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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Kippax Street 1880 said:
oakiecokie said:
Kippax Street 1880 said:
I thought we were completely right on everything and would be taking UEFA to court ?

Can anyone summarise why we have bent over and taken it ?

Unbelievable Jeff !!!

I'm not reading 856 pages, it doesn't have to be a legal document, just where we fucked up and why we aren't chellenging it.

We didn't really fuck up. We set our accounts up to pass based upon the guidance we'd been given by UEFA on what the rules meant, and how they'd be applied. After we'd submitted the accounts UEFA changed the guidance and the interpretation of the rules, which meant money we had been told could be deducted from our losses was actually included in our losses and lead to us failing. We'd have had a strong, albeit not guaranteed successful, case if we'd been willing to fight this, but the negative attention "fighting FFP" would have brought on Manchester City football club, our owners, our fans, our sponsors, and the state of Abu Dhabi, was deemed to be too costly an impact, so we accepted the settlement (although I believe we probably managed to negotiate UEFA down on a number of the sanctions we've been hit with).
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Another interpretation might be that the rules as drafted (not the guidance) do not give us as watertight a case as we would have liked. Our lawyers may have advised us to settle. No-one outside of City actually knows what went on and if there is anyone who does, they are doubtless not going to blab.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Chippy_boy said:
Another interpretation might be that the rules as drafted (not the guidance) do not give us as watertight a case as we would have liked. Our lawyers may have advised us to settle. No-one outside of City actually knows what went on and if there is anyone who does, they are doubtless not going to blab.

it's easier for guys like Dupont et al. who arguably have a lot less to lose in the grand scheme of things, to go to court and give it a whirl, rather than an elite club, who are stuck between a rock and a hard place as it is.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

JoeMercer'sWay said:
Chippy_boy said:
Another interpretation might be that the rules as drafted (not the guidance) do not give us as watertight a case as we would have liked. Our lawyers may have advised us to settle. No-one outside of City actually knows what went on and if there is anyone who does, they are doubtless not going to blab.

it's easier for guys like Dupont et al. who arguably have a lot less to lose in the grand scheme of things, to go to court and give it a whirl, rather than an elite club, who are stuck between a rock and a hard place as it is.

I agree. Far better for Dupont to test the water with regards to the legality of FFP in a court of law than us or any other club.

The thing is, FFP will probably benefit us in the medium/long-term so I don't think the club want it to be thrown out anyway - it seems our beef with UEFA is down to interpretation of our accounts and the belief at the club that we felt we'd passed.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

M18CTID said:
So are we genuinely on target to break even this season (and therefore meeting UEFA's requirement for allowable losses as defined in the list of sanctions) as the club suggests? Well, on the face of it turning round a £51 million loss plus finding another £48 million or so to cover those one-off transactions in the last accounts seems like a tall order but even a non-expert like me can come up with the following off the top of my head:

*An extra £40 million earned from PL TV and prize money compared to 2012-13

*At least £30 million knocked off the wage bill (assuming the figure for Mancini and his staff's payout is correct), possibly more due to the likes of Tevez and others being off our books and the incoming players being on more modest wages

*Money earned from several sponsorship deals (I think there were 5 or 6 in all) that were announced last summer, including BT's sponsoring of City Square - those deals will presumably be worth at least a million quid each, perhaps more

*Match-day revenue up due to an increase in season-ticket, match-day ticket, and hospitality prices plus extra home games in the cup competitions compared to last season - the Barca home game in particular probably netted close to £2 million in match-day income

*Amortisation costs down as a result of new contracts for the likes of Aguero

Anything else?

Forgot to add - increased CL prize money due to a better showing in the tournament this season just gone
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

M18CTID said:
M18CTID said:
So are we genuinely on target to break even this season (and therefore meeting UEFA's requirement for allowable losses as defined in the list of sanctions) as the club suggests? Well, on the face of it turning round a £51 million loss plus finding another £48 million or so to cover those one-off transactions in the last accounts seems like a tall order but even a non-expert like me can come up with the following off the top of my head:

*An extra £40 million earned from PL TV and prize money compared to 2012-13

*At least £30 million knocked off the wage bill (assuming the figure for Mancini and his staff's payout is correct), possibly more due to the likes of Tevez and others being off our books and the incoming players being on more modest wages

*Money earned from several sponsorship deals (I think there were 5 or 6 in all) that were announced last summer, including BT's sponsoring of City Square - those deals will presumably be worth at least a million quid each, perhaps more

*Match-day revenue up due to an increase in season-ticket, match-day ticket, and hospitality prices plus extra home games in the cup competitions compared to last season - the Barca home game in particular probably netted close to £2 million in match-day income

*Amortisation costs down as a result of new contracts for the likes of Aguero

Anything else?

Forgot to add - increased CL prize money due to a better showing in the tournament this season just gone

No longer paying very big wages for players on loan such as Bridge and Santa Cruz. If we get the wage bill down to £200m we should be doing OK
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

If Dupont managers to defeat this farce in court, does that mean we at the very least get our money back?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

adrianr said:
If Dupont managers to defeat this farce in court, does that mean we at the very least get our money back?

If Dupont manages to get the FFP regulations declared illegal under EU law then any financial penalties applied under those regulations would also be deemed illegal, so we'd get the 20m euros we should have been given as prize money, but was retained, given to us belatedly. I don't think we'd be able to get anythign further from UEFA, in terms of compensation for the reduced squad list, or the hampering of our transfer ambitions with the funding cap, as we've probably had to agree to no further court action under the terms of the settlement. Seems odd however that a settlement reached as part of a ruling based on illegal regulations could be binding but there you go.....
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Matty said:
adrianr said:
If Dupont managers to defeat this farce in court, does that mean we at the very least get our money back?

If Dupont manages to get the FFP regulations declared illegal under EU law then any financial penalties applied under those regulations would also be deemed illegal, so we'd get the 20m euros we should have been given as prize money, but was retained, given to us belatedly. I don't think we'd be able to get anythign further from UEFA, in terms of compensation for the reduced squad list, or the hampering of our transfer ambitions with the funding cap, as we've probably had to agree to no further court action under the terms of the settlement. Seems odd however that a settlement reached as part of a ruling based on illegal regulations could be binding but there you go.....


I would have thought if the penalties were part of an illegal ruling then they would all be void, not just the monetary ones? Especially if they were deemed in restraint of trade or similar?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Football revolutionary takes aim at UEFA -- again


By James Masters and John Sinnott, CNN

May 19, 2014 -- Updated 1519 GMT (2319 HKT)


Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan has invested huge sums in the English club since buying it in 2008.

The Abu Dhabi billionaire's spending has paid off, with City claiming a second Premier League title in three seasons, but the club has agreed to restrict its outlay for the next three years.

Like City, Paris Saint-Germain has been sanctioned by UEFA for breaking its financial fair play rules, having won the French league title for the second season in a row.

PSG's Qatari owners have invested heavily in top players such as Swedish forward Zlatan Ibrahimovic, but will face spending restrictions as they seek to improve on this season's Champions League quarterfinal achievement.

UEFA president Michel Platini has vowed to crack down on clubs that spend more than they earn, with seven other teams also sanctioned -- three from Turkey and Russia, and one from Bulgaria.


STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Lawyer brands UEFA's Financial Fair Play sanctions "illegal"
Belgian Jean-Louis Dupont is the man who transformed system with "Bosman ruling"
Dupont says FFP contravenes European Union competition law
Belgian lawyer calls on fans to lodge complaints with Brussels


(CNN) -- He revolutionized football once before by transforming its transfer system -- now Belgian lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont is gunning to change the face of the game for a second time.

In his sights is UEFA's shiny new regulatory regime: Financial Fair Play (FFP), which has become the scourge of Europe's richest football clubs, notably English champion Manchester City and top French side Paris Saint-Germain, which were both heavily sanctioned by Europe's governing body Friday.

FFP is designed to prevent clubs spending beyond their means and posting unsustainable yearly losses, but Dupont believes the sanctions are "completely illegal" because they restrict competition -- a key principle of European Union law.


"The break-even requirement,' that's in itself a pure violation of EU competition law. any sanction that aims at enforcing an illegal rule is automatically illegal, " Dupont told CNN.

In a statement sent to CNN, UEFA said it "completely rejects" the suggestion that the break-even requirement may lead to any restriction of competition in the market for matches played in UEFA club tournaments.

"FFP rules emerged from a wide-reaching consultative process involving all relevant stakeholders in European football," read a statement from UEFA.

" As such, there is no doubt that the rules have democratic legitimacy since they were the product of an inclusive and democratic process.

"The substantive content of the rules -- especially the break-even principle, based on the idea that you 'don't spend more than you earn' -- is just economic common sense and a sensible prudential rule."

But Dupont disagrees.

"FFP sounds good," added Dupont. "Who wouldn't support good governance and fairness of the game?

"But when you scratch the surface, the break-even rule is no more than a prohibition to invest."

Dupont believes FFP raises further competition concerns by entrenching the status quo, by not allowing clubs like City and PSG to challenge the established football order in future.

"UEFA prohibits the owner of a club to spend his own money in the club, at least to buy players, in order to make it grow and to challenge the established top dogs.

"Today, with this rule, Roman Abramovich could not build his Chelsea project and turn it into one of Europe's top clubs.

"In other words, the rule ossifies the market structure. The few top European clubs will remain the same forever -- there will be no new kid in town."

To back up his argument, Dupont cites an academic article by professor Nicolas Petit on EU competition law and FFP.

"Petit says FFP creates what he calls a 'Oligopoleague: the break-even rule destroys competitive balance -- the big clubs will be bigger; the small clubs, smaller ; and no small club will ever again become a big one," said Dupont.

Again UEFA rejects the accusations. It says "FFP enhances competition through improving managerial incentives in football".

It adds that "clubs are encouraged to invest in training and infrastructure rather than 'payroll-gambling'".

Threat of expulsion

Last week, City was hit with an $82 million fine and squad restrictions for next season's Champions League, while PSG also received a heavy financial punishment.

Dupont argues clubs won't risk taking UEFA on in the courts because it might lead to their expulsion from the Champions League or the Europa League and disrupt their transfer activities.

Additionally, they have the feeling that the political cost would be high, said the Belgian lawyer. It's a threat that has ensured UEFA has faced little opposition over FFP.

"Pay me €60 million or I will expel you from competitions, which will cause you an even bigger damage," said Dupont.

UEFA rejects Jean-Louis Dupont argument

1. FFP is similar to financial prudential rules e.g. capital adequacy rules imposed on banks

2. FFP enhances competition through improving managerial incentives in football

3. Clubs are encouraged to invest in training and infrastructure rather than "payroll-gambling"

4. The break-even rule does not prevent clubs competing for the services of players

5. It simply ensures that such competition is not distorted by clubs living beyond their means

6. FFP rules emerged from a wide-reaching consultative process involving all relevant stakeholders in European football. As such, there is no doubt that the rules have democratic legitimacy since they were the product of an inclusive and democratic process.

7. The substantive content of the rules -- especially the break-even principle, based on the idea that you "don't spend more than you earn" -- is just economic common sense and a sensible prudential rule

8. The rules have been applied by an independent expert body -- UEFA Club Financial Control Body -- which follows the model of "separation of powers" i.e. independence of the judiciary to ensure impartiality and objectivity in decision making.

"This is clearly a threat of expulsion. Again, a major crime under European competition law. And even more so since this threat aims at enforcing a rule that, itself, violates competition law."

Dupont also argues part of the punishment handed out to City -- where its squad for next season's Champions League has been reduced from 25 players to 21 with at least eight of those having to be home grown -- is also "illegal."

UEFA's homegrown players rule requires at least eight players in a European squad to have been trained domestically for three years between the ages of 15 and 21 -- a rule which Dupont says is open to challenge.

"The whole UEFA home grown player system violates EU Law," said the Belgian lawyer who is based in Barcelona.

"This rule violates free movement of workers and harms free competition without any solid justification.

"In other words, if any club or player challenges this rule tomorrow in court, the judge -- based on EU law -- will have no choice but to declare this UEFA rule null and void."

Intriguingly, Dupont urged the supporters of the nine clubs sanctioned by UEFA to become involved in the battle against FFP.

"Million and millions of people could challenge FFP tomorrow," said Dupont, who is already contesting the FFP regulations through the courts in a case he is fighting on behalf of football agent Daniel Striani.

"The fans can do this through their associations. They are the consumers of the football product and the ultimate aim of competition law is to protect the consumers.

"They are free to join the complaint lodged by my client, player agent Daniel Striani, with the European Commission and the civil action he has launched in the Brussels court.

"They could even ask the Brussels judge to stay the execution of the Uefa FFP regulation -- and of the sanctions based on it - until he renders his judgment on the merits.

"Since the break-even rule will stop for ever the vast majority of clubs from challenging the existing top European clubs, the fans of these 'underdog' clubs have a legitimate interest and can ask the judge to declare the break-even rule null and void.

"And the same goes for (for instance) the sponsors of all these clubs."

It was nearly 20 years ago that Dupont, who helped Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman change European law in 1995 to allow players to move for free at the end of their contract.

Whether it change European law for a second time remains to be seen.
 

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.