UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
It all boils down to what I have been saying for years now, that is FFP should be scraped. In it's place there should be a new law, that is COP. this stands for CAN OWNERS PAY. UEFA should be able to ask questions of the owners of all participating clubs in UEFA comps.. That should the banks come calling, can the owners pay off some of the debt that the club has accrued, the owners have sufficient funds to pay at least 25% off the debt within a specified time limit. Let's say for arguments sake 4weeks from the moment the bank asks for the debt to be reduced the clubs owners can do this. If this is not possible then the club is banned from all European comps until the debt is reduce by 50%, or 2 seasons which ever comes first.
 
The only rule left for them soon will be investment is only allowed if your name isn't Manchester City F.C.

Name change to Manchester City 1894 incoming...... ;-)
 
If I owned a Printing company and was offered a lucrative contract which meant I would need to borrow 1 million pounds to purchase the necessary machinery to fulfill the said contract. Is there a law/ruling that would not allow me to borrow the money? UEFA/FA seem to think there is.
 
berryblue said:
If I owned a Printing company and was offered a lucrative contract which meant I would need to borrow 1 million pounds to purchase the necessary machinery to fulfill the said contract. Is there a law/ruling that would not allow me to borrow the money? UEFA/FA seem to think there is.
Click to expand...
There isn’t , but I think there should be rule that monitors where it comes from obviously a bank would want to see a business plan. Whereas if you lent the bsiness the money youself you would be in danger of bankrupting yourself and the business. So I can see a need for some control to protect clubs from bad owners. I dont know enough to say what that should be but it obviously isnt right if we fall foul of it and the Glazers can load a club with debt.
 
Roachy said:
Probably happen after City get fucked over.
Click to expand...
Didn't they change the rules a few years ago when the Italian teams, notably AC Millan wanted to spend huge so they changed the rules to let them, but at the same time said the new rules do not apply to us due to us failing FFP previously
 
blueparrot said:
There isn’t , but I think there should be rule that monitors where it comes from obviously a bank would want to see a business plan. Whereas if you lent the bsiness the money youself you would be in danger of bankrupting yourself and the business. So I can see a need for some control to protect clubs from bad owners. I dont know enough to say what that should be but it obviously isnt right if we fall foul of it and the Glazers can load a club with debt.
Click to expand...

The control could be financial penalties to the owner for breaches rather than punishing the clubs themselves.
 
Rolee said:
The control could be financial penalties to the owner for breaches rather than punishing the clubs themselves.
Click to expand...
That would be very difficult without the courts, UEFA have no control over private individuals only over clubs competing in their competitions I’d have thought.
 
blueparrot said:
That would be very difficult without the courts, UEFA have no control over private individuals only over clubs competing in their competitions I’d have thought.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that as I was typing, I've no idea of the legalities of it.
 
The kind of leveraged takeover with which the Glazers "bought" United is perfectly legal in the UK but is not, I believe, in the USA. Providing interest free loans, as Abramovitch has done, is clearly not illegal and so the scope for UEFA to take action is probably limited if they wish to avoid challenge in the courts. The irony is, of course, that UEFA chose to duck out of possible collision with those who pose a real risk to clubs and genuine danger to the game, to try and make it impossible for owners, who wish to invest in their clubs to make them more competitive and provide a better product for fans to watch, actually to invest in their clubs. One of the people asked by UEFA to draw up the FFP regulations resigned because he believed unlimited owner investment to be essential for the professional game to progress. This has been stated many, many tomes, of course, and by many, many different people - let's hope that, at long last, UEFA are seeing sense.
 
Would we be due our “fine” back, plus of course interest?? Not to mention damages due to squad reduction...
 
bennyboy said:
With the loses they made recently would Wolves be allowed to play in the UEFA cup.
Click to expand...
If you recall, UEFA only investigate teams currently in Europe so I would guess that there would be no sanction for Wolves. It happened when Liverpool would have failed FFP had they been looked at following their 'Premier League Trophy' season back in 2013-14. They were allowed to contest the CL without any penalty. Unlike City!
 
JGL07 said:
If you recall, UEFA only investigate teams currently in Europe so I would guess that there would be no sanction for Wolves. It happened when Liverpool would have failed FFP had they been looked at following their 'Premier League Trophy' season back in 2013-14. They were allowed to contest the CL without any penalty. Unlike City!
Click to expand...

Not quite, UEFA did investigate Liverpool, they were allowed to write off a fair amount of their losses as allowable expenditure (think they said it was for their stadium)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top