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

[Navas >>| Fast Forward]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

they can compete at the highest level but it has been made much much harder
If any club was to bring through their own ranks a world class side money wouldn't be an issue just holding on to the youngsters whilst they progress

not easy or expected but not impossible (even if only just possible)

Don't the Premier League FFP rules stop wages rising by more than 7% year on year?
This stops a team from keeping hold of a 'golden generation' because having a large group of players all either late teens or early twenties would mean wages rising sharply each year as the players proved themselves at that level.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well I'm with FanchesterCity on this one regarding the dangerous nature of taking anything of this nature to Court.

Even within the UK our system is still far from perfect after centuries of honing.
Lawyers argue the letter of the law and not the principle and earn their fees by finding more and more technicalities to find their clients less guilty than they probably deserve.

Regarding fairness generally, I am hoping that the Directors of ADUG have been employed by Sheik M. to press every boundary that they can to achieve their objectives not for their sense of fairness.
Life is not fair, those who run business within any sector have not got there without being ruthless otherwise they would not survive.

Expecting MCFC leaders to be be anything other than the cream of their profession is hopefully not in question so I anticipate they will stretch the boundaries of all aspects of achieving the result.

 

[Rammyblues]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

FFP will be dead within five years, either of UEFAs choosing or not.

Once we show that they have no limiting effect on our spending power they will scrap them and try something else. protectionism at its best.


PS - spotted this while reading MEN today story re James Milner, has something changed again or are these lot not checking what they write

"Under UEFA quotas City will be permitted 13 ‘foreign’ players, a further four must be home-trained by City – and four are allowed to be ‘association’ trained at another domestic club."

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

FFP will be dead within five years, either of UEFAs choosing or not.

Once we show that they have no limiting effect on our spending power they will scrap them and try something else. protectionism at its best.


PS - spotted this while reading MEN today story re James Milner, has something changed again or are these lot not checking what they write

"Under UEFA quotas City will be permitted 13 ‘foreign’ players, a further four must be home-trained by City – and four are allowed to be ‘association’ trained at another domestic club."

The MEN make a mistake? Shirley not!!!

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

LOL. I read the MEN piece as well. Genuine mistake or wishfully thinking on their part?

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

FFP will be dead within five years, either of UEFAs choosing or not.

Once we show that they have no limiting effect on our spending power they will scrap them and try something else. protectionism at its best.


PS - spotted this while reading MEN today story re James Milner, has something changed again or are these lot not checking what they write

"Under UEFA quotas City will be permitted 13 ‘foreign’ players, a further four must be home-trained by City – and four are allowed to be ‘association’ trained at another domestic club."

The MEN make a mistake? Shirley not!!!

No doubt oakiecokie will be defending them.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The news about Nissan, the escalator payments from all existing sponsors as well as other new ones we have signed recently, plus the new TV money from the PL certainly backs up the fact that MCFC will move into profit in the next accounts.

The bump in the road that this season (because of FFP) will turn out to be an annoyance but moving forwards the other big spending clubs will start to fall behind City in terms of revenue and the ability to buy players.

I was roundly mocked when I said on Twitter that City will be the first £1bn t/o club but it seems as if we are not many years away from it now.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Certainly turnover will be escalating.

The paradox is that we have FFP claiming more cost than sales and no doubt 'The Tax Man' hoping and perhaps examining our books for the exact opposite in pursuit of Corporation Tax and VAT contributionws.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

My understanding is it wasn't thrown out but referred back to the original Court in which it was brought, and the legal process dealt with through that Court.

This will be decided in Spring next year sometime. IMO he will win and that will throw the cat amongst the pigeons.

I'm just glad that we made it into the castle keep before the drawbridge was drawn up.

The likes of Sunderland, Newcastle, Burnley, or even a past winner of the European Cup Aston Villa and Notts Forest will never ever be able to compete at the highest level again, which is very sad imo.

That isn't true they can compete at the highest level but it has been made much much harder
If any club was to bring through their own ranks a world class side money wouldn't be an issue just holding on to the youngsters whilst they progress

not easy or expected but not impossible (even if only just possible)

And that's one of the crux issues though... yes it's still technically possible, but if a group of clubs (or under the guise of UEFA) conspire to create a set of rules that severely diminishes competition, and cannot persuade a court is for the general welfare of the industry and consumer at large, then it has a problem.

They effectively deliberately create a barrier to entry.
It's like Warburtons and Tesco deciding that you have to 'earn' the right to buy an industrial breadmaker. Local bakers can't afford such a machine from the profits they make doing it by hand. IF they could borrow 100K to buy the machine, they could soon pay it back and compete with Warburtons and Tesco.

UEFA will argue that unfair competition (rich owners) devalues the sport and that's why they are 'safeguarding' the integrity of the game, which is a BENEFIT to consumers. In addition, they are preventing clubs from overstretching their finances and keeping more clubs in business.

It's easy for us to say UEFA are wrong, and we are right, but the arguments on both sides are quite strong (that's even before you start to look at how they go about implementing their 'safeguards').

Personally I expect FFP in principle will be approved by most courts, but the methods will be scrutinised and some aspects will be deemed illegal, or inappropriate. I can't see any ruling deeming it ALL to be wrong and totally scrapped, I just think it will be 'changed' (potentially significantly, and in our favour, but it could even get worse for us).

Remember, right now, and without FFP, one of our key advantages IS spending power. If the courts ruled that spending should be capped, even at Real, United, Barca et all, then we lose a lot of that advantage - and they have the advantage in 'heritage'.

We have to be very careful that changes to FFP don't end up being even worse for us!

I think you're making the often easy mistake of assuming courts are there as some kind of moral bastion to decide what is right and what is wrong, what is fair, and what isn't.

Unfortunately that's not the case. Courts are there to decide whether something is legal or illegal. I'm sure Dupont's case will be based around the fact that the current FFP rules are anti-competitive and restrict trade of private business.

UEFA's argument will probably be that the CL is an invitation only competition and they are free to decide who should qualify and how. It's going to be an interesting case, but I'm pretty confident the court won't be looking at this objectively about whether it's good for the spectacle of football.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That isn't true they can compete at the highest level but it has been made much much harder
If any club was to bring through their own ranks a world class side money wouldn't be an issue just holding on to the youngsters whilst they progress

not easy or expected but not impossible (even if only just possible)

And that's one of the crux issues though... yes it's still technically possible, but if a group of clubs (or under the guise of UEFA) conspire to create a set of rules that severely diminishes competition, and cannot persuade a court is for the general welfare of the industry and consumer at large, then it has a problem.

They effectively deliberately create a barrier to entry.
It's like Warburtons and Tesco deciding that you have to 'earn' the right to buy an industrial breadmaker. Local bakers can't afford such a machine from the profits they make doing it by hand. IF they could borrow 100K to buy the machine, they could soon pay it back and compete with Warburtons and Tesco.

UEFA will argue that unfair competition (rich owners) devalues the sport and that's why they are 'safeguarding' the integrity of the game, which is a BENEFIT to consumers. In addition, they are preventing clubs from overstretching their finances and keeping more clubs in business.

It's easy for us to say UEFA are wrong, and we are right, but the arguments on both sides are quite strong (that's even before you start to look at how they go about implementing their 'safeguards').

Personally I expect FFP in principle will be approved by most courts, but the methods will be scrutinised and some aspects will be deemed illegal, or inappropriate. I can't see any ruling deeming it ALL to be wrong and totally scrapped, I just think it will be 'changed' (potentially significantly, and in our favour, but it could even get worse for us).

Remember, right now, and without FFP, one of our key advantages IS spending power. If the courts ruled that spending should be capped, even at Real, United, Barca et all, then we lose a lot of that advantage - and they have the advantage in 'heritage'.

We have to be very careful that changes to FFP don't end up being even worse for us!

I think you're making the often easy mistake of assuming courts are there as some kind of moral bastion to decide what is right and what is wrong, what is fair, and what isn't.

Unfortunately that's not the case. Courts are there to decide whether something is legal or illegal. I'm sure Dupont's case will be based around the fact that the current FFP rules are anti-competitive and restrict trade of private business.

UEFA's argument will probably be that the CL is an invitation only competition and they are free to decide who should qualify and how. It's going to be an interesting case, but I'm pretty confident the court won't be looking at this objectively about whether it's good for the spectacle of football.

Just picking up on the last paragraph, is entry to UEFA's competitions actually by invitation rather than by qualification? Is there anything in writing to say that this is the case? I would have thought that if entry was by invitation then surely the rags would already be in the group stages with a Pot One seeding.