AustinScubaAg said:Texaggie7nine said:TXAggie2011 said:
Manchester City's actions have, I think, developed exactly 0 sympathy for the plight of "small clubs" and have not in anyway advanced the argument for financial parity.
That's just not a cause for a corrupt nation state willing to lie and cover up actions to take on. And no one, umm, buys that they were just trying to improve the game and champion the small guys.
No one is saying that Abu Dhabi is fighting for the small guys.
They came into the league seeing what Blackburn had done in the past, what Chelsea was in the middle of doing. They came in with a plan to invest just as other big money owners have done in the past and take a struggling club with some history and turning them into a big elite club like the Red teams. They start that process which there were no rules against at the time, then suddenly the league elites push in spending rules and convince enough other clubs that it's in their best interests so that they can keep City and any other big investors from coming in and challenging their dominance.
It's anti competitive.
Then city owners need to push for changes to the rules not just say we do not like the rules so we can ignore them.
City net transfer spend was the same as all 3 members of your "Red Cartel" combined between 2008 and 2018. City's Net spend look better now because they over pay for academy players
Liverpool: -250.61m
Arsenal: -216.26
Man Utd: -659.14m
Man City: -1.192b
Red Cartel total: -1.126b
Man City: -1.192b
City's Net spend look better now because they have also over paid for academy players for years and have been able to benefit from the Homegrown rules. If City had been willing to be patient, this is one area an owner can overspend to help finance future transfer spending since academy salaries and scholarships do not impact PSR.
You are skewing the number by putting in 08 -12 when the FFP/PSR rules didn't inact till 2012/13. If you look at 12-18 City and Man U are pretty much the same in net spend.
7nine
