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

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

One thing is for sure - the media bandwagon about UEFA changing the rules to suit City is bollocks. One paper prints it and the rest of the vermin jump on the bandwaggon.

Apologies on that my friend.

I read that player union action threat caused the climb down by UEFA.

Are you saying that the rule ambiguity allowed UEFA to interpret the rules to City's advantage or were the existing rules crystal clear and never in dispute ?

I am no expert here mate, as Prestwich has revealed above. But in my view, yes there was ambiguity.

The rules say you can have up to 25 players of which minimum 8 must be locally trained. Seems clear. But when you dig into it, they show 35 possible examples of different allowable combinations of free players, club trained players and association trained players. And in every single one of those examples, they start with 25 possible players and 17 free players. In the rules, the maximum number of total players is reduced from 25 as a result of a club not having enough club trained or association trained players.

Nowhere does it envisage a situation where you are allowed less than 25 players to start with. And in every example, you are allowed 17 free players.

The requirement to have a minimum of 8 locally trained players is perhaps reasonable in the context of 25 possible players and 17 free. But as a proportion of 21, 8 is an unreasonably high number and it's clear - to me at least - that the rules never considered this possibility.

In fact in the examples, they give a number of possible squad sizes (less than 25) that result from you being unable to field the 8 locally trained players. For example, 17 free plus 4 Club plus 1 Association is allowable, total 21. This would seem fully compatible with our 21 maximum restriction as PB suggests, and yet UEFA have further disallowed that and said we can only have 16 free.

So yes I think there is ambiguity and arguably our maximum 16 free is even more punitive. We certainly haven't "been let off".

 

[lancs blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

One thing is for sure - the media bandwagon about UEFA changing the rules to suit City is bollocks. One paper prints it and the rest of the vermin jump on the bandwaggon.

Apologies on that my friend.

I read that player union action threat caused the climb down by UEFA.

Are you saying that the rule ambiguity allowed UEFA to interpret the rules to City's advantage or were the existing rules crystal clear and never in dispute ?

I am no expert here mate, as Prestwich has revealed above. But in my view, yes there was ambiguity.

The rules say you can have up to 25 players of which minimum 8 must be locally trained. Seems clear. But when you dig into it, they show 35 possible examples of different allowable combinations of free players, club trained players and association trained players. And in every single one of those examples, they start with 25 possible players and 17 free players. In the rules, the maximum number of total players is reduced from 25 as a result of a club not having enough club trained or association trained players.

Nowhere does it envisage a situation where you are allowed less than 25 players to start with. And in every example, you are allowed 17 free players.

The requirement to have a minimum of 8 locally trained players is perhaps reasonable in the context of 25 possible players and 17 free. But as a proportion of 21, 8 is an unreasonably high number and it's clear - to me at least - that the rules never considered this possibility.

In fact you could argue that in the examples, they give a number of possible resulting squad sizes (less than 25) that come about if you can't field the 8 locally trained players. For example, 17 free plus 4 Club plus 1 Association is allowable, total 21. This would seem fully compatible with our 21 maximum restriction as PB suggests, and yet UEFA have further disallowed that and said we can only have 16 free.

So yes I think there is ambiguity and arguably our maximum 16 free is even more punitive. We certainly haven't "been let off".

Exactly, those examples in the UEFA rules only apply where a club has insufficient club-trained and/or assoc.trained players within a 25 man limit. There are no examples I can find anywhere in UEFA club regulations relating to a reduced squad size as a result of disciplinary sanction. It's nonsense to suggest UEFA "bent the rules" for us, as no rules actually exist for that situation.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So yes I think there is ambiguity and arguably our maximum 16 free is even more punitive. We certainly haven't "been let off".

Exactly, those examples in the UEFA rules only apply where a club has insufficient club-trained and/or assoc.trained players within a 25 man limit. There are no examples I can find anywhere in UEFA club regulations relating to a reduced squad size as a result of disciplinary sanction. It's nonsense to suggest UEFA "bent the rules" for us, as no rules actually exist for that situation.

in fact, as CB interestingly points out,17 non locally-trained players is a given, they actually used the absence of rules to damage us instead.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here's the extract from the regulations for 2014/15:

Conditions for registration: List A
18.08 No club may have more than 25 players on List A during the season, two of whom must be goalkeepers. As a minimum, eight places are reserved exclusively for “locally trained players” and no club may have more than four “association-trained players” listed on these eight places on List A. List A must specify the players who qualify as being “locally trained”, as well as whether they are “club-trained” or “association-trained”. The possible combinations that enable clubs to comply with the List A requirements are set out in Annex VIII.

18.09 A “locally trained player” is either a “club-trained player” or an “association-trained player”.

18.10 A “club-trained player” is a player who, between the age of 15 (or the start of the season during which he turns 15) and 21 (or the end of the season during which he turns 21), and irrespective of his nationality and age, has been registered with his current club for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons (i.e. a period starting with the first official match of the relevant national championship and ending with the last official match of that relevant national championship) or of 36 months.

18.11 An “association-trained player” is a player who, between the age of 15 (or the start of the season during which the player turns 15) and 21 (or the end of the season during which the player turns 21), and irrespective of his nationality and age, has been registered with a club or with other clubs affiliated to the same association as that of his current club for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or of 36 months.

18.12 If a club has fewer than eight locally trained players in its squad, then the maximum number of players on List A is reduced accordingly.

Further down in the document, it shows possible combinations of squads to meet the rules. The ones for a 21-man squad involve 17 free players and 4 locally-trained ones. These 4 can be in any combination so that's:
- 4 association and 0 club,
- 3 association and 1 club,
- 2 of each,
- 1 association and 3 club,
- 0 association and 4 club.

So if UEFA had meant the sanction to include 4 club-trained players, it could easily have said we could only name a 21-man A-list which had a maximum of 13 free players. Then there would have been no ambiguity at all.

 

[lancs blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Exactly, those examples in the UEFA rules only apply where a club has insufficient club-trained and/or assoc.trained players within a 25 man limit. There are no examples I can find anywhere in UEFA club regulations relating to a reduced squad size as a result of disciplinary sanction. It's nonsense to suggest UEFA "bent the rules" for us, as no rules actually exist for that situation.

in fact, as CB interestingly points out,17 non locally-trained players is a given, they actually used the absence of rules to damage us instead.

It is a sanction in their eyes so really you'd expect the number of "free players" to reduce - although we can complain about the rules that brought on the sanction I think the club have negotiated the reduced squad composition quite well, it could have been worse.

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Last night I facilitated an invite from Manchester City Supporters club extended to Louis Dupont and Martin Hissel to explain and outline the process for Joing the case against FFP. The meeting was informative and well attended . The upshot is the press release below issued by the supporters club.

This is great news as it takes the number of complainants from 5 agents and 20 fans to 15000 fans. There was as case to answer in law with 25 names exactly with as with 15000. However it will now be much harder for a judge to disregard the importance of the case. Also hopefully other supporters groups will follow (and I am happy to facilitate any contacts)

Manchester City FC Supporters Club was formed in 1949. Although we have strong links with MCFC we are independent with an elected committee and have an agreed set of rules that are designed to help benefit our paid membership

“On 23 September 2014, MCFC Supporters Club (1949) voted unanimously to join the legal actions against FFP led by lawyers Dupont and Hissel (complaint to the European Commission and civil action in the Brussels’ Court).

These actions were initiated by some football players agents and fans from UK, France and Belgium.

MCFC Supporters Club (1949) has almost 15.000 active members, with 168 branches worldwide covering The UK, Europe, Asia & America

Our members are consumers of the football product and it is as such that they denounce the EU competition law infringements caused by the UEFA break-even requirement : far from implementing a true “financial fair play”, this rule is in fact a prohibition to invest that prevents ambitious owners to develop their clubs, that therefore shields the established European Elite from being challenged (this Elite being unsurprisingly the main sponsors of the UEFA rule) and that, consequently, puts additional financial pressure on supporters (higher prices and lower quality).

With this UEFA rule, it is now almost impossible for any ambitious investor to take over a “sleeping giant” and to turn them into the next Manchester City or PSG.

In other words, the UEFA rule may be bad news for MCFC supporters, but Is even worse news for supporters of all clubs that do not today belong to the established European Elite. “

The link is here http://fairplayfc.org/press-release-from-manchester-city-supporters-club/ and also on the supporters club website please share.

One thing is very clear and important to stress. It matters not if the press get on side or other clubs fans join the case. The only thing that matters is that a point of law must be argued in court. Well done to the supporters club for stepping forward

Many thanks for the update,gh_mcfc,much appreciated.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Exactly, those examples in the UEFA rules only apply where a club has insufficient club-trained and/or assoc.trained players within a 25 man limit. There are no examples I can find anywhere in UEFA club regulations relating to a reduced squad size as a result of disciplinary sanction. It's nonsense to suggest UEFA "bent the rules" for us, as no rules actually exist for that situation.

in fact, as CB interestingly points out,17 non locally-trained players is a given, they actually used the absence of rules to damage us instead.

It is a sanction in their eyes so really you'd expect the number of "free players" to reduce - although we can complain about the rules that brought on the sanction I think the club have negotiated the reduced squad composition quite well, it could have been worse.

I quite agree. I would not have been remotely surprised if the UEFA arseholes had not tried to stitch us up with 13 + 8. That said, I think they probably knew they were on a knife edge between us accepting and saying stuff you, we'll see you in court. They probably thought better not to push it too far.

 

[tonea2003]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

out of interest what are the player quota's for PSG and the other sanctioned teams?

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

in fact, as CB interestingly points out,17 non locally-trained players is a given, they actually used the absence of rules to damage us instead.

It is a sanction in their eyes so really you'd expect the number of "free players" to reduce - although we can complain about the rules that brought on the sanction I think the club have negotiated the reduced squad composition quite well, it could have been worse.

I quite agree. I would not have been remotely surprised if the UEFA arseholes had not tried to stitch us up with 13 + 8. That said, I think they probably knew they were on a knife edge between us accepting and saying stuff you, we'll see you in court. They probably thought better not to push it too far.

All intriguing stuff which makes a lot of sense to me but I would hazard a guess that ADUG during their 'compromise' agreement with UEFA have bottomed just about every potential outcome to this 'compromise'.

Surely the changes that ADUG were naturally upset about would be a lesson when arriving at this 'compromise' ?
I would like to think everything has been legally put to bed before ADUG accepted their 'punishment'.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It is a sanction in their eyes so really you'd expect the number of "free players" to reduce - although we can complain about the rules that brought on the sanction I think the club have negotiated the reduced squad composition quite well, it could have been worse.

I quite agree. I would not have been remotely surprised if the UEFA arseholes had not tried to stitch us up with 13 + 8. That said, I think they probably knew they were on a knife edge between us accepting and saying stuff you, we'll see you in court. They probably thought better not to push it too far.

All intriguing stuff which makes a lot of sense to me but I would hazard a guess that ADUG during their 'compromise' agreement with UEFA have bottomed just about every potential outcome to this 'compromise'.

Surely the changes that ADUG were naturally upset about would be a lesson when arriving at this 'compromise' ?
I would like to think everything has been legally put to bed before ADUG accepted their 'punishment'.

You'd hope that was the case wouldn't you.