Manchester City’s victories are absolutely meaningless IMO

[coluka]

I don’t really see the relevance of who Bulkhaul may or may not be trading with? We’re discussing Manchester City’s breaches of financial regulations.

I don’t think I ever said Boro’s rule-breaking in the past is or ever was okay. In fact I’ve said throughout this thread that if there is evidence of our club doing what City - and those other clubs investigated, charged and fined by the authorities - then they should be dealt with in the same way.

I was only 3 in 1986 but one of my earliest memories is reading in the broadsheet Gazette about how the club had been made to pay what they owed in full. I refused to go to bed that night and several nights after, much to Mam and Dad’s chagrin.

In the 90s, I was fuming about the three points fiasco. I thought we’d been wronged. I protested about it at the FA Cup final. Now, I’m not so sure about it. There’s a sense we were wronged but I think everyone on this thread would say we should’ve gone to Blackburn and played. By not doing so we’d left ourselves wide open. The FA decided we’d committed an offence and punished us. You can argue about the scale of the punishment of course.

I’m not entirely sure what any of this has to do with a club systematically falsifying accounts, failing to cooperate and failing to declare expenditure though.

My point, albeit in a round about way is that all clubs will use the rules to gain an edge, some will outright break them, some will be found out, some wont. Derby almost got away with breaking rules but for Gibsons persistence. I accept there are various levels, degrees and effects depending on what rules are broken, different era’s, what advantages are gained etc and so punishment for being found out will differ.

I raise the question of Bulkhaul and which countries it trades in as some fans often refer to the regimes that run some of the clubs you mention. Where does their money comes from, how ethical they are or in City and the Mags case, are not. Our club is a part of a wider group holding that may make money from the same or similar regimes (I don’t know if it does or doesn’t) but therefore wonder if those fans would see that as being any different, it may be another level, but is it ok to turn a blind eye to profiteering from cruel regimes as I think someone said City and Mags fans do, were that to be the case via the side door if it were Boro?

I am also merely wondering if it is more acceptable to break some rules than others? Once rules are broken and clubs punished, should it then all be forgotten about, always a clean slate, should we only let he who is without sin cast the first stone? The situation of any rule breaking is wrong, as stated financial fair play is non existent. Football will never be a level playing field, but I for one, knowing that, feel the biggest issue is still the governing bodies what their interests really are and the actual yrules themselves, coupled with the lack of desire to weed out and punish the bad apples accordingly. Sport the world over, especially team sports are rife with cheats and hypocrites.

For the record, I marvel at how good Man City are to watch on field and pray Boro can find a legal way to replicate, but agree how the villains manage to do so via how they are run off field may make even our politicians seem angelic. Any wrong doing should rightly be dealt with under the rules that exist and any punishment needs to be a huge deterrent to others to avoid others going the same way.

 

[Big_Nothing]

My point, albeit in a round about way is that all clubs will use the rules to gain an edge, some will outright break them, some will be found out, some wont. Derby almost got away with breaking rules but for Gibsons persistence. I accept there are various levels, degrees and effects depending on what rules are broken, different era’s, what advantages are gained etc and so punishment for being found out will differ.

I raise the question of Bulkhaul and which countries it trades in as some fans often refer to the regimes that run some of the clubs you mention. Where does their money comes from, how ethical they are or in City and the Mags case, are not. Our club is a part of a wider group holding that may make money from the same or similar regimes (I don’t know if it does or doesn’t) but therefore wonder if those fans would see that as being any different, it may be another level, but is it ok to turn a blind eye to profiteering from cruel regimes as I think someone said City and Mags fans do, were that to be the case via the side door if it were Boro?

I am also merely wondering if it is more acceptable to break some rules than others? Once rules are broken and clubs punished, should it then all be forgotten about, always a clean slate, should we only let he who is without sin cast the first stone? The situation of any rule breaking is wrong, as stated financial fair play is non existent. Football will never be a level playing field, but I for one, knowing that, feel the biggest issue is still the governing bodies what their interests really are and the actual yrules themselves, coupled with the lack of desire to weed out and punish the bad apples accordingly. Sport the world over, especially team sports are rife with cheats and hypocrites.

For the record, I marvel at how good Man City are to watch on field and pray Boro can find a legal way to replicate, but agree how the villains manage to do so via how they are run off field may make even our politicians seem angelic. Any wrong doing should rightly be dealt with under the rules that exist and any punishment needs to be a huge deterrent to others to avoid others going the same way.

When I watch city, read about their cheating, read about the masses of clubs owned by ‘the city group’ and think about the source of funding, I just wonder “what’s the effin point?”.

I find it strange that people want to compare a brief period in our history to that.

Emerson was hardly the De Bruyne of his time. Juventus were okay with letting an often benched Rav leave. We pipped Arsenal to a talented young prospect (he was hardly R9 though).

We were plucky and shook things up but even financially I think it’s a naff comparison.

 

[Corcaigh_the_Cat]

I don’t really see the relevance of who Bulkhaul may or may not be trading with? We’re discussing Manchester City’s breaches of financial regulations.

I don’t think I ever said Boro’s rule-breaking in the past is or ever was okay. In fact I’ve said throughout this thread that if there is evidence of our club doing what City - and those other clubs investigated, charged and fined by the authorities - appear to have done then they should be dealt with in the same way.

I was only 3 in 1986 but one of my earliest memories is reading in the broadsheet Gazette about how the club had been made to pay what they owed in full. I refused to go to bed that night and several nights after, much to Mam and Dad’s chagrin.

In the 90s, I was fuming about the three points fiasco. I thought we’d been wronged. I protested about it at the FA Cup final. Now, I’m not so sure about it. There’s a sense we were wronged but I think everyone on this thread would say we should’ve gone to Blackburn and played. By not doing so we’d left ourselves wide open. The FA decided we’d committed an offence and punished us. You can argue about the scale of the punishment of course.

I’m not entirely sure what any of this has to do with a club systematically falsifying accounts, failing to cooperate and failing to declare expenditure though.

I agree with that but Manchester City are being prosecuted and are being fined for it, fines which they will pay. That's the rules, they've broken them and are/will be paying the fines.

Now let's talk about the unfairness of FFP. Who was behind its introduction and why?

Which clubs in England could have assisted Platini in his decision making?

The European Clubs Association was set up some 15 years ago, they're the only associate body recognised by UEFA, to be a member you have to be involved in European competition. It was formed out of the G14 group wanting a breakaway association and other clubs competing in Europe, the number of club members per country depending on performance.

Basically the big boys were writing the rules to suit themselves under the guise of protecting clubs from going out of business.

FFP is a nonsense, it's there to maintain the status quo. I can imagine, now that the globe's most wealthy have taken over the sport the rules will be modified, to suit the nouveau riche of the European game.

The Qatari's own PSG, the Emirates own Man City, the Saudis own Newcastle. Also, the PSG chairman, Nasser Al-Khelaifi of PSG is the current ECA chairman and they're under investigation. They'll pay the fines too.

FIFA, UEFA and in our case the FA. What a bunch to run the game.

 

[Jedi boro]

I agree with that but Manchester City are being prosecuted and are being fined for it, fines which they will pay. That's the rules, they've broken them and are/will be paying the fines.

Now let's talk about the unfairness of FFP. Who was behind its introduction and why?

Which clubs in England could have assisted Platini in his decision making?

The European Clubs Association was set up some 15 years ago, they're the only associate body recognised by UEFA, to be a member you have to be involved in European competition. It was formed out of the G14 group wanting a breakaway association and other clubs competing in Europe, the number of club members per country depending on performance.

Basically the big boys were writing the rules to suit themselves under the guise of protecting clubs from going out of business.

FFP is a nonsense, it's there to maintain the status quo. I can imagine, now that the globe's most wealthy have taken over the sport the rules will be modified, to suit the nouveau riche of the European game.

The Qatari's own PSG, the Emirates own Man City, the Saudis own Newcastle. Also, the PSG chairman, Nasser Al-Khelaifi of PSG is the current ECA chairman and they're under investigation. They'll pay the fines too.

FIFA, UEFA and in our case the FA. What a bunch to run the game.

And who did fifa lined up to sponsor the upcoming Womens World Cup on Australia ??
It seems they have now changed their tune.

Fifa admits defeat over Saudi sponsorship of Women’s World Cup

Fifa has admitted defeat over plans to make Visit Saudi a sponsor of this year’s Women’s World Cup after a huge backlash from organisers and players

www.theguardian.com

 

[Granville Bennett]

This categorically isn't true. I've read books written by people they knew growing up and Noel (and Paul) in particular was a regular home and away and attendee. Liam by his own admission doesn't go to many games now, not sure he's ever been a 20 games a season type. Given they lived in Longsight in the early days its hardly surprising Noel and Paul went to matches though with their dad though.

Yes. I remember Noel saying he went to every game home and away in 85/86.

 

[Redwurzel]

To me the EPL is fairly boring because it is predictable - without the Championship games I would not subscribe to Sky.

The SPL is even worse.

Amercians understand to make sport interesting there has to be a significant element of competitiveness.

 

[atypical_boro]

When I watch city, read about their cheating, read about the masses of clubs owned by ‘the city group’ and think about the source of funding, I just wonder “what’s the effin point?”.

I find it strange that people want to compare a brief period in our history to that.

Emerson was hardly the De Bruyne of his time. Juventus were okay with letting an often benched Rav leave. We pipped Arsenal to a talented young prospect (he was hardly R9 though).

We were plucky and shook things up but even financially I think it’s a naff comparison.

Great points! Emerson was an uncapped midfielder who remained uncapped til he retired.

Ravanelli made 8 starts for Italy in his entire career.

We signed Boksic when he was probably past his peak, hence why we got him for like £2M.

These were not the best players in the world, they were just better than anything people expected us to sign, and we had to pay significantly over the odds for Rav and Boksic’s wages.

Admittedly Juninho was pretty close to being “one of” the best playmakers in the world but he was still nowhere near actually being that, and certainly not when we signed him, even if he was highly rated and sought after.

I don’t really see why anyone is impressed by City. So they’ve spent a few billion on players over ten years, hired the best manager money can buy, and wow, they have a really good team - shock!

Hope they don’t win the CL for this very reason cos they’re not even as good as Ferguson’s United yet.

 

[Zoophonic]

Excellent article on Man City written by Barney Ronay. Another journalist who is a Millwall fan but knocks the spots off the other one.

Manchester City’s perfection is laced with coldness and unease | Barney Ronay

A hard regime’s soft-power project is reaching its final expression – footballing brilliance but a sense of dislocation

www.theguardian.com

 

[Jedi boro]

Excellent article on Man City written by Barney Ronay. Another journalist who is a Millwall fan but knocks the spots off the other one.

Manchester City’s perfection is laced with coldness and unease | Barney Ronay

A hard regime’s soft-power project is reaching its final expression – footballing brilliance but a sense of dislocation

www.theguardian.com

A bit harsh I quite like Danny baker

 

[Corcaigh_the_Cat]

Excellent article on Man City written by Barney Ronay. Another journalist who is a Millwall fan but knocks the spots off the other one.

Manchester City’s perfection is laced with coldness and unease | Barney Ronay

A hard regime’s soft-power project is reaching its final expression – footballing brilliance but a sense of dislocation

www.theguardian.com

I wonder if he'll knock a similar one out for the horse racing, motor racing and cricket. The Arab's are taking over everything sports, oh yes, the rugby.

'Sportswashing' is allowed because it's within the rules but then, who writes the rules and who are the rules written to benefit.

There is of course one way to fight against it and that's by not supporting the sports. Turn your back on the Sky subscription, turn off the horse racing during the flat season, switch over when the Grand Prix starts.

And by the way, it was exactly the same as it is today in the Premier League when Man Utd were winning their championships. Absolutely no different. They had a very good manager and bought the best players

 

[Big_Nothing]

I wonder if he'll knock a similar one out for the horse racing, motor racing and cricket. The Arab's are taking over everything sports, oh yes, the rugby.

'Sportswashing' is allowed because it's within the rules but then, who writes the rules and who are the rules written to benefit.

There is of course one way to fight against it and that's by not supporting the sports. Turn your back on the Sky subscription, turn off the horse racing during the flat season, switch over when the Grand Prix starts.

And by the way, it was exactly the same as it is today in the Premier League when Man Utd were winning their championships. Absolutely no different. They had a very good manager and bought the best players

It was different, like.

 

[wilkos_perm]

Erm…I’m guessing you are too young to remember when we were ‘Man City’
We spent unsustainable amounts in the late 90’s. And before us in the Premiere League it was Jack Walker and Blackburn. There always has been and there always will be a ‘privileged’ few.

We absolutely weren't Man City. We made a few big signings but our squad was topped up with Neil Cox, Curtis Fleming, Robbie Mustoe, Jamie Pollock, Stev Vickers etc etc. City have a bench full of big money signings and huge wages. Plus we weren't anything like the biggest spenders in the league. The comparison makes no sense.

 

[atypical_boro]

I wonder if he'll knock a similar one out for the horse racing, motor racing and cricket. The Arab's are taking over everything sports, oh yes, the rugby.

'Sportswashing' is allowed because it's within the rules but then, who writes the rules and who are the rules written to benefit.

There is of course one way to fight against it and that's by not supporting the sports. Turn your back on the Sky subscription, turn off the horse racing during the flat season, switch over when the Grand Prix starts.

And by the way, it was exactly the same as it is today in the Premier League when Man Utd were winning their championships. Absolutely no different. They had a very good manager and bought the best players

They spent within the rules. City don’t.

Their owners didn’t advocate laws which involved stoning gay people. They’re not just a rich family, they rule the country.

That’s said, Man Utd are about to go exactly the same way.

 

[uncle_rico]

So why do you think Rav played for us?
So why do you think Boksic played for us?
I would guess it’s because we would pay far more than anyone else at the time.
- it’s all relative.

Why does any player play for any club? For the vast majority of players it is money money money. Very little loyalty left in the game, especially at the top level.

 

[atypical_boro]

So why do you think Rav played for us?
So why do you think Boksic played for us?
I would guess it’s because we would pay far more than anyone else at the time.
- it’s all relative.

I think there are a handful of examples where we paid way above the odds on wages to get a player who wouldn’t have otherwise signed.

But Rav and Boksic weren’t the best strikers in the world (Boksic may have been earlier but he was over his peak, Rav never was), they were just significantly better than Jan Fjortoft and Dean Windass/Noel Whelan etc.

Boksic cost £2m, the world record at the time was something like £40m.

 

[Brian Marwood]

Boksic cost £2m, the world record at the time was something like £40m.

£2m more than PSG paid for Messi.

 

[atypical_boro]

£2m more than PSG paid for Messi.

Yes but he wasn’t “on a Bosman” (to coin a phrase of the era).

 

[Corcaigh_the_Cat]

They spent within the rules. City don’t.

Their owners didn’t advocate laws which involved stoning gay people. They’re not just a rich family, they rule the country.

That’s said, Man Utd are about to go exactly the same way.

No, they're not doing it within the rules which have been written since the similar success of Man Utd (with their assistance, possibly) to maintain the status quo. Man City are being prosecuted but also complying with the punishment dished out as stipulated by the rules. They pay their fines.

Football is full of cheats, players, coaches, owners. They break the rules more regularly than ever and are served penalties for it.

The rules that are being talked about here were introduced, funnily enough, at around the same time that the Emirates were taking control of Man City.

Coincidence?

 

[BoroGold]

But Piers Morgan’s meltdown makes it all worthwhile

Luv it !

 

[The Card Cheat]

Kind of not working though is it? Spurs, Liverpool, Everton and Chelsea are all in quite deep $hit at the moment. Newcastle and Man City (neither part of the 'big 5' who formed the PL) are undoubtedly doing ok.

Exactly. Add to that Man U winning no significantly big trophy in a decade
The Premier League can't win can it, if teams like City and Newcastle hadn't invested money people would fiercely criticise it as a closed shop, where only the original big 4 had any chance of winning anything.

I also take issue with this idea, "I don't want to go up because we can't compete." Well look at Brighton, Brentford and even Fulham this season.
What's the point in following a club if you basically don't want them to be successful? When we talk about the best times as a Boro fan, who's saying -"Remember that time we finished 8th in the championship, the best league in the world."?