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

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I only read the last paragraph.

In it, Marcotti claims that its hard to argue that FFPR restricts a player's ability to work and make a living.

Well, it restricted Álvaro Negredo's ability to work and make a living at City when he was left out of our Champions' League squad.

You can't really argue that, as there are already restrictions on squad sizes (25?) so there will always be a 26th player who loses out. Can he argue the exist rules are limiting his opportunities? - not really.

There's also little evidence to suggest FFPR have caused less employment opportunities in the industry. They haven't.

There's certainly a case (imo) to say that EUFA are creating a barrier to entry in the CL and that's purely a financial barrier which certainly doesn't create competition to benefit the consumer and (arguably) increases the costs for consumers.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here is the Marcotti article:

In 1995, it was football clubs, many of them with wealthy profiteering owners and enjoying the benefits of protectionism and state subsidies, both naked and veiled, versus players, most of whom earned a fraction of what they do now. Today, it is the vast majority of clubs and the game’s governing bodies versus fans of Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain and some agents.

The first example is a non-sequitur to the second in terms of them being contrasting examples.

In the first, it was the players, who were disempowered by the prevailing systems that existed within football at the time. In spite of them wielding considerably less economic power and influence than the clubs and their owners (in relative and actual terms from the position today) the European Courts held that this was unlawful as contrary to EU law. Using the relative strengths of the clubs and DuPont in the second example as a contrasting point of reference makes absolutely no sense. It contradicts his first point. It must follow that this is not a consideration for the court if they find FFP is unlawful. Whilst it would be naive to suggest that the relative resources of each of the parties in this matter would not impose itself on the likelihood of success, as those with the deepest pockets can frequently grind matters out, that predication assumes that DuPont is funding this undertaking entirely out of his own pocket.

I would suggest anyone who believes that is living in cloud-cukoo land.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Its interesting that he slyly suggests that Sheikh Mansour is only interested in negating FFP because it is in his interests to do so and that perhaps that will change once City are profitable.

I honestly believe that the stance that City have taken is on the point of principle of FFP restricting one type of owner investment and only one.

His broader argument that those people who will be taken on by Dupont are invested in FFP and therefore any challenge will fail is more than a tad limited. For his position to be correct then UEFA and European judges are in cahoots. Is that the case?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Its interesting that he slyly suggests that Sheikh Mansour is only interested in negating FFP because it is in his interests to do so and that perhaps that will change once City are profitable.

Or worse, that he hasn't really thought this through. An utterly absurd thing to suggest.

 

[Sir peace frog]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

TBH I wouldn't take a blind bit of notice of what he thinks.

Given the choice I'd rather listen to Dupont.

Do you think for one minute he would pursue this, if he didn't think he had a good chance of winning?

its all very well pissing about on a football forum,shouldnt you be out with your camera. :)

 

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Its interesting that he slyly suggests that Sheikh Mansour is only interested in negating FFP because it is in his interests to do so and that perhaps that will change once City are profitable.

I honestly believe that the stance that City have taken is on the point of principle of FFP restricting one type of owner investment and only one.

His broader argument that those people who will be taken on by Dupont are invested in FFP and therefore any challenge will fail is more than a tad limited. For his position to be correct then UEFA and European judges are in cahoots. Is that the case?

Philosophically they were universes apart from one another in the Bosman era. Things can always change over 20 years but I have not gotten the sense of that being the case.

The argument cibaman (I believe) references earlier is a good one. If FFP is struck down I believe this sort of reasoning will be part and parcel of why. Restriction on potential employment options for footballers was a big part of Bosman.

 

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Would have thought if something was contrary to the law it is contrary to the law whether it was created 100 years ago or one day ago.

And if anything, something created one day ago usually has a higher jurisprudential hurdle to get over than something having been in place for a great deal of time.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

TBH I wouldn't take a blind bit of notice of what he thinks.

Given the choice I'd rather listen to Dupont.

Do you think for one minute he would pursue this, if he didn't think he had a good chance of winning?

its all very well pissing about on a football forum,shouldnt you be out with your camera. :)

It's my day off. :-)

I'll be out with my camera before the Spurs game.

 

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Quote: "there are also plenty of owners who would not be investing in football were it not for FFP and the fact is that it reduces costs and makes profitability more viable."

This is utterly preposterous. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics could see in advance that the forced break-even dynamic would cause clubs to address this primarily from the revenue side. Just look at the behaviour of the rags both before and after full implementation of FFP. So all these sponsorship deals of theirs and rampant spending on left backs is going to make some potential owner of Aston Villa want to jump into those waters?

This revenue dynamic also would effectively impose higher costs upon consumers worldwide. And there lies another excellent argument against FFP from an antitrust standpoint.

 

[Dribble]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here is the Marcotti article:

In 1995, it was football clubs, many of them with wealthy profiteering owners and enjoying the benefits of protectionism and state subsidies, both naked and veiled, versus players, most of whom earned a fraction of what they do now. Today, it is the vast majority of clubs and the game’s governing bodies versus fans of Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain and some agents.

The first example is a non-sequitur to the second in terms of them being contrasting examples.

In the first, it was the players, who were disempowered by the prevailing systems that existed within football at the time. In spite of them wielding considerably less economic power and influence than the clubs and their owners (in relative and actual terms from the position today) the European Courts held that this was unlawful as contrary to EU law. Using the relative strengths of the clubs and DuPont in the second example as a contrasting point of reference makes absolutely no sense. It contradicts his first point. It must follow that this is not a consideration for the court if they find FFP is unlawful. Whilst it would be naive to suggest that the relative resources of each of the parties in this matter would not impose itself on the likelihood of success, as those with the deepest pockets can frequently grind matters out, that predication assumes that DuPont is funding this undertaking entirely out of his own pocket.

I would suggest anyone who believes that is living in cloud-cukoo land.

Absolutely this.

Also even if nothing else can be proved, if as expected Manchester City Football Club breaks even this season and quickly moves into profit then there is a current working investment model which is proving that FFP is not necessary and the free market should prevail.

We have provided a working template of investment success as apposed to the failing indebted model used by Real, Barca & ManUre. If they are the present, they have proven their model to be inept and heavily weighted with risk. We on the other hand have categorically shown what can be achieved with heavy but controlled investment and for me that is the better model to be followed for the future.

FFP, should concentrate on ensuring clubs only borrow what they can afford to pay back over the loan agreement period. Their ability to make repayments should NOT take into account European competition qualification because it isn't a given that a club will always qualify as Leeds found to their cost. Relying on UEFA competition revenue is like including overtime revenue in a mortgage application as a necessity to make the repayments.

To stop another Portsmouth, in future any owners who want to follow the investment model should deposit the funds they want to invest for security and these funds should cover all wages and forecasted costs. If this were the case, why would anyone have a problem with the investment model or sustainable borrowing........