?

Do you want it posting on here, or the link?

It's absolutely brilliant by Martin Samuel.

Can you post the link or say which article it is and I can hunt it down

Still don't like the Fail for setting up tap ins for Fat Sam.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2552828/MARTIN-SAMUEL-THE-DEBATE-The-little-horse-Jose-s-latest-ploy-s-amazing-fans-lap-Chelsea-hypocrites-lucky-rich-rivals-City.html

Was just about to copy the content so people can read it...but Dawg's given you the link.

I've taken the time to post it below.....just for the day when the Gooner, Rag or Chelski fan starts their usual 'ruining football' nonsense....you can quickly cut n paste some great facts.

I know some don't like The Mail.....but with Martin Samuel at the helm, there are some great articles, regardless of what they stand for as a paper.

Having beaten Manchester City home and away, Chelsea don't need financial fair play or your naff headline Martin. You are undone by events. Jose Mourinho is the best manager in the Premier League on his little horse. Cassandra, Arundel
Except it isn’t a little horse, is it Cassandra? It has a £50m striker that can’t get in the team, and he left Brazil’s playmaker on the bench for the City game. The man of the match was Nemanja Matic a January signing costing £21m and the five-man midfield came in at £125.8m, just on transfer fees. So it’s a great big horse, propped up by one of the richest men in the world. It isn’t even that light on experience considering that Eden Hazard, say, has already won the French title and a European trophy and Oscar may be 22 but he has won the Campeonato Gaucho (the Brazilian championship for the region of Rio Grande de Sul), the Recopa Sudamerica (South America’s equivalent of the UEFA Super Cup), the Europa League, the FIFA Under 20 World Cup and the 2013 Confederations Cup. Oh, and he has an Olympic silver medal. The little horse is Mourinho’s latest ploy and it is amazing how many just lap it up; the same way people now parrot lines about financial doping and FFP as if they always wanted football to be another branch of accountancy.

 
Manchester City 0 Chelsea 1 and vastly superior. So you got that hopelessly wrong, Martin.
Nitram Sleumas
Is that meant to be an anagram? Look, mate, there is only one S in Samuel. Whatever I get wrong at least my intellectual skills extend to adequate copying. And what the hell kind of composition is Nitram Sleumas anyway? They’re not even words. Hold on, I’ve never done this. I’m A Trans Mule. Five seconds. I, Sam – Rant Mule. Three seconds.  Jesus, it comes to something when you have to start insulting yourself because the opposition isn’t competent. You should be ashamed, Rammin’ Sea Slut (five seconds again, not bad eh?)


Remember when Chelsea were going to sell the Stamford Bridge naming rights to compete with the elite clubs. Were they unable to do so? Chelsea are so jealous of Manchester City and the £400m sponsorship from Etihad. Treacles, London
Maybe the fans objected because I can’t believe that Chelsea couldn’t sell their naming rights. Certainly in these days of FFP no club could be blamed for taking that opportunity. Another triumph for Michel Platini.

 
I don't have an issue with Manchester City; any club's supporters would welcome a benefactor and it's hypocritical to suggest otherwise. On a smaller scale look at Wigan Athletic. Dave Whelan invested heavily and gave them the financial clout that rivals in Division Three and Four did not have. It turned out great for the club and the town. Andy, Wigan
Exactly, Andy. Football’s history is littered with examples of men who made a difference to their area by investing money in sport. As long as it is not in the form of loans, crippling the club with debt, I do not see the problem. In an ideal world each club would have the same resources, but the elite don’t want that; they want every advantage of scale while limiting the ability of those around to catch up.


When Chelsea were taken over they had already reached the Champions League so were a good team. Compare this to Manchester City. Without the takeover they would possibly be back in the Championship. Manchester City have now completely disturbed the market because they are willing to pay anything for a player, ready made. The youth system mentioned in the article also wouldn't have been achieved without money. If we are getting excited about youth systems, why aren't the likes of Southampton given more money for their English youth development?
Nbeavi, Manningtree
Yes, Southampton are a great example. Sadly, the fans will never see this great potential realised as one of the big teams will buy anyone who seems half decent. The only way Southampton could challenge would be to invest a fortune, but they are not allowed to, as the rules are rigged so only a few, selected clubs can challenge. City's academy produced some good players too. Shaun Wright-Phillips was perceived as one of England's rising stars when he played for City, so Chelsea grabbed him. And did City really disturb the market? Rio Ferdinand cost around £30m in 2002, Alvaro Negredo cost £16.5m in 2013. The reason Chelsea had already qualified for the Champions League was because of huge investments from Matthew Harding, before Roman Abramovich's arrival.
The Grand Mufti, St. Albans

Well said, Mufti. And Chelsea didn’t just grab Wright-Phillips. They grabbed him and stuck him on the bench. He was City’s one little jewel at the time, and they had no option but to sell because by then Wright-Phillips wanted to go. So excuse them for not apologising to an elite that had grown accustomed to plundering their territory and don’t like it now the scores have been levelled. Spot on about Southampton, too. With their youth policy if they were allowed to spend like Liverpool, say, they might have a tilt at the title. Instead, they are a selling club. And who benefits? That same cartel: Arsenal (Theo Walcott, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain), Tottenham Hotspur (Gareth Bale), and either Manchester United or Chelsea for Luke Shaw, it seems. As for the state of the two clubs on takeover, Nbeavi, when Sheik Mansour arrived in September 2008, Manchester City had finished the previous season in ninth place, and had qualified for the UEFA Cup; so not at all close to the Championship. In 2002-03, the season before Abramovich arrived, Chelsea finished fourth and reached the Champions League, but were only three points ahead of the UEFA Cup spot. So not so very different. I think City were in a stronger position financially than Chelsea at the time, though. Abramovich may have prevented a quite dramatic slide.


I cannot believe the ignorance that some people show here. FFP is not to limit the income of clubs, it is for clubs to only spend what they generate, which is fair to anyone with the IQ of a turtle. If you want to be big and stay with the elite you have to work hard and fight for it, not sit on your backside and wait for a sugar daddy to give you an allowance. You have to wait for years and years and put the sweat, blood and tears into your project, rather than have slaves and mercenaries work on it for you. Ukarmy24, Boston, United States
You know what turtles call Ukarmy24? Dopey. And here’s Alan to explain why.
Ukarmy24, you clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of the history of the game. The elite clubs did not work hard to get to the top table. They helped to create the top table. There was no top table financially right up until the 1980s, when the biggest clubs got behind the creation of the Premier League and the reformatting of the European Cup to become the Champions League, thus creating the elite. Income from the Champions League virtually doubles profits. We have therefore arrived at a situation where the only realistic chance a mid-table club has of getting to the top is by finding a wealthy investor. Alan S, Northwich
And now the elite have closed that route using financial fair play.

 
Manchester City are just a billionaire's play thing. Look at Samir Nasri, nothing but a turncoat. No loyalty except to his bank balance. Jwilson7868, London
Yes, that move from Arsenal to Manchester City in 2011 was totally different to the one he made from Marseille to Arsenal in 2008. What a rotter.



Sport is about fairness of competition. Fairness in that everyone has an equal chance of success based on their own efforts. If you do not condemn financial doping, then you cannot condemn Lance Armstrong or any other cheat. According to Martin Samuel, it is the club with the richest billionaire who wins everything, and not the club which is run properly in financial terms by earning their money and success. Both Chelsea and Manchester City are bankrupt clubs being propped up by rich owners. If you think that is the correct way to run sport, Martin, there is no hope.
Hollieollo, Stockport
What you describe is accountancy, not sport. Sport is about crossing the line first and money invariably plays a part. Do you think British track cycling does not benefit from extra investment compared with many rivals, or England’s Rugby World Cup win in 2003 was not achieved with the biggest budget? Is that financial doping, too? Let’s have a look at who won the League in the 14 years before Sheik Mansour arrived, eh? Manchester United, Manchester United, Arsenal, Manchester United, Manchester United, Manchester United, Arsenal, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester United, Manchester United. Well that certainly seems like everyone has the equal chance you mention. A three team league, was it? Far from being bankrupt, City have not a penny debt as Sheik Mansour covers all expenditure. In every other business that is called investment, in football it is doping, because the protectionists say so.



Who will lose if the Premier League becomes like the Bundesliga where Bayern Munich has destroyed the competition? I can't waste my time watching Bayern in the Bundesliga because I already know the result before the game starts. Pierrot, Durban
Yes, 13 points clear after 19 matches. If that aggregate continues, Bayern Munich will be 24 points ahead by the end. Very fair, very healthy. That is what happens if one team is allowed to grow so strong and unchallengeable that they can buy up their best players from their rivals. Just a thought, but maybe it would be easier to challenge Bayern Munich if fourth placed Schalke didn’t have to sell them goalkeeper Manuel Neuer, or fifth placed Borussia Monchengladbach didn’t have to sell them Dante, or sixth placed Wolfsburg hadn’t sold them Mario Mandzukic. Hell, last year’s Champions League finalists Borussia Dortmund might be more in touch if Mario Gotze hadn’t signed in the summer, to be joined by Robert Lewandowski this year. But that advantage isn’t enough. Munich, and the rest of the elite, want it so that even if a smaller club had a wealthy benefactor it wouldn’t make any difference, because those clubs would never be permitted to do anything other than sell to Bayern Munich. Jurgen Klopp, manager of Dortmund, has already compared it to Scotland and the Bundesliga will be dead as a contest within two years, if it is not already.
 
It would be funny as hell to see Manchester City expelled in to the European wilderness and replaced by Manchester United or Liverpool. Dave, Manchester
Yes wouldn’t it? Nothing like the triumph of the ruling class to amuse us all. At the cinema, I always have a laugh when the wheel of the King’s golden carriage splashes mud into the face of a cowering serf.

 
In 2003, before Roman Abramovich, Chelsea were administration bound and Arsenal with all their high morals bid £5m combined for John Terry and William Gallas. Nosferatu, London
Dave from Manchester would call those the good old days, mate.


All teams that win trophies spend big. Since its inception football has never reflected fair play. To do this, every club would be set a £50m transfer cap, to include a salary cap, over the season. This would bring down the valuation of players dramatically as they would negotiate smaller buy-out clauses in their contracts. Maybe money not spent in one season could carry over to the next, allowing a spending spree for those that first hold back and give their youth players a chance to break into the team. Nelson, London
And that would be true financial fair play, Nelson. Can you imagine the reaction at Old Trafford? I’d pay good money to see that.

 
No team has the right to complain. Arsenal won’t spend – so City shouldn’t spend. Liverpool have bought many players but not glory. Chelsea’s owner knows he can’t outspend Sheik Mansour so cries foul. Let any team buy whoever they want. I’m not a City fan but to see all these owners and managers complain is outrageous. Saj, Manchester
I notice Abramovich didn’t advocate financial fair play right up until that moment when he was no longer the richest player in town.

 
I am far - and I do mean far - from a City fan, but I do wonder how this squares up with various European Union regulations. Is it even legal? Serious Moa, Guernsey
Due to be tested in court in April, I believe. Also, the moment UEFA throw an elite team out, watch this space.


Financial fair play, what a joke. In Spain, Real Madrid and Barcelona both received £116m in TV money last year, the smaller clubs got £10m. BCK, Manchester
And yet Atletico Madrid are top of the league. So it can be done. But it won’t; by the end of the season, you’ll see. And it hasn’t been done for nine seasons now.

 
I'm no great fan of financial fair play but it is now part of the rules with regard to participation in UEFA club tournaments. As a result, if you break those rules the consequences should be as laid out. To use the argument that all City have done is what others did before the rules changed is utterly ridiculous. Godfrp, Devon
What Chelsea spent in the years before FFP is as relevant to the issue as the fact that Arsenal bought promotion in 1919, despite finishing fifth in the second division. It's amusing but the truth is it has no direct bearing to the issue at hand. BarryBwana, Canada

I agree. I didn’t say Manchester City shouldn’t have to abide by rules. I said the rules are poorly implemented and Chelsea are hypocrites. And they are.

 
Arsenal have the backing of a billionaire called Alisher Usmanov, but prefer to run the club the proper way, not relying on one man’s money. David Pledger, Bedfordshire
Or perhaps the people in charge quite like what they are getting out of it, and don’t want to hand that sort of loot to Usmanov.

 
The other night I sat and watched The Damned United with my 12-year-old son. He asked if our team, Derby County, will ever win the league again in his lifetime. How depressing for English football that he didn’t say ‘in the next few years’. The Sky money and especially the Champions League has created the most predictable and boring top flight ever. Financial fair play will only exacerbate this. No matter how much hype Sky gives us about the Premier League, the unpredictable days when a team could go from the second division to champions like Nottingham Forest did are gone. At least with a mysterious mega rich owner, we could have some hope, but now even that has disappeared. The sooner the European elite clear off and compete in a closed-shop European League, the better. Steve1000, Nottingham
So the answer to that question is, had you been born 30 years ago, son, then yes. And even until last year there was a chance we could be visited by an owner who, against all odds, might change our status and expectations. But now, no. Derby will not win the league in your lifetime. But if you were lucky enough to support one of about four clubs, you could massage that devastating news into some form of moral victory for financial fairness. So you might as well do that.  

So everyone should just disregard FFP breaches because other clubs have spent money or not spent money? This is stupid. At least in Germany it is becoming normal to make a profit and return it to the fans. That’s how football clubs should be run – not rich toys and money sinkholes.
Peasant-from-Giesing, Munich
Look at your league table. If that’s how football should be run, it’s doomed.



I hate Chelsea and Manchester City equally. Both were average clubs at best who bought the league – I’ve no respect for that. Jealously has nothing to do with it. Why would we be jealous of being the most hated club in the world? Red&whitearmy, London
I don’t think City are hated; only by those who think they have a divine right to always look down on what you so pompously term the average clubs.  

 
The focus of this debate should be on the fact that it has taken City a whopping £500m investment in players, just to break into the trophy winning elite. Thanks to the Champions League that's how enormous the disparity in income has become. These buffoons keep claiming they earned their money, but the reality is they are a self-serving cartel that have reduced domestic competition to a farce with their wealth and advantages. Well done again to City for smashing their way to the top, and how typical of the greedy pigs that they should try and stymie this threat to their monopoly by introducing the pernicious FFP. Johnny B, Exeter
I don’t do a Post of the Week. But if I did, Johnny, you would have won.  

 
The reason it has cost so much is because City were fighting relegation beforehand. If you want instant overnight success, rather than spend ten or 15 years working towards it, it is going to cost you a billion pounds. Nasri didn't cost Arsenal what he cost City, but Wenger got him in and developed him into a better player - something that will never happen at City. And just look at how few English players City have developed for the national side since the Sheik turned up.
KV10, United Kingdom

As established, City were ninth and qualified for Europe the season before the Sheik Mansour takeover, and were certainly not fighting relegation. As for Nasri, he cost Arsenal £12m, had been voted Young Player of the Year and had already made 12 appearances for France when he left Marseille. That seems fairly developed to me. Using that yardstick, Manchester City can claim to have developed Vincent Kompany, Fernandinho, maybe even Alvaro Negredo. Don’t kid yourself. Wenger’s signing of Nasri was no different to many of City’s purchases.


City didn’t work hard and smash their way to the top. They were gifted a stadium I paid for out of my taxes. They have since spent over £500m that they don’t have on players. Arsenal may be many things but they have paid in full for their stadium and players and there is no billionaire sugar daddy playing his fantasy football. They are a solid club who will be around at the top when City are dumped due to boredom and are back in the lower leagues. Delman666, London
Oh, this old chestnut. Delman, we had to build a stadium for the Commonwealth Games. Then the Commonwealth Games was over. Two choices: let it stand empty and rot or reinvent it as a modern venue for football therefore providing legacy. Whatever you paid in taxes, you would have been out of pocket for, anyway. At least this way you are not still paying maintenance and upkeep. The same applies to the Olympic Stadium. We had to build it and the Olympics is over; so now what? As for Arsenal’s stadium, what about the compulsory purchase orders granted against local businesses in Ashburton Grove by John Prescott? Don’t think Arsenal weren’t helped.
 
Would Manchester City, in Arsenal's exact position this transfer window, have signed someone? Or course they would, because it would not matter if the signing was a failure. Arsenal cannot risk failures but City have no such problems. Sammas, London
Yes, Arsenal can afford to swing and miss. It has happened enough times in the past. The fact is, City spent nothing in January, despite having some injury problems, while Arsenal attempted to buy cover for midfield absentees. Unfortunately, the player they bought was more injured than most of the players he was supposed to replace. That’s not City’s fault, though.

Sammas, there are many arguments against financial fair play. However, for a brief overview of how FFP affects every club outside the protected elite, I suggest you look up Martin Samuel's interview with Platini, where the UEFA president attempts, and fails, to defend FFP. The interview is the finest illustration of the real reasons for these protectionist rules. It will open your eyes.
Abou Ben Adhem, Manchester
It’s HERE, Sammas – but don’t let Abou fool you. It isn’t brief. This is my favourite bit, though.



Samuel: One of the people who you have got in charge of financial fair play is Jean Luc Dehaene. He was in charge of a bank that needed to be bailed out £5.18billion. Not Euros, pounds. How can he be in charge of financial fair play? He was meant to come here to speak and the bank went skint on that day and he had to cancel. How can he be telling a football club, this is how you run your football club?
Platini: What do you want I answer?

Samuel: Just an answer. How?

Platini: OK. I miss a penalty one day and I score a goal the day after.

Samuel: It’s a bit bigger than that, Michel, come on.

Platini: OK, it’s not an answer. But he is at the beginning of the procedure, he has a contract for some years and we will see at the end of his contract, what we can do. But he is from the beginning, let us finish the procedure and then we will see what’s happened. But he was Prime Minister of Belgium with big success. OK, he lost one goal, he is not a bad player because he lost one goal.

Samuel: His bank lost £9.73billion.

Platini: OK, two goals.



City are a soulless machine. I bet most of the players had never even heard of Manchester or could point to it on a map before arriving at the club. How many of them know what happened in 1936-37 or 1969? How many of them know the significance of Maine Road? The Voice of Reason, England
Yes, whereas many was the time Chelsea managers had to tell Juan Mata to shut up in team meetings such was his desire to babble on about the Busby Babes.


The financial doper crying about the unfairness of it all are the real hypocrites. A form of FFP has been in place in the Premier League since its inception. It is called collective TV rights which goes beyond levelling the field and is in its way a direct subsidy. Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal, in that order, have by far the largest worldwide fan base with Manchester City non-existent. If these big clubs had been allowed to negotiate their own TV deals like Barcelona and Real Madrid they would be sitting on huge piles of cash right now. For the past 20 years pre-Mansour, City have been benefiting from a leveller mechanic and receiving hand-outs from the category of fans they lampoon as glory hunters. Now they've come into a bit of dosh and FFP is so horribly unfair? That's hypocrisy. Calvin, Italy
Yes and no. Point taken about the leveller mechanic, although I was once told by Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore that Manchester United’s TV revenue, even compared with Arsenal and Liverpool, would be so overwhelming the competition would be as good as over if clubs negotiated individually. So that’s why they don’t break away? Basically, because they need 19 other teams to mount a decent challenge and make the League interesting, watchable and profitable. So the leveller was necessary to create United’s revenue. It wasn’t simply an act of charity. And, by the way, that foreign fan base is fickle. Fall out of the elite and watch those red shirts turn blue.
 
It was OK for Arsenal to be propped up by Henry Norris, Manchester United to be propped up by the Edwards family and James W Gibson, and Liverpool to be propped up by the Moores family in their pursuit of success. But City and Chelsea aren't allowed a wealthy owner of their own. Without these owners, United, Arsenal and Liverpool would never have had a foundation from which to build. The only difference with City and Chelsea is that it's being done now. They are all hypocrites to complain. Harry, Newcastle
Are you suggesting that rumours of skulduggery 95 years ago by Norris, or his very modest investment, is a justified reason for slating Arsenal four generations later? Seriously?
Redfacedjock, Pembroke

No, but perhaps what he is saying is that every club has a moment in time when it steps forward by means of investment. Yet, suddenly, that is being judged as wrong-doing, even by those that have benefited in the distant, and recent, past.



 
City are great for the game. For years it was a one horse race with Manchester United in first spot and daylight second. In recent seasons it has been closer. And this season has been great.
Jason Singerling, Sydney
We are actually fortunate to have City and Chelsea. Had those clubs not progressed so quickly, we would now have a two team league, post-FFP.
 
This so-called business plan will backfire anyway. Like Chelsea, City just haven't got the fan base. When the Sheik realises he has put hundreds of millions in without return, like Abramovich he will be ordering his manager to sell before he can buy. Kickin a blue, United Kingdom
No, that happens either way. No rich man likes to be the mug, always with his hand in his pocket at the bar. That is why after around three seasons all vanity projects end up being run as businesses; and why FFP is unnecessary.



Arsenal have vast financial resources? Well, if they have, how did they get them? They got them through the steady operations of the club. City were a yo-yo team. They got gifted a stadium and then an oil man took a shine to them. If they end up in court, then good. Patto69, Belfast
Arsenal have consistently got by without having either the debt of their owners on their backs or the wallop of cash from sugar daddies distorting the game. So to lump Arsenal up there with the established football powerhouses without any sort of distinction is wrong. Arsenal are the club others should emulate if the Premier League is to remain one in which all clubs, not just the ones with cash from non-football sources, have a fair chance of winning. Stash, Malta

I see Mr Samuel glosses over the fact that City, who had nothing a few years ago, are now being funded by a country with unlimited resources. Arsenal in particular have every right to call foul, their wealth has come from sound business strategy, no sugar daddy hand outs there.
Trugun, Bournemouth

I take it you’ve all heard of Tony Adams, folks? Well, here’s a quote from him, talking about the influence of former director Danny Fiszman. 'I think that a significant factor, 90 per cent, in why we achieved so much is that Danny Fiszman invested £50m in the club and we were able to go to the next level. I got my first decent contract, so did David Seaman, we were able to bring in Dennis Bergkamp – and that was before Arsène Wenger arrived – plus David Platt, Patrick Vieira and Nicolas Anelka. We were able to pay them – the top players from around the world.' So, not exactly earning it through steady operations. A £50m investment by a rich board member. Couldn’t happen now. Not without being judged as financial doping by Arsenal fans, wantonly oblivious that Fiszman’s £50m would now need to be nearer £500m thanks to the Champions League closed shop.


Arsenal similarly invested in the grass roots at Ashburton Grove and, guess what, we earned every penny we put into it and got out of it. City have not. It is clear that City are taking their academy very seriously, what with all the prospects they've promoted to the first team. ScotchEggsRule, London
You don’t put 14-year-olds in the first team, mate. And this poster has the skinny on that project you were talking about.

 
Arsenal reneged on deals to improve infrastructure, and didn’t a promised youth facility/sports complex bite the dust once planning permission was granted? The coach park was another figment of creative planning with the local residents left with coaches outside their front door.
Lornao, London
And don’t forget the compulsory purchase orders for local businesses; because I won’t.

 
And the most important point. City have no debt, have cut losses by 50 per cent and will again, have improved turnover and have invested massively in the community, creating hundreds of jobs and places in further education in a very deprived area. How many other teams have done that? ThinnerBlueLine, Manchester
Very few, TBL. That’s why I like them.

 
Sir Alex Ferguson broke every transfer record, every wage record and outspent his main rivals combined in his first four years. That was not money earned on the pitch. That was pumped in by Martin Edwards who then put the club up for sale for £10m. Go research a bit of history before making imbecilic comments. Curious Mind, Christchurch
I can’t vouch for his spending versus that of rivals, but in his first four years Ferguson did buy Steve Bruce, Brian McClair, Viv Anderson, Jim Leighton, Mark Hughes, Neil Webb, Paul Ince, Gary Pallister, Mike Phelan and Danny Wallace, none of who came cheap. Not bad for a team that hadn’t won the title since 1967.


People don’t notice it but Tottenham have been working for the best part of a decade to be a top four club and have been tossed aside by Manchester City because they have more money. Tragic. Xeroz2, London
I think this is a considerably more valid point than the moans of the established elite, Xeroz. However, even without City, Tottenham’s problem is that they remain a selling club and were therefore always going to be vulnerable to a very ambitious rival. One might also question the structure of the club, the many managerial changes and various directors of football.
 
On the subject of trying to circumvent the FFP rules, what about Chelsea deliberately recruiting dozens and dozens of players and then farming them out on loan, solely for the purpose of increasing their revenue for future transfers. There is no way they have been signed with a view to playing for Chelsea long-term. Ady, Manchester
And not just Chelsea. Add them to Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool and that is 70 players out on loan.  

 
Manchester City being barred from the Champions League would show up how daft the FFP rules are – but imagine the army of lawyers brought in to fight this. Better still, what if City, plus Paris St Germain and a few others, sat out of the Champions League but kept buying the best players, until the competition looked silly? Igstar, Midlands
I’d say the legal option would occur before the casual acceptance; still, an interesting thought. I did notice that, despite UEFA’s objections to Manchester City’s wealth, they never mind using Sergio Aguero’s image to flog a few of their Champions League magazines.


Manchester City are not in breach of FFP and will not be going forward. City Slicker 21, London
This is what I’m hearing, Slick. Plenty of time for the establishment to move the goalposts again, though. Remember where FFP started out, and where it is now. It was about club debt originally, not revenue generated or annual turnover.
 
Martin, you forget what chaos City have caused. Huge inflation in wages has made it impossible for mid-table clubs to hold onto their best players. They also signed many of Arsenal's best, resulting in their barren spell. Sao Paulo Blue, Sao Paulo
Not sure about that. Nasri and Gael Clichy left in 2011, Emmanuel Adebayor in 2009. Arsenal’s barren run began after winning the 2005 FA Cup final. So what happened in the three seasons before Sheikh Mansour arrived? The barren run sent the players to City, not the other way around.
 
Let’s be honest, basing any limits on income keeps the elite clubs at the top and the others scrapping to avoid relegation. The only way to level the playing field would be a flat salary cap set at a rate the smaller clubs could afford, and that won’t happen. Anybody bleating about City twisting the rules is just being hypocritical, and I speak as a Liverpool supporter. Strangelywierd, Manchester
Blimey, a Manchester address and impartial. You are a weird Liverpool supporter.


Manchester City cannot be fair with their finances so they go for PR to counter the legitimate concerns of other clubs. Arul, India
Nothing wrong with being nice, Arul. Manchester City do have a very helpful and professional communications arm, yes. That’s not why I wrote the piece, though. Long before Sheikh Mansour arrived I was defending Chelsea – who had far from the best PR – against the onset of FFP. Perhaps that’s why I am so appalled by their cynical switch to Platini’s side.
 
Creating a New York City FC to exploit another revenue loophole is a blatant bending of the FFP rules. Gibbers, London
Yes, Gibbers, no money to be made in the American sports market. Ask David Beckham.

 
Gradual building of a team, or a billion in five years helped out with dubious sponsorship deals from relatives? Other teams in the lower divisions have tried similar schemes and ended up collapsing like Leeds United and Portsmouth, both helped by backers with no way of generating the necessary revenues. So, indeed, something needs to be done in football. DanB, Lincoln
Ah well, we got a fair old way before mention of Leeds or Portsmouth. Did you forget Rangers, Dan? Manchester City do not owe a penny. Leeds and Portsmouth were propped up by loans that had to be repaid causing financial chaos. If Sheikh Mansour wanted to walk away tomorrow, he is £1 billion out of pocket less what he can reclaim through sales. So City would be weaker, but far from endangered.

 
So seven years and over £1bn later and City don't think they're quite in the position to switch off cheat mode yet? Bergo10, Al-Quds
Yes. Strange sort of cheating though isn’t it? Investing in your business. Not as deceptive as giving Al Quds, the obscure Arabic name for Jerusalem and also a homemade rocket used for Palestinian Islamic Jihad attacks against Israel as your address, though. But then again, Bergo, they’re cheats; not creeps.


 

Go far enough back in the history of any major club and you'll find success built on the largesse of one rich man. All that has changed is the rich men are now foreign billionaires rather than local millionaires. If UEFA had introduced FFP in 2000, United would have won 12 of the last 14 titles. Is that really what people want? Bill, Barnsley
Some people, Bill. They’ve been brainwashed by the football as accountancy brigade.

 
City are also lucky they have the English media on their side. They know the Premier League needs to cheat and use billions in oil money to be the ‘best league in the world’ so defend City to the death. Fair enough, but pretending City have earned it or that in any match they play other than Chelsea it's a fair contest is very biased and agenda driven. Martin, Sheikh Mansour must be paying you off for fighting this so much. Let the, mostly new, City fans, cry and arrogantly defend what they do. Without the oil money they wouldn't even be City fans. Thatguyoverthere, Galway
At first I was upset at the assumption that I took bribes to have opinions. And then I thought about the sort of person who would write such a thing, with no evidence beyond personal prejudice. And I reasoned that it must be how they would behave in my position, which is why they presumed others were corrupt. And that made sense, so I felt better.


City will, in a few years, be an absolute financial juggernaut. Anyone without their head in sand can see this – just look at the academy and the infrastructure. City expect to break even next year - how long did it take Chelsea under Abramovich, nine years? WeAreTheKippax, Manchester
And once they are in that elite, Mansour’s money no longer matters and it is straight battle of wits between City’s hierarchy and those at Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Chelsea for the best players. Is that what the elite are frightened of, that they won’t be good enough? Look at Manchester United once Sir Alex Ferguson left, Arsenal after David Dein, how many managers Chelsea went through to come back to where they started with Mourinho, the Damien Comolli years at Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur’s summer spending spree. They don’t always look so bright, these guys.

 
Both clubs have brought success, and every true football fan knows that. Do we think the players at Manchester City or Chelsea are there for the shirt? That’s why I have no respect for either club.
H, Kent
Newsflash, H. They’re not there for the shirt at Torquay United, either. They’re there because it’s the best career they could get. No different.
 
What's dodgy? I will tell you Martin. Yes, Chelsea used money to challenge for the title, but have you forgotten we were already a top-five club when Abramovich took over? In City's case, they were relegated in 2001, were always finishing somewhere mid-table and then, boom, they are title contenders. That's what is dodgy. Michael Ballack, Germany
So it is the idea of small club getting stronger that you fear. Thanks for the honesty.

 
I think you will find that Chelsea were a top-two club and Champions League semi-finalists shortly before Abramovich showed up. Pete the Pole, Abu Dhabi
I think you’ll find they weren’t. Chelsea’s best Premier League finish was third in 1998-99 and they had been in the new Champions League once, the following season, losing to Barcelona in the quarter-finals. The year before Abramovich arrived, they came fourth and were knocked out of the UEFA Cup in the first round by Viking Stavanger.

 
Look up the definition of the word ‘sport’. It's not being a good sport to cheat. City are cheating. Everyone knows it, but City will make them all risk bankruptcy in court to prove it. Where's the pride in that? City just need to get with the programme or the rest of the Premier League will be left with one alternative: break away and form their own league without City. The Coat of Wenger, London
Look up the definition of the word ‘cobblers’ and…blimey, it’s your post mate.


 

Arsenal should break away and form a league on their own. They might win that one.
Iglooeaters, Manchester

There really should be a drum roll, cymbal crash facility with this column.

You wrote: ‘City are attempting to build from the roots up: academies, facilities, local regeneration.’ Absolute rubbish. If this was the case they would have done it without spending nigh on £1bn on players and massive wages. This is all about instant success to boost the ego of the owners and promote their companies. If you believe anything else you are deluded or a City fan.
Dtubill, London
I thought I explained this. UEFA’s rules meant that to delay risked being locked outside the gates permanently, remaining a feeder club to the elite. City spent because Platini made it essential. What you are seeing is plan B. Plan A was a more gradual process after an initial transfer market splash to create or rekindle local interest. Also, if Sheikh Mansour was an egomaniac, wouldn’t he be at a lot more games, lapping up the applause?

 
When Chelsea spent big, there were no such rules so legally they were not doing anything wrong. Now there is FFP and who brought that in, was it Chelsea, Liverpool or Arsenal? No, it was UEFA. Chelsea are trying their best to follow the rules by selling their best player, Juan Mata, when a good bid arrived. If FFP was not there he wouldn't be sold. Manchester City sold image and intellectual property rights to an unnamed party for close to £50m, allowing the club to cut its losses by almost half. Is this something fishy? Yes. So other clubs have every right to complain.
Era Var, Åland Islands
Look at the origins of financial fair play and where it ended up, I think the elite clubs had a bigger influence on its final draft than you imagine. Also, I know where those intellectual property rights have gone and why it cannot be disclosed. When City can make an announcement, more will be understood.

 
Why should some clubs have to abide by the rules and not others? Chelsea sold Mata so they could buy new players to keep in line with FFP regulation. Darg0, London
Chelsea completely deny this, you know. I find it hard to believe myself but they say FFP compliance played no part in Mata’s sale and there is no reason for them to lie. After all, if they said FFP was responsible the fans would understand and blame Platini. The club would be off the hook.

 
Chelsea are doing exactly what people say they are not doing: they have hidden their debt in the owners holding company by share equity. This company is thinly veiled: its name is Fordstam.
Geoff, Cheshire

As of 2010, loans from the holding company to Chelsea FC plc were fully converted to shares. However Abramovich's loan to Chelsea Limited, the holding company which owns Chelsea FC plc, was not. That loan increased from £701m to £726m due to the purchase of David Luiz. The accounts of Chelsea Limited (whose name was changed during that year to Fordstam Limited), show the loan as still outstanding at that time. Indeed, a spokesman for the club confirmed: 'Recapitalisation of loans happened at the level of Chelsea FC plc, not the holding company (Fordstam), therefore making the football club debt free.' True. But Fordstam owns the football club company, and therefore still owes Abramovich money if the slate has not been wiped clean. So it is not just City that have an interesting balance sheet.

 

When the Arabs grow tired of City, what then? When Segio Aguero decides on Spain ahead of Manchester, what then? When common decency and democracy comes to the Arab homelands, what then? When the local women get the vote and are permitted an education, what then? The blue moon will sink to where it belongs, the Championship or even Conference. City, your current set-up is no good for the game. Tony Small, Johannesburg
Wow, they’re all on here today. And I thought Coati Mundi looked nuts in that video. By the way, not that it has any relevance whatsoever, but women stood for election in the UAE in 2006 and were given a 22.5 per cent share on the federal legislature, higher than the world average of 17 per cent at that time. And City have not fallen lower than the third tier since entering the league and were only in that for one season. Apart from these tiny lapses in reason, a good effort. Please feel free to get the crayons out and write again.

 
Considering City's gate receipts compare to Aston Villa's the very notion of wanting to spend more than you have coming in is cheating. Now I'm sorry if building a club up over decades isn't your cup of tea. You want the here and now and I get that, but it's soon followed by the gone tomorrow, when Sheikh Mansour calls in the £700m debt the club owes him. You have no infrastructure to support the fees and wages. You aren't a club. You are a delusional group of supporters clutching at the limelight like a moth to a flame. Nice football, but an embarrassment to the league off the pitch.
Wambam, Brighton

No, Wambam, it is building up a club over decades that is finished. Don’t you get it? If Aston Villa ever produce or develop a player with Champions League potential again, he will now be bought by the elite, who are the only ones capable of investment. It’s gone. It’s over. Randy Lerner tried to break into that Champions League pack, realised how much it would cost, and withdrew. Now, sadly, it is too late because the new rules prevent the necessary investment. He would quite possibly sell tomorrow if the price was right. But who would want to buy Villa now that nobody is allowed to sink the money in that might realise the club’s excellent potential? Lerner is firmly against FFP, and only too aware of its dreadful consequences.


If the sugar daddy clubs are allowed free rein, the Premier League becomes as boring and uncompetitive as La Liga. Matt, London
Opposite. Take away the sugar daddy clubs – Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea and Manchester City – and the Premier League has been won by two clubs, Arsenal and Manchester United, making it far less competitive than La Liga since 1992.
 
UEFA didn't step in when things went wrong at Leeds United and Portsmouth.
Bushman, Manchester
And the likes of Chelsea didn’t care, either. Not a word about financial regulation as those clubs fell into crisis while Chelsea grew and grew. It isn’t what went wrong that bothers them; it is what is going right at Manchester City.
 
How many players in the City squad are youth developed? None. City, like Chelsea, just buy and buy without any intention of developing local talent. Some shining stars this season: Adnan Januzaj, Jon Flanagan, Nabil Bentaleb, Serge Gnabry and Seamus Coleman – none of whom would have been given a minute on the pitch for City or Chelsea, as both would rather sign someone for £30m who is already established. ChrisE, Bangkok
So, here we go, Chris’s local talent in full. Gnabry was born in Stuttgart and was signed by Arsenal from VfB Stuttgart for £100,000 but had to wait until his 16th birthday for the deal to go through. Januzaj was born in Brussels and was another school leaver snapped up by the avaricious Premier League, leaving Anderlecht for Manchester United at 16. Bentaleb was born in Lille and came through the academy there, later joining Mouscron in Belgium before being picked up by Tottenham at 17. Notice any patterns here? Coleman, from Donegal, had actually made 55 appearances for Sligo Rovers in Ireland when Everton signed him for £60,000 in January 2009 at the age of 20. So that leaves Flanagan, as the only one of your shining stars of 2013-14 who was actually wholly developed by his club, Liverpool, and was born in England. By your reckoning, Manchester City could lay equal claim to Joe Hart – after all he only played 54 games for Shrewsbury Town – and certainly to Micah Richards. And I will be amazed if Marcos Lopes is not a first-team regular there very soon. John Terry, by the way, trumps them all.
 
City have created trickle down costs, not trickle down benefits. They have caused substantial inflation to both transfer fees and wages. The only way for other clubs to compete is through increasing ticket prices. Daltònic, London
The dearest tickets are at Arsenal, the club that sold Adebayor, Nasri and Clichy to City for £57m. It is hardly City’s fault if Arsenal banked that and still raised prices. By the way: Phil Jones to Manchester United, £16.5m, Alvaro Negredo to City, £16.4m. Marouanne Fellaini to Manchester United £27.5m, Jesus Navas to City, £16.5m. Fernando Torres to Chelsea, £50m, Andy Carroll to Liverpool, £35m. Remind me, who is inflating prices again? Until next time.

That really is some read.......amazing how many people post comments that have not been researched or are blatant lies just to try to attack what is happening at city.....thankfully there is a journo out there that doesn't just repeat that bilge as if it's the truth.....and actually does know what he's talking about.

Some excellent replies back from Samuel......one of the interesting one's though is this:

When Chelsea spent big, there were no such rules so legally they were not doing anything wrong. Now there is FFP and who brought that in, was it Chelsea, Liverpool or Arsenal? No, it was UEFA. Chelsea are trying their best to follow the rules by selling their best player, Juan Mata, when a good bid arrived. If FFP was not there he wouldn't be sold. Manchester City sold image and intellectual property rights to an unnamed party for close to £50m, allowing the club to cut its losses by almost half. Is this something fishy? Yes. So other clubs have every right to complain.
Era Var, Åland Islands
Look at the origins of financial fair play and where it ended up, I think the elite clubs had a bigger influence on its final draft than you imagine. Also, I know where those intellectual property rights have gone and why it cannot be disclosed. When City can make an announcement, more will be understood.

True, Mainerd. It's a shame he's at the Fail, really, he should be at a proper paper instead.

A lot of the guff put out by those commenters is the same bollocks being perpetuated by the clubs. It's the sort of thing that, when repeated often enough, becomes accepted truth which nobody seeks to challenge. This is pretty much where we are now with the comments of "Championship club lottery winner mercenary buying market crippling cheats."

Still, when you look at the league table and there's five teams who are potentially in with a shot with just three months left to go, I have to wonder just how we're ruining fooball, compared to the giant talent hoover that is Bayern Munich currently out on their own, in a league which allegedly does things properly...

blueboy wrote:Some excellent replies back from Samuel......one of the interesting one's though is this:

When Chelsea spent big, there were no such rules so legally they were not doing anything wrong. Now there is FFP and who brought that in, was it Chelsea, Liverpool or Arsenal? No, it was UEFA. Chelsea are trying their best to follow the rules by selling their best player, Juan Mata, when a good bid arrived. If FFP was not there he wouldn't be sold. Manchester City sold image and intellectual property rights to an unnamed party for close to £50m, allowing the club to cut its losses by almost half. Is this something fishy? Yes. So other clubs have every right to complain.
Era Var, Åland Islands
Look at the origins of financial fair play and where it ended up, I think the elite clubs had a bigger influence on its final draft than you imagine. Also, I know where those intellectual property rights have gone and why it cannot be disclosed. When City can make an announcement, more will be understood.

Yeah, that is pretty interesting. Also very intriguing. Who the hell is it that owns these rights? Or is it something to do with an upcoming sponsorship deal which can't be divulged yet because of it's sheer brilliance?

The plot thickens. This week, I'll mostly be doing this face:   

Yeah....he knows, but can't say anything?

Can't be anything dodgy or illegal....as with that knowledge, he'd have a major scoop.

   I join you.

The thing I dislike (have I said this before?) is that the fail filter comments so that Fat Sam can score some easy goals.

The image rights sale is a key point as people are saying that's how City cooked their books this year. I'm dying to know some details.

One very good thing Samuels does is he always takes UEFA to town over FFP. It's such a shame the other scribes can't be bothered and leave it all up to him.

Topdawg wrote:The thing I dislike (have I said this before?) is that the fail filter comments so that Fat Sam can score some easy goals.

The image rights sale is a key point as people are saying that's how City cooked their books this year. I'm dying to know some details.

One very good thing Samuels does is he always takes UEFA to town over FFP. It's such a shame the other scribes can't be bothered and leave it all up to him.

We're all going to club together for your birthday Dawg, and buy you a years subscription to that wonderful paper, The Mail..and have it delivered daily and at the weekend to your address in France!!  

Topdawg wrote:One very good thing Samuels does is he always takes UEFA to town over FFP. It's such a shame the other scribes can't be bothered and leave it all up to him.

True, but I know why they don't and it's for this seemingly unspoken journalistic credo:

Bad News Sells

While the 800lb gorilla of FFP casts a long shadow over everything that City (and only City) do, there's lots of lovely column inches to be fired out to the clueless masses, with lots of scope to spin quotes and mould opinion into a sensationalised story that is gobbled up and then regurgitated in pubs and by water coolers all over the country. A sensational story makes money. If, however, City overcome the FFP nonsense for whatever reason, then sense prevails and there's nothing juicy to sell to the slavering, brain dead punters. No story, ergo no money.

As a superb example of what I mean, I'll point to the recent story of William Roache. He was accused of raping some girls a few decades ago and the press were all over it, making out he was some sort of vile creature before a judge and jury had even got hold of the case. However, now it turns out the accusers were basically lying and he was cleared of all charges, the story's over. Except it's not, because during the furore, ITV put him on gardening leave until it was sorted. Now he's been cleared, the press are all over the notion that ITV should hurry up and reinstate the beloved national institution that is Ken Barlow.

The only ones that don't really do this are the grown up broadsheets, but even they're not above a little massaging of the truth if one of their major sponsors happens to also be a sponsor of one of the other clubs.

blueboy wrote:

Topdawg wrote:The thing I dislike (have I said this before?) is that the fail filter comments so that Fat Sam can score some easy goals.

The image rights sale is a key point as people are saying that's how City cooked their books this year. I'm dying to know some details.

One very good thing Samuels does is he always takes UEFA to town over FFP. It's such a shame the other scribes can't be bothered and leave it all up to him.

We're all going to club together for your birthday Dawg, and buy you a years subscription to that wonderful paper, The Mail..and have it delivered daily and at the weekend to your address in France!!  

     

The Telegraph have really plumbed the depths in recent times. Even Rooney tweeting the God Channel is news to them today!

great read (felt like I was on holiday) only time I read books.

skyblueoz wrote:great read (felt like I was on holiday) only time I read books.

Worth it though!!  

I enjoyed that, he really landed some knock out punches to some of these morons that believe all the usual crap being spun about city and the owners. Good read thanks for posting.