comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 seconds ago
As someone who’s never used the term (and has probably never typed a comment on here about City’s spending that wasn’t a light-hearted joke), I think it’s pretty obvious?
The metaphor is clearly with sport and fitness. Putting the effort in over a long period to achieve muscle/fitness, that grows over time and builds on previous results, is not the same as pretty much waking up one day and having a lot of muscle/fitness that you didn’t have the day before because you’ve injected it in.
You can fit the two above scenarios to any clubs you like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst analogy ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? I didn’t make up the term “financial doping” but I would have thought it was obvious where it came from. It’s scarcely even an analogy!
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 9 minutes ago
I posted this the other day but...
Personally it's not often I comment on City's spending and it doesn't actually bother me that much. I also don't think they are cheating FFP as it stands today due to the things listed in the OP.
But they certainly did break FFP at one stage and certainly were given a quite enormous amount of money which got them into the position where they could win said prize, sponsorship and TV money so the "we don't cheat... anymore" will not really wash with a lot of people.
You'll get no end of people not really respecting City's achievements as a result and that's just how it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you’ve jump the gun a bit Robbing.
You’ve centered your reply SOLEY on City.
Based only on the fact that you know I’m a City fan.
I’m actually asking this question in regards to football more generally. Yes City are in mind, but it is actually being asked in regards to what is happening in Spain also. And how those events can show just how financially “fickle” even the giants of the game can become…
It's not fair what the financially doped clubs do but it wasn't fair before when the same clubs always win because they have the highest revenues so it doesn't bother me.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 seconds ago
As someone who’s never used the term (and has probably never typed a comment on here about City’s spending that wasn’t a light-hearted joke), I think it’s pretty obvious?
The metaphor is clearly with sport and fitness. Putting the effort in over a long period to achieve muscle/fitness, that grows over time and builds on previous results, is not the same as pretty much waking up one day and having a lot of muscle/fitness that you didn’t have the day before because you’ve injected it in.
You can fit the two above scenarios to any clubs you like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst analogy ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? I didn’t make up the term “financial doping” but I would have thought it was obvious where it came from. It’s scarcely even an analogy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, it is a pretty good explanation. Clockwork 👍
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 9 minutes ago
I posted this the other day but...
Personally it's not often I comment on City's spending and it doesn't actually bother me that much. I also don't think they are cheating FFP as it stands today due to the things listed in the OP.
But they certainly did break FFP at one stage and certainly were given a quite enormous amount of money which got them into the position where they could win said prize, sponsorship and TV money so the "we don't cheat... anymore" will not really wash with a lot of people.
You'll get no end of people not really respecting City's achievements as a result and that's just how it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you’ve jump the gun a bit Robbing.
You’ve centered your reply SOLEY on City.
Based only on the fact that you know I’m a City fan.
I’m actually asking this question in regards to football more generally. Yes City are in mind, but it is actually being asked in regards to what is happening in Spain also. And how those events can show just how financially “fickle” even the giants of the game can become…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah fair comment, it was from another thread which was specifically about City so may not be wholly relevant but I thought it was a bit relevant.
There's been a few threads on subject from City fans on here lately.
In regards to the accusations aimed towards City, there is no nuance in those making the accusations.
There's nothing illegal about putting your own money into a business to improve it.
It's highly illegal to fill your body with banned substances to try and win.
I still fail to see the comparison.
Oh and also I've not seen Barca ever called financially doped, mainly because they don't have a pot to p!ss in.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 seconds ago
As someone who’s never used the term (and has probably never typed a comment on here about City’s spending that wasn’t a light-hearted joke), I think it’s pretty obvious?
The metaphor is clearly with sport and fitness. Putting the effort in over a long period to achieve muscle/fitness, that grows over time and builds on previous results, is not the same as pretty much waking up one day and having a lot of muscle/fitness that you didn’t have the day before because you’ve injected it in.
You can fit the two above scenarios to any clubs you like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst analogy ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? I didn’t make up the term “financial doping” but I would have thought it was obvious where it came from. It’s scarcely even an analogy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, it is a pretty good explanation. Clockwork 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's terrible.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, flip it on it's head, what was your understanding of the term before vs now that you've had others opinions?
How do you see the current model of Barca vs that of City and at what point do you think the current City model would differ if they weren't also responsible for a lot of their sponsorship deals?
Without "financial doping" I.e. clubs only being able to spend money based on revenue, two particular clubs would monopolise English football even more than they have done in the past. You'll find the fans of these clubs are the ones being the most vocal on this thread. New money clubs are taking what they see to be rightfully theirs. It's not just the fans either, otherwise Newcastle would have seen their takeover completed long, long ago. Human rights arguments will get peddled out left, right and centre but deep down none of these supporters actually care about this too much, it's just a moral stick to beat others with. As someone already alluded to, US owned clubs really don't have a leg to stand on in this regard.
City and Chelsea doing it bothers them, but when it happens further down the pyramid they are never quite as outraged. Wolves, Bournemouth, Leicester, QPR....clubs have been overspending and "financially doping" their way into the Premier League for years, but so long as they don't disturb the elite then that's absolutely fine.
Personally, given there will never be a 100% level playing field with salary caps, etc, then I say bring it on. Those clubs with huge worldwide fan bases will always be contenders as sponsors will always want a piece of them, and the "financially doped" clubs provide further competition and interest, and ensure even more of the worlds top players are on show on these shores every weekend.
Financial doping is essentially in the financial circles called, doing the "sheikh"
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, flip it on it's head, what was your understanding of the term before vs now that you've had others opinions?
How do you see the current model of Barca vs that of City and at what point do you think the current City model would differ if they weren't also responsible for a lot of their sponsorship deals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barca had had money poured into the club.
So have City.
Portsmouth had money poured into the club.
So did Leeds.
Arsenal borrowed money for their stadium.
So have Spurs.
Leeds borrowed.
Portsmough borrowed.
Out of those clubs mentioned, which ones have struggled to pay it back?
Which ones borrowed money based on future success?
Which ones self financed themselves,
Which ones are the most stable financially?
Which ones have been labelled financially doped?
Which clubs are criticised?
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
There's nothing illegal about putting your own money into a business to improve it.
It's highly illegal to fill your body with banned substances to try and win.
I still fail to see the comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that I left legality out of it as it’s obviously more complex in football and finance.
Look at it this way…
Chelsea were a good side in 2003 but hadn’t cracked the United/Arsenal duopoly. Major investment came in that summer, they spent loads, people tipped them for titles, and within two years they were winning them.
City were up and down at best before the new owners. Unless I’ve got my years wrong, it was only a few months after the 8-1 at Boro that City were able to go out and get the likes of Robinho and Santa Cruz. People said the “blue moon was rising” and that titles would follow; it probably took a year or so longer than expected but the first major trophy in decades came within three (?) years and the title the year after.
I doubt anybody, in 2008, would have been tipping City for titles within four years over United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, even Spurs, without that change in circumstances. The sole reason why we were able to make this fairly safe prediction was the sudden (almost overnight) hypertrophy in City’s financial standing.
I’m not even saying there’s anything wrong with it and you have to credit City for using the advantage well, but to say that the “analogy” I’d made above is “terrible” is just ignoring plain fact.
comment by Got_Better (U6241)
posted 2 minutes ago
Financial doping is essentially in the financial circles called, doing the "sheikh"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Chartered got fined over $1bn for money laundering yet Liverpool proudly wear their name on their shirts.
If we look into every sponsor, at every club then non of us would have a leg to stand on.
Which clubs are criticised?
—————
The successful ones. That’s life!
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
There's nothing illegal about putting your own money into a business to improve it.
It's highly illegal to fill your body with banned substances to try and win.
I still fail to see the comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that I left legality out of it as it’s obviously more complex in football and finance.
Look at it this way…
Chelsea were a good side in 2003 but hadn’t cracked the United/Arsenal duopoly. Major investment came in that summer, they spent loads, people tipped them for titles, and within two years they were winning them.
City were up and down at best before the new owners. Unless I’ve got my years wrong, it was only a few months after the 8-1 at Boro that City were able to go out and get the likes of Robinho and Santa Cruz. People said the “blue moon was rising” and that titles would follow; it probably took a year or so longer than expected but the first major trophy in decades came within three (?) years and the title the year after.
I doubt anybody, in 2008, would have been tipping City for titles within four years over United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, even Spurs, without that change in circumstances. The sole reason why we were able to make this fairly safe prediction was the sudden (almost overnight) hypertrophy in City’s financial standing.
I’m not even saying there’s anything wrong with it and you have to credit City for using the advantage well, but to say that the “analogy” I’d made above is “terrible” is just ignoring plain fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You timing is amiss, but your general point is spot on in my opinion.
Actually reading back, your timing is pretty much on the ball Clockwork!!!
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
There's nothing illegal about putting your own money into a business to improve it.
It's highly illegal to fill your body with banned substances to try and win.
I still fail to see the comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that I left legality out of it as it’s obviously more complex in football and finance.
Look at it this way…
Chelsea were a good side in 2003 but hadn’t cracked the United/Arsenal duopoly. Major investment came in that summer, they spent loads, people tipped them for titles, and within two years they were winning them.
City were up and down at best before the new owners. Unless I’ve got my years wrong, it was only a few months after the 8-1 at Boro that City were able to go out and get the likes of Robinho and Santa Cruz. People said the “blue moon was rising” and that titles would follow; it probably took a year or so longer than expected but the first major trophy in decades came within three (?) years and the title the year after.
I doubt anybody, in 2008, would have been tipping City for titles within four years over United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, even Spurs, without that change in circumstances. The sole reason why we were able to make this fairly safe prediction was the sudden (almost overnight) hypertrophy in City’s financial standing.
I’m not even saying there’s anything wrong with it and you have to credit City for using the advantage well, but to say that the “analogy” I’d made above is “terrible” is just ignoring plain fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You timing is amiss, but your general point is spot on in my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ll know better than me, but what timing? I’m thinking of the 08 transfer window when City were apparently in for Berbatov and we got him. I’m sure that was right on top of the new owners and the other signings Hughes was making? The 8-1 at Boro was definitely that year as it was the same day we won the title at Wigan.
Imagine this.
Right at the onset of the game as we know it. Back in 1880s, when leagues started to form.
Imagine no one was able to come in and invest in a club, which in turn led to others investing in other clubs, which in term led to investment in the sport overall.
Football would not be the game it is today. It wouldn’t have been allowed to grow. Because investment (which is all financial doping really actually refers to) would be frowned upon.
Question: why is investment seen as a bad thing?
Why are clubs criticised for having owners who are both able and willing to invest in the clubs that they own?
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
There's nothing illegal about putting your own money into a business to improve it.
It's highly illegal to fill your body with banned substances to try and win.
I still fail to see the comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that I left legality out of it as it’s obviously more complex in football and finance.
Look at it this way…
Chelsea were a good side in 2003 but hadn’t cracked the United/Arsenal duopoly. Major investment came in that summer, they spent loads, people tipped them for titles, and within two years they were winning them.
City were up and down at best before the new owners. Unless I’ve got my years wrong, it was only a few months after the 8-1 at Boro that City were able to go out and get the likes of Robinho and Santa Cruz. People said the “blue moon was rising” and that titles would follow; it probably took a year or so longer than expected but the first major trophy in decades came within three (?) years and the title the year after.
I doubt anybody, in 2008, would have been tipping City for titles within four years over United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, even Spurs, without that change in circumstances. The sole reason why we were able to make this fairly safe prediction was the sudden (almost overnight) hypertrophy in City’s financial standing.
I’m not even saying there’s anything wrong with it and you have to credit City for using the advantage well, but to say that the “analogy” I’d made above is “terrible” is just ignoring plain fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were comparing human endeavour with financial acuman which is why I disagreed with your analogy.
Pre 1980, most clubs were family run concerns, Spurs changed that by becoming a PLC to gain a financial edge.
1992, Arsenal and United were the architects of the Premier League. Why? To increase a financial dominance they already had.
Chelsea, then City several years later are sold to Mega Rich investors who pump money in and see the value of their 'brands' rise accordingly.
Then PSG are basically bought by the state of Qatar but through good PR, being based in a nice city and having 'friends' within both UEFA and FIFA they've taken it to a whole new level yet they receive minimal criticism in media both here and abroad.
I wonder what the next step is and who's going to take it.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, flip it on it's head, what was your understanding of the term before vs now that you've had others opinions?
How do you see the current model of Barca vs that of City and at what point do you think the current City model would differ if they weren't also responsible for a lot of their sponsorship deals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barca had had money poured into the club.
So have City.
Portsmouth had money poured into the club.
So did Leeds.
Arsenal borrowed money for their stadium.
So have Spurs.
Leeds borrowed.
Portsmough borrowed.
Out of those clubs mentioned, which ones have struggled to pay it back?
Which ones borrowed money based on future success?
Which ones self financed themselves,
Which ones are the most stable financially?
Which ones have been labelled financially doped?
Which clubs are criticised?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure you can count borrowing a loan that has planned repayments and a penalty if those aren't met, the same as influx of cash from sponsorship deals that aren't paid back...
Look, I'm not arguing here with, just replying, if City's deals and finances are above scrutiny the fair play.
I will say they may have them in place now, I sincerely doubt they had them in place since day dot of the spending splurge. How that relates to when FFP came in to play, I have no idea.
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 16 seconds ago
Without "financial doping" I.e. clubs only being able to spend money based on revenue, two particular clubs would monopolise English football even more than they have done in the past. You'll find the fans of these clubs are the ones being the most vocal on this thread. New money clubs are taking what they see to be rightfully theirs. It's not just the fans either, otherwise Newcastle would have seen their takeover completed long, long ago. Human rights arguments will get peddled out left, right and centre but deep down none of these supporters actually care about this too much, it's just a moral stick to beat others with. As someone already alluded to, US owned clubs really don't have a leg to stand on in this regard.
City and Chelsea doing it bothers them, but when it happens further down the pyramid they are never quite as outraged. Wolves, Bournemouth, Leicester, QPR....clubs have been overspending and "financially doping" their way into the Premier League for years, but so long as they don't disturb the elite then that's absolutely fine.
Personally, given there will never be a 100% level playing field with salary caps, etc, then I say bring it on. Those clubs with huge worldwide fan bases will always be contenders as sponsors will always want a piece of them, and the "financially doped" clubs provide further competition and interest, and ensure even more of the worlds top players are on show on these shores every weekend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like this post.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 19 seconds ago
Imagine this.
Right at the onset of the game as we know it. Back in 1880s, when leagues started to form.
Imagine no one was able to come in and invest in a club, which in turn led to others investing in other clubs, which in term led to investment in the sport overall.
Football would not be the game it is today. It wouldn’t have been allowed to grow. Because investment (which is all financial doping really actually refers to) would be frowned upon.
Question: why is investment seen as a bad thing?
Why are clubs criticised for having owners who are both able and willing to invest in the clubs that they own?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a perfectly fair question. The answer isn’t a very good one: we’re not in the 1880s. People don’t really like sudden change, unless they’re the beneficiaries. Football was “established” by 2003 in the eyes of a lot of fans. They were used to Chelsea being a bit exotic and attractive but ultimately just falling short, and to City being - well, you fill that in. So if those things change suddenly, people will often react negatively. Just human nature.
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, flip it on it's head, what was your understanding of the term before vs now that you've had others opinions?
How do you see the current model of Barca vs that of City and at what point do you think the current City model would differ if they weren't also responsible for a lot of their sponsorship deals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barca had had money poured into the club.
So have City.
Portsmouth had money poured into the club.
So did Leeds.
Arsenal borrowed money for their stadium.
So have Spurs.
Leeds borrowed.
Portsmough borrowed.
Out of those clubs mentioned, which ones have struggled to pay it back?
Which ones borrowed money based on future success?
Which ones self financed themselves,
Which ones are the most stable financially?
Which ones have been labelled financially doped?
Which clubs are criticised?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure you can count borrowing a loan that has planned repayments and a penalty if those aren't met, the same as influx of cash from sponsorship deals that aren't paid back...
Look, I'm not arguing here with, just replying, if City's deals and finances are above scrutiny the fair play.
I will say they may have them in place now, I sincerely doubt they had them in place since day dot of the spending splurge. How that relates to when FFP came in to play, I have no idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since day dot…
FFP didn’t even exist. So it didn’t relate at all.
What do you mean by sponsorship deals which aren’t paid back?
Sign in if you want to comment
Is anybody here able to…
Page 3 of 4
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 seconds ago
As someone who’s never used the term (and has probably never typed a comment on here about City’s spending that wasn’t a light-hearted joke), I think it’s pretty obvious?
The metaphor is clearly with sport and fitness. Putting the effort in over a long period to achieve muscle/fitness, that grows over time and builds on previous results, is not the same as pretty much waking up one day and having a lot of muscle/fitness that you didn’t have the day before because you’ve injected it in.
You can fit the two above scenarios to any clubs you like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst analogy ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? I didn’t make up the term “financial doping” but I would have thought it was obvious where it came from. It’s scarcely even an analogy!
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 9 minutes ago
I posted this the other day but...
Personally it's not often I comment on City's spending and it doesn't actually bother me that much. I also don't think they are cheating FFP as it stands today due to the things listed in the OP.
But they certainly did break FFP at one stage and certainly were given a quite enormous amount of money which got them into the position where they could win said prize, sponsorship and TV money so the "we don't cheat... anymore" will not really wash with a lot of people.
You'll get no end of people not really respecting City's achievements as a result and that's just how it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you’ve jump the gun a bit Robbing.
You’ve centered your reply SOLEY on City.
Based only on the fact that you know I’m a City fan.
I’m actually asking this question in regards to football more generally. Yes City are in mind, but it is actually being asked in regards to what is happening in Spain also. And how those events can show just how financially “fickle” even the giants of the game can become…
posted on 16/8/21
It's not fair what the financially doped clubs do but it wasn't fair before when the same clubs always win because they have the highest revenues so it doesn't bother me.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 seconds ago
As someone who’s never used the term (and has probably never typed a comment on here about City’s spending that wasn’t a light-hearted joke), I think it’s pretty obvious?
The metaphor is clearly with sport and fitness. Putting the effort in over a long period to achieve muscle/fitness, that grows over time and builds on previous results, is not the same as pretty much waking up one day and having a lot of muscle/fitness that you didn’t have the day before because you’ve injected it in.
You can fit the two above scenarios to any clubs you like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst analogy ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? I didn’t make up the term “financial doping” but I would have thought it was obvious where it came from. It’s scarcely even an analogy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, it is a pretty good explanation. Clockwork 👍
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 9 minutes ago
I posted this the other day but...
Personally it's not often I comment on City's spending and it doesn't actually bother me that much. I also don't think they are cheating FFP as it stands today due to the things listed in the OP.
But they certainly did break FFP at one stage and certainly were given a quite enormous amount of money which got them into the position where they could win said prize, sponsorship and TV money so the "we don't cheat... anymore" will not really wash with a lot of people.
You'll get no end of people not really respecting City's achievements as a result and that's just how it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you’ve jump the gun a bit Robbing.
You’ve centered your reply SOLEY on City.
Based only on the fact that you know I’m a City fan.
I’m actually asking this question in regards to football more generally. Yes City are in mind, but it is actually being asked in regards to what is happening in Spain also. And how those events can show just how financially “fickle” even the giants of the game can become…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah fair comment, it was from another thread which was specifically about City so may not be wholly relevant but I thought it was a bit relevant.
There's been a few threads on subject from City fans on here lately.
posted on 16/8/21
In regards to the accusations aimed towards City, there is no nuance in those making the accusations.
posted on 16/8/21
There's nothing illegal about putting your own money into a business to improve it.
It's highly illegal to fill your body with banned substances to try and win.
I still fail to see the comparison.
posted on 16/8/21
Oh and also I've not seen Barca ever called financially doped, mainly because they don't have a pot to p!ss in.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 seconds ago
As someone who’s never used the term (and has probably never typed a comment on here about City’s spending that wasn’t a light-hearted joke), I think it’s pretty obvious?
The metaphor is clearly with sport and fitness. Putting the effort in over a long period to achieve muscle/fitness, that grows over time and builds on previous results, is not the same as pretty much waking up one day and having a lot of muscle/fitness that you didn’t have the day before because you’ve injected it in.
You can fit the two above scenarios to any clubs you like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst analogy ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? I didn’t make up the term “financial doping” but I would have thought it was obvious where it came from. It’s scarcely even an analogy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, it is a pretty good explanation. Clockwork 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's terrible.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, flip it on it's head, what was your understanding of the term before vs now that you've had others opinions?
How do you see the current model of Barca vs that of City and at what point do you think the current City model would differ if they weren't also responsible for a lot of their sponsorship deals?
posted on 16/8/21
Without "financial doping" I.e. clubs only being able to spend money based on revenue, two particular clubs would monopolise English football even more than they have done in the past. You'll find the fans of these clubs are the ones being the most vocal on this thread. New money clubs are taking what they see to be rightfully theirs. It's not just the fans either, otherwise Newcastle would have seen their takeover completed long, long ago. Human rights arguments will get peddled out left, right and centre but deep down none of these supporters actually care about this too much, it's just a moral stick to beat others with. As someone already alluded to, US owned clubs really don't have a leg to stand on in this regard.
City and Chelsea doing it bothers them, but when it happens further down the pyramid they are never quite as outraged. Wolves, Bournemouth, Leicester, QPR....clubs have been overspending and "financially doping" their way into the Premier League for years, but so long as they don't disturb the elite then that's absolutely fine.
Personally, given there will never be a 100% level playing field with salary caps, etc, then I say bring it on. Those clubs with huge worldwide fan bases will always be contenders as sponsors will always want a piece of them, and the "financially doped" clubs provide further competition and interest, and ensure even more of the worlds top players are on show on these shores every weekend.
posted on 16/8/21
Financial doping is essentially in the financial circles called, doing the "sheikh"
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, flip it on it's head, what was your understanding of the term before vs now that you've had others opinions?
How do you see the current model of Barca vs that of City and at what point do you think the current City model would differ if they weren't also responsible for a lot of their sponsorship deals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barca had had money poured into the club.
So have City.
Portsmouth had money poured into the club.
So did Leeds.
Arsenal borrowed money for their stadium.
So have Spurs.
Leeds borrowed.
Portsmough borrowed.
Out of those clubs mentioned, which ones have struggled to pay it back?
Which ones borrowed money based on future success?
Which ones self financed themselves,
Which ones are the most stable financially?
Which ones have been labelled financially doped?
Which clubs are criticised?
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
There's nothing illegal about putting your own money into a business to improve it.
It's highly illegal to fill your body with banned substances to try and win.
I still fail to see the comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that I left legality out of it as it’s obviously more complex in football and finance.
Look at it this way…
Chelsea were a good side in 2003 but hadn’t cracked the United/Arsenal duopoly. Major investment came in that summer, they spent loads, people tipped them for titles, and within two years they were winning them.
City were up and down at best before the new owners. Unless I’ve got my years wrong, it was only a few months after the 8-1 at Boro that City were able to go out and get the likes of Robinho and Santa Cruz. People said the “blue moon was rising” and that titles would follow; it probably took a year or so longer than expected but the first major trophy in decades came within three (?) years and the title the year after.
I doubt anybody, in 2008, would have been tipping City for titles within four years over United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, even Spurs, without that change in circumstances. The sole reason why we were able to make this fairly safe prediction was the sudden (almost overnight) hypertrophy in City’s financial standing.
I’m not even saying there’s anything wrong with it and you have to credit City for using the advantage well, but to say that the “analogy” I’d made above is “terrible” is just ignoring plain fact.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Got_Better (U6241)
posted 2 minutes ago
Financial doping is essentially in the financial circles called, doing the "sheikh"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Chartered got fined over $1bn for money laundering yet Liverpool proudly wear their name on their shirts.
If we look into every sponsor, at every club then non of us would have a leg to stand on.
posted on 16/8/21
Which clubs are criticised?
—————
The successful ones. That’s life!
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
There's nothing illegal about putting your own money into a business to improve it.
It's highly illegal to fill your body with banned substances to try and win.
I still fail to see the comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that I left legality out of it as it’s obviously more complex in football and finance.
Look at it this way…
Chelsea were a good side in 2003 but hadn’t cracked the United/Arsenal duopoly. Major investment came in that summer, they spent loads, people tipped them for titles, and within two years they were winning them.
City were up and down at best before the new owners. Unless I’ve got my years wrong, it was only a few months after the 8-1 at Boro that City were able to go out and get the likes of Robinho and Santa Cruz. People said the “blue moon was rising” and that titles would follow; it probably took a year or so longer than expected but the first major trophy in decades came within three (?) years and the title the year after.
I doubt anybody, in 2008, would have been tipping City for titles within four years over United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, even Spurs, without that change in circumstances. The sole reason why we were able to make this fairly safe prediction was the sudden (almost overnight) hypertrophy in City’s financial standing.
I’m not even saying there’s anything wrong with it and you have to credit City for using the advantage well, but to say that the “analogy” I’d made above is “terrible” is just ignoring plain fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You timing is amiss, but your general point is spot on in my opinion.
posted on 16/8/21
Actually reading back, your timing is pretty much on the ball Clockwork!!!
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
There's nothing illegal about putting your own money into a business to improve it.
It's highly illegal to fill your body with banned substances to try and win.
I still fail to see the comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that I left legality out of it as it’s obviously more complex in football and finance.
Look at it this way…
Chelsea were a good side in 2003 but hadn’t cracked the United/Arsenal duopoly. Major investment came in that summer, they spent loads, people tipped them for titles, and within two years they were winning them.
City were up and down at best before the new owners. Unless I’ve got my years wrong, it was only a few months after the 8-1 at Boro that City were able to go out and get the likes of Robinho and Santa Cruz. People said the “blue moon was rising” and that titles would follow; it probably took a year or so longer than expected but the first major trophy in decades came within three (?) years and the title the year after.
I doubt anybody, in 2008, would have been tipping City for titles within four years over United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, even Spurs, without that change in circumstances. The sole reason why we were able to make this fairly safe prediction was the sudden (almost overnight) hypertrophy in City’s financial standing.
I’m not even saying there’s anything wrong with it and you have to credit City for using the advantage well, but to say that the “analogy” I’d made above is “terrible” is just ignoring plain fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You timing is amiss, but your general point is spot on in my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ll know better than me, but what timing? I’m thinking of the 08 transfer window when City were apparently in for Berbatov and we got him. I’m sure that was right on top of the new owners and the other signings Hughes was making? The 8-1 at Boro was definitely that year as it was the same day we won the title at Wigan.
posted on 16/8/21
Imagine this.
Right at the onset of the game as we know it. Back in 1880s, when leagues started to form.
Imagine no one was able to come in and invest in a club, which in turn led to others investing in other clubs, which in term led to investment in the sport overall.
Football would not be the game it is today. It wouldn’t have been allowed to grow. Because investment (which is all financial doping really actually refers to) would be frowned upon.
Question: why is investment seen as a bad thing?
Why are clubs criticised for having owners who are both able and willing to invest in the clubs that they own?
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
There's nothing illegal about putting your own money into a business to improve it.
It's highly illegal to fill your body with banned substances to try and win.
I still fail to see the comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that I left legality out of it as it’s obviously more complex in football and finance.
Look at it this way…
Chelsea were a good side in 2003 but hadn’t cracked the United/Arsenal duopoly. Major investment came in that summer, they spent loads, people tipped them for titles, and within two years they were winning them.
City were up and down at best before the new owners. Unless I’ve got my years wrong, it was only a few months after the 8-1 at Boro that City were able to go out and get the likes of Robinho and Santa Cruz. People said the “blue moon was rising” and that titles would follow; it probably took a year or so longer than expected but the first major trophy in decades came within three (?) years and the title the year after.
I doubt anybody, in 2008, would have been tipping City for titles within four years over United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, even Spurs, without that change in circumstances. The sole reason why we were able to make this fairly safe prediction was the sudden (almost overnight) hypertrophy in City’s financial standing.
I’m not even saying there’s anything wrong with it and you have to credit City for using the advantage well, but to say that the “analogy” I’d made above is “terrible” is just ignoring plain fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were comparing human endeavour with financial acuman which is why I disagreed with your analogy.
Pre 1980, most clubs were family run concerns, Spurs changed that by becoming a PLC to gain a financial edge.
1992, Arsenal and United were the architects of the Premier League. Why? To increase a financial dominance they already had.
Chelsea, then City several years later are sold to Mega Rich investors who pump money in and see the value of their 'brands' rise accordingly.
Then PSG are basically bought by the state of Qatar but through good PR, being based in a nice city and having 'friends' within both UEFA and FIFA they've taken it to a whole new level yet they receive minimal criticism in media both here and abroad.
I wonder what the next step is and who's going to take it.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, flip it on it's head, what was your understanding of the term before vs now that you've had others opinions?
How do you see the current model of Barca vs that of City and at what point do you think the current City model would differ if they weren't also responsible for a lot of their sponsorship deals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barca had had money poured into the club.
So have City.
Portsmouth had money poured into the club.
So did Leeds.
Arsenal borrowed money for their stadium.
So have Spurs.
Leeds borrowed.
Portsmough borrowed.
Out of those clubs mentioned, which ones have struggled to pay it back?
Which ones borrowed money based on future success?
Which ones self financed themselves,
Which ones are the most stable financially?
Which ones have been labelled financially doped?
Which clubs are criticised?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure you can count borrowing a loan that has planned repayments and a penalty if those aren't met, the same as influx of cash from sponsorship deals that aren't paid back...
Look, I'm not arguing here with, just replying, if City's deals and finances are above scrutiny the fair play.
I will say they may have them in place now, I sincerely doubt they had them in place since day dot of the spending splurge. How that relates to when FFP came in to play, I have no idea.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 16 seconds ago
Without "financial doping" I.e. clubs only being able to spend money based on revenue, two particular clubs would monopolise English football even more than they have done in the past. You'll find the fans of these clubs are the ones being the most vocal on this thread. New money clubs are taking what they see to be rightfully theirs. It's not just the fans either, otherwise Newcastle would have seen their takeover completed long, long ago. Human rights arguments will get peddled out left, right and centre but deep down none of these supporters actually care about this too much, it's just a moral stick to beat others with. As someone already alluded to, US owned clubs really don't have a leg to stand on in this regard.
City and Chelsea doing it bothers them, but when it happens further down the pyramid they are never quite as outraged. Wolves, Bournemouth, Leicester, QPR....clubs have been overspending and "financially doping" their way into the Premier League for years, but so long as they don't disturb the elite then that's absolutely fine.
Personally, given there will never be a 100% level playing field with salary caps, etc, then I say bring it on. Those clubs with huge worldwide fan bases will always be contenders as sponsors will always want a piece of them, and the "financially doped" clubs provide further competition and interest, and ensure even more of the worlds top players are on show on these shores every weekend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like this post.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 19 seconds ago
Imagine this.
Right at the onset of the game as we know it. Back in 1880s, when leagues started to form.
Imagine no one was able to come in and invest in a club, which in turn led to others investing in other clubs, which in term led to investment in the sport overall.
Football would not be the game it is today. It wouldn’t have been allowed to grow. Because investment (which is all financial doping really actually refers to) would be frowned upon.
Question: why is investment seen as a bad thing?
Why are clubs criticised for having owners who are both able and willing to invest in the clubs that they own?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a perfectly fair question. The answer isn’t a very good one: we’re not in the 1880s. People don’t really like sudden change, unless they’re the beneficiaries. Football was “established” by 2003 in the eyes of a lot of fans. They were used to Chelsea being a bit exotic and attractive but ultimately just falling short, and to City being - well, you fill that in. So if those things change suddenly, people will often react negatively. Just human nature.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, flip it on it's head, what was your understanding of the term before vs now that you've had others opinions?
How do you see the current model of Barca vs that of City and at what point do you think the current City model would differ if they weren't also responsible for a lot of their sponsorship deals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barca had had money poured into the club.
So have City.
Portsmouth had money poured into the club.
So did Leeds.
Arsenal borrowed money for their stadium.
So have Spurs.
Leeds borrowed.
Portsmough borrowed.
Out of those clubs mentioned, which ones have struggled to pay it back?
Which ones borrowed money based on future success?
Which ones self financed themselves,
Which ones are the most stable financially?
Which ones have been labelled financially doped?
Which clubs are criticised?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure you can count borrowing a loan that has planned repayments and a penalty if those aren't met, the same as influx of cash from sponsorship deals that aren't paid back...
Look, I'm not arguing here with, just replying, if City's deals and finances are above scrutiny the fair play.
I will say they may have them in place now, I sincerely doubt they had them in place since day dot of the spending splurge. How that relates to when FFP came in to play, I have no idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since day dot…
FFP didn’t even exist. So it didn’t relate at all.
What do you mean by sponsorship deals which aren’t paid back?
Page 3 of 4