City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
One of the fundamental problems you've identified is that UEFA is both a regulatory/governing body and a market competitor to those it regulates/governs. It competes with European clubs for sponsorship and refuses to allow sponsors of clubs, which are not sponsors of UEFA's champions league any access either live or televised on match nights. This clearly undermines the idea objective governance and, I think, should preclude UEFA from any role in the regulation of football finance. It raises the risk of corruption. I think the ECJ would rule it out but this alliance of brigands between the G14 and UEFA keeps it in place - but, I also think the ECJ would have no truck with trying to outlaw debt to finance player purchase because it is yet another attempt to limit investment. Staffing is something that companies in every sector take more seriously than anything else and in no sector would they accept being told that they could not appoint (buy) the staff they want because he/she costs too much. It doesn't matter if you're an SME on the High street or the Bank of England ....and it shouldn't matter if you're Manchester City.
Click to expand...
In principle you are right, but here lies the problem. Uefa's opening position on ffp was that, to create a level playing field in a sporting sense, there had to be financial regulation to stop big clubs riding roughshod over smaller ones. It could be argued that ANY such regulation would ultimately be deemed to be anti competitive by ECJ.
The only way round that would be a voluntary agreement that clubs would not challenge ffp in court, which is really what has happened up to now, with the exception of the Belgian case. In that case the local courts and ECJ, just batted it back and forth between them with to a point where no real decision was ever made. And here we are..........
 
KS55 said:
In principle you are right, but here lies the problem. Uefa's opening position on ffp was that, to create a level playing field in a sporting sense, there had to be financial regulation to stop big clubs riding roughshod over smaller ones. It could be argued that ANY such regulation would ultimately be deemed to be anti competitive by ECJ.
The only way round that would be a voluntary agreement that clubs would not challenge ffp in court, which is really what has happened up to now, with the exception of the Belgian case. In that case the local courts and ECJ, just batted it back and forth between them with to a point where no real decision was ever made. And here we are..........
Click to expand...
FFP was always going to be legally unenforceable, you can't create a market within a market and establish yourself as the boss of said market. For me I don't think this is all about UEFA attempting to be fair or attempting to somehow kerb spending, it's always been about control for other reasons.

What they haven't liked as a regulator is for a team like city to come along and to challenge their control. As soon as these things end up in court though then a court isn't going to rule in favour of a regulator whose regulations aren't underpinned by any particular law and actually can be challenged very easily on the basis that they aren't fit for purpose.

This is city's position, we have argued very easily that UEFA's processes and regulations are just a load of tosh. UEFA's way of dealing with FFP is equivalent to how the FA decides how many games ban a player gets for a red card except this is deciding to ban a whole club from a competition. A load of old blokes sit around a table and decide for themselves but there is no actual process or law underpinning that judgement, it's also certainly not transparent and therefore it's arguably very open to corruption and unfairness.

On corruption, the chairman of BEin Sports holds the most power over La Liga as its largest sponsor and we know how much La Liga complain about city. That same chairman is also the owner of PSG who were challenged by FFP but the case was later dropped unchallenged by UEFA. Guess what, that same chairman is also on the UEFA executive committee and he is also a minister for Qatar who we all know probably gained the World Cup for 2022 by bribing FIFA officials. And guess who is currently accused with corruption surrounding those bribes... none other than Michel Platini, the instigator of FFP...

That wheel keeps turning and you'd have to be very naive to think that UEFA want FFP there to protect small football clubs....
 
Where do we find £200mill-£250mill to sign Haaland?(Grealish, Kane, etc)

The badly kept secret is now out. Serg is leaving. :-( City need a striker!! Clubs, players, and their agents will know that, so they will hold out for as much as they can get from us. Dortmund(Haaland), Villa(Grealish), Spurs(Kane), etc, will get as much out of City as they can. This time 'we can't walk away' once the transfer and wages start getting silly. City are either in all the way, or not in at all. Unless City have identified a player/s that nobody knows about? Dias.
 
jrb said:
Where do we find £200mill-£250mill to sign Haaland?(Grealish, Kane, etc)

The badly kept secret is now out. Serg is leaving. :-( City need a striker!! Clubs, players, and their agents will know that, so they will hold out for as much as they can get from us. Dortmund(Haaland), Villa(Grealish), Spurs(Kane), etc, will get as much out of City as they can. This time 'we can't walk away' once the transfer and wages start getting silly. City are either in all the way, or not in at all. Unless City have identified a player/s that nobody knows about? Dias.
Click to expand...

Strange post.

You say 'we can't walk away' then you say we 'are either in all the way, or not at all'.

Why ?

We can negotiate for any player and if the deal doesn't make sense from our point of view we can, of course, walk away. There are always alternatives and let's face it our squad is already very strong.
 
inbetween said:
FFP was always going to be legally unenforceable, you can't create a market within a market and establish yourself as the boss of said market. For me I don't think this is all about UEFA attempting to be fair or attempting to somehow kerb spending, it's always been about control for other reasons.

What they haven't liked as a regulator is for a team like city to come along and to challenge their control. As soon as these things end up in court though then a court isn't going to rule in favour of a regulator whose regulations aren't underpinned by any particular law and actually can be challenged very easily on the basis that they aren't fit for purpose.

This is city's position, we have argued very easily that UEFA's processes and regulations are just a load of tosh. UEFA's way of dealing with FFP is equivalent to how the FA decides how many games ban a player gets for a red card except this is deciding to ban a whole club from a competition. A load of old blokes sit around a table and decide for themselves but there is no actual process or law underpinning that judgement, it's also certainly not transparent and therefore it's arguably very open to corruption and unfairness.

On corruption, the chairman of BEin Sports holds the most power over La Liga as its largest sponsor and we know how much La Liga complain about city. That same chairman is also the owner of PSG who were challenged by FFP but the case was later dropped unchallenged by UEFA. Guess what, that same chairman is also on the UEFA executive committee and he is also a minister for Qatar who we all know probably gained the World Cup for 2022 by bribing FIFA officials. And guess who is currently accused with corruption surrounding those bribes... none other than Michel Platini, the instigator of FFP...

That wheel keeps turning and you'd have to be very naive to think that UEFA want FFP there to protect small football clubs....
Click to expand...
Not sure City have argued that the regs are a load of tosh. I got the impression that City would be content if they were administered fairly. Some hope!
On PSG, their second case was dismissed by Leterme in the Investigatory Chamber, but, amazingly, Uefa appealed because the Judicial chamber were livid at Leterme and his cosy relationship with PSG. That appeal was ruled out of time.
Of course it is corrupt, G14, Bein etc etc. The belief that ffp was genuine is ebbing away. More than one journo has joined Martin Samuel and now seen the light; but some are still ignorant saying that the new proposals are a result of Uefa losing City's case. This is palpable nonsense: it has everything to do with the cartel clubs being in the financial shit and scared that City can now outspend and outmuscle them. So, boys, let's change the rules not only of ffp but of the Champs League too. Special treatment for cartel clubs, no need to qualify, luvverly!
 
jrb said:
Where do we find £200mill-£250mill to sign Haaland?(Grealish, Kane, etc)

The badly kept secret is now out. Serg is leaving. :-( City need a striker!! Clubs, players, and their agents will know that, so they will hold out for as much as they can get from us. Dortmund(Haaland), Villa(Grealish), Spurs(Kane), etc, will get as much out of City as they can. This time 'we can't walk away' once the transfer and wages start getting silly. City are either in all the way, or not in at all. Unless City have identified a player/s that nobody knows about? Dias.
Click to expand...
We currently don't even need a striker.
That's a pretty good 'walk away' position to have.
 
KS55 said:
Not sure City have argued that the regs are a load of tosh. I got the impression that City would be content if they were administered fairly. Some hope!
On PSG, their second case was dismissed by Leterme in the Investigatory Chamber, but, amazingly, Uefa appealed because the Judicial chamber were livid at Leterme and his cosy relationship with PSG. That appeal was ruled out of time.
Of course it is corrupt, G14, Bein etc etc. The belief that ffp was genuine is ebbing away. More than one journo has now seen the light but some are still ignorant saying that the new proposals are a result of Uefa losing City's case. This is palpable nonsense: it has everything to do with the cartel clubs being in the financial shit and scared that City can now outspend and outmuscle them. So, boys, let's change the rules not only of ffp but of the Champs League too. Special treatment for cartel clubs, no need to qualify, luvverly!
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no doubt that UEFA is in bed with Qatari and Russian money who are able to exert considerable influence in UEFA. You can see this because has it ever investigated Barcelona's vastly inflated Qatari Tourism Authority sponsorship? Has it ever investigated the conflict of interest that must exist where the owner of Chelsea has owned a controlling stake in a subsidary of a company that is both a key sponsor of Chelsea AND the Champions League (Gazprom)?

They have big problems with city's accounting practices (questionable indeed but all above board) yet they have no problem with the obvious corruption and conflict of interests that exist in their own organisations. By the way, who audits and confirms that UEFA are fit to even make these judgements? FIFA? Ha. You then see clubs like United and Liverpool complaining about city, yet saddled with debt and registered in the Cayman Islands or Delaware to pay virtually no tax, the whole thing is just laughable.

I think the simple fact is this is not just about money but it's about the kind of money. The Qatari's and UAE guys have seemingly been at war for years. Until recently the UAE cut all ties with Qatar so there is a lot of bad taste between those two. You only have to throw the Saudi's into the mix if they are able to buy Newcastle and then it will become very tasty indeed.
 
inbetween said:
FFP was always going to be legally unenforceable, you can't create a market within a market and establish yourself as the boss of said market. For me I don't think this is all about UEFA attempting to be fair or attempting to somehow kerb spending, it's always been about control for other reasons.

What they haven't liked as a regulator is for a team like city to come along and to challenge their control. As soon as these things end up in court though then a court isn't going to rule in favour of a regulator whose regulations aren't underpinned by any particular law and actually can be challenged very easily on the basis that they aren't fit for purpose.

This is city's position, we have argued very easily that UEFA's processes and regulations are just a load of tosh. UEFA's way of dealing with FFP is equivalent to how the FA decides how many games ban a player gets for a red card except this is deciding to ban a whole club from a competition. A load of old blokes sit around a table and decide for themselves but there is no actual process or law underpinning that judgement, it's also certainly not transparent and therefore it's arguably very open to corruption and unfairness.

On corruption, the chairman of BEin Sports holds the most power over La Liga as its largest sponsor and we know how much La Liga complain about city. That same chairman is also the owner of PSG who were challenged by FFP but the case was later dropped unchallenged by UEFA. Guess what, that same chairman is also on the UEFA executive committee and he is also a minister for Qatar who we all know probably gained the World Cup for 2022 by bribing FIFA officials. And guess who is currently accused with corruption surrounding those bribes... none other than Michel Platini, the instigator of FFP...

That wheel keeps turning and you'd have to be very naive to think that UEFA want FFP there to protect small football clubs....
Click to expand...
Prior to Sheikh Mansour’s takeover I was quite naive. I thought there was some corruption in football that mostly consisted of odd betting patterns for a certain player to be sent off in a particular half. Also mostly confined to lower leagues where the pay was less.

Since then I’ve had my eyes seriously opened to out and out corruption through to (at best) PGMOL being convinced that influencing games to ensure certain clubs at least makes the top 4 protects the Premier League brand and therefore their jobs. It’s certainly meant that I have had a crisis of my love for the game overall and made me question my blind renewal of the season ticket. The thing I always come back to is that the action only punishes my club who have done nothing wrong, (I’m under no illusion that someone wouldn’t fill my seat anyway).

what I do though is question everything. I questioned whether to watch the Russia World Cup which was another corrupt award but at least it’s a football nation. I won’t watch a single second of the Qatar tournament. Personally I’d send a team from the Vanarama Conference to represent England. UEFA and FIFA are utter contemptible scumbags.
 
dave_blue12 said:
Strange post.

You say 'we can't walk away' then you say we 'are either in all the way, or not at all'.

Why ?

We can negotiate for any player and if the deal doesn't make sense from our point of view we can, of course, walk away. There are always alternatives and let's face it our squad is already very strong.
Click to expand...
I agree. City's policy was stated at the outset: put money in to lift the club up, then operate with a sustainable break even policy. We have walked away several times, eg Slabhead, Alexis. I would be amazed if we bought Haarland at a price which changed this. If they ask too much, we will say no.
 
KS55 said:
In principle you are right, but here lies the problem. Uefa's opening position on ffp was that, to create a level playing field in a sporting sense, there had to be financial regulation to stop big clubs riding roughshod over smaller ones. It could be argued that ANY such regulation would ultimately be deemed to be anti competitive by ECJ.
The only way round that would be a voluntary agreement that clubs would not challenge ffp in court, which is really what has happened up to now, with the exception of the Belgian case. In that case the local courts and ECJ, just batted it back and forth between them with to a point where no real decision was ever made. And here we are..........
Click to expand...
The Belgian case?
 
KS55 said:
I agree. City's policy was stated at the outset: put money in to lift the club up, then operate with a sustainable break even policy. We have walked away several times, eg Slabhead, Alexis. I would be amazed if we bought Haarland at a price which changed this. If they ask too much, we will say no.
Click to expand...
Don't let Billy Shears hear you say that.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
The Belgian case?
Click to expand...
Group of supporters, incuding City fans, sued uefa on the grounds that ffp breached EU competition laws. This group was later joined by some smallish clubs. The action was brought in the Belgian courts. Uefa lost and ffp was declared illegal. However, the Belgian courts had no way of enforcing their claim so it went upstairs to the ECJ.
THE ECJ basically said whoa, not us, it is up to domestic courts to deal with this. Stalemate.
Bit busy at the mo, but I'll look up a ref later and ping you.
 
jrb said:
Where do we find £200mill-£250mill to sign Haaland?(Grealish, Kane, etc)

The badly kept secret is now out. Serg is leaving. :-( City need a striker!! Clubs, players, and their agents will know that, so they will hold out for as much as they can get from us. Dortmund(Haaland), Villa(Grealish), Spurs(Kane), etc, will get as much out of City as they can. This time 'we can't walk away' once the transfer and wages start getting silly. City are either in all the way, or not in at all. Unless City have identified a player/s that nobody knows about? Dias.
Click to expand...
We've played nearly the entire season without Sergio and when he has played, sadly his impact has been minimal
With what is already a very strong squad, Guardiola is struggling to keep everyone happy, so if we do miss out on Haaland this summer it will be disappointing but certainly not the end of the world
 
Torres will come on strong next season and Foden will have more experience at playing as a false 9
Don't be surprised if the backup to Haaland is an a similar player to Mahrez
 
BamberBridgeBlue said:
Prior to Sheikh Mansour’s takeover I was quite naive. I thought there was some corruption in football that mostly consisted of odd betting patterns for a certain player to be sent off in a particular half. Also mostly confined to lower leagues where the pay was less.

Since then I’ve had my eyes seriously opened to out and out corruption through to (at best) PGMOL being convinced that influencing games to ensure certain clubs at least makes the top 4 protects the Premier League brand and therefore their jobs. It’s certainly meant that I have had a crisis of my love for the game overall and made me question my blind renewal of the season ticket. The thing I always come back to is that the action only punishes my club who have done nothing wrong, (I’m under no illusion that someone wouldn’t fill my seat anyway).

what I do though is question everything. I questioned whether to watch the Russia World Cup which was another corrupt award but at least it’s a football nation. I won’t watch a single second of the Qatar tournament. Personally I’d send a team from the Vanarama Conference to represent England. UEFA and FIFA are utter contemptible scumbags.
Click to expand...
Let's see if the Saudi's end up buying Newcastle because then we'll have Qatari, UAE, Chinese, Russian and Saudi money dominating football. When you look around the world, no-one else has any money except for these guys.

UEFA aren't interested in stopping this, they just want a piece of the pie and FFP kerbs the excesses to protect their sponsors and their own interests. The old clubs like United have been left behind by it and well that's why you have people like David Gill (who is still a non-executive director at United) lobbying behind the scenes in UEFA.

The executive committee also includes the chairman of Juventus and as I said the chairman of BEin Sports and PSG. The latter chairman was in court recently for bribing officials to sell BEin TV rights, yes another Qatari official accused of bribery.... Hmm. He was acquitted but well who knows what really goes on nowadays.

You honestly couldn't make up a bigger group of crooks who shouldn't be in their position because of their massive conflicts of interest. Yet, these are the people who are driving FFP and who so famously claimed victory over city before our case was even heard.
 
KS55 said:
Group of supporters, incuding City fans, sued uefa on the grounds that ffp breached EU competition laws. This group was later joined by some smallish clubs. The action was brought in the Belgian courts. Uefa lost and ffp was declared illegal. However, the Belgian courts had no way of enforcing their claim so it went upstairs to the ECJ.
THE ECJ basically said whoa, not us, it is up to domestic courts to deal with this. Stalemate.
Bit busy at the mo, but I'll look up a ref later and ping you.
Click to expand...
Yes I wondered whether you were referring to the Dupont case, but that was the one brought on behalf of the agent wasn't it?
 
dave_blue12 said:
Strange post.

You say 'we can't walk away' then you say we 'are either in all the way, or not at all'.

Why ?

We can negotiate for any player and if the deal doesn't make sense from our point of view we can, of course, walk away. There are always alternatives and let's face it our squad is already very strong.
Click to expand...

City have a habit of walking away from a transfer if the transfer fee and wages go past their ceiling.

It's no secret, unless it's a smokescreen for another centre forward, that City are interested in Haaland.

We all know Dortmund won't sell for less that £100mill+. On top of that Raiola will screw us (and every other club interested in Halland) for every penny he can get.

If City do make a move for Haaland, they make that move knowing the terms and conditions before hand. City are either in all the way, or they are not in. There's no point making a move for Haaland if City won't meet Dortmund's valuation of Haaland, and meet Haaland's personal terms and conditions via Raiola. If City stick to their current transfer ceiling and don't break it, Haaland won't be coming. City might get away with their current wage structure for Haaland. But Railoa's agent fees might be another problem.

The same could be said of Kane. Levy and..... https://ck66.co.uk/
 
jrb said:
City have a habit of walking away from a transfer if the transfer fee and wages go past their ceiling.

It's no secret, unless it's a smokescreen for another centre forward, that City are interested in Haaland.

We all know Dortmund won't sell for less that £100mill+. On top of that Raiola will screw us (and every other club interested in Halland) for every penny he can get.

If City do make a move for Haaland, they make that move knowing the terms and conditions before hand. City are either in all the way, or they are not in. There's no point making a move for Haaland if City won't meet Dortmund's valuation of Haaland, and meet Haaland's personal terms and conditions via Raiola. If City stick to their current transfer ceiling and don't break it, Haaland won't be coming. City might get away with their current wage structure for Haaland. But Railoa's agent fees might be another problem.

The same could be said of Kane. Levy and..... https://ck66.co.uk/
Click to expand...
I think COVID will play a large part in every transfer this summer, with every club trying to reduce wages the fee`s being touted will get reduced even with the top players, i think it will be £ 100 million now for Haaland or £ 68 next season and for Haaland it will be a pay rise this season or what ever COVID leaves you with next season, City i believe are in control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top