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.
Canyouseethesky said:
But that's my point, it needs to be a one size fits all otherwise every shyster from all corners of the globe would be spending "their own" money that turns out not to be their own money and club's would be failing left right and centre.
Click to expand...

Most clubs around Europe are not in European competition.

How has this helped them ?

Do UEFA care ?

Do they fuck. Because it isn't designed to 'help' those clubs, it is designed to help keep badly run but 'elie' clubs in front of better run, less 'elite' ones & try to prevent those clubs from overtaking them & becoming the 'elite' clubs.

There is absolutely no other reason for FFP.

The proof of this attitude, is the favouritism now, being given to clubs who once won the competition.

Which of the 'small' clubs does that help ?
 
Canyouseethesky said:
But that's my point, it needs to be a one size fits all otherwise every shyster from all corners of the globe would be spending "their own" money that turns out not to be their own money and club's would be failing left right and centre.
Click to expand...
What bullshit is this?

The UEFA FFP rules only relate to those clubs competing in Europe for one. For two, Leeds and Portsmouth and Bolton and Rangers and every other club that nearly went down the swanny would actually have passed FFP. It does absolutely nothing to protect smaller clubs.
 
Bodicoteblue said:
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.
Click to expand...

And, amusingly, they were the ones that had the most input into FFP behind the scenes.
 
If they were going to implement a one size fit all approach, then it should have included all not just uefa competition. Every team competing in a league or cup that has uefa qualification as a prize should have been included & enforced via each federation.

The single biggest measurement to the health of any business from along term financial prospective is its debt to turnover ratio, which although varies across sector in terms of sustainability anything above 20% is considered dodgy ground. If uefa were about fair and not a bunch of corrupt twunts FFP would have been about the debt to turnover ratio + wage\football creditors obligations exceeding X % to ensure sustainability of the clubs and the clubs that have dealt with badly run clubs in terms of transfers etc.

The fact they ignore the most important financial performance indicator altogether illustrates their position of favouritism and protectionism of the small minority at the expense of the majority. the decision to award more prize money based on historic results rather the actual results of their competitions further entrenches this position and is why anyone with a modest understanding of FFP will never accept it as anything other than corrupt protection designed by twats for the benefits of twats.
 
hello said:
If they were going to implement a one size fit all approach, then it should have included all not just uefa competition. Every team competing in a league or cup that has uefa qualification as a prize should have been included & enforced via each federation.

The single biggest measurement to the health of any business from along term financial prospective is its debt to turnover ratio, which although varies across sector in terms of sustainability anything above 20% is considered dodgy ground. If uefa were about fair and not a bunch of corrupt twunts FFP would have been about the debt to turnover ratio + wage\football creditors obligations exceeding X % to ensure sustainability of the clubs and the clubs that have dealt with badly run clubs in terms of transfers etc.

The fact they ignore the most important financial performance indicator altogether illustrates their position of favouritism and protectionism of the small minority at the expense of the majority. the decision to award more prize money based on historic results rather the actual results of their competitions further entrenches this position and is why anyone with a modest understanding of FFP will never accept it as anything other than corrupt protection designed by twats for the benefits of twats.
Click to expand...
"FFP is designed to prevent clubs falling into serious debt, so we will not regulate debt", a UEFA spokesman didn't say.
 
TheThirdDeano said:
Bit fucking weird isn't it that we've not had any scandels recently isn't it?
Makes you think they timed the attack, to detract from something...
Click to expand...
It'll be off again in early August mate.

All the media tossers with 'City banned within 3/10/12 days etc as the season ended & fuck all has happened. Just shows them all as ****s, not one outlet that I have seen written/visual have come out and said we got it wrong again. They'd rather just dig at us....but that just makes the sweetness of success that little more sweeter.
 
I reckon the inner halls at UEFA are currently like Westminster on brexit.

"We should do this"
"We can't, if we do that we're f*cked. We should do this instead"
"Yeah, but that will f*ck us in a different way. We can't do that"
"Well, I'm not going to agree to this"
"And I'm not going to agree to do that"
(All) "THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO DOOOO????"
 
luckyDip23 said:
Interesting watch on why uefa instigated ffp

Click to expand...


Very interesting. A couple of things I hadn't heard before, although much of what happened was, in many ways, obviously going to happen.

That said, I'd disagree that this is "why UEFA instigated ffp" as you say. Although the video asserts that, that's just taking UEFA's word at face value. The video stops at the point of it's introduction, and doesn't say anything about how well FFP matches up to those aims. And there is plenty of evidence that it doesn't achieve them. Just as one example, FFP has clearly not stopped clubs running up debt and getting into problems. FFP unmistakably targets owners putting money into clubs, and any effect on debt or other financial risk taking is indirect or second hand.

The video shows why they should have instigated the original version of ffp. It would be interesting to see somebody make one showing how ffp actually works, and what it's effects are. This would allow an evaluation of it's merits which would be a good indicator of why the version of FFP we got was the one that was introduced.

The video says UEFA got together after the 2008 financial crash to sort out all this financial mismanagement, but it didn't say that they had already looked at it before then - with debt as the actual focus - and not proceeded. The video is a well made piece with lots of facts and evidence that then has a spurious ending which implies the evidence leads to this conclusion. In this way it reminds me of the Jehovah's Witness literature I used to sometimes read to enjoy finely crafted brainwashing. This video is misleading, probably not deliberately, but without a doubt misleading.
 
hello said:
If they were going to implement a one size fit all approach, then it should have included all not just uefa competition. Every team competing in a league or cup that has uefa qualification as a prize should have been included & enforced via each federation.

The single biggest measurement to the health of any business from along term financial prospective is its debt to turnover ratio, which although varies across sector in terms of sustainability anything above 20% is considered dodgy ground. If uefa were about fair and not a bunch of corrupt twunts FFP would have been about the debt to turnover ratio + wage\football creditors obligations exceeding X % to ensure sustainability of the clubs and the clubs that have dealt with badly run clubs in terms of transfers etc.

The fact they ignore the most important financial performance indicator altogether illustrates their position of favouritism and protectionism of the small minority at the expense of the majority. the decision to award more prize money based on historic results rather the actual results of their competitions further entrenches this position and is why anyone with a modest understanding of FFP will never accept it as anything other than corrupt protection designed by twats for the benefits of twats.
Click to expand...
As you and many others have indicated there is very little financial fairness in the Financial Fair Play rules.
They are actually a Favourites Financial Protection scheme.
 
SWP's back said:
What bullshit is this?

The UEFA FFP rules only relate to those clubs competing in Europe for one. For two, Leeds and Portsmouth and Bolton and Rangers and every other club that nearly went down the swanny would actually have passed FFP. It does absolutely nothing to protect smaller clubs.
Click to expand...
This all day long.
 
The Gretna owner you say was a croo
Canyouseethesky said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Gretna owner you called out as a crook wasn't as such. What happened there was he suddenly died without leaving a will and none of his relatives had any interest in the club or the game in general so the club had to be closed down and any assets that could be sold off were done so.
 
I'm no cynic but... said:
The Gretna owner you say was a croo

The Gretna owner you called out as a crook wasn't as such. What happened there was he suddenly died without leaving a will and none of his relatives had any interest in the club or the game in general so the club had to be closed down and any assets that could be sold off were done so.
Click to expand...
Add Brighton, Hartlepool and others to that list.
PS Luton
 
SWP's back said:
What bullshit is this?

The UEFA FFP rules only relate to those clubs competing in Europe for one. For two, Leeds and Portsmouth and Bolton and Rangers and every other club that nearly went down the swanny would actually have passed FFP. It does absolutely nothing to protect smaller clubs.
Click to expand...

The Premier league has FFP based loosely on the UEFA model. It stops you increasing wages by x amount per annum. That alone would have saved Leeds and Portsmouth. Leeds wages increased by nearly 50% in 2001, that couldn't happen now.
 
Canyouseethesky said:
The Premier league has FFP based loosely on the UEFA model. It stops you increasing wages by x amount per annum. That alone would have saved Leeds and Portsmouth. Leeds wages increased by nearly 50% in 2001, that couldn't happen now.
Click to expand...

But if Leeds or Portsmouth had an owner as wealthy as Sheikh Mansour they could have increased their wages 100% and been ok. Clubs should be assessed on their means, not some arbitrary number or bollocks about what they generate from gate receipts, sponsors, etc. If a club such as us or PSG or Chelsea has a super rich benefactor willing to foot the bill or clear debts then that should be taken into account.

Ffp is so obviously flawed, unfair and biased to favour utd and Bayern, Barca, etc that it should never have got near becoming a rule. How were clubs like Spurs and Everton so gullible to fall for Platini and Utd's bullshit when it clearly would stop them ever emulating us or Chelsea?

The sooner we can destroy this bullshit once and for all in court the better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top