FanchesterCity said:Hoghead said:The club haven't accepted a fine at all - what they have accepted are reduced payments from this year and next year CL income payments. ie the club will not be paying a fine, just reduced income from CL.
- MCFC will lose 10m Euros of its share of income from UEFA for competing in the Champions League completion in season 2013-14.
- MCFC will lose 10m Euros of its share of income from UEFA for competing in the Champions League for season 2014-15
The view of the club on all the other matters is that they are immaterial as either they will not impact the Club (break even. anyway) or it's business as usual (used only 21 players last time, anyway).
So in the words of Khaldoon about the compromise agreement....'if we have to pinch a little'.
If you want to see a 'reduced income from CL' as not a fine, that's fine (pardon the pun).
In my eyes, money that was due to us, now isn't... that'll be a fine.
The council call it a fixed penalty, I call it a fine. It still costs me 60 quid!
I do take your point though - it's probably not termed a 'Fine'. It's just one of the 'sanctions' where they get to keep some of our money (or redistribute it)
Actually the PSG quotes are taken from a French radio station RMC interview back in January where he was always going to say that PSG are a great club, yada yada yada. So you can discount them too.lust overlord said:SilverFox2 said:Not sure if this is a Conspiracy Theory or Reality.
City have agreed to a slightly watered down FFP Penalty which restricts our wages bill, player purchase options and CL numbers.
The FFP regs were introduced (according to Mr Platini) at the request of established senior Clubs in Europe.
We learn that PSG want Yaya then on today's City website we are apparently bracing ourselves for approaches for 3 of our players from other senior European Clubs.
Is there some sort of concerted effort being made by as many senior Clubs as possible to disrupt our Team when we will be disadvantaged by penalties or is this the price of success ?
Sorry, slightly off thread topic but hopefully still relevant.
City's website reports this under the "What the papers say" section.
It's from the daily mirror.
Enough said.
mad4city said:FanchesterCity said:Hoghead said:The club haven't accepted a fine at all - what they have accepted are reduced payments from this year and next year CL income payments. ie the club will not be paying a fine, just reduced income from CL.
- MCFC will lose 10m Euros of its share of income from UEFA for competing in the Champions League completion in season 2013-14.
- MCFC will lose 10m Euros of its share of income from UEFA for competing in the Champions League for season 2014-15
The view of the club on all the other matters is that they are immaterial as either they will not impact the Club (break even. anyway) or it's business as usual (used only 21 players last time, anyway).
So in the words of Khaldoon about the compromise agreement....'if we have to pinch a little'.
If you want to see a 'reduced income from CL' as not a fine, that's fine (pardon the pun).
In my eyes, money that was due to us, now isn't... that'll be a fine.
The council call it a fixed penalty, I call it a fine. It still costs me 60 quid!
I do take your point though - it's probably not termed a 'Fine'. It's just one of the 'sanctions' where they get to keep some of our money (or redistribute it)
It's 'hello money'. What Tony Soprano might call 'a tribute'. A little kick upstairs to make sure the ceiling doesn't come crashing down upon us.
'A pinch', as a wise man of the East once said.
ColinLee said:It's an 'argument' that muppets regurgitate on Candlepool's and rag's websites. There was some interesting 'facts' posted on web a few days ago that will annoy the hell out of yank owned clubs. http://www.examiner.com/article/ear...fter-ww2-us-started-201-81-killing-30-millionM18CTID said:Bullshitting Rag laughably taking the moral high ground over on the Caf when talking about our owner - as if anyone believes that this lying **** is a member of Amnesty International. I bet the sanctimonious prick fills his car with fuel that originated in Abu Dhabi and has no issue watching the F1 when it's broadcasting live from the Yas Marina circuit:
Barca84 said:
I'm a member of Amnesty International and also have a problem with Guantanamo Bay as well as your owners and all humans rights violators. This discussion is about City as uncomfotable as that may be for you.
Manchester Dan said: ↑
You're restricting a view to countries though with definitive boundaries, but that's not the way the world works. Every individual takes advantage of shocking human rights conditions around the world, be that through the items you buy, the holidays you enjoy, or even the place you work - I work for the very company that you just mentioned for selling Typhoon jets all over the world, which includes contracts with Saudi Arabia and discussions with UAE - does that make me a supporter of the regimes that are in place in all of these different parts of the world?
Barca84 said:
You need to take a look at a map. Then you need to take a look at what you buy, where you go on holiday and who you work for. I work for an organisation thats committed to a focus on human rights and social justice. Thats a choice I made and am not part of the arms manufacturing industry.
Assuage your guilt whichever way you can blues.
And the money shot from Manchester Dan - nails the twat good and proper lol:
If you're going to stop buying things that are a byproduct of poor human rights then your house is going to be very empty, you're not going to have any clothes to wear, and your food bill is going to be through the roof - the very laptop or phone you are using to post on this forum is most likely the end product of workers in extremely poor conditions. You're trying to take the high ground on something that is impossible to avoid. Let me clarify that this isn't me defending poor human rights, it's a huge problem, but you're trying to apportion guilt on to City fans for supporting our club (which was here long before our current owners), when you yourself are a contributing factor to the problem, as are we all.
Let's move on from this, given it has absolutely no place in this thread - if you're concerned then you can make a Human Rights discussion in the general forum.
Since WW2, Earth has had 248 armed conflicts. The US started 201 of them.
These US-started armed attacks have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men.
The US has war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis.
Note that I have absolutely no idea if the 'facts' are anyway near true but the truth doesn't seem to concern any of our detractors.
Puts poor worker rights into the shade really.
Presumably he's squirming with discomfort that the nation from which their owners come , sends educationally subnormal people to their death by execution.taconinja said:Ah, thanks. Yeah, it's not like anyone's hands are overly clean if you kick over a few stones. Just enjoy the football and do what we can to make things better. :)M18CTID said:taconinja said:Is that fellow a Barcelona fan? If so, how does he feel about his own shirt sponsors?
He's a United fan - I'm guessing the Barca84 refers to them beating Barca on their way to the 1984 European Cup Winner's Cup semi-final. Regardless, Manchester Dan and Red Rover (to his credit) both put him straight by saying if one is going to go down the moral route of citing human rights abuses, etc, then you have to be whiter than white yourself because pretty much anything we own could've been manufactured in conditions that are deemed to have violated someone's human rights. It wouldn't surprise me if this particular clown was posting his sanctimonious shit while wearing a United shirt that was produced in a sweat-shop somewhere in SE Asia.
Can't argue with most of that.FanchesterCity said:Code:• The increased club licensing criteria (Edition 2010) entered into force on 1 June 2010 (and was effective for participation in the 2011/12 UEFA club competitions); • The enhanced “no overdue payables on transfers”, enhanced “no overdue payables on employee payments” and “future financial information” requirements, among others, have entered into force on 1 June 2011 and assessed during the sporting season 2011/12; • The “break-even requirement” will enter into force for the financial statements of the reporting period ending in 2012 (and will be assessed together with the reporting period ending in 2013 during 2013/14);
We can see here that the 2011 document (relating to break even) was not in force during 2012. It came into force this year, but took into account the previous 2 years accounts.
I can't find a link to the 2011 version of FFP (if anybody's got one that would be useful). I'm not sure on this, but I suspect UEFA will say they were 'in development' and subject to change, and thus any changes that negatively affected City are unfortunate, but 'tough'.
But still, it's very much a moot point. City's acceptance of a fine doesn't necessarily mean they accept they are guilty of an FFP breach, but it doesn't help them much either. It will be harder for City to subsequently claim they have documented proof of being 'shafted' by UEFA having accepted the fine and other sanctions.
I honestly believe City aren't bothered. If UEFA had pushed too hard, then a fight might have ensued, but UEFA didn't. For all their bravado, the sanctions aren't really that harsh (based on the assumption that City DO break even next year, and the suspended element of the sanctions go away).
If UEFA choose to play hardball again next year (and interpret our accounts in a biased manner) then the whole situation may blow up, but for now, UEFA have saved faced by issuing sanctions and City aren't facing any significant restrictions.
It has always been my assumption that since FFP was first muted, and City were a potential target that the club would cover their arses in every possible way, with every memo, and conversation with FIFA documented so that FIFA couldn't pull any 'stunts'. I'd also assumed that FIFA would know that was what City were doing too! That's why I still believe City don't have concrete proof of being shafted, they probably have a fairly convincing argument - but that's all - an argument, not irrefutable proof.
FanchesterCity said:It's madness on both sides of the fence when you start judging owners morals with the actions of their countries. The two are entirely unrelated.
And even if a club's owners are evil dictators, it's not like the fans of a club have much say in the matter. United fans didn't choose the Glazers any more than we chose the Sheik. Seemingly we got lucky, Seemingly Portsmouth got very unlucky, and United / Liverpool got somewhere in between.
Pot luck for everybody, and sod all to do with the football or us fans. That stuff happens 'to' us, but because of us.
Funnily enough, the thought had crossed my mind also.SilverFox2 said:Not sure if this is a Conspiracy Theory or Reality.
City have agreed to a slightly watered down FFP Penalty which restricts our wages bill, player purchase options and CL numbers.
The FFP regs were introduced (according to Mr Platini) at the request of established senior Clubs in Europe.
We learn that PSG want Yaya then on today's City website we are apparently bracing ourselves for approaches for 3 of our players from other senior European Clubs.
Is there some sort of concerted effort being made by as many senior Clubs as possible to disrupt our Team when we will be disadvantaged by penalties or is this the price of success ?
Sorry, slightly off thread topic but hopefully still relevant.