Bull Meachem said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Who cares when the rules are unfair and anti-competitive?

---

You sound like one of my kids when they're losing a game of Monopoly of something.

---

Yeah, after 5 of the 8 players voted to only allow 3 of the players get to participate in the auction of properties when a player doesn't buy a free property after landing on it.

---

Then go find another game to play.

---

We just might..... along with PSG, Barca, Real, Athletic, Juventus......

Press conferences for this weekend start today. You know all the managers are gonna be asked about the City stuff. Curious to see how the response is

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Who cares when the rules are unfair and anti-competitive?

---

FFP is anti-competitive? In what sense?

I think you can read through the thread to get that argument.

I'm not reading 99 pages. Should be easy for you to articulate how it is anti-competitive.

Not all teams in the premier league are allowed to spend the same amount of money fielding their teams. If your club is more valuable then you get more money to buy better players. If you buy a club you're not allowed to add money to it in a meaningful way to increase the competitiveness of the team in a rapid fashion. You instead have to allow the club to grow "naturally" in order to spend more.

It's a dumb system for modern sports.

Those that hate Man City will be sure to gloat and seethe over every detail of this affair, but in reality they actually don't want all the teams to be able to spend the exact same money in a structured salary cap and see who wins.

#casualfan

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

Not all teams in the premier league are allowed to spend the same amount of money fielding their teams. If your club is more valuable then you get more money to buy better players. If you buy a club you're not allowed to add money to it in a meaningful way to increase the competitiveness of the team in a rapid fashion. You instead have to allow the club to grow "naturally" in order to spend more.

It's a dumb system for modern sports.

Those that hate Man City will be sure to gloat and seethe over every detail of this affair, but in reality they actually don't want all the teams to be able to spend the exact same money in a structured salary cap and see who wins.

#casualfan

---

Casual fan indeed.

No professional sports league of ANY size let's an owner come in and spend way more money on salaries than their team could sustain. The only exception is the Dodgers who are currently in a major scandal and have completely tainted the fairness of the MLB.

It is so funny how people are like look at the giants and how they just want to be protected at the top. Meanwhile Man U, Chelsea and Tottenham haven't really had premier league winning shot in years. Leicester have the same titles as Arsenal. Aston Villa, Brighton, West Ham have all had competitive runs at the top 4. There actually is real parity and a chance to compete without spending insane amounts. So a team doesnt need someone to distort the market to have a chance. They can build success with great scouting, coaching and development. Which is great.

One thing that is exciting about soccer are the home grown guys. The Dowman's breaking the rank. That tie to a player that doesnt really exist in other professional sports leagues.

texagbeliever said:

---

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

Not all teams in the premier league are allowed to spend the same amount of money fielding their teams. If your club is more valuable then you get more money to buy better players. If you buy a club you're not allowed to add money to it in a meaningful way to increase the competitiveness of the team in a rapid fashion. You instead have to allow the club to grow "naturally" in order to spend more.

It's a dumb system for modern sports.

Those that hate Man City will be sure to gloat and seethe over every detail of this affair, but in reality they actually don't want all the teams to be able to spend the exact same money in a structured salary cap and see who wins.

#casualfan

---

Casual fan indeed.

No professional sports league of ANY size let's an owner come in and spend way more money on salaries than their team could sustain. The only exception is the Dodgers who are currently in a major scandal and have completely tainted the fairness of the MLB.

It is so funny how people are like look at the giants and how they just want to be protected at the top. Meanwhile Man U, Chelsea and Tottenham haven't really had premier league winning shot in years. Leicester have the same titles as Arsenal. Aston Villa, Brighton, West Ham have all had competitive runs at the top 4. There actually is real parity and a chance to compete without spending insane amounts. So a team doesnt need someone to distort the market to have a chance. They can build success with great scouting, coaching and development. Which is great.

One thing that is exciting about soccer are the home grown guys. The Dowman's breaking the rank. That tie to a player that doesnt really exist in other professional sports leagues.

---

Just wait for the man city contegent to point out that the red cartel was second each year they won as "proof" your assertion is wrong.

New owners come into leagues without a hard equal cap and spend money all the time in MLB and in soft cap leagues like the NBA.

I cannot for the life of me understand how a league allows a variable cap on player salaries and expect to be called "fair".

Why do you not want owners to come in and spend money on their teams? It would be amazing to see Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos buy a club like Brentford and turn them into a juggernaut in a couple years of signing. Why would that be a bad thing and why would you put rules in place saying "nope you can't do that in 2 years it's gotta be 10"?

Parity in Premier League is much lower than those in salary cap controlled leagues in the US.


The facts overwhelmingly support that if you want fair parity amongst teams for the most even competition you must have a uniform salary. I wish the other side would just admit that you are sacrificing parity for the sake of "tradition and locally owned teams" and just be honest. There is nothing wrong with that position, but at least defend it.

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

New owners come into leagues without a hard equal cap and spend money all the time in MLB and in soft cap leagues like the NBA.

I cannot for the life of me understand how a league allows a variable cap on player salaries and expect to be called "fair".

Why do you not want owners to come in and spend money on their teams? It would be amazing to see Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos buy a club like Brentford and turn them into a juggernaut in a couple years of signing. Why would that be a bad thing and why would you put rules in place saying "nope you can't do that in 2 years it's gotta be 10"?

Parity in Premier League is much lower than those in salary cap controlled leagues in the US.


The facts overwhelmingly support that if you want fair parity amongst teams for the most even competition you must have a uniform salary. I wish the other side would just admit that you are sacrificing parity for the sake of "tradition and locally owned teams" and just be honest. There is nothing wrong with that position, but at least defend it.

---

Im guessing you love NIL and what it has done to college sports.

What makes sports fun is the community aspect. The hard work. The tradition. The legacy.

When a rich oligarch comes in and floods a team with cash they lose all of that. City isnt really the same club. They lost their tradition and community when it became a prince's play toy. You see it with college sports. No one cares about developing players. There is no point in watching your team play after they have been eliminated from the playoffs because most of the players and next year's team will be gone.

Sometimes fate says your current lot is the underdog. Then you play the cards you are given and do something more magical then ever before (Leicester winning it all). Sometimes fate says you should be top dog but feel like year after year is a kick in the groin (Arsenal pre Arteta, Liverpool before Klopp, ManU now, Tottenham always). Fight through it.

Guess what if City leaders decide in 2 years to quit and take their ball home City will collapse. Their club would be in so much debt it might fold entirely. That is not what sports are about. That is what video games are about. Dont mix them up.

Absolutely despise NIL and it has ruined college sports.

The obvious fix was/is to create a $25-30 million cap for teams that wanted to compete for the CFP. Allow schools the chance to move from D1 to D2 and meet those requirements for each division. Reduce transfers and explore the idea of schools to sell contracts similar to transfers in soccer.

But it would be a uniform cap for all teams and probably a $3-4 million minimum spend.

An across the board cap of some sort is what needs to happen in the EPL if they ever want it to at least look fair.

A soft cap, with a penalty fee % for how much you go over that goes back to a pool for the rest of the teams, I think makes the most sense.

And the cap needs to be really high, otherwise all the other leagues will poach a lot the best player.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

A cap of some sort is what needs to happen in the EPL if they ever want it to at least look fair.

A soft cap, with a penalty fee % for how much you go over that goes back to a pool for the rest of the teams, I think makes the most sense.

And the cap needs to be really high, otherwise all the other leagues will poach a lot the best player.

---

A hard cap will never happen unless it is pushed by UEFA since any league that does this will loose top talent A soft cap solves neither the competition issues or financial stability issues.

And exist in a system where some teams have 60k+ stadiums and a worldwide following, while others play in stadiums with capacity under 20k.

And truly, as I've stated ad-nauseum, that's where the rules do allow for spending.

Elon Musk could buy Brentford and dump as much money as he wants into a new stadium that holds 80k. As soon as it was complete, it would instantly move the revenue needle. Open ticketing up to anyone - house would be packed against top clubs. Make lots of luxury boxes so your rich friends can buy some. With new revenue, you can now spend more on players.

It's a way to spend money that doesn't endanger the club, because it's trading money for a real asset. That's why they allow it.

City could've done this (and other things that are allowable), but it would've required patience. And to be fair, they did do these things - they just also did disallowed things to try and get quick wins.

deadbq03 said:

---

It's a way to spend money that doesn't endanger the club, because it's trading money for a real asset. That's why they allow it.

---

Everton supporter chiming in. We still managed to get in trouble during the process of building our new stadium. To be fair, the end result is worth it but it sucks to be a non-hyper-rich club with big aspirations.

But otherwise, I certainly do agree with your statements.

Well y'all used debt to get the stadium. Which is fine if you don't then spend a few seasons surfing the relegation line.

But in the case of an owner who has piles of cash he wants to spend… a stadium is a fantastic and legal way to spend that can tangibly increase revenue (thus increasing your legal spending limit).

The problem is, revenue is tied more to global popularity. Butts in seats is nice in a big stadium but it doesn't match the revenue that sponsorships when you have large global exposure does.

To get that global exposure, you have to have big name players and/or win a lot of big games (or you need movie stars to buy your team and make a TV show about it). To do that you need to spend a lot of money up front. Otherwise, you just languish away in a "maybe one day" that never comes.

Yeah I mentioned that one previously too.

I'm convinced you could apply the same amount of money legally and get the same results - just on a 5-10 year timeline instead of overnight. But by choosing the slow road, you also endear yourself to the community because you made a badass stadium and academy that trains local kids (even if that's just a small fraction of intake - people love good academies).

Texaggie7nine said:

---

The problem is, revenue is tied more to global popularity. Butts in seats is nice in a big stadium but it doesn't match the revenue that sponsorships when you have large global exposure does.

---

Sponsorship that city fictitiously made up by taking the real etihad amount of $10MM and adding an extra $90MM out of the sovereign wealth.

Pretty sure there's never been an attempt to throw money into these legal avenues by a new wealthy owner.

The old model was always to spend on players, so it's hard to fault City for trying that.

Problem is, they kept going when the rules changed. It doesn't matter why the rules changed. The rules changed so City's strategy needed to change too. And not just to whitewash and make it look like compliance.

I'll concede that the rule changes probably happened at the time they did at least in part to delay City's growth. Full stop. But there also was legitimate concern about finances and bad owners sending clubs into administration… and evidence for the latter is that they've kept going and added even more rules - as I discussed they added rules that prevent owners from doing things like what the Glazers did.

If you want to be butt hurt about the rule changes happening when they did, by all means. I think you have every right there. I do think most clubs voted because it would give a modicum of parity, but you're correct that limits new money, and I bet many were happy to see that side effect even if it wasn't the main intent.

But there's no doubt in my mind that City could've parlayed their early successes and decided to be fully compliant with the new rules, and they would've been able to achieve success. It just might've taken a few more years. And above all - once there's new rules - you have to follow them even if you don't like them!

And this is where the smoking gun is, in my opinion. And it could be largely cultural. Western cultures, especially Anglo cultures like England and US have strong cultures of legal compliance. Large businesses have massive, proactive compliance offices. They don't just react, they ask questions (i.e. "we want to do X - is this compliant?") Middle East cultures revolve around quid-pro-quo patronage. And the fact that City's owners are at the top of the food chain in the culture - it's not surprising that they acted the way they did… but it's not an excuse.

I'll also add that I think their strategy nearly worked - the investigation took an insane amount of time. And the strategy may still ultimately work - until a punishment is meted there's plenty of opportunity for bribes and coercion.

Mathguy64 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

The problem is, revenue is tied more to global popularity. Butts in seats is nice in a big stadium but it doesn't match the revenue that sponsorships when you have large global exposure does.

---

Sponsorship that city fictitiously made up by taking the real etihad amount of $10MM and adding an extra $90MM out of the sovereign wealth.

---

Exactly. Man City is now "well known" but that's because they were on the other side of the pitch from clubs that are actually well known. There's a big difference between actual goodwill and fake goodwill, or, as we commonly call it, astroturf.

Their strategy, even if they were putting their own $ and not Abu Dhabi gov money into the sponsorships, looked to have been successful, if not for one email hack.

What was unfair was Chelsea had enough time to grow their club and global popularity by pumping in insane amounts of cash, when it was perfectly legal, and once City owners came in and started that same process, they got cut off as they were just getting started. So we have a situation where Chelsea over the past 20 years has spent probably a little more than City has over the same time, but Chelsea got to do it all legally.

People can say the rules were about safety of the clubs, but no club has ever gone into administration after having an ownership as wealthy as Chelsea or City or Newcastle or Villa, ect in the time where spending wasn't restricted. It is silly to not make more nuanced rules that can allow mega rich ownership groups to spend on their teams.

Maybe. Like I said before, even with the new owner fitness tests (which didn't exist at the time either), it's impossible to be able to see all the extraneous factors that might turn a seemingly ultra-rich owner into a bad one that ruins a club.

Chelsea's owner's money became worthless overnight, as one example. Club was fine because they had plenty of tangible assets, but it highlights how even the best owners have things going on behind the scenes, and factors beyond their control, that make their money vulnerable too.

I think the rules do make sense in the context they're designed for. But I will concede that the rules had the added benefit of targeting City, and I'm sure many clubs were happy to have that as a side-benefit. And perhaps for a few, it was the main intent.

That's a moot point. It's a risk City's owners took by aggressive spending. Even if the intent of the rules were 100% to hold City or other climbers back, once they're passed, you gotta fight the rule while still following it to the letter.

Disruptors have to be above reproach, because everyone's looking for a reason to take them down. I say that as a Leipzig fan. Hated across Germany, but successfully navigating the regulations to climb (though stalled out ever since Rangnick thought he could be a EPL manager instead of the best front office man in Germany).

I'm not going to argue with that take really. Nothing wrong with it.

I'm ready to face whatever comes and if it is a relegation or worse, I'm not going to cry about it and say it's unfair. If they broke the rules then they risked that outcome.
If the appeal works on some technicality, I'm also going to happily accept that.
I think most City fans are ready to accept whatever happens.

nm

Yesterday so galled Premier League execs that more than a few were discussing whether City should be immediately suspended, due to the effect

That would require a highly unlikely vote, but it is also a sanction available to the Independent Commissionhttps://t.co/F40ffPLEVp

— Miguel Delaney (@MiguelDelaney) October 12, 2026

It is hilarious seeing all the reactions to the game yesterday.

All the non red cartel fans on social media saying things like :

I don't think @SkySports realise the way they are talking that literally all other fans apart from the cartel teams. Want @ManCity to win today.

— Dan Langley NUFC ⚫️⚪️ (@DanLang12) October 11, 2026

And all the media saying how horrible it was that the City fans were so defiant and exuberant.
As if City fans should all just sit and be quiet and think about what they've done. As their team trounces Liverpool.

Most City fans have accepted that their club could be relegated into the netherworld. Why wouldn't they enjoy what big wins they have left and squeeze every ounce of glee from it while it lasts?

How dare the City players do their job and win the game! The nerve!!!

Man how quickly things have changed since last year's title race, when most neutrals were at least mildly glad to support someone else beside City winning it, despite Arsenal's membership in the dreaded Red Cartel.


…


Or maybe that guy is full of "literally all" the bull*****

That article is interesting though. The league does bear a lot of risk in this whole ordeal. And the timing involved is awful. It's lose-lose. Let games play out and wait till the end of the season to punish, then you risk City getting another title. Do something now, then you have City playing in meaningless games for the rest of the year (depending on level on punishment). If the punishments are going to be severe and involve relegation or removal from the league, then I think they have no choice but to do it ASAP.

But yeah - as a neutral I can applaud the mentality of City's players to ignore the BS and just take care of what they can control.