same problem as la liga/Barca. You cut them adrift and you replace them with a team that has marginally solvent ownership and a 15,000 seat stadium in a town with less than 100,000 people.jeffk said:
Could this happen to PSG is a better thought experiment, I think.
And worse, PSG represents the lion's share of Ligue 1's UEFA coefficient. No idea what would happen to their points if they expelled PSG, but if it meant those points went away, it likely costs the whole league at least one direct CL group stage spot.ThunderCougarFalconBird said:same problem as la liga/Barca. You cut them adrift and you replace them with a team that has marginally solvent ownership and a 15,000 seat stadium in a town with less than 100,000 people.jeffk said:
Could this happen to PSG is a better thought experiment, I think.
Ag Since 83 said:
Supposedly the British government was going to issue its whitepaper about a potential regulator tomorrow, and that whitepaper has now been delayed.
So if you buy into the theory that getting serious about City now after all these years is about the Premier League trying to show the government they don't need a regulator, maybe there will be some punishment. A slap on the wrist probably won't cut it.
yes, i am aware. but, Roman really helped start this.Mathguy64 said:
Except Chelsea isn't sportswashing anymore. And the new owners are about to discover it's neither a level playing field nor anything like owning an American sports franchise.
You could argue he started it.Furlock Bones said:yes, i am aware. but, Roman really helped start this.Mathguy64 said:
Except Chelsea isn't sportswashing anymore. And the new owners are about to discover it's neither a level playing field nor anything like owning an American sports franchise.
I'm not sure that's even a real goal for some of those sovereign wealth owners...it's sports washing, but it's also a play toy and the $ amounts are actually somewhat small change for these Middle East funds.Furlock Bones said:
as a ManU fan, i can say most ManU fans are only mad because the Glazers have treated the club like an American investment. use leverage to extract the equity from the club and bank on future value growth whereas Man Dhabi/PSQ/Chelski etc are using the clubs to sportswash and know they will get their money back (or at least breakeven) in the long run thanks to value growth.
When QPR broke the pathetic impractical FFP rules (and didn't try to hide it in any way) they got a fine of £43m - PERSPECTIVE. (Note, for the record, we smashed those rules and deserved a punishment, but compared to the (relative) slap on the wrist City will get, it rankles.
— davman (@davman1971) February 8, 2023
Texaggie7nine said:
Exactly. Russian barons need to wash money because they aren't in control of the gov. M.E. royalty doesn't need to wash money. They just want something to do with all their wealth.
jeffk said:
A lot of people confusing sportswashing with money laundering.
Dre_00 said:Texaggie7nine said:
Exactly. Russian barons need to wash money because they aren't in control of the gov. M.E. royalty doesn't need to wash money. They just want something to do with all their wealth.
That's...not what sports washing is. These owners aren't buying the clubs just because they want a play toy. They are doing it to enhance their perception and the perception of their nation/city states. Doing that successfully has a MUCH larger impact on their current and future wealth and power than any cost of running a club. It's a calculated investment into a broader strategy, not an impulse buy.
Really there are two separate issues. Yes, the financial weight of a sovereign state destroys the financial fundamentals of the league. But that's a symptom of the decision to initially invest in the first place...which is solely based in geopolitics and currying favor in the West (and globally to an extent) to meet their own political ends.
Eggggg zack ly.Quote:
who largely didn't get into the game to make money...they had more money then they knew what to do with, a desire for prestige within their own "world"*, and wanted something fun to play with.
Sheriff Tiraspol is just a part of what is a small warlord's fiefdom -- football branch. They're absolutely operating with ill-gotten funds but there isn't anyone with the actual authority to look under the hood.deadbq03 said:
Or to provide a tangible example, Sheriff Tiraspol is most certainly a money-laundering scheme (and probably also sports washing).
Texaggie7nine said:Eggggg zack ly.Quote:
who largely didn't get into the game to make money...they had more money then they knew what to do with, a desire for prestige within their own "world"*, and wanted something fun to play with.
These guys don't think that if they run a team super well and beat all the other teams that fans all over will love them and see their state and royal family as morally better. They want to just feel the prestige of bumping elbows with the big boys of western industries.
One thing that the EPL could be interested in, and probably could actually look into, is whether transfers between Manchester City and other City Group clubs actually reflect market values.ThunderCougarFalconBird said:Sheriff Tiraspol is just a part of what is a small warlord's fiefdom -- football branch. They're absolutely operating with ill-gotten funds but there isn't anyone with the actual authority to look under the hood.deadbq03 said:
Or to provide a tangible example, Sheriff Tiraspol is most certainly a money-laundering scheme (and probably also sports washing).
That said, I think the commentary about petro state ownership and sportswashing is really good on this thread.
I am really curious to see what the EPL comes up with and what Man City is really up to. Think it will affect NYCFC?
Good thought. And possibly for more than honest amounts where the situation calls for it. The price of the player being altered to fit the needs of the organization.TXAggie2011 said:One thing that the EPL could be interested in, and probably could actually look into, is whether transfers between Manchester City and other City Group clubs actually reflect market values.ThunderCougarFalconBird said:Sheriff Tiraspol is just a part of what is a small warlord's fiefdom -- football branch. They're absolutely operating with ill-gotten funds but there isn't anyone with the actual authority to look under the hood.deadbq03 said:
Or to provide a tangible example, Sheriff Tiraspol is most certainly a money-laundering scheme (and probably also sports washing).
That said, I think the commentary about petro state ownership and sportswashing is really good on this thread.
I am really curious to see what the EPL comes up with and what Man City is really up to. Think it will affect NYCFC?
Like, folks are debating what's actually money laundering or not? They could certainly do sketchy stuff by moving players around City Group for less than honest amounts.
