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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

blue order 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.
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.

Wednesday night summed up being a Blue when the Sheffield lad was sent off and we all applauded him.
Did we want City to win? Yes. Did we want City to win well? Yes. Did we want to see double figures (there was half an hour left)
and the thousands of Sheffield fans who had made the trip over totally humiliated? No. The rag, dipper and tarquin types have
no empathy for their fellow football fans and spend as much time gloating in others' failures as their own successes.
I think that is appreciated among real football supporters. Would the Sunderland fans have applauded the supporters of
those 3 clubs after the League Cup Final like they applauded us? No chance.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

It's a nice thought, but given some of the other things he has done, such as "helping" his son and son-in-law in their respective careers, enthusiastically voting for Qatar for the World Cup in defiance of all common sense, comprehensively wrecking Euro qualification and turning it into a snooze fest by increasing the number of finalists and being well and truly part of the FIFA ruling autocracy with all that entails; I don't believe for a second he is a) that bright and b) clean.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Wilf Wild 1937 said:
blue order 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.
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.

Wednesday night summed up being a Blue when the Sheffield lad was sent off and we all applauded him.
Did we want City to win? Yes. Did we want City to win well? Yes. Did we want to see double figures (there was half an hour left)
and the thousands of Sheffield fans who had made the trip over totally humiliated? No. The rag, dipper and tarquin types have
no empathy for their fellow football fans and spend as much time gloating in others' failures as their own successes.
I think that is appreciated among real football supporters. Would the Sunderland fans have applauded the supporters of
those 3 clubs after the League Cup Final like they applauded us? No chance.

I am eternally glad that we stopped singing that 'buy your club and burn it down' car crash of a chant!
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

blue order 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.
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.
Well, I'm part of the younger generation (21 YO), so I'll certainly be doing my part! But yeah, it'll be the ones who have only known success who are more likely to slip into that mentality.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

blue order said:
Wilf Wild 1937 said:
blue order said:
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.

Wednesday night summed up being a Blue when the Sheffield lad was sent off and we all applauded him.
Did we want City to win? Yes. Did we want City to win well? Yes. Did we want to see double figures (there was half an hour left)
and the thousands of Sheffield fans who had made the trip over totally humiliated? No. The rag, dipper and tarquin types have
no empathy for their fellow football fans and spend as much time gloating in others' failures as their own successes.
I think that is appreciated among real football supporters. Would the Sunderland fans have applauded the supporters of
those 3 clubs after the League Cup Final like they applauded us? No chance.

I am eternally glad that we stopped singing that 'buy your club and burn it down' car crash of a chant!

So am I.

When it comes to the rags I wish we'd never sung about it and instead just fucking done it.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

No, fbloke, Platini has not played a blinder and he deserves no credit for abdicating every shred of responsibility which goes with his office at UEFA. For a start, it did not need any new rules for UEFA "to make a stand" on the question of debt or on the non-payment of taxes. He hasn't made any stand at all on the question of debt, apart from a cosy little deal with his friends from the G14 that some of them don't have to pay their debts, while debt is not allowed for any other club. On the non-payment of taxes, it was the inland revenue that put a stop to Rangers dodges, because they were illegal and were dealt with by using the law. FFP would have had no role at all anyway. In the main non-payment of tax was essentially a Spanish problem, and was dealt with only when the German government took up the question with the European commission: "How long must the German taxpayer pay Ronaldo and Messi's wages so that their clubs can pay no tax?" was the headline on the front page of Das Bild. It had nothing to do with the football authorities, who seem to have made the curious decision that Atletico Madrid's repayments, large as they are, don't affect their balance sheet enough for them to fall foul of FFP. Only investment, it appears, does that!

Now, to argue that he has introduced these regulations as a stroke of genius to show the criminal intentions of the magic circle so that the courts will quash them and thus destroy the power of the G14 is to ignore the facts. The argument that he only did this for these reasons ignores the slight difficulty that it is acting as a part of a cartel which is the offence, and the purity of motive is no defence and certainly no proof of innocence: "I was just obeying orders" has never worked as a plea! Platini is employed, and paid handsomely, for leadership, and he has shown none. He has given way to every threat made by the "magic circle", has defended the fines imposed on City and PSG, and, if he really "knows" that his rules are doomed in the courts why has he defended them so resolutely, imposed them so inflexibly and had nothing at all to do with M. Dupont's challenge to them? Why has he never done anything to help those clubs threatened with ruin by his regulations? Aren't they entitled to UEFA's protection rather than face the threat of financial implosion because the same cartel, in England, has foisted these same rules on the PL? Why has he chosen to waste four years hounding European clubs to save his own skin rather than spell out the consequences of secession to the "magic circle". This man is not a fit custodian of our game and doesn't even give a thought for the fans at all.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

BluessinceHydeRoad said:
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.

No, fbloke, Platini has not played a blinder and he deserves no credit for abdicating every shred of responsibility which goes with his office at UEFA. For a start, it did not need any new rules for UEFA "to make a stand" on the question of debt or on the non-payment of taxes. He hasn't made any stand at all on the question of debt, apart from a cosy little deal with his friends from the G14 that some of them don't have to pay their debts, while debt is not allowed for any other club. On the non-payment of taxes, it was the inland revenue that put a stop to Rangers dodges, because they were illegal and were dealt with by using the law. FFP would have had no role at all anyway. In the main non-payment of tax was essentially a Spanish problem, and was dealt with only when the German government took up the question with the European commission: "How long must the German taxpayer pay Ronaldo and Messi's wages so that their clubs can pay no tax?" was the headline on the front page of Das Bild. It had nothing to do with the football authorities, who seem to have made the curious decision that Atletico Madrid's repayments, large as they are, don't affect their balance sheet enough for them to fall foul of FFP. Only investment, it appears, does that!

Now, to argue that he has introduced these regulations as a stroke of genius to show the criminal intentions of the magic circle so that the courts will quash them and thus destroy the power of the G14 is to ignore the facts. The argument that he only did this for these reasons ignores the slight difficulty that it is acting as a part of a cartel which is the offence, and the purity of motive is no defence and certainly no proof of innocence: "I was just obeying orders" has never worked as a plea! Platini is employed, and paid handsomely, for leadership, and he has shown none. He has given way to every threat made by the "magic circle", has defended the fines imposed on City and PSG, and, if he really "knows" that his rules are doomed in the courts why has he defended them so resolutely, imposed them so inflexibly and had nothing at all to do with M. Dupont's challenge to them? Why has he never done anything to help those clubs threatened with ruin by his regulations? Aren't they entitled to UEFA's protection rather than face the threat of financial implosion because the same cartel, in England, has foisted these same rules on the PL? Why has he chosen to waste four years hounding European clubs to save his own skin rather than spell out the consequences of secession to the "magic circle". This man is not a fit custodian of our game and doesn't even give a thought for the fans at all.

I'll put you down as undecided should I?

;-)
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

There is a further aspect to FFP, which adds another layer to it being an anthema to the philosophy that underpins the EU, namely the freedom of the market to move goods, people and capital freely.

To allow this to happen businesses must fail. Companies if they are run poorly, make strategic errors or have products that are no longer relevant must be made to pay. If other companies, more hungry, nimble and innovative are providing a better product then it is in the public interest for them to flourish, or at the very least for the conditions to be in place that do not militate against that possibility.

I say this because united, on current evidence, are a poorly run business. They have made a series of poor decisions in terms of recruitment, have had to completely revise their putative corporate strategy, have a product which is looking tired and are, by their own admission, looking at significantly lower profits in the foreseeable future.

If there was a system in place which protected Phones4U, for example, that did not punish them for the mistakes they made as a business, which unfairly prevented others entering the fray and challenging their market dominance, this would most likely be acted upon by the EU. If, however, that situation was allowed to prevail indefinitely meaning that Phones4U were allowed to continue to make poor decisions in the knowledge that they were protected from the consequences that flowed from that, it's even more difficult to see how that would be tolerated by the EU.

We usually think about FFP as a means of keeping people out of a particular group, but even when reflecting upon those it seeks to protect we often assume they will continue to operate as efficient, well oiled commercial enterprises. Commercial history teaches us otherwise. It is littered with many examples such as IBM, Nokia and currently Tesco who once enjoyed dominance over a particular market, who became lazy and complacent and ultimately lost their power and relevance. FFP gives those clubs at the top protection against making difficult, but correct commercial decisions.

FFP protects and rewards bad business practice (aka "doing things the wrong way"). Football may, to some extent, be different from other businesses in terms of how it is addressed by the EU legal system, but how can anyone seek to justify that state of affairs?

Although I'm sure they will.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

gordondaviesmoustache said:
There is a further aspect to FFP, which adds another layer to it being an anthema to the philosophy that underpins the EU, namely the freedom of the market to move goods, people and capital freely.

To allow this to happen businesses must fail. Companies if they are run poorly, make strategic errors or have products that are no longer relevant must be made to pay. If other companies, more hungry, nimble and innovative are providing a better product then it is in the public interest for them to flourish, or at the very least for the conditions to be in place that do not militate against that possibility.

I say this because united, on current evidence, are a poorly run business. They have made a series of poor decisions in terms of recruitment, have had to completely revise their putative corporate strategy, have a product which is looking tired and are, by their own admission, looking at significantly lower profits in the foreseeable future.

If there was a system in place which protected Phones4U, for example, that did not punish them for the mistakes they made as a business, which unfairly prevented others entering the fray and challenging their market dominance, this would most likely be acted upon by the EU. If, however, that situation was allowed to prevail indefinitely meaning that Phones4U were allowed to continue to make poor decisions in the knowledge that they were protected from the consequences that flowed from that, it's even more difficult to see how that would be tolerated by the EU.

We usually think about FFP as a means of keeping people out of a particular group, but even when reflecting upon those it seeks to protect we often assume they will continue to operate as efficient, well oiled commercial enterprises. Commercial history teaches us otherwise. It is littered with many examples such as IBM, Nokia and currently Tesco who once enjoyed dominance over a particular market, who became lazy and complacent and ultimately lost their power and relevance. FFP gives those clubs at the top protection against making difficult, but correct commercial decisions.

FFP protects and rewards bad business practice (aka "doing things the wrong way"). Football may, to some extent, be different from other businesses in terms of how it is addressed by the EU legal system, but how can anyone seek to justify that state of affairs?

Although I'm sure they will.

Now and again you really do post some excellent posts and that was one! (only now and again mind you ;-) )
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

BluessinceHydeRoad said:
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.

No, fbloke, Platini has not played a blinder and he deserves no credit for abdicating every shred of responsibility which goes with his office at UEFA. For a start, it did not need any new rules for UEFA "to make a stand" on the question of debt or on the non-payment of taxes. He hasn't made any stand at all on the question of debt, apart from a cosy little deal with his friends from the G14 that some of them don't have to pay their debts, while debt is not allowed for any other club. On the non-payment of taxes, it was the inland revenue that put a stop to Rangers dodges, because they were illegal and were dealt with by using the law. FFP would have had no role at all anyway. In the main non-payment of tax was essentially a Spanish problem, and was dealt with only when the German government took up the question with the European commission: "How long must the German taxpayer pay Ronaldo and Messi's wages so that their clubs can pay no tax?" was the headline on the front page of Das Bild. It had nothing to do with the football authorities, who seem to have made the curious decision that Atletico Madrid's repayments, large as they are, don't affect their balance sheet enough for them to fall foul of FFP. Only investment, it appears, does that!

To be fair, FFP has always - and quite rightly in this respect, imho - been concerned with balancing your books on a pre-tax basis. Repayment of taxes logically therefore, should not count as an expense for FFP purposes.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.