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.
Guess who this is?
I am in favour of opening things up to more investment, which FFP does not allow for,’ he told L’Equipe. ‘The clubs that dominate Europe today are those that were built and made investments during an era when FFP did not exist. FFP prevents emerging clubs who want to invest from doing so. That is not normal.

‘These rules have fixed a hierarchy, the big historical clubs are bigger and bigger and, obviously, they are all fighting for FFP to be scrupulously applied to others so that competitors can’t come through.
‘Controlling club management rigorously, yes, verifying where funds are coming from, yes, but we need to encourage people to invest in football. FFP must become more flexible and facilitate investment. We must control clubs in their way of doing things but not tell them how to do it. If the club believes that it is not taking any risks with its balance by buying a player for £150million, what is the problem?’

Is it a french person!?
 
Guess who this is?
I am in favour of opening things up to more investment, which FFP does not allow for,’ he told L’Equipe. ‘The clubs that dominate Europe today are those that were built and made investments during an era when FFP did not exist. FFP prevents emerging clubs who want to invest from doing so. That is not normal.

‘These rules have fixed a hierarchy, the big historical clubs are bigger and bigger and, obviously, they are all fighting for FFP to be scrupulously applied to others so that competitors can’t come through.
‘Controlling club management rigorously, yes, verifying where funds are coming from, yes, but we need to encourage people to invest in football. FFP must become more flexible and facilitate investment. We must control clubs in their way of doing things but not tell them how to do it. If the club believes that it is not taking any risks with its balance by buying a player for £150million, what is the problem?’
Oh, that is a classic. Wonderful Mr. WENGER. "There is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth......"
 
I'm interested in what you say about Chelsea. I felt exactly the same as you when Chelsea became genuine challengers and then champions thanks to Abramovitch. But in the end he threw his lot in with the 'istry boys because he couldn't stand the competition from City and he announced his Damascene conversion to Platini's FFP. And where I can't agree with you is that "Chelsea's investment is conveniently forgotten about" because I don't believe he's actually invested anything. I accept that he always intended that Chelsea should be able eventually to be successful and live within the means permitted by FFP, but then so did City. But Abramovitch had done exactly the same as Leeds and Portsmouth by making interest free) loans to the club (to be repaid within 180 days of him selling the club). Chelsea's debts are thus massive and Abramovitch/Chelsea have "taken advantage" of FFP to increase the club's debt to their holding company to well over £1 billion. Chelsea are rather vulnerable in the light of Abramovitch's difficulties with our government and the corona virus. I don't see what can be done about debt in football within the law but as PB points out to us FFP has made the problem worse not better and far from being the unqualified success for FFP that Platini claimed, Chelsea could be its most catastrophic failure. FFP doesn't protect clubs from owners who "walk away" unless they have made genuine investment and improved the financial stability of the club. We will notice that these two great failures of FFP - limiting genuine investment and protecting the financial stability of clubs - are supposed to be the great achievements of which UEFA are most proud.

Secondly, I note the use of the phrase "financial doping". I know very well you are using this Wengerism to mock the way supporters of FFP use it and I know you use it to show your contempt of the concept behind it but unfortunately many on here and at large don't. Wenger of course coined the phrase to refer to the use of illegal and immoral monies (ie shareholders' money) to improve performance just as athletes used performance enhancing drugs. This is, as we all can see clearly, typical typical of the nonsense spouted by Archbishop Arsene

Abramovich's spending and Chelsea's losses predate FFP. I may be wrong but FFP wouldn't allow that now, as someone who is firmly against FFP surely you would agree you are highlighting some of the benefits it brings?

All the noise seems to be pointing towards a restructuring of FFP, I don't think this is a good thing. For example say Abramovich only bought Chelsea now and wanted to buy Mbappe, the total cost for the deal is £300m, Chelsea can't afford that without making enormous losses, if he deposit's £300m to UEFA (not a good example i know but I can't think of anyone else at this hour) then that should be allowed, within reason*. If he wants to buy him but loan Chelsea £300m like he actually did then that shouldn't be allowed. Chelsea are a phone call away from going bankrupt, as much as I hate them that can't be allowed to happen.
 
Yet not a peep from the rancid press in the UK regarding Arsehole Wingers' about face?
He went on a virtual crusade about us and our purchasing for years as financial doping but now all of a sudden it's all alright. Without of course any reference to his previous stance on the matter. Arogant two faced wanker.
 
In other matters I am still baffled as to why the press in this country seem unwilling or unable to systematically analyse FFP and it's rules and regulations to a degree where they can adequately and fairly comment on the stich up we have had to endure from UEFA. Perhaps they could then understand and submit articles which impartially look at both sides of the coin when discussing the alleged rule breach. We have not witnessed a single article which even remotely considers that we may be innocent of the accusations from UEFA following those dogshit articles from Der Spiegel. A publication with a chip firmly on both shoulders and a bug up its arse.

I wonder what their attitude would be should the European gangsters including the plutocratic hierarchy of UEFA and Der Krauts were going after their beloved scouse vermin or Noddys knobheads. The little Englanders would be dancing a xenophobic jig of outrage in the back gardens of press suburbia no doubt.

Do they wonder why our fanbase despises 90% of them. Fucking shills and click mongers the lot of them without an ounce of integrity.
 
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.