UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%
  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%
  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%

  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
UEFA are getting to be like that fart that gets trapped in the cheeks and irritable working of physical allows it to kind of fizz out in installments often at embarrassing times. No respect for witnesses or the supporting underwear (us fans).
I'm really hoping that they have got this wrong and were pushed by the cartel. clubs into something they were not ready for,also hoping Ceferin or whatever he is called was our guest trying to get us to accept a deal,please someone have him on tape
 
When you say 'a bit shifty' - how did we step outside 'the spirit' of the rules?
Well in 2012/13 we definitely cut some corners in order to try to ensure we got enough revenue to meet the provisions governing being able to mitigate sanctions based on the level of wages paid in 2011/12 under contracts signed prior to the 2010 summer window.

That doesn't necessarily mean we did anything desperately wrong or in contravention of FFP though.
 
I'm really hoping that they have got this wrong and were pushed by the cartel. clubs into something they were not ready for,also hoping Ceferin or whatever he is called was our guest trying to get us to accept a deal,please someone have him on tape

Yeah, with a midget and an Alsatian
 
From what you've said I as I understand it Etihad received money from the Abu Dhabi executive to cover it's sponsorship commitments, is that just our sponsorship or all Etihad sponsorship commitments? If it's more than just ours then surely we can point to it being how Etihad were operating with state backing, and wasn't unique to just City.
I mentioned this somewhere back in the thread.

Assuming Etihad were tight for cash across the board it'd not be just our deal that needed propping up and in which case we can highlight S Mansour's actions as he pays or EC as they cover deals around the globe.
 
My reply to David' Conn's recent piece attacking our reasoning for suggesting FFP was designed to stop City and similar clubs:



Here's each Tweet combined in order of how I responded:

David, maybe we need to start with the question was FFP was the best means to set financial limitations to ensure fairness whilst maintaining financial stability of clubs when there were other successful models in use? Why no wage cap based on the league/revenues?

FFP is a poorly designed system due to its complexity + relying on self-reporting which is widely known, whether in accounting or research, to garner dishonest answers. This is then worsened by the variable of hyper-competition of sport. I’d wager other clubs have also lied.

Why was FFP selected if UEFA, who 1st implemented it and I gather was replicated by the PL and other leagues, wanted a truly stable system to ensure financal stability and competitive fairness?

FFP is a system designed to be punitive, yet encourages lying that leads to punishment. That doesn’t make it OK to lie, but like other systems of justice that create problems that they supposedly want to discourage (i.e school suspensions) the system may be the larger problem.

I’m not saying “conspiracy” but it certainly is interesting that FFP was the choice when surely UEFA must have known it allowed to punish clubs with undefined and subjective consequences for failing FFP via investigations instead of a more clear cut consequences.

The NBA has a soft wage cap. If a club goes over they are penalized and there is no chance to hide this as all player wages are public. Then that money goes towards revenue sharing. It also hurts flexibility so better to stay under it. This is a much more stable and fairer system


He won't reply to that because he already knows the answer. Nick Harris admitted himself in his insane article in the Mail that the person who came up with FFP wanted it to focus on debt, and it was being looked at under that pretence until 2008.

Then around 2008 (Can't imagine what happened that year) it was changed to being based on revenue instead. Why did this happen? We already know - Michel Platini bragged about it in public. Agnelli, Berlusconi, Abramovic & co. came to him and said they didn't want to compete with Abu Dhabi's money, and something needed to be done.

So they came up with a way to force through financial controls that were absolutely miles away from the original design.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.