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.
ManCityX said:
Click to expand...

Why are they giving this any credibility? UEFA didn't seem to think it had any. Who's alleging it and what proof do they have?

edit: The only article from mail I can find is over a year old. Have I missed something?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...t-Longbow-shift-player-image-rights-cash.html

Ferran Soriano said:
'They are all pushing for FFP in a way that would ashame (sic) any industry association.'
...
'We will need to fight this [FFP regulations] and do it in a way that is not visible, or we will be pointed out as the global enemies of football.'
Click to expand...

In other words:

The club thinks the way FFP was being implemented, would not be acceptable in any other industry. That it has been brought in to stop clubs like Manchester City growing and therefore is anti-competitive.

It was so obvious that the cartel had hijacked FFP and weaponised it. The club obviously wanted try and make sure they didn't succeed in putting the breaks on City's rise. Not visible, like spending at volume to create a squad capable of winning the title but deliberately avoiding headline grabbing world transfer record fees perhaps? Obviously the plan wasn't to go over budget and fail FFP in 2014 and ever since then City are seen as the enemy of the football world. So I don't even think project longbow was a success.

There is no indication that 'Project Longbow' is illegal.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks City would be risking a ban for amounts like £11m, is just experiencing wishful thinking. If our owner wanted to do that, then it could be disclosed as related party income and it would be deemed perfectly within the FFP regulations. I'm not sure what image rights are worth but £11m for players with such high profiles as ours doesn't seem excessive, so I doubt it was over fair market value to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
Anyone who thinks City would be risking a ban for amounts like £11m, is just experiencing wishful thinking. If our owner wanted to do that, then it could be disclosed as related party income and it would be deemed perfectly within the FFP regulations. I'm not sure what image rights are worth but £11m for players with such high profiles as ours doesn't seem excessive, so I doubt it was over fair market value to begin with.
Click to expand...

Leicester's late owner created a bogus company called Trestellar which immediately sponsored Leicester to the tune of £11 million in a clear and deliberate attempt to breach FFP by concealing their financial losses. Yet when this was discovered Leicester received a paltry fine of £3.1 million and no other sanction.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ball-league-financial-fair-play-investigation

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/21/leicester-settlement-football-league-ffp
 
Brendan110_0 said:
My memory of this was UEFA were aware and excluded it / reassessed value for FFP. Old story.
Click to expand...

It is.
Basically Keegan has a 2 paragraph snippet pointing out the the Rowland people have also had something to do with working for Prince Andrew. This is the reason it has suddenly become news, and the Man City Xtra text is misleading over the point of it.

Basically: finance/developer people work for people shocker.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
It is.
Basically Keegan has a 2 paragraph snippet pointing out the the Rowland people have also had something to do with working for Prince Andrew. This is the reason it has suddenly become news, and the Man City Xtra text is misleading over the point of it.

Basically: finance/developer people work for people shocker.
Click to expand...

In a very desperate attempt to link us to the current allegations surrounding Prince Andrew. Pathetic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top