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:
Poor Villa could fail the PL FFP criteria if they don’t offset those losses in the next couple of seasons.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer set of fans.

Click to expand...

Nah, FFPR stops more financially vulnerable clubs posting big losses, they told us. Must be fake news.
 
Bodicoteblue said:
Platini 2008 in the independent:
‘Look at Chelsea and Man Utd’s debts. Fifa and uefa have to do something to combat that, because today the ones who cheat are going on to win.
Is champions’ league success built around those who have the most money? I think so, it is run on credit and it annoys me’.
Apparently peter Kenyon (Chelsea) and gill were said to be ‘furious’ on hearing this.
Click to expand...

Stuart Brennan wrote last week that it was a threat of legal action by the G14 clubs on the grounds that debt is accepted as a way of attracting investment in European countries coupled with a threat of a breakaway competition which forced Platini to change tack. The G14 are right in that enterprises are borrowing all the time and are in debt much of it and leveraged takeovers are not uncommon in the UK, even among our most "elite" of "elite" clubs. The G14 then forced Platini/UEFA into a form of "financial fair play" which actually prohibited unlimited spending as a result of investment by owners/shareholders. This prohibition is specifically prohibited in TFEU. There is no "sporting exception" in the treaty and FFP has NOT been accepted by the courts. My belief, and I can give no guarantees, is that FFP would be demolished if City challenged its break even principle. The only hope for those who see some form of regulation as essential is that some form of "sporting exception" can be approved by the courts. The ECJ has shown itself to be not unsympathetic where contracts and free movement are concerned, but it will never accept limitations on investment however they are dressed up and it will not, I am convinced, give its assent to steps which are scarcely disguised attempts to fix the market, such as wage caps or transfer ceilings. The basic problem is a divergence of viewpoint between football administrators and the courts. The on field rules of the game are the concern of FIFA etc: the football business is the concern of the courts. The courts are concerned with commercial competition and their main concern is to see the improvement of the product through wider competition not to see it reduced by a self interested cartel. So, they would never ban unlimited investment, and it would be hard to secure their acceptance of a ban on debt. But they may just accept investment if it is real investment backed by solid guarantees. This would deal with player acquisition, but some way of dealing with debt for desirable projects for which debt is long term would have to be agreed. Taking tribalism out of it we would all agree that Arsenal's and Spurs' new stadia are good for the clubs and the game.
 
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
Stuart Brennan wrote last week that it was a threat of legal action by the G14 clubs on the grounds that debt is accepted as a way of attracting investment in European countries coupled with a threat of a breakaway competition which forced Platini to change tack. The G14 are right in that enterprises are borrowing all the time and are in debt much of it and leveraged takeovers are not uncommon in the UK, even among our most "elite" of "elite" clubs. The G14 then forced Platini/UEFA into a form of "financial fair play" which actually prohibited unlimited spending as a result of investment by owners/shareholders. This prohibition is specifically prohibited in TFEU. There is no "sporting exception" in the treaty and FFP has NOT been accepted by the courts. My belief, and I can give no guarantees, is that FFP would be demolished if City challenged its break even principle. The only hope for those who see some form of regulation as essential is that some form of "sporting exception" can be approved by the courts. The ECJ has shown itself to be not unsympathetic where contracts and free movement are concerned, but it will never accept limitations on investment however they are dressed up and it will not, I am convinced, give its assent to steps which are scarcely disguised attempts to fix the market, such as wage caps or transfer ceilings. The basic problem is a divergence of viewpoint between football administrators and the courts. The on field rules of the game are the concern of FIFA etc: the football business is the concern of the courts. The courts are concerned with commercial competition and their main concern is to see the improvement of the product through wider competition not to see it reduced by a self interested cartel. So, they would never ban unlimited investment, and it would be hard to secure their acceptance of a ban on debt. But they may just accept investment if it is real investment backed by solid guarantees. This would deal with player acquisition, but some way of dealing with debt for desirable projects for which debt is long term would have to be agreed. Taking tribalism out of it we would all agree that Arsenal's and Spurs' new stadia are good for the clubs and the game.
Click to expand...
Impeccable.
 
waspish said:
Correct if they Weren’t in debt they would be buyers out there for the club and someone worth millions might buy it invest have aspirations to get in to the championship or even premier like Salford city owners are aiming for!

Gill in 2004 even said debt is the road to ruin now the c@nt thinks it’s great.
Click to expand...
Gill thinks debt is ‘the road to ruin’
Few years later Platini announces that clubs carrying large debts are cheating, and some form of financial regulation is needed to end this, Gill is ‘furious’ at this idea.
Regulation eventually appears - no mention of debt......
......trebles all round!
Meanwhile... Platini thrown out of uefa for ‘conflict of interest’ and dereliction of duty’ over receiving a large sum of money from that other esteemed guardian of football’s morals, sepp blatter.
Platini whines ‘this is a pure masquerade. It has been rigged to tarnish my name by bodies I know well and who for me, are bereft of all credibility or legitimacy’
Does that sound familiar....and does it reek of sheer hypocrisy?
 
Pablo1 said:
Can’t seem to find it now or remember which journalist tweeted it, but before our game on Sunday there was a tweet which was bigging Villa up as the right model to run a club. No debt and money in the bank.
That’s not aged well...

edit - it was Ian herbert. Just found tweet but no fucking idea how to put it on here.
Click to expand...

Annoys me that he’s paid to write absolute bullshit.
 
Aleksander Čeferin anounces that FFP will have to change. What's the betting that the changes will adversely effect Mancester City?
Arabs will probably be banned from owning European football clubs. Well that will be the effect anyway.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
There was that Dave Whelan fella, you know, the one who broke his leg but doesn't really like to talk about it?

Anyhow, he laid it out plain and simple a few years back...

Platini also let it slip.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/19499560
Click to expand...
Wow. That's really got my blood boiling that has. We all knew that utd and especially Ferguson and Gill seen us as a threat and wanted to move the goalposts to keep us out but that in my opinion is the sole reason why UEFA are after us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top