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

[razman]

.

Nothing to do with us ...but maybe something ongoing in the background with city and UEFA...it's been a bit quiet ...not wanting an all out court battle ?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I don't have sympathy for them either but contrary to PSG and City who had wealthy owners that brought with them some solid sponsors (considered related or not parties), Milan has almost 0 on the commercial side. While they are a big club and are well known, they missed the train to develop the brand. Thus, they experience troubles to adhere to the break even rule.

You highlight a sensible point when you mention the need of big investment to grow. This is what Elliot, the new owner, is asking from UEFA. They want UEFA to give them more time to be able to invest and have a successful business plan. They want 5 year when UEFA allows you 3 year time.

I agree with this. Why is UEFA being so destructive and obstructing clubs that are trying to grow? Everyone knows that Milan have done some dodgy practices in the past but Italian football will be much stronger if someone (eg both Milan clubs) can provide competion for Juve.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

.

Nothing to do with us ...but maybe something ongoing in the background with city and UEFA...it's been a bit quiet ...not wanting an all out court battle ?

Similar to PSG having to sell players a few years back? This only seems to make sens in terms of specific accounting totals, and City's case is not to do with that.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I agree with this. Why is UEFA being so destructive and obstructing clubs that are trying to grow? Everyone knows that Milan have done some dodgy practices in the past but Italian football will be much stronger if someone (eg both Milan clubs) can provide competion for Juve.

I don't think UEFA are specifically being awkward, they're just trying to catch up with the mess FFP's flaws have left them.

FFP made new-owner investment essentially impossible (which is why several PL clubs are difficult to find buyers for).
To make it easier, a rule was made giving new owners 3 years with some form of leeway (I can't remember what, but this is what is being discussed).
It appears Milan's owner is basically saying that 3 years isn't long enough (this will be made worse now 4 Italian clubs automatically make the CL groups, and gain a big slab of cash that others don't have).

Memory says that Milan went way overboard in the first years of a recent takeover, and I think it was them who had a punitive bank loan which needed repaying- i'm sure others can confirm.

 

[Parisian]

I agree with this. Why is UEFA being so destructive and obstructing clubs that are trying to grow? Everyone knows that Milan have done some dodgy practices in the past but Italian football will be much stronger if someone (eg both Milan clubs) can provide competion for Juve.

Because FFP, in the way it has been designed, is there to protect the clubs at the top on the cover of cleaning european club finances.
I'm all for FFP enforcing clubs and their owners to fulfill their financial obligations : this is the case of the clubs that have been banned from UEFA competitions so far.
I'm all for FFP enforcing clubs and owners to show they can and will repay their debts.
But the whole you can't spend the money you have because we say so is bullshit.
UEFA is not being destructive or obstructive. It is just the result of the power and influence some clubs have over UEFA. UEFA has to please their members. When you read some Ceferin interviews, it is evident there are a lot of clubs with vested interests that are trying to push some agendas that would benefit them. UEFA is just mirroring those clubs agendas.

 

[Parisian]

I don't think UEFA are specifically being awkward, they're just trying to catch up with the mess FFP's flaws have left them.

FFP made new-owner investment essentially impossible (which is why several PL clubs are difficult to find buyers for).
To make it easier, a rule was made giving new owners 3 years with some form of leeway (I can't remember what, but this is what is being discussed).
It appears Milan's owner is basically saying that 3 years isn't long enough (this will be made worse now 4 Italian clubs automatically make the CL groups, and gain a big slab of cash that others don't have).

Memory says that Milan went way overboard in the first years of a recent takeover, and I think it was them who had a punitive bank loan which needed repaying- i'm sure others can confirm.

Yup. Milan got initially banned because their chinese owner was dodgy. Elliot was the fund he needed to repay some money to. He failed to do that and , as a consequence, Elliot took over. And this is why CAS decided to broke the decision of UEFA to ban them (no club has been banned so far except for those not able to actually pay for their expenses).

Elliot is unhappy because they are shackled by sanctions from late Berlusconi days and first chinese year. This mean, they couldn't even put their business plan into work that they are already pulled down.

The leeway is they let you invest after the takeover but you have to show them a 3 year business plan showing how you'll comply with the break even rule after this term. If you are not fullfilling your own business plan, UEFA will put some sanction on you, even before the 3 year period has ended.

 

[SWP's back]

.

Nothing to do with us ...but maybe something ongoing in the background with city and UEFA...it's been a bit quiet ...not wanting an all out court battle ?

I doubt it. That agreement relates to the here and now.

City have no issues at all anymore as we make a profit. Our issues relate to the period 2011-14 (and we’ve already been punished once for those accounts). We won’t be agreeing to anything.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yup. Milan got initially banned because their chinese owner was dodgy. Elliot was the fund he needed to repay some money to. He failed to do that and , as a consequence, Elliot took over. And this is why CAS decided to broke the decision of UEFA to ban them (no club has been banned so far except for those not able to actually pay for their expenses).

Elliot is unhappy because they are shackled by sanctions from late Berlusconi days and first chinese year. This mean, they couldn't even put their business plan into work that they are already pulled down.

The leeway is they let you invest after the takeover but you have to show them a 3 year business plan showing how you'll comply with the break even rule after this term. If you are not fullfilling your own business plan, UEFA will put some sanction on you, even before the 3 year period has ended.

Thanks, it appears I was broadly right! I'd forgotten who went mad at Milan, and didn't know where Elliott came into it.

It sounds as though he has a specific case which the rules make difficult to get out of, while not being really his fault.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Great song that.

 

[Salford_Blue]

Weren't Milan one of the recent cartel that complained to UEFA that their owners don't want to pump much money into the club, so why doesn't the seedings take into account the history of each club?

manyoooo were one as well (obvs).

I know they still have to qualify in their respective League.

Did it ever happen?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

One day, one of the "Euro elite" will be bought up by someone who wants to spend but cant. FFP will dissapear hopefully

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Weren't Milan one of the recent cartel that complained to UEFA that their owners don't want to pump much money into the club, so why doesn't the seedings take into account the history of each club?

manyoooo were one as well (obvs).

I know they still have to qualify in their respective League.

Did it ever happen?

As far as I know, there are two rankings now.

There's the normal 5 year one for seedings. That is essentially as it was. City are 6th.

There's a longer one which governs how part of the TV money (30% of the CL revenue distribution and 15% of the EL revenue distribution) is distributed - this is the one that gives extra credit for European victories, so City get a very small benefit for ours. City are 14th.

 

[JGL07]

It’s all about the ‘istory clubs or rather those who were big 15 years ago. City can deal with this over time by sticking with it.

 

[schfc6]

One day, one of the "Euro elite" will be bought up by someone who wants to spend but cant. FFP will dissapear hopefully

Happy for it to stay forever now. 10 years time we'll be a huge super power and the yesteryear clubs will still be fucking about with the 'rules'. FFP protects us forever.

 

[Canyouseethesky]

Reading through this thread I can't help but feel people are missing the woods from the trees. Laws/rules are implemented for the lowest common denominator at all levels of society, be it rules of the road or FFP. While we are getting shafted for allegedly breaking those rules they are still rules, we can't just say the rules are shit because we have loads of money just like you can't drive at 200mph in a 60mph zone if your car is capable of it and you are a trained formula one driver.

AC Milan are mentioned a lot, when I was growing up they were football, probably still the best team I've ever seen. FFP could well have saved them, a gang of crooks got hold of that club and would have tried anything they could no matter how much danger it put the club in, FFP stepped in before things get out of control. Closer to home Chelsea owe Abramovich £1.2bn, he could call that debt in at anytime and literally shut the club down, Everton owe Moshri £350m, that would go along way to sending Everton into oblivion. Liverpool nearly failed FFP rules under the previous owners and they didn't even spend any money on players.

What I'm trying to say is for every Man City owner there are 1000000 gangsters like the guys who owned Portsmouth, Blackpool, Bury, Leeds, even Gretna fucking town. Platini being a crook doesn't change that.

 

[aguero93:20]

Reading through this thread I can't help but feel people are missing the woods from the trees. Laws/rules are implemented for the lowest common denominator at all levels of society, be it rules of the road or FFP. While we are getting shafted for allegedly breaking those rules they are still rules, we can't just say the rules are shit because we have loads of money just like you can't drive at 200mph in a 60mph zone if your car is capable of it and you are a trained formula one driver.

AC Milan are mentioned a lot, when I was growing up they were football, probably still the best team I've ever seen. FFP could well have saved them, a gang of crooks got hold of that club and would have tried anything they could no matter how much danger it put the club in, FFP stepped in before things get out of control. Closer to home Chelsea owe Abramovich £1.2bn, he could call that debt in at anytime and literally shut the club down, Everton owe Moshri £350m, that would go along way to sending Everton into oblivion. Liverpool nearly failed FFP rules under the previous owners and they didn't even spend any money on players.

What I'm trying to say is for every Man City owner there are 1000000 gangsters like the guys who owned Portsmouth, Blackpool, Bury, Leeds, even Gretna fucking town. Platini being a crook doesn't change that.

The clubs you mentioned were all or are all running into problems related to borrowing, FFP should always have been about debt. We've spent money we do have as Mansour has invested his money into club shares, that's fine and should be allowed.

Even now the rags never spend more than they earn but there's nothing in the rules that's going to stop the Glazers taking out a $2.5 billion loan against their shares and making the club repay it, crippling them in the process and driving them into bankruptcy. The rules aren't fit for purpose as they're designed to protect the cartel from outside investment rather than to protect every clubs financial health.

 

[luckyDip23]

Reading through this thread I can't help but feel people are missing the woods from the trees. Laws/rules are implemented for the lowest common denominator at all levels of society, be it rules of the road or FFP. While we are getting shafted for allegedly breaking those rules they are still rules, we can't just say the rules are shit because we have loads of money just like you can't drive at 200mph in a 60mph zone if your car is capable of it and you are a trained formula one driver.

AC Milan are mentioned a lot, when I was growing up they were football, probably still the best team I've ever seen. FFP could well have saved them, a gang of crooks got hold of that club and would have tried anything they could no matter how much danger it put the club in, FFP stepped in before things get out of control. Closer to home Chelsea owe Abramovich £1.2bn, he could call that debt in at anytime and literally shut the club down, Everton owe Moshri £350m, that would go along way to sending Everton into oblivion. Liverpool nearly failed FFP rules under the previous owners and they didn't even spend any money on players.

What I'm trying to say is for every Man City owner there are 1000000 gangsters like the guys who owned Portsmouth, Blackpool, Bury, Leeds, even Gretna fucking town. Platini being a crook doesn't change that.

Correct - but that doesn’t mean it applies to our club.
In fact we’ve behaved in the exact opposite manner where sheik Mansour has completely invested the money int he club - meaning he has not loaned it.

Despite the fact he’s wiped all debt out at our club and weare in a healthier position than the majority of clubs in Europe - we’re still being bollocked over ffp.

It’s simply not right.

 

[oakiecokie]

Correct - but that doesn’t mean it applies to our club.
In fact we’ve behaved in the exact opposite manner where sheik Mansour has completely invested the money int he club - meaning he has not loaned it.

Despite the fact he’s wiped all debt out at our club and weare in a healthier position than the majority of clubs in Europe - we’re still being bollocked over ffp.

It’s simply not right.

You`re talking to the converted on this subject mate.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Reading through this thread I can't help but feel people are missing the woods from the trees. Laws/rules are implemented for the lowest common denominator at all levels of society, be it rules of the road or FFP. While we are getting shafted for allegedly breaking those rules they are still rules, we can't just say the rules are shit because we have loads of money just like you can't drive at 200mph in a 60mph zone if your car is capable of it and you are a trained formula one driver.

AC Milan are mentioned a lot, when I was growing up they were football, probably still the best team I've ever seen. FFP could well have saved them, a gang of crooks got hold of that club and would have tried anything they could no matter how much danger it put the club in, FFP stepped in before things get out of control. Closer to home Chelsea owe Abramovich £1.2bn, he could call that debt in at anytime and literally shut the club down, Everton owe Moshri £350m, that would go along way to sending Everton into oblivion. Liverpool nearly failed FFP rules under the previous owners and they didn't even spend any money on players.

What I'm trying to say is for every Man City owner there are 1000000 gangsters like the guys who owned Portsmouth, Blackpool, Bury, Leeds, even Gretna fucking town. Platini being a crook doesn't change that.

You’ve illustrated the very problem with ffp.
All the cases that you quote, Milan,Chelsea , whoever, are very different cases from our own, yet uefa attempt to tackle them all with the same ‘one size fits all’ rules, instead of adopting a pragmatic and individual approach to each case.

 

[Canyouseethesky]

The clubs you mentioned were all or are all running into problems related to borrowing, FFP should always have been about debt. We've spent money we do have as Mansour has invested his money into club shares, that's fine and should be allowed.

Even now the rags never spend more than they earn but there's nothing in the rules that's going to stop the Glazers taking out a $2.5 billion loan against their shares and making the club repay it, crippling them in the process and driving them into bankruptcy. The rules aren't fit for purpose as they're designed to protect the cartel from outside investment rather than to protect every clubs financial health.

Chelsea are the example of an owner that is using borrowings when he also "has" the money, he could simply do what we do but he hasn't chosen too.

The debt situation is kind of dealt with by FFP, Everton are an example I used earlier, if their owner requested his money back then the repayments would result in them failing. Using Chelsea again they wouldn't be able to get into the 1.2bn debt in the first place with FFP.

Man Utd's situation is virtually impossible to do anything about, it's a case of the horse has bolted.

Nobody is arguing it's fair but it was it is, we are the one in a million and they have to build the rules based on the less fortunate.