more Concerned by the man who has driven the whole FFP train, regardless if he’s no longer on the scene (appearance sakes)
Then how do you explain PSG got a sanction together with City in 2014 if Platini was giving a special protection to the french club ?
You just have to read UEFA rules to understand the differences in the case and why/how they are trying to trap City.
-PSG case : inflated sponsorship from related parties. It has been dealt with according to their rules :
BREAK-EVEN REQUIREMENT
Notion of relevant income and expenses
1 Relevant income and relevant expenses are defined in Annex X.
2 Relevant income and expenses must be calculated and reconciled by the licensee to the audited annual financial statements and/or underlying accounting records and to the projected break-even information if applicable.
3 Relevant income and expenses from related parties must be adjusted to reflect the fair value of any such transactions or, for player transfers between clubs that are related parties, the value in accordance with Annex X
PSG sponsors from related parties have been investigated again and again and the value adjusted to the "fair value". After that, PSG balanced the account to cover the difference by selling players.
Hence why they couldn't sanction. They have to follow their rules.
-In City case, the leaks have given them ammunition to say City have breached those rules :
The licensee must:
a) cooperate with the licensor and the UEFA Club Financial Control Body in respect of their requests and enquiries;
b) provide the licensor and the UEFA Club Financial Control Body with all necessary information and/or relevant documents to fully demonstrate that the monitoring requirements are fulfilled, as well as any other document requested and deemed to be relevant for club monitoring decision-making, by the deadline set by the licensor and/or the UEFA administration (the reporting entity or combination of entities in respect of which information is required must be the same as for club licensing);
c) confirm that all the submitted documentation and information are complete and accurate;
d) promptly notify the licensor in writing about any subsequent events that constitute a significant change to the information previously submitted to the licensor, including a change of legal form or legal group structure
And by subsequently adjusting the contract to their new "fair value", they have artificially put you into break even deficit.
Then City has accused UEFA of having breached on of their own rules :
The licensor must:
a) communicate the deadlines of the monitoring process to the licensee;
b) cooperate with the UEFA Club Financial Control Body in respect of its requests and enquiries;
c) as a minimum assess the monitoring documentation in accordance with Annex IX;
d) assess and confirm to the UEFA Club Financial Control Body that the selected reporting perimeter is the same as used for the fulfilment of the club licensing criteria and is appropriate for club monitoring purposes;
e) inform the UEFA Club Financial Control Body of any relevant information submitted by the licensee in respect of club monitoring requirements and any event occurring after the licensing decision that constitutes a significant change to the information previously submitted by the licensee.
In carrying out these responsibilities, the licensor ensures equal treatment and guarantees full confidentiality of all information provided.
It is not hard to follow if you read UEFA rules. No need to put Platini into the discussion. If there are leaks pointing to PSG doing the same thing, you can be sure Tebas and the cartel and the media will push (he is already doing it now) for another investigation and further due sanctions.