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

meltonblue said:
"All this discussion of whether Platini's reasons for the introduction of these ludicrous rules which masquerade under the Orwellian-speak title of "financial fair play" miss the point by several country miles. There are no right reasons for this nonsense."

And that is where I disagree. I have no issue at all with football wanting to do something to protect clubs from owners that asset strip or load up debt that threaten their future. I have an issue with FFP and it's implementation and think they could actually achieve what they want to do through the Fit and Proper Persons test instead if it was either fit or proper.

Just because we are in the position we are shouldn't mean we look at Parma or Portsmouth and just think sorry, thems the breaks.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly what regulation by UEFA cannot and will not ever try to do. It will give people who have no right to spend a club's money for them the power to do that. And it will make sure that the people who do it are responsible for these policies at a rival club. What other industry would allow such a crazy state of affairs. Imagine banking, car manufacturing, anything at all allowing a committee from some organisations involved saying which model their rivals should adopt, establishing what they could spend on and how much and being able to impose fines and exclude them from markets if they didn't comply. It's madness at the start and it soon becomes corrupt and dishonest. So, are you really sure that UEFA are competent to do this? They seem to have made a right mess of it so far. So why not leave the regulation of football finance to the law?
 
meltonblue said:
I don't think FFP should have anything to do with levelling any playing field to be honest, I think it should do what it initially set out to do before it changed to what it is now, which was to put financial safeguards in place to protect clubs from their owners.

Fairness in that context is towards the fans of that particular club that it is being run in a way that is not detrimental to its future rather than anything competitive. Football as a competitive entity ended a long time ago really.

That's what I mean about the complete change of interpretation.
Click to expand...

The term FFP is a complete misnomer in that case.
It would be better to use something like 'Financial Security / Stability / Safeguarding'. The whole 'Fair Play' misnomer was probably brought about to win over fans who took it at face value and thought it was some way to stop rich teams winning.
 
Last edited:
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
And this is exactly what regulation by UEFA cannot and will not ever try to do. It will give people who have no right to spend a club's money for them the power to do that. And it will make sure that the people who do it are responsible for these policies at a rival club. What other industry would allow such a crazy state of affairs. Imagine banking, car manufacturing, anything at all allowing a committee from some organisations involved saying which model their rivals should adopt, establishing what they could spend on and how much and being able to impose fines and exclude them from markets if they didn't comply. It's madness at the start and it soon becomes corrupt and dishonest. So, are you really sure that UEFA are competent to do this? They seem to have made a right mess of it so far. So why not leave the regulation of football finance to the law?
Click to expand...

Not to mention that to some extent a business plan is a trade secret, especially when it involves genuine innovation.
Just like FFP v1 it sounds good in principle, but after 10 minutes of thought (if that) it all starts to unravel.

What if a club's plan is to sign Ronaldo and Messi at a cost of 500m, and they've got a major sponsor lined up willing to invest IF they can get those two players?
Is a club supposed to reveal their targets to UEFA (and rivals), and name their sponsor too?
Like hell.
 
Absolutely fanchester.

Bluessincehyderoad,

I don't trust UEFA to do it as they haven't got the power to. I can't really see why financial stability is such a bad thing to want as an aspiration though, rather than the FFP that is in place now or none at all like before. The difference with football compared to, say, car manufacturing, is that football is reliant on other clubs existing too. The g14 and the ECA only care about those at the top and don't care, that doesn't mean that everyone else shouldn't though.

As I said before, making the fit and proper persons test both fit and proper would be a start. The other thing I would personally want to see is a restriction on the amount of debt a club can put on itself without financial proof that it can and will be covered by the owner. Nothing to do with restriction of investment, purely ensuring clubs stay financially stable. That is the only part I'm saying is a good aspirational goal.
 
FanchesterCity said:
Not to mention that to some extent a business plan is a trade secret, especially when it involves genuine innovation.
Just like FFP v1 it sounds good in principle, but after 10 minutes of thought (if that) it all starts to unravel.

What if a club's plan is to sign Ronaldo and Messi at a cost of 500m, and they've got a major sponsor lined up willing to invest IF they can get those two players?
Is a club supposed to reveal their targets to UEFA (and rivals), and name their sponsor too?
Like hell.
Click to expand...
Exactly, only in Platini World can a club like City have to reveal all to a rival club director. Gill must lose sleep when he gets to look at our finances and realise that is the only proper and right way to run a club. Money being pumped in instead of syphoned off and hidden in the Caymans, what a novel concept.
In my view UEFA should set up a completely independent body like the Competition Commission, charged with all finance overview, replete with powers to ensure that the system is not subsidised by debt. Let us see if the G14 are genuine in their view that they want a system that would prevent future Leeds and Portsmouth debacles.
 
In many ways, it might be better if more clubs went to the wall - in order to put the fear factor back into things, and for clubs to stop taking crazy gambles.
I'm playing devil's advocate slightly, but why should clubs be protected by some regulatory body?
 
FanchesterCity said:
In many ways, it might be better if more clubs went to the wall - in order to put the fear factor back into things, and for clubs to stop taking crazy gambles.
I'm playing devil's advocate slightly, but why should clubs be protected by some regulatory body?
Click to expand...
They have social importance to their communities, that's about the only reason.
 
Businesses fail organically in the normal business world but football seems to be exempt from that in many ways. That's why it needs rules to prevent charlatans milking clubs and just leaving them as empty shells. This doesn't work either so I suppose it would be better to just let them expire naturally.
 
FanchesterCity said:
They do, but you could say the same of a mine, or large manufacturer in a town.
Click to expand...
I'd say either of those would have far more importance.
FanchesterCity said:
I don't know what the answer is to be honest, but I'm favour of some 'escrow' holding funds to ensure real money is there.
Click to expand...
For owner investment, yes. Although clubs still have to be allowed to borrow to invest.
 
aguero93:20 said:
I'd say either of those would have far more importance.

For owner investment, yes. Although clubs still have to be allowed to borrow to invest.
Click to expand...

This is the thing... you'd expect the creditor to approve any loan / investment, not UEFA. Of course if it goes belly up, the creditor loses his money, or the club folds (and the creditor recovers what they can).

If the creditor is happy to lend their money, why should UEFA stop them?
 
FanchesterCity said:
This is the thing... you'd expect the creditor to approve any loan / investment, not UEFA. Of course if it goes belly up, the creditor loses his money, or the club folds (and the creditor recovers what they can).

If the creditor is happy to lend their money, why should UEFA stop them?
Click to expand...

This is why UEFA will lose in the ECJ, they're not in a suitable position to act as a financial regulator. That's even before Dupont gets into the ludicrous actions against ourselves and PSG.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Perhaps we are saying the same thing then as you suggest ?
He is certainly not blameless but you feel he is impotent because of undue pressure from powerful members.

UEFA's decision to move to Switzerland from France allowed the organisation to act as a sovereign state (until recent Swiss law changes).
With that in mind I see him as a top civil servant insisting on carrying out the wishes of a corrupt government whilst distancing himself from any of the actions. I feel that the G14 gave him the end result they wanted and left him to devise a plan that would work.

Maybe his ''I don't make the policies I just carry them out'' attitude is acceptable and should be expected. Unlike his tutor Mr B. at FIFA he has not had the opportunity to 'appoint' loyal delegates around the world to maintain his position so he has no option but polite obedience to his powerful masters ?

Regarding the Mr Rumm.'s and Mr Gill's of his world of course they would continue with skewed FFP, they are simply afraid of the financial competition our owner brings to their cosy cash cow.
But Mr P. has absolutely no financial position to protect (or perhaps he has ?) so should have carried out the FFP including debt which was already on the agenda when he took office. However he chose to use its skewed template to assist the objectives of the G14 by eliminating ''Debt'' from the original plan.

Is Mr P. really a man you would trust ?
Click to expand...

He is French, so no.
 
A successful CL would be so fitting as it would upset that cash cow and stick the dagger in where it hurts. Just more reason to hate UEFA.
 
You''ve got to read this latest gem. To date this has to be the most bitter article by any Arsenal fan, and there's been a few.

The stadium peppercorn rent is a classic. Obviously he doesn't know about the 250 year lease on the stadium, with City paying millions a year to the council for the use of the it.

http://untold-arsenal.com/archives/44588
 
FanchesterCity said:
In many ways, it might be better if more clubs went to the wall - in order to put the fear factor back into things, and for clubs to stop taking crazy gambles.
I'm playing devil's advocate slightly, but why should clubs be protected by some regulatory body?
Click to expand...

In the real world there are plenty examples of companies going to the wall on a daily basis with the directors responsible for ensuring they always trade profitably presumably to protect the creditors. Why should the football sector be any different ?
The only exception seems to be the Banking sector which the Government protects with taxpayer money.

Is there any coincidence that the same crazy gambles you refer to appear to be the reason for casualties in both 'protected' sectors ?
 
Last edited:
jrb said:
You''ve got to read this latest gem. To date this has to be the most bitter article by any Arsenal fan, and there's been a few.

The stadium peppercorn rent is a classic. Obviously he doesn't know about the 250 year lease on the stadium, with City paying millions a year to the council for the use of the it.

http://untold-arsenal.com/archives/44588
Click to expand...

This clown's just a bitter and ill informed twat.
 
jrb said:
You''ve got to read this latest gem. To date this has to be the most bitter article by any Arsenal fan, and there's been a few.

The stadium peppercorn rent is a classic. Obviously he doesn't know about the 250 year lease on the stadium, with City paying millions a year to the council for the use of the it.

http://untold-arsenal.com/archives/44588
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! The bitter, ill-informed prick never gives up does he? He's also STILL peddling the line that we ignored UEFA when the sanctions were being put in place:

"Man City have always been the most contentious of the clubs caught up in FFP, because when Uefa found them guilty of breaking the rules, as they so flagrantly and obviously were, the club broke ranks with all the other guilty parties and for about a week refused even to communicate with Uefa."
 
jrb said:
You''ve got to read this latest gem. To date this has to be the most bitter article by any Arsenal fan, and there's been a few.

The stadium peppercorn rent is a classic. Obviously he doesn't know about the 250 year lease on the stadium, with City paying millions a year to the council for the use of the it.

http://untold-arsenal.com/archives/44588
Click to expand...

His tears taste delicious and i get a warm fuzzy feeling that as an Arsenal fan, he spends the majority of his time thinking and talking about Gods own.

What a thundercunt :-)
 
blueinsa said:
His tears taste delicious and i get a warm fuzzy feeling that as an Arsenal fan, he spends the majority of his time thinking and talking about Gods own.

What a thundercunt :-)
Click to expand...

He's so full of shit it's untrue. Says we can't just spend what we want. Does he think we don't know that? Tony, you fucking tool - we can spend an amount which is aligned to our revenues and keeps us on the right side of FFP. That figure is a very significant one due to the fact that our revenues are shit loads higher than Arsenal's and will continue to rise exponentially you mouth-breathing fuckwit.

I've done my shift on that site this past week so someone else can take up the mantle and demolish the fucker!
 
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