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

Am I right to assume that the PL version of FFP cannot bite us on the arse as it based on the UEFA version - or could that cause an issue?
 
M18CTID said:
Want some more entertaining reading? Check out the comments underneath the article:

http://untold-arsenal.com/archives/44461
Click to expand...

Brainwashed Arsenal Fan said:
As we see you haven’t really set the World alight on that score because as you can see bellow you’ve only won 2 more PL’s than Arsenal. Okay the PL is a great achievement but financially it is just a piss in the ocean in real terms and not much more than we would of gleaned from our top 4 finishes, and like us, not a sniff of the CL, so this profit of which you speak is not from trophies is it.
Click to expand...
 
mcfc1632 said:
Am I right to assume that the PL version of FFP cannot bite us on the arse as it based on the UEFA version - or could that cause an issue?
Click to expand...
The PL version allows larger losses but restricts wage increases to what you can cover through increased commercial income. Nothing to worry about additionally to UEFA's version tbh.
 
that was brilliant ,the arsenal fan was hit for 6s all over the show , long may the fixation with city continue, i love reading these kind of debates
 
I know I'm in a minority, but I don't have as big an issue with Platini as a lot on here - I've never seen him as the issue. Nor do I think FFP is all bad, it is in its current and now modified guise, but the premise has legs.

When it was first mooted, we were only in the initial stages of our project. We weren't seen as a particular threat and PSG were still a couple of seasons away from their takeover. The rhetoric at the time from UEFA was all about protection of clubs given how poor a state some owners were allowing their clubs to get into financially trying to make the step up or compete (something we have experienced historically too).

By the time it got to its full implementation, we were then a threat and had flexed our muscle a bit - the sound bites around FFP has changed and it was now publicised (outside of UEFA) as a way of curtailing the sugar daddies, despite Abramovich being a supporter of it in its inception.
 
Why that rhetoric changed was down to the ECA rather than Platini for me. They saw the opportunity for self protectionism and took it - which is why Platini numerous times has mentioned them and their pressure with FFP.

The initial premise, I thought, actually had some merit. It lost it the moment it didn't look at debt though as that wouldn't have suited a lot of ECA members. I actually believe Platini would include it too if he could though.
 
meltonblue said:
I know I'm in a minority, but I don't have as big an issue with Platini as a lot on here - I've never seen him as the issue. Nor do I think FFP is all bad, it is in its current and now modified guise, but the premise has legs.

When it was first mooted, we were only in the initial stages of our project. We weren't seen as a particular threat and PSG were still a couple of seasons away from their takeover. The rhetoric at the time from UEFA was all about protection of clubs given how poor a state some owners were allowing their clubs to get into financially trying to make the step up or compete (something we have experienced historically too).

By the time it got to its full implementation, we were then a threat and had flexed our muscle a bit - the sound bites around FFP has changed and it was now publicised (outside of UEFA) as a way of curtailing the sugar daddies, despite Abramovich being a supporter of it in its inception.
Click to expand...

If you look at this UEFA webpage you will note it is dated 2007.

http://www.uefa.com/news/newsid=603843.html

Looking under the heading of para 5 ''Economic and Financial Capability'' the first sentence of that para mentions the need to monitor 'financial fair play' so was proposed before ADUG's takeover.
The big difference is that debt was the main focus for its need then see this UEFA webpage dated earlier in 2004.

http://www.uefa.com/news/newsid=145957.html .

Please look at 'England' para where the first sentence uses the word 'debt' specifically.

Mr Platini along with the G14 members used the FFP concept to monitor all aspects of investment without any regard for debt effectively creating a 'barrier to entry'.
 
Last edited:
meltonblue said:
Why that rhetoric changed was down to the ECA rather than Platini for me. They saw the opportunity for self protectionism and took it - which is why Platini numerous times has mentioned them and their pressure with FFP.

The initial premise, I thought, actually had some merit. It lost it the moment it didn't look at debt though as that wouldn't have suited a lot of ECA members. I actually believe Platini would include it too if he could though.
Click to expand...

I agree to a large extent. I'm not averse to some form of FFP and there are other aspects to the regs that rarely get a mention - clubs having to settle their bills with other clubs for a start which is fair enough. Like you, I don't see Platini as being as much an enemy as others on here do. He's effectively a puppet for the old G14 clubs and I think he's not too happy about being played by the Milan clubs in particular, going off his recent comments which seemed to suggest they've been behind the new version of FFP.
 
That's exactly my point silver fox. When it was first mooted, it was for the right reasons.

The only thing I'm saying is I blame the ECA far more than I do Platini for the subsequent change in focus and interpretation that it got. The clubs hold the power still, not UEFA. He has said as much plenty of times. I personally think he's actually like to include it to exude more power himself, there's just no way the ECA will go along with it.
 
stony said:
Cheers mate, that was a very entertaining read. I love it when knowledgeable blues hit the know-nowt entitled twats where it hurts. Atwood and his Tarquin cronies are one set of bitter bastards.
Well played M18, well played indeed.
Click to expand...

Thanks again. I've been guilty of losing it big time on there in the past but thought I held it together on this occasion. How Attwood gets away with half the stuff he says on there is beyond me. Not just about City but other clubs as well. He even upset a load of Bradford City fans on there the other week when that story about the fire possibly being started deliberately appeared in the press. Attwood penned an article saying it definitely was deliberate and got absolutely slaughtered for it.
 
meltonblue said:
That's exactly my point silver fox. When it was first mooted, it was for the right reasons.

The only thing I'm saying is I blame the ECA far more than I do Platini for the subsequent change in focus and interpretation that it got. The clubs hold the power still, not UEFA. He has said as much plenty of times. I personally think he's actually like to include it to exude more power himself, there's just no way the ECA will go along with it.
Click to expand...

Apologies MB, for some reason I thought you were portraying him as a sort of innocent figurehead of an organisation that had somehow been skewed away from idealistic duties to do the bidding of a few corrupt self centred members who were prepared to stop at nothing to prevent others sharing their global football rewards.
 
Ha!

I'm portraying him as someone that ultimately doesn't have the power that a lot of people think he does. Swap him with anyone else, there would still be FFP. Rumminegge, I find more culpable to be honest.
 
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