5 year

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-09-26

Final complete day: 2026-09-26. Attention was 0.3% — this entity appeared in 29 of 11,602 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (31 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-09-26 23:11 UTCComment

   You create 20 Wrexhams then a significant portion of them are going to need Phoenix clubs after 5 years. Especially if they end up in the same league.

2. 2026-09-26 23:06 UTCPost

   Smaller clubs getting more opportunities to legitimately and fairly spend more to build their squads could help the sport - I was thinking about why man city would risk everything to build this club up to where they are. Fundamentally maybe clubs should be allowed to make investments within the rules. This is not defending man city as the sheer amount of money they spent on their squad given their revenue is stupid, but rather that the issue stems from a lack of legitimate ways for smaller prem sides to grow organically. I was thinking about it what if smaller teams could apply for a program where they are allowed to spend more to build a top squad. But the catch is that within say, 5 years, the club will no longer be allowed this extra spending. Meaning that if the club fails to grow in that 5 years then they get the extra spending ability taken away again. This would not be a loan, so no intrest or need to pay it back. They just get a set amount of years years to invest in the club with less limits and a chance to grow it. The ability to do this would not be standard but clubs would have to be monitored and approved by the FA. This is just one idea but I'd like to hear what you guys think about the topic. Would it improve the leagues competitiveness?

3. 2026-09-26 22:52 UTCComment

   FFP was brought in to stop overspending by clubs and putting them at risk of being put into administration/going bankrupt. It was voted in by all members of the league, not just the ‘elite’ clubs. Changes to financial rules are being made all the time. The way in which the Glazers bought Manchester United is now illegal as it has saddled the club with \~£1B debt. Purchases can now only be amortised over 5 years in a response to Chelsea’s dealings to get around FFP and PSR. What City did was blatantly against the financial regulations already put into place and they did so for almost a decade. They lied to artificially inject funds into the club to buy success. They then tried to impede the investigation by withholding evidence at all stages of the process. The clubs that have suffered the most are those that were relegated or didn’t get into European spots due to City’s cheating. The amount of corruption that has been exposed is on such an egregious level, in terms of both scope and longevity, that anything short of expulsion from the Premiere League and subsequent refusal by the EFL to accept them into their leagues will forever be a stain on English football. Nothing they have achieved since 2008 has been legitimately. Whilst I don’t think awarded the titles they won to the second place holders I do think they should mark those years as being voided. No one won them.

4. 2026-09-26 18:16 UTCComment

   1. £1bn+ fine to the Premier League, the money should also be distributed from the top of the pyramid to the bottom to help stabilise teams that don't have the financial resources to compete on an even playing field. 2. City either need to receive a points deduction that's so big they are relegated this season to the Championship or if they're expelled from the league they must start right from the bottom of the pyramid and work their way up. (This would be a bare minimum punishment for me). 3. Premier League transfer ban, now in relation to two, either a 5/10yr transfer ban straight off the bat that every league agrees to uphold, if they are expelled from the league are at the bottom it'd take 5/6 years to come back so the transfer ban starts again the minute they get back in the league, I'd factor this in for time served outside the league, so if in 5 years they're back and they have a 10 year ban, the 10 years is factored into the time they weren't in the league. 4. All titles after 2011 void including the Guardiola era, even if City fans want to argue about results on the pitch, the fact remains the coaches and teams they assembled were under the umbrella of an infrastructure that was built by cheating. The titles shouldn't be given back either, just void for the years City won, any prize money/bonuses paid to clubs that lost out to titles or a Champion's League spot instead. 5. Owners forced to sell and anyone involved given a life-time ban from owning/operating another club, this would include our CEO Berrada as well, I'd even go as far as to extend this to managers like Mancini, if he secretly accepted extra funds through parallel accounts then he should either lose his coaching licence altogether or he should be banned from ever being allowed to manage in the league. 6. Isn't so much of a punishment for City, but at least a review period for different clubs to avoid this happening again, so for example, Newcastle fans were upset that they couldn't spend as much money with their new owners, so I'd allow for a 2 year grace period in which the rules around PSR were relaxed to give teams a chance to buy players and compete on a similar playing field. I'd also look to prevent any type of ownership that involves a country.

5. 2026-09-26 17:33 UTCComment

   5 years is optimistic. I don't think they are coming back from this.