Gobby wrote:
I'm going to hold my tongue about this FFP thing from now on until more is known, but for balance on that article (mainly because Oliver Holt is a tit) here's an excerpt from today's Mediawatch:
The Best Of Football
Mediawatch was under the impression that Manchester City flouting FFP regulations was A Bad Thing, but Oliver Holt adopts an interesting interpretation in the Daily Mirror. Under the headline 'Ignored by the nation and hounded by UEFA...Pelle's heroes deserve much, much better', Holt essentially complains that UEFA should give City a break because they play wonderful football.
'Even now Liverpool and Chelsea have faded from the picture, still the headlines are not about City's excellence,' writes Holt, forgetting that 'faded' Liverpool are top of the Premier League and so obviously still a huge story - one he has covered in far more depth than the City side he now eulogises.
'Instead, it's about the estimated £49million fine UEFA are set to attempt to impose on them for breaching Financial Fair Play regulations.
'Something is wrong with FFP if it punishes a regime that is pouring millions into the regeneration of a deprived area of East Manchester.
'Nobody is suggesting Sheikh Mansour and his cohorts are driven by altruism but whatever their motives, it is hard not to admire much of what is happening at City.'
Talk about conflating the numerous issues involved. Firstly, the current headlines relating to City are obviously going to focus on their £49m fine because, well, that's a pretty big deal. And that £49m fine has nothing to do with the club's 'regeneration of a deprived area of East Manchester' - City could easily invest in the area and avoid UEFA punishment.
It's about spunking millions on new players and their enormous wages, profiting from artificially inflated sponsorship deals, and what that means for the nature of competition.
'That is the problem with FFP,' Holt continues. 'It enshrines the principle that might is right, big equals good. It seeks the perpetuate the hegemony of the clubs with the most supporters and the most revenue. There is no fantasy about it.'
Seemingly there is a fantasy about City's rags-to-riches story, however, which Holt claims 'represents the dream of every downtrodden club, every poor relation, that one day it can be propelled to the top'.
Except, of course, it doesn't. Holt might argue that UEFA 'distrust the rise of smaller clubs', but City were hardly minnows before Thaksin Shinawatra and then Sheikh Mansour decided to invest. There is nothing about City's story to inspire downtrodden provincial clubs such as Burnley or Scunthorpe, and anyway, if dreaming of winning the lottery is your only hope of sticking it to the big boys, that's hardly the glorious fairytale Holt is trying to paint.
Yes, City play some fantastic football, and Mediawatch has hugely enjoyed watching them this season. But if they win the league it will not be a 'triumph for a team that represents the best of football'. It will be a triumph for football's equivalent of a get-rich-quick scheme.