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

aguero93:20 said:
Why? The changes announced would have seen them escape punishment if retrospectively applied, why shouldn't they have their sanctions lifted?
Click to expand...

First I have no problem with sanctions being removed from every club. They should be.
That said the new rules Annex point 3 (previous post N pages back) says any club under sanction is still under sanction.

The fact that we escape because we have complied, having been good boys, is not rewarded, yet PSG - who UEFA said were STILL under sanction back in May SUCKS BIG TIME.
Par for the course in the corrupt cesspit that is UEFA mind.

(Edit: corrections in bold)
 
Last edited:
BlueAnorak said:
First I have no problem with sanctions being removed from every club. They should be.
That said the new rules Annex point 3 (previous post N pages back) says any club under sanction is still under sanction.

The fact that we escape because we have complied, having been good boys, is not rewarded, yet PSG - who UEFA said were not under sanction back in May SUCKS BIT TIME.
Par for the course in the corrupt cesspit that is UEFA mind.
Click to expand...

3. The club must not have been party to a voluntary agreement (as defined in this annex) or subject to a disciplinary measure or settlement agreement (as foreseen in the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body) within the last three reporting periods


Point out the bit about everyone under sanctions still being under sanctions.
 
I'll tell you what guys. We should be grateful that PSG came along when they did. We would have been a sitting duck if we had been out there on our own. Another club being in the same position offered us a little protection as they then had to give the treatment to them as well as ourselves & im sure the "sanctions" would have been even more twisted had we been alone.
 
aguero93:20 said:
3. The club must not have been party to a voluntary agreement (as defined in this annex) or subject to a disciplinary measure or settlement agreement (as foreseen in the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body) within the last three reporting periods


Point out the bit about everyone under sanctions still being under sanctions.
Click to expand...

His point is correct tho. We abided by the sanctions. PSG did not. And yet now we're both being treated the same - and therefore unequally. PSG get off scott free in comparison to us.

We have been punished more than PSG despite a) breaking even, and b) not failing as badly in the first place
 
Silva_Spell said:
His point is correct tho. We abided by the sanctions. PSG did not. And yet now we're both being treated the same - and therefore unequally. PSG get off scott free in comparison to us.

We have been punished more than PSG despite a) breaking even, and b) not failing as badly in the first place
Click to expand...

UEFA had fuck all business sanctioning either club in the first place.
 
"What if" scenarios (part 97)
What if uefa had seen City's figures and realised that we had completely bust their attempts to stop us and that any further attempts to curtail our progress would result in a visit from m'learned friends leading to FFP being shot down in flames, very expensively, as promised by Khaldoon last year.
But the problem for platini with this is the backlash he will get from Gill, rummenigge et al at the old g14 club for failing to stop us in our tracks.
Ahh! Go back to City and tell them "we are going to introduce FFP part deux, and it's going to look vaguely like we are being tough on you ,so that I can keep the "elite" boys happy, but in reality , because of your extraordinary growth,it will have no effect on your spending whatsoever" - a bit like legislating to stop people selling chainsaws to under 5s - totally unnecessary but it looks like we're actually doing something about it!
"You can spend - I can show Gill etc that I'm really really trying to stop you , but hey ( Gallic shrug here) I will tell them we can only go so far before the lawyers get involved, and we know where that will end , courtesy of M.Dupont's efforts so far.
Ahh , the fly in the ointment! If City can spend as much as they want , what will PSG have to say about that? They may feel the need to involve their learned amis too leading to more expensive court appearances if they feel the dead hand of discrimination , even though they have made no attempt to comply and seem to be making it clear that they have no intention of even trying to comply.
What to do , what to do?
Got it !!! In keeping with all the common sense previously displayed in this whole misadventure - we will let them off scot free, no questions asked!!!
Simples!
 
I wonder if they will even bother trying to attempt enforcing point 3
Silva_Spell said:
His point is correct tho. We abided by the sanctions. PSG did not. And yet now we're both being treated the same - and therefore unequally. PSG get off scott free in comparison to us.

We have been punished more than PSG despite a) breaking even, and b) not failing as badly in the first place
Click to expand...

but neither should have been punished in the first place, so the rest is really just panicking because PSG also have money, they had money before the sanctions and they didn't trouble us.

In fact, I'd enjoy them delivering a big "fuck you" and offering Hazard a ridiculously deal and tapping up his missus this summer.
 
Damocles said:
Say what you like about Stu Brennan, but hes the only one out there writing articles pointing out how City are getting fucked.

Though he started a rag I'd happily claim him as an adopted Blue.
Click to expand...

Samuels and Curtis spring to mind.
 
Anyone who professes to understand all this b/s, I take my hat off to you.
Christ, surely the fact that you need to have a degree in accountancy to understand the rules is reason itself for them to be scrapped.
 
dont give that rag the clicks..............................

Man City transfer news: Blues' spending to go ahead despite FFP uncertainty
Uefa yet to announce decision on Manchester City restrictions
  • 7 Shares
  • Uefa yet to announce decision on Manchester City restrictions

JS48587087.jpg

Manchester City chief executive Ferran Soriano (left) and chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak
City are going ahead with their summer spending plans despite the fog surrounding their financial fair play punishment.

The Blues have maintained a silence about the possible lifting of restrictions on transfer spending and wages placed on them by Uefa last year.

And the governing body have also refused to say whether they have given the Blues the green light that restrictions are lifted.

With the transfer window opening today, the spotlight fell back on City’s FFP punishment, which was originally scheduled to restrict them for 2014-15 and 2015-16.

There were three main elements to the “settlement” which City agreed with Uefa 13 months ago:

  • transfer spending limited to £49m for 2014-15 and to an unspecified amount for 2015-16
  • Wage bill not to rise in 2014-15 and 2015-16
  • Payment of a £49m fine, reduced to £16m if club meets Uefa requirements
The main requirement was that the Blues would not report a deficit higher than £16m in 2014-15.

They actually racked up a deficit of £23m, but as £16m of that was Uefa’s fine, they were confident it met the requirement.

However, Uefa are still refusing to publicly say whether City are free from the restrictions, saying it will be two or three weeks before it becomes clear.



GP26520716.jpg

Uefa headquarters, where City's FFP fate is being decided


But the fact the Blues have not been fazed by Uefa’s failure to publicly lift the restrictions can be seen as confidence that they are in the clear.

Last month chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak did say: “We dealt with the pinch last year from financial fair play, whether you agree with it or not, It’s behind us and we are out of it now.”
 
FFP is dead if the sanctions have been lifted with PSG - they didn't even pretend to comply. Enjoy Platini falling on his sword.
 
Still puzzled to how the feck UEFA got away with this , no wonder our owners were rightly annoyed............

The main requirement was that the Blues would not report a deficit higher than £16m in 2014-15.

They actually racked up a deficit of £23m, but as £16m of that was Uefa’s fine, they were confident it met the requirement.
 
Damocles said:
Samuel once per year. Curtis is a knob.

Brennan knows his audience and seems to like the club/its staff genuinely, so seems to me to stick the boot in that much harder
Click to expand...

Whenever I read the M.e.n these days I always have the feeling it is trying to appease City fans due to "yellow circle gate" a year or so back. It's still first a foremost a United paper, which I suppose is fair enough given most of its readership supports United (but that's probably for another thread). Hats off to Old Stuey boy for telling it like it is on this farce though.
 
One other thing , with the transfer window opening today why do we have to wait 2 or 3 weeks when PSG are told today they are free , isnt that giving other clubs an advantage ? FFP my arse..............
However, Uefa are still refusing to publicly say whether City are free from the restrictions, saying it will be two or three weeks before it becomes clear.
 
Blueknows said:
One other thing , with the transfer window opening today why do we have to wait 2 or 3 weeks when PSG are told today they are free , isnt that giving other clubs an advantage ? FFP my arse..............
However, Uefa are still refusing to publicly say whether City are free from the restrictions, saying it will be two or three weeks before it becomes clear.
Click to expand...

They're seeing if we'll fall for their dirty tricks and miss big targets........not going to happen as MCFC state.
 
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