Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I think perhaps they should have done.
cibaman said:
I think perhaps they should have done.
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.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I would be amazed if M. Dupont didn't include this in his submission. It didn't receive any attention at all when he was interviewed on Talksport recently, but he was very specific in saying that what we were seeing in action was a cartel. Few commentators seem to realize how seriously cartels are viewed and how severe the penalties are. It is usually very difficult to prove the existence of a cartel, but I cannot believe how naive some of the supporters of FFP have been. Platini's interview with Martin Samuel is, perhaps, the most obvious ("But if the ECA decided that there is a better redistribution of the money, another distribution, I will follow them. But it is their money to the clubs, it is up to them to redistribute these things. I don’t want to have a big fight with the clubs like in the past and we have a memo of understanding that we can do nothing without permission of the clubs. On the competition, on the money, on the regulations, in this Memorandum of Understanding, we have to agree both to change. If we don’t agree, we stop the discussion. We can’t change now the results and I think on the distribution, I totally agree with you. But it is their money and if they want a better distribution they can do this distribution. "), but the letter of 17 December 2012 from the representatives of Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal (on Arsenal headed notepaper) that only full application of UEFA's break even regulation "will go far enough to curb the inflationary spending which is putting so much pressure on clubs across the entire league" and that "any proposals for Financial Regulation must include meaningful measures to restrict the owner funding of operating losses" is revealing.
A number of points arise from this letter. The first is that it is evidence of the existence of a group of clubs working (conspiring?) together. The aim of the group is to get the 14 votes necessary to introduce a regulation to restrict the money an owner can put into his/her club. Interestingly, their avowed aim is to stop "inflationary spending" because of the pressure this puts on other clubs - yet since December 2012 the PL has enacted such rules (with a more than questionable vote) but the inflationary spending seems unaffected. Since July 2012 Manchester City have spent £208.5 million. This is not net spending since it takes no account of income from players sold, because it is spending (putting the money back into circulation) that is inflationary. This is more than those two champions of the financial health of other clubs, Arsenal and Spurs, but not by much: Arsenal have spent £176.8 million and Spurs£197.5 million. Spurs made sure they put every penny and more of the Bale transfer back into circulation and demanded top dollar for other players they sold, just to make sure they got the full inflationary effect, and then paid top whack for players they brought in. Arsenal didn't do much for controlling inflation by shelling out £42 m on Ozil and then, a year later pushed prices up by spending £35 m on Sanchez. Those who cared most for controlling inflation are Liverpool (£215.1 m spent since July 2012) and Manchester United (£276.2 m spent in the same period). Which club has broken the British transfer record more than any other? Could it be that United spent more than any other club this last window, and more on a single player than any other British club? This is evidence that their concern that it is owner funding of operating losses that is fueling inflation of transfers and wages is so much hot air. It is competition from clubs with wealthy owners which is their target. Of more interest is the statistic that the club which has spent most on players since July 2012 is Chelsea. Clear evidence that sugar daddies are the cause of the problem. They have spent a whopping £289.3 m! The trouble is that they have done this at a time when the poacher has turned gamekeeper. They have complied with FFP and escaped sanction, while inflating transfer fees and wages even More than Liverpool and Manchester United. The claim that FFP aims at reducing inflationary pressures, and that prohibiting owner investment is the way to do it is so much bull dust. It is the result of a cartel conspiring with UEFA to protect their privileged market position.
gh_mcfc said:I am confident that reference to the undue influence of certain G14 clubs hold over UFEA has been included in the submission to the court. In fact I suspect our lawyer has been made aware of direct quotes taken from a certain interview by a sympathetic journalist with our French puppet friend. #shotinfoot
I would be amazed if M. Dupont didn't include this in his submission. It didn't receive any attention at all when he was interviewed on Talksport recently, but he was very specific in saying that what we were seeing in action was a cartel. Few commentators seem to realize how seriously cartels are viewed and how severe the penalties are. It is usually very difficult to prove the existence of a cartel, but I cannot believe how naive some of the supporters of FFP have been. Platini's interview with Martin Samuel is, perhaps, the most obvious ("But if the ECA decided that there is a better redistribution of the money, another distribution, I will follow them. But it is their money to the clubs, it is up to them to redistribute these things. I don’t want to have a big fight with the clubs like in the past and we have a memo of understanding that we can do nothing without permission of the clubs. On the competition, on the money, on the regulations, in this Memorandum of Understanding, we have to agree both to change. If we don’t agree, we stop the discussion. We can’t change now the results and I think on the distribution, I totally agree with you. But it is their money and if they want a better distribution they can do this distribution. "), but the letter of 17 December 2012 from the representatives of Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal (on Arsenal headed notepaper) that only full application of UEFA's break even regulation "will go far enough to curb the inflationary spending which is putting so much pressure on clubs across the entire league" and that "any proposals for Financial Regulation must include meaningful measures to restrict the owner funding of operating losses" is revealing.
A number of points arise from this letter. The first is that it is evidence of the existence of a group of clubs working (conspiring?) together. The aim of the group is to get the 14 votes necessary to introduce a regulation to restrict the money an owner can put into his/her club. Interestingly, their avowed aim is to stop "inflationary spending" because of the pressure this puts on other clubs - yet since December 2012 the PL has enacted such rules (with a more than questionable vote) but the inflationary spending seems unaffected. Since July 2012 Manchester City have spent £208.5 million. This is not net spending since it takes no account of income from players sold, because it is spending (putting the money back into circulation) that is inflationary. This is more than those two champions of the financial health of other clubs, Arsenal and Spurs, but not by much: Arsenal have spent £176.8 million and Spurs£197.5 million. Spurs made sure they put every penny and more of the Bale transfer back into circulation and demanded top dollar for other players they sold, just to make sure they got the full inflationary effect, and then paid top whack for players they brought in. Arsenal didn't do much for controlling inflation by shelling out £42 m on Ozil and then, a year later pushed prices up by spending £35 m on Sanchez. Those who cared most for controlling inflation are Liverpool (£215.1 m spent since July 2012) and Manchester United (£276.2 m spent in the same period). Which club has broken the British transfer record more than any other? Could it be that United spent more than any other club this last window, and more on a single player than any other British club? This is evidence that their concern that it is owner funding of operating losses that is fueling inflation of transfers and wages is so much hot air. It is competition from clubs with wealthy owners which is their target. Of more interest is the statistic that the club which has spent most on players since July 2012 is Chelsea. Clear evidence that sugar daddies are the cause of the problem. They have spent a whopping £289.3 m! The trouble is that they have done this at a time when the poacher has turned gamekeeper. They have complied with FFP and escaped sanction, while inflating transfer fees and wages even More than Liverpool and Manchester United. The claim that FFP aims at reducing inflationary pressures, and that prohibiting owner investment is the way to do it is so much bull dust. It is the result of a cartel conspiring with UEFA to protect their privileged market position.
Salford_Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I agree.
That there is hypocrisy at its finest.
We hate debt. However, you can have debt, but only if you can afford it.
If you don't have £1 of debt but spend too much, even though you are comfortably within your financial capabilities, you are in breach of our regulations.
But don't forget, we still hate debt though.
FanchesterCity said:The long and short of UEFA's argument will be this:
1) FFP is a valid exemption from normal rules as it's in the greater interest of the industry (which is a valid reason for exemption)
2) The majority of participating clubs are in agreement with the rules
3) The current rules aren't set in stone and that FIFA are still very much 'developing' their policy - so teething troubles are to be expected.
However, the winning counter argument (in my opinion) will be this:
1) It is not protecting the industry at large, merely a very small subset of clubs aka the elite.
2) No industry wide vote has taken place to prove the majority of the industry agrees with the rules.
3) Teething troubles may well be a typical issue with new rules, but that doesn't make them immune from the law.
4) There is no evidence whatsoever that huge investments in football clubs is (or has been) detrimental to the welfare of the game. Whilst there is some evidence to suggest it's been beneficial.
5) There IS evidence to suggest that clubs over stretching their finances can (and do) end up in trouble, but this should never be confused with huge investment. This is a ruse UEFA have been using for years, and is quite simply misleading, and at worse, knowingly misrepresentative of mismanaged club finances. i.e. they often use 'clubs getting into financial trouble' as their biggest fear, but appear to condone huge debt, but reprimand significant investment.6) FFP imposes an effective glass ceiling for smaller clubs, who's only realistic means of growth is for growth to occur over decades, rather than years, which is a deterrent to many investors.
7) FFP places additional pressures on clubs to maintain revenues, which has a direct impact on tickets prices and merchandise which is not to the benefit of the consumer. i.e. If an owner chose to lower tickets prices, FFP would offer no incentive for them to do so. FFP makes very little provision for consumer benefit other than the exemption from FFP for infrastructure development, which is at best, a tenuous benefit.
I agree.
That there is hypocrisy at its finest.
We hate debt. However, you can have debt, but only if you can afford it.
If you don't have £1 of debt but spend too much, even though you are comfortably within your financial capabilities, you are in breach of our regulations.
But don't forget, we still hate debt though.
Bluewonder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 3,322
Re: City & FFP (continued)
If Manchester City are ever party to the advent of rules which limit other clubs' ability to compete, I will be utterly ashamed.
If Manchester City are ever party to the advent of rules which limit other clubs' ability to compete, I will be utterly ashamed.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Brace yourself. That day may not be as far off as you think. :-(
City have manouvered themselves into a win/win scenario.
If FFP fails, we're the victims, demanding compensation from our perch on the moral high ground.
If FFP is upheld, we're sitting pretty inside the golden circle and tut-tutting as the lesser mortals "ruin the game", trying to keep up.
Hopefully, the three card trick is exposed for what it is but, if not, don't expect a moral crusade from City. Our owners didn't get where they are today by championing the underdog to the detriment of their own well-being. They're not gonna change now. Trust me, if new legislation is mooted that cements our spot at the top, they'll back it and we fans will most likely rationalise it.
Bluewonder said:If Manchester City are ever party to the advent of rules which limit other clubs' ability to compete, I will be utterly ashamed.
Brace yourself. That day may not be as far off as you think. :-(
City have manouvered themselves into a win/win scenario.
If FFP fails, we're the victims, demanding compensation from our perch on the moral high ground.
If FFP is upheld, we're sitting pretty inside the golden circle and tut-tutting as the lesser mortals "ruin the game", trying to keep up.
Hopefully, the three card trick is exposed for what it is but, if not, don't expect a moral crusade from City. Our owners didn't get where they are today by championing the underdog to the detriment of their own well-being. They're not gonna change now. Trust me, if new legislation is mooted that cements our spot at the top, they'll back it and we fans will most likely rationalise it.
Bluewonder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 3,322
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I'm not bothered about a moral crusade. Our owners voted against FFP, despite knowing that long-term it would probably benefit us. That is good enough for me!mad4city said:Bluewonder said:If Manchester City are ever party to the advent of rules which limit other clubs' ability to compete, I will be utterly ashamed.
Brace yourself. That day may not be as far off as you think. :-(
City have manouvered themselves into a win/win scenario.
If FFP fails, we're the victims, demanding compensation from our perch on the moral high ground.
If FFP is upheld, we're sitting pretty inside the golden circle and tut-tutting as the lesser mortals "ruin the game", trying to keep up.
Hopefully, the three card trick is exposed for what it is but, if not, don't expect a moral crusade from City. Our owners didn't get where they are today by championing the underdog to the detriment of their own well-being. They're not gonna change now. Trust me, if new legislation is mooted that cements our spot at the top, they'll back it and we fans will most likely rationalise it.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
For one I sincerely hope that Sheik M. has employed his ADUG officers because of their ruthless efficiency not their sense of fairness. Frankly I don't think the G14+ Chelsea have managed to get their heads around what ADUG are doing.
They still rely on FFP to slow the plan down without really understanding where the plan is actually going.
At least they are not prepared or incapable of competing via investing in all aspects of global football. How impressive must our new Academy and current ground extensions have been to Chelsea Directors I wonder ?
ADUG have been successful in approaching break even in record time.
This must be a disturbing fact for others to chew over and apart from our threat on the field their comfort zone of thinking that they are in charge of reaping the benefits of global football is being quickly eroded.
It reminds me of an old cartoon of a war scenario where participants were using bows and arrows and swords.
A salesman was trying to interest one of the Generals in a machine gun but he claimed to be too busy fighting his battle to be remotely interested in this new weapons capability.
mad4city said:Bluewonder said:If Manchester City are ever party to the advent of rules which limit other clubs' ability to compete, I will be utterly ashamed.
Brace yourself. That day may not be as far off as you think. :-(
City have manouvered themselves into a win/win scenario.
If FFP fails, we're the victims, demanding compensation from our perch on the moral high ground.
If FFP is upheld, we're sitting pretty inside the golden circle and tut-tutting as the lesser mortals "ruin the game", trying to keep up.
Hopefully, the three card trick is exposed for what it is but, if not, don't expect a moral crusade from City. Our owners didn't get where they are today by championing the underdog to the detriment of their own well-being. They're not gonna change now. Trust me, if new legislation is mooted that cements our spot at the top, they'll back it and we fans will most likely rationalise it.
For one I sincerely hope that Sheik M. has employed his ADUG officers because of their ruthless efficiency not their sense of fairness. Frankly I don't think the G14+ Chelsea have managed to get their heads around what ADUG are doing.
They still rely on FFP to slow the plan down without really understanding where the plan is actually going.
At least they are not prepared or incapable of competing via investing in all aspects of global football. How impressive must our new Academy and current ground extensions have been to Chelsea Directors I wonder ?
ADUG have been successful in approaching break even in record time.
This must be a disturbing fact for others to chew over and apart from our threat on the field their comfort zone of thinking that they are in charge of reaping the benefits of global football is being quickly eroded.
It reminds me of an old cartoon of a war scenario where participants were using bows and arrows and swords.
A salesman was trying to interest one of the Generals in a machine gun but he claimed to be too busy fighting his battle to be remotely interested in this new weapons capability.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Perhaps we dont give Platini the credit he deserves?
He may well have played an absolute blinder here, via FFP rather than being the donkeys arse he seems like at first glance?
He has said many times that he knew that debt was a problem and also that no-payment of taxes was also an issue but both of these things required new rules for UEFA to be able to make a stand on them.
Whatever UEFA tried to do it would have upset or destabilised some clubs and it also scared the 'cartel' out of the long grass.
He also knows that the clubs have, for the past two decades or more been stripping authority from UEFA to control the footballing affairs of the European game.
He has gone way out of his way to make it abundantly clear that the decisions he has been 'forced' to make on FFP have been at the behest of the powerful clubs, the big clubs, the current ruling elite of clubs.
If FFP is now perceived as a tool designed by these clubs with their own self-interest at the fore and simply something that UEFA have, under great pressure and against their original designs for debt control, now been handed by these clubs then UEFA can clip the power of the clubs via the EU.
Its an interesting thought that the big clubs could be forced to break up and end all their cosy ECA led agreements, referred to by Platini on a number of occasions SINCE the legal challenges were laid down.
Thinking in the round it might not be such an outlandish thought that UEFA and M. Platini have given the cartel not only enough rope to hang themselves but he has allowed them to build the gallows under the impression that others would be the victims.
Perhaps we dont give Platini the credit he deserves?
He may well have played an absolute blinder here, via FFP rather than being the donkeys arse he seems like at first glance?
He has said many times that he knew that debt was a problem and also that no-payment of taxes was also an issue but both of these things required new rules for UEFA to be able to make a stand on them.
Whatever UEFA tried to do it would have upset or destabilised some clubs and it also scared the 'cartel' out of the long grass.
He also knows that the clubs have, for the past two decades or more been stripping authority from UEFA to control the footballing affairs of the European game.
He has gone way out of his way to make it abundantly clear that the decisions he has been 'forced' to make on FFP have been at the behest of the powerful clubs, the big clubs, the current ruling elite of clubs.
If FFP is now perceived as a tool designed by these clubs with their own self-interest at the fore and simply something that UEFA have, under great pressure and against their original designs for debt control, now been handed by these clubs then UEFA can clip the power of the clubs via the EU.
Its an interesting thought that the big clubs could be forced to break up and end all their cosy ECA led agreements, referred to by Platini on a number of occasions SINCE the legal challenges were laid down.
Thinking in the round it might not be such an outlandish thought that UEFA and M. Platini have given the cartel not only enough rope to hang themselves but he has allowed them to build the gallows under the impression that others would be the victims.
blue order
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 506
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It is exactly that which is what makes you a City fan. I only hope the younger generation who will enjoy success like we only dreamed of retain such dignity and they don't turn into a rag, dipper, tarquin type of character when there is the inevitable wobble or when someone else gets lucky if FFP is canned.Bluewonder said:If Manchester City are ever party to the advent of rules which limit other clubs' ability to compete, I will be utterly ashamed.
the talisman
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
You're giving him far too much credit. And probably over-analysing the whole thing.
The big clubs pushed for it, he gave them what they wanted.
fbloke said:Perhaps we dont give Platini the credit he deserves?
He may well have played an absolute blinder here, via FFP rather than being the donkeys arse he seems like at first glance?
He has said many times that he knew that debt was a problem and also that no-payment of taxes was also an issue but both of these things required new rules for UEFA to be able to make a stand on them.
Whatever UEFA tried to do it would have upset or destabilised some clubs and it also scared the 'cartel' out of the long grass.
He also knows that the clubs have, for the past two decades or more been stripping authority from UEFA to control the footballing affairs of the European game.
He has gone way out of his way to make it abundantly clear that the decisions he has been 'forced' to make on FFP have been at the behest of the powerful clubs, the big clubs, the current ruling elite of clubs.
If FFP is now perceived as a tool designed by these clubs with their own self-interest at the fore and simply something that UEFA have, under great pressure and against their original designs for debt control, now been handed by these clubs then UEFA can clip the power of the clubs via the EU.
Its an interesting thought that the big clubs could be forced to break up and end all their cosy ECA led agreements, referred to by Platini on a number of occasions SINCE the legal challenges were laid down.
Thinking in the round it might not be such an outlandish thought that UEFA and M. Platini have given the cartel not only enough rope to hang themselves but he has allowed them to build the gallows under the impression that others would be the victims.
You're giving him far too much credit. And probably over-analysing the whole thing.
The big clubs pushed for it, he gave them what they wanted.