The mancityfans.net football forum

So the government have laid out several "recommendations" that need to be adhered to by start of 2013/14 season.

There's the usual financial talk, but there was something mentioned about the governing body being made up of more independant members as opposed to those with vested interests?

Hopefully this means what I think it does.

What do you reckon?

It could mean david gill being told to concentrate on one pie only and take his fingers out of the other ones...but...in this country the strongest medicine is diluted to the point where it becomes a mere placebo...an obstacle to truth and renewal. I need a lie down.

The power will remain with the vested interests still.
The premier League has a separate board I understand, and that is where the real decisions are made.
The FA lost control as arbiters of the game in the early 90's, when they rolled over for Dein, Edwards et al.

Original Dub wrote:So the government have laid out several "recommendations" that need to be adhered to by start of 2013/14 season.

There's the usual financial talk, but there was something mentioned about the governing body being made up of more independant members as opposed to those with vested interests?

Hopefully this means what I think it does.

What do you reckon?

There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.

I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.

Ted Hughes wrote:
There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.

I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.

Cameron was at the fa cup final?

MilnersJaw wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:
There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.

I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.

Cameron was at the fa cup final?

Apparently, he's a big fan of soccer.

MilnersJaw wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:
There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.

I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.

Cameron was at the fa cup final?

He was certainly at the 2010/11 final. I upset the missus with my tirade about his parentage, the fact he's a useless cnut and the fact he was there and I couldn't get a ticket,

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

MilnersJaw wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:
There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.

I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.

Cameron was at the fa cup final?

Apparently, he's a big fan of soccer.

He's a big fan of anything that gets his increasingly pudgy face on the TV. I had him down as more of a polo fan anyway for some reason.

Dameerto wrote:

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

MilnersJaw wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:
There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.

I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.

Cameron was at the fa cup final?

Apparently, he's a big fan of soccer.

He's a big fan of anything that gets his increasingly pudgy face on the TV. I had him down as more of a polo fan anyway for some reason.

He already gets the 'polo' vote. He's now after the 'fruit-salad-and-black-jack' set. He reminds me of Mr Creosote.

MilnersJaw wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:
There are almost certainly MPs who are fans & happy to help the cartel, but don't think our government, whatever the colour, will see any advantage in allowing certain people to change rules & stop investment in our country to suit their own ends. It wouldn't surprise me if they have a word.

I noticed Cameron made sure he sat next to Khaldoon at the cup final.

Cameron was at the fa cup final?

don't forget roger milla at italia 90

Nigels Tackle wrote:
don't forget roger milla at italia 90

i hope you've got your hat on

Ssn never cease to amaze.

They have turned this whole topic on its head and their "report" is completely about government setting new rules so clubs like city and chelsea don't ruin everything. Completely financial and no mention whatsoever about the proposals of independent members who have no vested interest in any one club.

Lord triesman was on live earlier and he said he felt this should have been the way years ago and that he was all for it when he was in charge.

That part of the interview has not been repeated once.

What a fantastic propaganda machine ssn is for the bully boys.

I wonder has David Gill's efforts to leave the FA and join the board of UEFA have anything to do with being informed of the government's plans?

The english government might be able to take out the rag influence in the FA but not in UEFA and certainly not in the media.

Original Dub wrote:Ssn never cease to amaze.

They have turned this whole topic on its head and their "report" is completely about government setting new rules so clubs like city and chelsea don't ruin everything. Completely financial and no mention whatsoever about the proposals of independent members who have no vested interest in any one club.

Lord triesman was on live earlier and he said he felt this should have been the way years ago and that he was all for it when he was in charge.

That part of the interview has not been repeated once.

What a fantastic propaganda machine ssn is for the bully boys.

I wonder has David Gill's efforts to leave the FA and join the board of UEFA have anything to do with being informed of the government's plans?

The english government might be able to take out the rag influence in the FA but not in UEFA and certainly not in the media.

I've said it before mate, i've no problem with FFP rules being put in place, so long as they're not purely there to protect the interests of the already established clubs.

FFP should mean salary caps, player trades, even a draft system. Not billions of debt, and the obscene TV deals such as in spain.

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:

Original Dub wrote:Ssn never cease to amaze.

They have turned this whole topic on its head and their "report" is completely about government setting new rules so clubs like city and chelsea don't ruin everything. Completely financial and no mention whatsoever about the proposals of independent members who have no vested interest in any one club.

Lord triesman was on live earlier and he said he felt this should have been the way years ago and that he was all for it when he was in charge.

That part of the interview has not been repeated once.

What a fantastic propaganda machine ssn is for the bully boys.

I wonder has David Gill's efforts to leave the FA and join the board of UEFA have anything to do with being informed of the government's plans?

The english government might be able to take out the rag influence in the FA but not in UEFA and certainly not in the media.

I've said it before mate, i've no problem with FFP rules being put in place, so long as they're not purely there to protect the interests of the already established clubs.

FFP should mean salary caps, player trades, even a draft system. Not billions of debt, and the obscene TV deals such as in spain.

I've said the same. You either have 'fair play' or you don't.

Why the fuck should any competition introduce rules to favour of the biggest earners, so they can spend & others can't ? If it was trying to be fair & equal, it would be biased against them & help the clubs who are skint.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:

Original Dub wrote:Ssn never cease to amaze.

They have turned this whole topic on its head and their "report" is completely about government setting new rules so clubs like city and chelsea don't ruin everything. Completely financial and no mention whatsoever about the proposals of independent members who have no vested interest in any one club.

Lord triesman was on live earlier and he said he felt this should have been the way years ago and that he was all for it when he was in charge.

That part of the interview has not been repeated once.

What a fantastic propaganda machine ssn is for the bully boys.

I wonder has David Gill's efforts to leave the FA and join the board of UEFA have anything to do with being informed of the government's plans?

The english government might be able to take out the rag influence in the FA but not in UEFA and certainly not in the media.

I've said it before mate, i've no problem with FFP rules being put in place, so long as they're not purely there to protect the interests of the already established clubs.

FFP should mean salary caps, player trades, even a draft system. Not billions of debt, and the obscene TV deals such as in spain.

I've said the same. You either have 'fair play' or you don't.

Why the fuck should any competition introduce rules to favour of the biggest earners, so they can spend & others can't ? If it was trying to be fair & equal, it would be biased against them & help the clubs who are skint.

started with the removal of the "away gate share (25%?)" in about 1989 mate. Responsible? The "Big Five".

(in fact it may have started earlier than that, but that's when my awareness started.)

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:
I've said it before mate, i've no problem with FFP rules being put in place, so long as they're not purely there to protect the interests of the already established clubs.

FFP should mean salary caps, player trades, even a draft system. Not billions of debt, and the obscene TV deals such as in spain.

Exactly. If it's fair then by all means do it.

It's just that sky seem to think it's related to Platini's "save the established from the sugar daddy" campaign. And they haven't touched on the fact that it isn't right to have the fucking man united chief executive as the vice president of the football authority in england.

My God, it even feels silly saying that something like that should be looked at when common sense says it should never have happened in the first place.

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:

Original Dub wrote:Ssn never cease to amaze.

They have turned this whole topic on its head and their "report" is completely about government setting new rules so clubs like city and chelsea don't ruin everything. Completely financial and no mention whatsoever about the proposals of independent members who have no vested interest in any one club.

Lord triesman was on live earlier and he said he felt this should have been the way years ago and that he was all for it when he was in charge.

That part of the interview has not been repeated once.

What a fantastic propaganda machine ssn is for the bully boys.

I wonder has David Gill's efforts to leave the FA and join the board of UEFA have anything to do with being informed of the government's plans?

The english government might be able to take out the rag influence in the FA but not in UEFA and certainly not in the media.

I've said it before mate, i've no problem with FFP rules being put in place, so long as they're not purely there to protect the interests of the already established clubs.

FFP should mean salary caps, player trades, even a draft system. Not billions of debt, and the obscene TV deals such as in spain.

I've said the same. You either have 'fair play' or you don't.

Why the fuck should any competition introduce rules to favour of the biggest earners, so they can spend & others can't ? If it was trying to be fair & equal, it would be biased against them & help the clubs who are skint.

started with the removal of the "away gate share (25%?)" in about 1989 mate. Responsible? The "Big Five".

(in fact it may have started earlier than that, but that's when my awareness started.)

The whole thing has been deliberate; to seperate them from the others by pushing up wages, transfer fees etc.

Even if a club could afford to sign a top player, you had the 'he won't sign for 'X' as they are not in the Champions League' as an extra safeguard just in case anyone threatened to break the monopoly. That's why we had to go through Adebayors & Bridges before we could sign Silvas & Agueros. Without enormous funds, how could anyone possibly compete ? How do you get the huge funds if you're not in the Champions League ? Simple : you don't, & that's why they invented the system.

They make me sick. I don't give a fuck if PSG spend money or another sheikh buys Newcastle it's competition.

I despise these artificial restrictions in the name of 'fair play & it won't stop us anyway. I despise it not because of its effect on us, but on how its designed to protect those shithouses who have been coining it in for decades.