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

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Which is why debt was never part of the original FFP regulations (once the cartel had had a word), the rags for one (probably Madrid and Barca too) wouldn't have been able to spend as they have in the last 3 years.

Yep.

And as I said a few posts back, funny how it's being considered by UEFA now the scum have got theirs under control. David Gill's evil paw prints are all over this. Doubtless he's got other "pro United, anti-other club" adjustments up his sleeve.

Even if it didn't go quite right for them, they would just sell off another chunk of non-voting, non-interest bearing shares to gullible American investors on the NYSE. That would wipe out the debt and the Glazer family would still hold full control of the business.

Call me a cynic if you like...

Honestly I think it's WAY more cynical than that. The plain fact is, United have been laden with debt for years and guess what, throughout all that period UEFA have deemed that debt - any level of debt, sustainable or not - is perfectly acceptable. They haven't said so as much, but their inaction in not doing anything about it when the door was open do to so, speaks volumes.

Now we have United, for the first time in nigh on a decade, getting their debt under control with the real prospect of them being debt free in the near term. And guess what, now they are in the clear, now and only now, UEFA want to introduce new rules to control debt.

And who is at the helm of the FFP rules? One David Gill, former Chief Executive of Manchester United and chums with all the United cronies.

Honestly, you could not make it up. The levels of corruption and bentness seem to push new boundaries day by day. In all seriousness there is a raft of people at the core of UEFA (and FIFA for that matter) who not only should have no place in football, honestly they should be in jail.

 

[City Raider]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

10 October 2014 -- As is well known, the Court of First Instance in Brussels is currently considering a dispute about FFP between players 'agents and supporters, including the Manchester City FC Supporters Club (15,000 members and 168 clubs worldwide), represented by lawyers Jean-Louis Dupont and Martin Hissel, against UEFA and the Belgian Football Association

Through this action, the plaintiffs are seeking the Court of First Instance to refer the case before the Court of Justice of the EU (EUCJ) so that it decides on the compatibility of the UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations with EU law. The plaintiffs argue that the regulations amount to an "investment ban" and, as such, are a flagrant violation of EU competition law. Given a final ruling on the merits may take some time, today the plaintiffs have filed with the Court of First Instance in Brussels a request for a "provisional measure”.

Until such time the Belgian Court makes its final ruling on the merits of case, the provisional measure seeks to prohibit UEFA from moving into the second phase of the implementation of its "break-even requirement". In effect this aims to force UEFA to stick to the rule as currently applied (i.e. a deficit limit of up to €45 million) and prevents further hardening of the rule (a deficit limit of up to €30 million) as required by the FFP regulation.

The move does not ask the Belgian judge to stop UEFA's FFP implementation, rather, simply to prevent it from accelerating while the agents’ and supporters’ challenge is being considered by the Courts. This is likely to be helpful, also, for UEFA since it serves to limit UEFA’s financial risk in the event that the judge upholds the existing complaint and it is faced with damages from multiple parties.

It is now rests with the Court of First Instance in Brussels to fix the procedural timetable for the debate on the request for this interim measure.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

They've actually come to the realisation that were not going to go away any time soon. Took them far to long to realise, stupid pricks.

 

[meltonblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I don't think that even with the previous situation, United would have realistically be affected would they? I'm assuming that if the debt is serviceable then Uefa will still be fine with that, otherwise I'm not sure how any club will agree to it that hasn't got a benefactor behind them. To build the infrastructure for example, most will have to take on debt of some form.

I know it's easy to be cynical given Uefas past history, I'm not sure in this instance what there is to be cynical about though. If they are going to tackle unsustainable levels of debt then I see that as only a good thing.

The only caveat I would say is that I wonder what the punishment would be for it. Fining a club that can't afford to pay it's debts in the first place would seem a bit counterproductive if it really is about protecting the clubs themselves...

 

[whp.blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I don't think that even with the previous situation, United would have realistically be affected would they? I'm assuming that if the debt is serviceable then Uefa will still be fine with that, otherwise I'm not sure how any club will agree to it that hasn't got a benefactor behind them. To build the infrastructure for example, most will have to take on debt of some form.

I know it's easy to be cynical given Uefas past history, I'm not sure in this instance what there is to be cynical about though. If they are going to tackle unsustainable levels of debt then I see that as only a good thing.

The only caveat I would say is that I wonder what the punishment would be for it. Fining a club that can't afford to pay it's debts in the first place would seem a bit counter productive if it really is about protecting the clubs themselves...

Easy no fine just a ban from the competition let them back in when they comply

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I don't think that even with the previous situation, United would have realistically be affected would they? I'm assuming that if the debt is serviceable then Uefa will still be fine with that, otherwise I'm not sure how any club will agree to it that hasn't got a benefactor behind them. To build the infrastructure for example, most will have to take on debt of some form.

I know it's easy to be cynical given Uefas past history, I'm not sure in this instance what there is to be cynical about though. If they are going to tackle unsustainable levels of debt then I see that as only a good thing.

The only caveat I would say is that I wonder what the punishment would be for it. Fining a club that can't afford to pay it's debts in the first place would seem a bit counterproductive if it really is about protecting the clubs themselves...

No more counterproductive than fining a club for failing to break-even. They wouldn't do that either would they!

 

[meltonblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That depends on the reason for not breaking even Chippy. I get the point though, I just think that whatever sanction Uefa decide to put in should be dealt with on a case by case basis related to that individual club and the reasons for the situation.

I realise that is a pipe dream though!

 

[BackgroundBlue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


(on my second G&T)

 

[80s Shorts]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


(on my second G&T)

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


(on my second G&T)

And from the same philosopher...

"The greatest victory is that which requires no battle."