Manchester City

Joan said:
Barca is the crown jewel of Catalonia but that doesn't explain the mechanics of how the state backs the club financially. Given the international status of the club, our spending history, and the repercussions we faced over it... they're not doing a great job.

Step up Catalunya :staringpep:
Click to expand...
It's not "state backed" like an oil club of course, nor do they get financial bailouts form the state of Catalonia. But it benefited from being where it is and what it represents for that region. Institutional partnerships, tourism and trade promotion agreements, and cultural alignment for the most part.
 
malvolio said:
More or less. As in it is the symbol of Catalonia and one of their political tools. Also one of their biggest asset culturally. That's where the Mes que un club slogan comes from.

Why would it be a bullshit statement if it's the crown jewel of one of the most economically powerful regions in Europe?

A comparable situation is Bayern and Bavaria.
Click to expand...

Just as I thought, some vague statements without any concrete evidence how it works. How do they give money to us? How much money the state gives us? Is it yearly? Where is that money in our yearly accounts? You claim we hiding it or is it legit?
 
malvolio said:
It's not "state backed" like an oil club of course, nor do they get financial bailouts form the state of Catalonia. But it benefited from being where it is and what it represents for that region. Institutional partnerships, tourism and trade promotion agreements, and cultural alignment for the most part.
Click to expand...

Then say this, not claiming we are funded by Catalunya.

And what is wrong with if the club works together with the city and state regarding tourism and promotions? That is the most normal and logical thing to do for both parties because both profit and is in no case shady. I have no idea how you can even mention this in the debate about state funded clubs
 
Hope it's about city or psg ,cant even think what will happen if this mofo mention our name.

images
 
thestig said:
Then say this, not claiming we are funded by Catalunya.

And what is wrong with if the club works together with the city and state regarding tourism and promotions? That is the most normal and logical thing to do for both parties because both profit and is in no case shady. I have no idea how you can even mention this in the debate about state funded clubs
Click to expand...
Did I claim it was directly funded by Catalunya?

Nothing wrong, just pointed that out in regards to other clubs who aren't as fortunate of being in same position.

My post wasn't referring to City's problems. It was a reply to Windhook's post on how LL is a three team league, when in fact it isn't and will never be, unless oil comes in and funds Atletico, Sevilla or any other team.
 
malvolio said:
It's not "state backed" like an oil club of course, nor do they get financial bailouts form the state of Catalonia. But it benefited from being where it is and what it represents for that region. Institutional partnerships, tourism and trade promotion agreements, and cultural alignment for the most part.
Click to expand...

If anything catalonia benefit more from those things than Barcelona.

Nothing like what happens in Madrid. Where the state literally find ways to give them financial support in some very obvious and generous ways.

If you are saying barca benefit from being in a big city. Sure.

Atleti is also in a big city.
London has 3 "big" clubs.

That's doesn't bring any benefit to Barcelona, that it doesn't to other big teams.

Being a state back club like Madrid it does though.
 
malvolio said:
It's not "state backed" like an oil club of course, nor do they get financial bailouts form the state of Catalonia. But it benefited from being where it is and what it represents for that region. Institutional partnerships, tourism and trade promotion agreements, and cultural alignment for the most part.
Click to expand...
You listed is benefits that Catalonia get from having Barca not the other way around. Tourists come there in part to see Barcelona play and buy their merch, which gives taxes. You sound like late Gician. Trying to fish some shit that wont stick.
 
jamrock said:
If anything catalonia benefit more from those things than Barcelona.

Nothing like what happens in Madrid. Where the state literally find ways to give them financial support in some very obvious and generous ways.

If you are saying barca benefit from being in a big city. Sure.

Atleti is also in a big city.
London has 3 "big" clubs.

That's doesn't bring any benefit to Barcelona, that it doesn't to other big teams.

Being a state back club like Madrid it does though.
Click to expand...
None of those clubs are political tools and drivers of Catalan identity. Espanyol is also located in Barcelona, they aren't even a medium club.

I said state backed clubs. And yeah, I believe if Atletico was in the same situation as Barca is, it would be just as big.
 
malvolio said:
None of those clubs are political tools and drivers of Catalan identity. Espanyol is also located in Barcelona, they aren't even a medium club.

I said state backed clubs. And yeah, I believe if Atletico was in the same situation as Barca is, it would be just as big.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you still haven't explained how that benefits Barcelona on the field and, more importantly, in their books.

What is the city council of Barcelona giving the club for being the leading light of Catalonia?

There have been many demonstrated examples of what happens in Madrid.

The city council of Barcelona wouldn't even turn a blind eye to the very smallest detail regarding the stadium reopening.

While the city council of Madrid for the third time is about to reevaluate a Real Madrid CF property to the tune of hundreds of millions, just when they need it most.
 
Windhook said:
It's EPL's official statement on Friday's ruling from FA. An investigation EPL started. Nothing's changed.

900m over 9 years period sounds crazy, but the club won 3 out 9 titles and weren't attracting the best players on the market, either.
Click to expand...

They were attracting way before.
It all started with Robinho and Tevez (see Sir Alex interview about it, it's illuminating)
then Aguero, Adebayor Nasri, Balloteli, Kolo and Yaya Toure, Djeko, Sterling De Bruyne DAvid Silva and many others I can't currently remember

All of them well before Pep

PS: Stop bringing up excuses.
It's financial cheating of unprecedented scale and they are gonna get fucked, and rightfully so
 
Last edited:
Loki said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2104923231580835885

They were also informed in summer already and bought players for €500m. It's ridiculous. You want an honest punishment, annull the transfers they've bought and get them back to their clubs. Will never happen of course.
Click to expand...

The 2018-today period is even more interesting than the one investigated,
they did not only continue the disguised funding scheme, but become more creative with money under the table for transfers

Haaland the most obvious case, but tons of others as well. Just 3 recent that come immediately to mind:

- Reijnders gets sold for 60 m to Al-Qad, when it is a common knowledge the Saudi and Qatari clubs never intend to pay a transfer fee for players, just huge wages. In that way it allows them not only to avoid losses but even claim capital gain for a player bought for 54 m a year earlier.

- Trafford gets sold for 46 m to Leeds when they bought him for 32m a year earlier from Burnley.
Have you ever seen a small club overpaying to get a player who did not even start at the big club?

- Palace rejects 35m offer from Pool for Guehi at the last day of the summer transfer window 2025, only to sell him to City for 20m 4 months later
 
Jamque said:
These City breaches do raise a valuable point though.

How exactly do you, as a billionaire, buy a football club and bring it to the elite level without being allowed to invest in our team? It's basically business 101 to raise capital for future growth.

The organic growth protectionate rules of the EPL is setup to protect the already big clubs and is what curb stomped both Newcastle and Aston Villa as they reached CL and couldn't build on it.

Hey, I don't mind state clubs getting shit canned, but what City done is no different than American owners using their nationality and investments to Glaze their clubs with an exponential growth in American sponsors like DHL, Crystler etc and then a subsequent American stock market listing of the club. Yep, nothing to see here...
Click to expand...

I have been hearing this excuse since I don't know when...

As a businessman (not necessarily a billionaire), you grow a club by taking the slow (and difficult) route, as so many midtable clubs have been doing for years. We are talking here about how Pathetico (who I hate, but nevertheless) grew under Simeone and changed status. They way they did it over many years, it's how it is supposed to be done for a club to change tier.

How it's NOT supposed to be done is by breaking all rules and wanting to buy success immediately, what City PSG did, and what Newcastle wanted to do but did not manage because FFP rules were well in place when they started

No, it's very different with American owners of clubs like UTD or Liverpool, as they bought already established huge brand names, with already established huge commercial revenues
 
Birdy said:
PS: Stop bringing up excuses.
Click to expand...
Those are not excuses. I don't care about City, if you imply it. I'm not a Pep fanboy, either. But justice is objective and I'm taking a more conservative approach on how should they be punished, based on previous examples of sports arbitrary and the scope of the "crime". Your judgement in my view is more emotional. As you said - we'll see.

This "great English judiciary" theme you've been bringing up all week is actually irrelevant, because FA is the final arbitrary on this case. No CAS, no English court.
 
Birdy said:
I have been hearing this excuse since I don't know when...

As a businessman (not necessarily a billionaire), you grow a club by taking the slow (and difficult) route, as so many midtable clubs have been doing for years. We are talking here about how Pathetico (who I hate, but nevertheless) grew under Simeone and changed status. They way they did it over many years, it's how it is supposed to be done for a club to change tier.

How it's NOT supposed to be done is by breaking all rules and wanting to buy success immediately, what City PSG did, and what Newcastle wanted to do but did not manage because FFP rules were well in place when they started

No, it's very different with American owners of clubs like UTD or Liverpool, as they bought already established huge brand names, with already established huge commercial revenues
Click to expand...

Put it this way. To be able to sign consistently in the EPL you need XXX annual revenue.

Liverpool/Man Utd are 600-700m or so and that enables them, as per their FFP rules to spend more consistenly than Barcelona and Real, who blow them out of the water revenue wise.

So what Im saying is City, bought by the Dhabians (not a word, but let's make it one), why can't they make a capital injection of 500m for signings?

Once they can't do that, then they use their own companies to inflate their sponsorships. So what? As long as the money is paid and not just an IOU which never arrives, then I have no qualms about it. I don't like it, but once you open the door to investors then you open the door to them wanting to put money into their teams by hook or by crook.

The transfer merry go-round is far worse than inflated sponsorship deals.

Arthur Melo going for 40-50m and Pjanic for 60m is far worse. Just as an example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top