I don't think there is any basis for thinking they don't see City as a major threat. Isn't that the point, they fear the disruption that has happened and which could happen. Even more so as credible third party investors join the party.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)
- Thread starter jimharri
- Start date
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,997
Ever since Sheikh Mansour bought our club UEFA have been hostile. This may well be because Platini was well and truly panicked by the reaction of the G 14 to his initial FFP proposals - the threat of legal action because debt is an accepted way of raising capital for investment and the threat of secession if necessary - but he surrendered control of the development of FFP almost immediately to those who were fierce opponents of regulation in the Platini style but also implacable opponents of City's plans. Platini only ever spoke of City and echoed the "City's money ruining football" mantra coming out of OT, Klanfield and elsewhere. In his interview with Martin Samuel, he argued that FFP had allowed him to secure the dissolution of the G 14 while satisfying pleas from both Milans that they couldn't keep financing the losses made by their clubs while trying to compete with new money clubs. The situation was simple - no-one felt they could compete with City and concentration on spending rather than debt seemed the way to keep the clubs happy.
Platini's demise and the advent of Ceferin really didn't change anything. He was the voice of the smaller leagues and believed in FFP as a way of protecting them from the unbridled spending of clubs like City. He has been in post almost exactly 4 years and, to me, he appears to have shifted his position dramatically and I'll explain why I believe this. A mechanism of regulation put in place to deal with one club and any others of the same ilk is unsustainable, especially when the premise on which it is based is false. Only a few PL clubs ever believed City were going to spend, spend, spend to make the PL and European club football uncompetitive thought it was a good slogan for others to use. Ceferin must have seen that Sheikh Mansour meant, and has carried out, every word of his open letter to supporters in September 2008: a period of heavy investment preparing the way for a successful but self sustaining club. The period of investment was 3 years, accelerated to meet UEFA's deadlines, which is actually shorter than that allowed to other clubs by the "reform" of 2015. If there is one club which is a shining advert for the way FFP should work it is Manchester City. If there are adverts for the stupidity of this form of regulation it is just about every other club in Europe: FFP has done nothing to help the smaller leagues and many Dutch and Belgian clubs with honourable European pasts don't even register any longer. The G 14 clubs are still racking up the debt but still spending, spending, spending. But even worse, the persecution of City resulted in complete humiliation for UEFA. This adds to the air of seediness which surrounds all football authorities with prosecutions for corruption at FIFA, Al Khelaifi at UEFA and now the humiliation of UEFA for trying to get a successful club stitched up on charges for which there is not one shred of evidence but mountains of the stuff to show how baseless the charges are. We are concerned at the damage done to our reputation, but I see no evidence that any attitudes to our club have actually changed, but the damage to UEFa's is immense. but I agree with Billy Shears - City's influence in UEFA will grow and that of the G 14 will decline.
I think Ceferin sees all this. He was clearly trying to stop it going so far but his hand was so weak and City's so strong when he appeared at our Cl games. He has talked of the need to allow investment, which is blindingly obvious in the midst of the present crisis. When he looks for a model of good governance, of how new life can be breathed into a club and how it can be run to maintain that vigour and success, it is obvious where to look. Not everyone has City's resources but everyone has more than presently at their disposal. I would quote, as an example, Bournemouth recently relegated but with a rich owner who surely will invest if allowed to if the EFL's version of FFP wasn't there to stop him. City have held out an olive branch, not just in February of this year but also as early as 2014 when Khaldoon also spoke of our friends at UEFA and I think Ceferin will take it now. It won't be easy because, like mos governing bodies, the weight of inertia is heavy, and it may take some time,
Good post. If you were Ceferin, what would you do over the next few years to counter the threat of a break-away Super League, and with which parties would you do it?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure the reality of a breakaway league is as much a threat as some perceive. I'm not even sure it would be viable.Good post. If you were Ceferin, what would you do over the next few years to counter the threat of a break-away Super League, and with which parties would you do it?
I'm not sure the reality of a breakaway league is as much a threat as some perceive. I'm not even sure it would be viable.
Barca, Real and Bayern wouldn't be able to join. Their fans would knock it on the head and the presidents/boards wouldn't be able to override them.
So immediately half the appeal and the main drivers go.
United, City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal don't need one, we already have revenues that keep the other big clubs awake at night and the TV audience isn't going anywhere.
Juventus, Milan and Inter would like it, but Inter are barely feasible and Milan just isn't close at the moment.
PSG have no need because they control TV revenues in France via BeIn, and as pretty much the only club in a City of 12.5m people they don't need any more money.
There's really no need for a European Super League when we have the Champions League.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
UEFA officials should have called their bluff years ago. Let them go off and form their super league, which might be a novelty for a year or two but fans would soon get bored of essentially meaningless games and none of the players involved would be playing for their national teams in European or World Cups.I'm not sure the reality of a breakaway league is as much a threat as some perceive. I'm not even sure it would be viable.
They certainly see us as a threat, but their arrogance leads them to believe that whatever we do, they will eventually crush us. So they dont monitor what we actually do, but rely on propaganda e.g: we are state owned, we push up transfer prices, we break ffp. My bet is they dont even bother to read our accounts.I don't think there is any basis for thinking they don't see City as a major threat. Isn't that the point, they fear the disruption that has happened and which could happen. Even more so as credible third party investors join the party.
Hubris, ateh, nemesis as Sophocles would have it.
HalfwayUpTheKippax
Well-Known Member
I would have loved to have heard the phone conversation between Khaldoon and Ceferin after the CAS verdict. I wonder if it was recorded, possibly by both sides. Hackers fc will be beside themselves trying to get a copy.Ever since Sheikh Mansour bought our club UEFA have been hostile. This may well be because Platini was well and truly panicked by the reaction of the G 14 to his initial FFP proposals - the threat of legal action because debt is an accepted way of raising capital for investment and the threat of secession if necessary - but he surrendered control of the development of FFP almost immediately to those who were fierce opponents of regulation in the Platini style but also implacable opponents of City's plans. Platini only ever spoke of City and echoed the "City's money ruining football" mantra coming out of OT, Klanfield and elsewhere. In his interview with Martin Samuel, he argued that FFP had allowed him to secure the dissolution of the G 14 while satisfying pleas from both Milans that they couldn't keep financing the losses made by their clubs while trying to compete with new money clubs. The situation was simple - no-one felt they could compete with City and concentration on spending rather than debt seemed the way to keep the clubs happy.
Platini's demise and the advent of Ceferin really didn't change anything. He was the voice of the smaller leagues and believed in FFP as a way of protecting them from the unbridled spending of clubs like City. He has been in post almost exactly 4 years and, to me, he appears to have shifted his position dramatically and I'll explain why I believe this. A mechanism of regulation put in place to deal with one club and any others of the same ilk is unsustainable, especially when the premise on which it is based is false. Only a few PL clubs ever believed City were going to spend, spend, spend to make the PL and European club football uncompetitive thought it was a good slogan for others to use. Ceferin must have seen that Sheikh Mansour meant, and has carried out, every word of his open letter to supporters in September 2008: a period of heavy investment preparing the way for a successful but self sustaining club. The period of investment was 3 years, accelerated to meet UEFA's deadlines, which is actually shorter than that allowed to other clubs by the "reform" of 2015. If there is one club which is a shining advert for the way FFP should work it is Manchester City. If there are adverts for the stupidity of this form of regulation it is just about every other club in Europe: FFP has done nothing to help the smaller leagues and many Dutch and Belgian clubs with honourable European pasts don't even register any longer. The G 14 clubs are still racking up the debt but still spending, spending, spending. But even worse, the persecution of City resulted in complete humiliation for UEFA. This adds to the air of seediness which surrounds all football authorities with prosecutions for corruption at FIFA, Al Khelaifi at UEFA and now the humiliation of UEFA for trying to get a successful club stitched up on charges for which there is not one shred of evidence but mountains of the stuff to show how baseless the charges are. We are concerned at the damage done to our reputation, but I see no evidence that any attitudes to our club have actually changed, but the damage to UEFa's is immense. but I agree with Billy Shears - City's influence in UEFA will grow and that of the G 14 will decline.
I think Ceferin sees all this. He was clearly trying to stop it going so far but his hand was so weak and City's so strong when he appeared at our Cl games. He has talked of the need to allow investment, which is blindingly obvious in the midst of the present crisis. When he looks for a model of good governance, of how new life can be breathed into a club and how it can be run to maintain that vigour and success, it is obvious where to look. Not everyone has City's resources but everyone has more than presently at their disposal. I would quote, as an example, Bournemouth recently relegated but with a rich owner who surely will invest if allowed to if the EFL's version of FFP wasn't there to stop him. City have held out an olive branch, not just in February of this year but also as early as 2014 when Khaldoon also spoke of our friends at UEFA and I think Ceferin will take it now. It won't be easy because, like mos governing bodies, the weight of inertia is heavy, and it may take some time,
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....enal-Liverpool-Man-United-chiefs-met-NYC.htmlAre the American owned clubs acting together? Do we have evidence for that?
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Exactly the point, kangaroo courts need little in the way of evidence to get to an assumed guilty verdict whereas a legal court decides the verdict based solely on evidence.Yes, this is the scandal of City getting the benefit of the doubt just because UEFA didn't have any evidence of wrong doing. A technicality pure and simple.
As you say, a mere technicality when everyone knows we must be guilty, just have a poll in one of the media websites if you want the truth.
Hey, Ceffers, how goes it, mate?I would have loved to have heard the phone conversation between Khaldoon and Ceferin after the CAS verdict. I wonder if it was recorded, possibly by both sides. Hackers fc will be beside themselves trying to get a copy.
Fucking gobsmacked. How did you do it?
I told you there was no evidence. That's why I turned down your deal.
I really thought Leterme and Parry would do for you. You are not out of the woods yet. Spiegel has lots more....
Bring it on old boy, no credibility now.
Can we turn this to our advantage?
You mean YOUR advantage. We did a deal with your predecessor and look where that got us.
We can shaft Leterme.
Too late, he's shafted himself.
What would you need?
John Henry's head on a stick. Tebas in jail. Gill removed.
You don't want much, do you?
Remember, old boy, we have all of Uefa's emails.......byeeee!