Manchester City Thread

Well, what we need is a CDM destroyer. Someone who can stop the opposition and start off counter attacks.

Fernandinho can do a job there but his game is more about harrying, intercepting and carrying the ball forward.

We lack someone who we can put infront of and protect the CBs. That was one of our downfalls against Liverpool, Chelsea and in the CL. Garcia isn't up to it.
 
Godo, I know my club very well, and I am sure Porto will only release Fernando for 24m £ at least (30m €)
 
Last edited:
Only way we'd pay that is if we got Mangala very cheap

Otherwise we'll walk away, esp. considering we could have signed him for 0
 
Rentboy said:
Pardon the ignorance, but what exactly is a 'double pivot'?
Click to expand...

It is an annoying phrase used by Football Manager Game Geeks.

I think it means this:

------------ GK --------------

RB ------ CB -- CB --------- LB

-------- DMF -- DMF ----------

----------- CAM --------------

RW -------- ST ------------- LW



^ The two DMF's are the 'double pivot'.



A 'single pivot' is:


RB ------ CB ----- CB ----- LB

---------- DMF ----------------

------- CM ---- CM ------------

RW -------- ST ------------- LW



But I might be wrong on this.

:)
 
Steak Bake said:
....But I might be wrong on this.

:)
Click to expand...

And indeed you were wrong. It's more like 2 CMs: A box-to-box (Vieira) and a ball winning one (Gilberto Silva). Both can defend and both can join the attack, that's the main idea here.
 
Last edited:
amineken22 said:
And indeed you were wrong. It's more like 2 CMs: A box-to-box (Vieira) and a ball winning one (Gilberto Silva). Both can defend and both can join the attack, that's the main idea here.
Click to expand...
No. He is right. Double Pivot consists on two DMF. Like Brazil usually play. The are not two CMF's, they do not have such offensive responsibilities. Normally they are use behing one OMF (Rivaldo in 2002 or Oscar in 2013) or two OMF (Kaka and Ronaldinho in 2006). But can also be used in other tactical schemes.


Javi Garcia was 20 Million euros plus 3 million on objectives.
 
Wow, City accepts FFP punishments:

49m fine (from witheld earnings)
21 man squad cap
Max 20m loss this year
Max 10m loss next year


First two shouldn't really hurt City, but I don't understand the last 2. Expect a brand new Etihad deal to get losses to 19.9m next year and 9.9m the year after ;)
 
MCFC Financial Fair Play Statement:

Manchester City Football Club can confirm that at the end of the current financial year (May 31st) it is on course to financially break even, as planned.

Operating with no debt, the Club is realising its football and commercial opportunities whilst continuing unprecedented investments in both youth development and the local community

From the outset, the Club has engaged with UEFA in its introduction of the Financial Fair Play Regulations in good faith and without prejudice and in a transparent and collaborative manner. The Club’s position is that it is beholden upon UEFA and the European football establishment to ensure the same.

The Club can confirm that it has been in discussions with UEFA over the last month - in relation to the application of Financial Fair Play regulations - as has been widely reported and communicated by UEFA. At the heart of those discussions is a fundamental disagreement between the Club’s and UEFA’s respective interpretations of the FFP regulations on players purchased before 2010. The Club believes it has complied with the FFP regulations on this and all other matters.

In normal circumstances, the Club would wish to pursue its case and present its position through every avenue of recourse. However, our decision to do so must be balanced against the practical realities for our fans, for our partners and in the interests of the commercial operations of the Club.

As a result of these considerations and the fact that the Club is now break even in in its operations, the Club has decided to enter into a compromise agreement with UEFA with the following practical outcomes:

- MCFC will lose 10m Euros of its share of income from UEFA for competing in the Champions League completion in season 2013-14.
- MCFC will lose 10m Euros of its share of income from UEFA for competing in the Champions League for season 2014-15
- Rather than having an accumulative allowance of 30m Euros of losses over the next two reporting years (like all other clubs), MCFC will have specific stipulated allowances for 2013-14 and 2014-15 of 20m Euros and 10m Euros respectively. Significantly, MCFC plans to be profitable in 2014-15 and in the years that follow.
- The MCFC Champions League squad for the 2014-15 competition will be limited to 21 players. In 2013-14 the club registered 23 players for the competition and used 21.
- The Club’s expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros. This will have no material impact on the Club’s planned transfer activity.
- The wage bill of the whole club (playing and non-playing staff) for 2014-15 will need to remain at the same level as that of 2013-14 season. It is important to note that additional bonuses for performances can be paid outside this number. Importantly, in reality, the existing MCFC business plan sees a natural decline in that wage bill.
- Given the unique nature of the new City Football Group structure – which incorporates MCFC, New York City, Melbourne Heart and a number of other companies, the Club has agreed to certain non-material terms in order to make FFP reporting as easy as possible for UEFA to discern.

The nature of conditions that will result in the lifting of sanctions means that the Club expects to be operating without sanction or restriction at the commencement of the 2015-16 season.

Importantly all non-financial sanctions agreed to would have been complied with as a natural course of the Club’s planned business operations.
 
Is this good or bad news for City?

If rules were broken or get broken again, fining City or any other club, millions of Euros won't hurt them at all. Taking points off is the only punishment that will make teams of these mega rich owners truly obey.
 
lol ye punishing man city with fines is a waste of time, they should do something like start champions league group stage with -10 points..
 
some of these money punishments don't really mean anything else than some sort of 'legalized' bribe to me. esp when it's one of those mega-rich teams.
 
Money talks. That's why Blatter won't walk away. He's so corrupt, what chance do the rest of the governing bodies of football have when the main man is a huge crook along with all his European cronies? Line his palms with silver and he'll gladly look the other way. It stinks...
 
The "fine" is only €20m/£16m overall as we get back the other €40m/£32m when we pass FFP next year

It's pretty clear from City's (contemptuous) statement that they think they've been misled by the UEFA cartel.

The non monetary punishments are:
-21 man CL squad
-Restricted to £50m net spend on transfers (which can enter the CL)
-Wages can't increase.

-The squad restriction may cause a smaller A list, tho how much smaller depends on whether the cartel upholds the 8 man HG rule (by rights that should be lowered to fit the overall reduction). This is the one sanction that may cause some difficulty.

-I never felt we would spend more than 50m net so I can't see that being a problem.

-Wages aren't a problem because they were in the process of being lowered anyway.


As the City statement says, and as I mentioned to Steak Beak on the previous page http://forums.evo-web.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2905434&postcount=3314 , the only reason why City have failed FFP is because of a technicality surrounding the pre-July 2010 contract exclusion.
PSG, on the other hand, failed because they made huge losses and tried to cover them with a joke of a sponsorship. Why we're facing the same sanctions I'll never know.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that PSG sponsorship is a total scam, it's clearly inflated way beyond the fair value, plus there's some conflict of interest (they should get a bigger fine just for that).
I don't know if the owner was stupid enough to think it was going to pass, or just plain naïve.
 
Godotelli said:
PSG, on the other hand, failed because they made huge losses and tried to cover them with a joke of a sponsorship. Why we're facing the same sanctions I'll never know.
Click to expand...

26m on intellectual property transfers between teams? Hrm...

Still, very strange stuff from UEFA, seems like City are on track to at least not be hemorrhaging money next season, thought that was the goal.
 
It's a farce the way MsnCity is getting treated. 21 squad rosters and -£49m, - £10m on CL money is so wrong. Why not force them to play w/ 9 men on the pitch. I rather they miss next season and pay nothing to FFP accounts.
 
if I am reading the sanctions correctly, it turns out we can spend more than 50m net as long as the signing/s that push us over the limit are under 21. This is because the sanction only applies to the CL A list squad. Someone like Barkley would still be able to be signed and play in the CL as his age dictates that he'd be put in the B list as far as CL squad registration is concerned.

:SMUG:
 
How are you guys actually lowering the wages? Whenever I read anything about wages from different clubs they are always getting higher, bigger tv deals inflates everything. So how can City lower the wages? Are the new players really that much more cheaper? How many players are actually being sold? The squad seems pretty balanced to me and without a huge second tier of players. Who in Chelsea's case get loaned out.
 
TikTikTikTikTik said:
How are you guys actually lowering the wages? Whenever I read anything about wages from different clubs they are always getting higher, bigger tv deals inflates everything. So how can City lower the wages? Are the new players really that much more cheaper? How many players are actually being sold? The squad seems pretty balanced to me and without a huge second tier of players. Who in Chelsea's case get loaned out.
Click to expand...

I don't know how City does it but there are a few ways of doing it without actually doing it.

An example;

Fake Football Club
Director 5k
Chief of Football 3k
Manager 2k

Total 10k which is 3.3k avg (10/3)

If they can somehow convince UEFA that they need more employees to function properly they can do this;

Fake Football Club
Director 5k
Chief of Football 3k
Chief of Football's assistant 1k
Manager 2k
Assistant Manager 1k

Total 12k which is 2.4k avg (12/5)

The last example actually spends more money but can appear more properly run due to lower avg wages. Now imagine a bunch of "hollow" positions in a club that doesn't really make a lot of money and they can appear decent on paper if the actual money is there to pay the bills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom