UEFA's concern about debt started in 2002, but they got nowhere over the next 7 years because the European elite clubs weren't arsed.
It was only when HRH bought City, that the focus of this process was switched from football debt, to stymying investment.
Like the fools they are, UEFA went along with it because they had the sword of Damocles suspended over their necks, in the guise of the ESL threat.
That's the unfortunate reality of the FFP/PSR we have today.
So, they managed to read the article about City having a meeting, but completely missed the one that said lots of other clubs had meetings with the minister too?
How convenient.
Clearly football clubs are businesses - but my argument is that you can't run them as a traditional business, where the aim is to make as much money as possible, and gain a market share that allows you to dominate.The idea that football is EITHER a sport OR a business but cannot be both is clearly erroneous: it is, and always has been both. The days of amateurism can be seen as no more than a mechanism for ensuring that there were no player costs to consider but growing interest in the game helped make amateurism unsustainable. Now football faces competition from other sports which are just as professional and don't take the same view of player remuneration as the football authorities. They too must live in a free market economy just as football and they too have to accept the need for investment in infrastructure and the need to reach out to a global audience. The difference is that the football authorities, UEFA and the PL, have actually ceased to be governing bodies and have become rivals to many football clubs for sponsorship and have come to fear a break away by those clubs which were a force in the 1990s when the European Cup became a real money spinner. Administration has more about maintaining the position and financial primacy of these clubs than the overall health of the game. Rules have been put in place so that the crippling debt of certain clubs is not a problem but the spending of other wealthier clubs is.
We are now in a position where Everton are deducted ten points because theke the rules on spending. They must obey the rules ... because they are the rules! Do they make sense? No ... but Everton will go into debt ... not as much as Manchester United or Liverpool or Spurs or .... and they have a rich owner who can pay any fine ! Newcastle can't spend too much either on the weird grounds that it might endanger thy broeir sustainability. Their owners are worth hundreds of billions but their overspending would put them at far greater risk than the (more than a) billion pound debt of Manchester United puts that club. And United's owners are relative paupers. It isn't financial fair play, it has nothing to do with profit and sustainability, it is cheating, it is unlawful and it is the result of caving into the bullying of a cartel of clubs.
What it all illustrates is the need for truly independent regulation which respects the demands of the law and rejects the demands of a self interested cartel and a "governing body" which lacks the skills, independence and impartiality to do the job properly. Why is it that the best run club in football is the only one of "the top six" which wants to see the appointment of an independent regulator? Why is it the PL are at war with a growing number of clubs, not on the rules of football but on grounds of finance? And now FIFA threatens to cut England off from world football if such a regulator is appointed, or at least those FIFA officials who are not (yet) in prison for lining their own pockets do.
It’s the 5th part of our charges. They’re probably the easiest ones to prove. No one knows for sure though, as you rightly question.Everyone seems to be banging on about us not co-operating with the PL enquiries. However, after the CAS bollocks, I suspect we would have. Wtf. Does anyone know, I suspect not.
David Gill termed it "Only spend what you earn". It wasn't UEFA who abandoned debt, it was the G14, with the threat of the ESL if UEFA didn't comply.I do think that Abramovitch's purchase of Chelsea in 2005 really raised the stakes because the Glazers bought United in the same year, Chelsea soon did inflate the cost of transfers, won back to back PL titles and seemed destined to succeed in Europe too. Sheikh Mansour bought City in 2008 and he seemed to bring wealth to the table that even Abramovitch couldn't compete with. The transfer market seemed to be at the mercy of yet another interloper and, under threat, UEFA abandoned controls on debt to try and reduce player costs by tying spending on players to income from certain acceptable streams. This was the origin of the ludicrous claim that clubs could onl "spend their own money" ie thos revenue streams that certain clubs had come to monopolise in their good years of the 1990s. Financilal fair play.
Correct on all points. With the extra money that the champions league gave the rags dippers and tarquins the top places were set in stone before Chelsea and City came along.Brighton are the current poster boys for FFP having sold Cucurella, Trossard, Caceido, MacAllister, and Fernandez, and still competing for the Europa League places.
However, you can virtually guarantee that Brighton will eventually follow the same patch as Southampton and Leicester, who were equally praised, patronised, and ultimately relegated, after selling one player too many.
I also suspect that whilst publicly condemning FFP (or profit and sustainability) City are privately pissing themselves, now that it's us who are benefiting from the self-perpetuating financial advantages of continual qualification for the Champions League.
Regardless of club bias It's utterly ludicrous that four clubs automatically benefit from a potential £100m windfall before a ball has even been kicked.
Of course this was less of an issue when three of those four clubs shirts wore red shirts.
So the poster I tagged says. Shared major financial interest outwith football somewhere between our owners and theirs.
I haven't heard an update in a while though, that's if there is one anyway!
Not if found guilty of fraud. We would take it to High Court, forget tribunals and Premier League rules at that stage.Sorry TH, you’re going to have to corroborate that claim with a source - it’s clear that City have tried and failed to move this to a commercial court already, and the PL rules are clear that the only appeal route is back to another tribunal on procedural grounds.
It all depends on the 3 panel members. Which is absurd! Who are these people and how truly independent are they?
Words can be twisted, evidence can be ignored. What you have suggested would mean the league backtracking from fraud to blaming city for not disclosing information. It would be a great result for the club.
We just don’t know what games are being played here. The whole case is shrouded in mystery.