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

[pavelsrnicek]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Quite an interesting read...

in this respect, redistribution mechanisms concerning, for example, audiovisual media revenues

Spanish TV deal anyone?

also same para

long-term financial viability and competitive balance

Competitive balance - one of the factors behind the seeding changes for the CL perhaps and how does this effect TV revenue distribution for the CL which is hugely imbalances and skews competitive balance?

Also everything has to be compliant with EU law. Hence why, as people have mentioned, FFP fine tuning re debt and outside investment is suddenly on the table. Additionally UEFA in bed with the EU makes a breakaway league/organisation more difficult and gives UEFA some leverage with the old G14?

Interesting times.

Most Importantly the EC is the "Cabinet" of the EU, the test for the legality of FFPR will be done by the ECJ, the independent Courts of the EU. Any UEFA deal with the EC won't influence the ECJ.

Remember the key tests of the FPPR will be does they distort the free market or create anti-competitive markets (yes), is it for "good" reason (ostensibly yes but only just) and are the measures proportionate (can other methods achieve the same goals without being anti-competitive?). Too pass muster with the ECJ, you have to be able to say that the FFPR are the only ways to achieve sound financial governance even if they distort the market they are the best available Rules.

Perhaps I have very blue tinted vision but I can't see any way that the FPPR, as they currently stand, represent the best method regulating the affairs of Football Clubs.

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Yesterday's meeting was largely an irrelevance: lots of talking, no decisions taken, nothing changed but massive posturing. The presence of Dupont hung over proceedings. Both sides still have to play their cards very close to their chest because they both have to take into account the consequences of an adverse result in court.

Rummenigge has to try and project an image other than the bigoted, ranting fanatic who plans to plant his jack boots all over the balls of anyone who shows signs of frustrating Bayern's plans; yesterday he was the statesman eschewing coercion in favour of the reason which had converted Abramovitch and filled everyone with whom he had discussed FFP with "positive" thoughts. Platini was the born leader who, now that FFP had saved football from the destruction threatened,might now be prepared to consider some fine tuning which might make fair play fairer by tackling the problem of debt, letting some owners spend a bit of their own money and so on. Might. This is to convince everyone that UEFA isn't really the poodle of a Munich paymaster and a group of Yankie carpetbaggers, but the dedicated guardians of European football. And Berlusconi was simply hawking his begging bowl round to trying to cadge a place in the CL even though his clapped out club can't qualify. After all, Arsenal are only just better. The court has to be convinced that these groups are genuinely trying to be fair to all in the interests of European football. Despite some fairly convincing recent evidence to the contrary.

Then there's City and PSG. Despite the covert war they have waged against FFP for as long as anyone can remember, they daren't get involved in legal action and they have to operate within UEFA if Dupont loses. They can't come straight out and say that FFP is the typical bent product of an arrogant German who thinks he's in the ascendant and a French appeaser with a dodgy, trembly pair of knees and should be consigned to the dustbin. So City come up with a ludicrous scheme to extend the break even period beyond the horizon. "Well, Michel, we don't think FFP is quite the load of bollocks everyone else does..."

The decision will be made in court, and yesterday was simply jostling for position.

I`ve often wondered ... are you really Martin Samuels ??

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'd guess that City suggested the extended monitoring period because:

a) It vindicates the owners and gets UEFA to effectively admit they made a mistake on the principle of owner investment.
b) It's sensible generally.
c) It encourages other owners or potential owners to invest in clubs, which could diminish the power of the old G-14 cartel.

Exactly, wouldn't a 10 year monitoring period effectively remove a lot of the negative effects of FFP ? I mean it would allow an owner to initially invest, and give time to increase the commercial income to match the expenses. Perhaps this is City's attempt to change the system from within.

Cheers

Jazzman

Conversely it may indicate that it would take ten years to break even making it a long haul for most serious investors.

 

[City Raider]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

todays events only highlight how seriously they're taking duponts legal challenge

they're trying to out manoeuvre him but i think this changes little with respect of the actual law

the only worry is the weight of bayern and the country they represent in terms of european political power - i can't see an unprejudiced process

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Quite an interesting read...

in this respect, redistribution mechanisms concerning, for example, audiovisual media revenues

Spanish TV deal anyone?

also same para

long-term financial viability and competitive balance

Competitive balance - one of the factors behind the seeding changes for the CL perhaps and how does this effect TV revenue distribution for the CL which is hugely imbalances and skews competitive balance?

Also everything has to be compliant with EU law. Hence why, as people have mentioned, FFP fine tuning re debt and outside investment is suddenly on the table. Additionally UEFA in bed with the EU makes a breakaway league/organisation more difficult and gives UEFA some leverage with the old G14?

Interesting times.

Most Importantly the EC is the "Cabinet" of the EU, the test for the legality of FFPR will be done by the ECJ, the independent Courts of the EU. Any UEFA deal with the EC won't influence the ECJ.

Remember the key tests of the FPPR will be does they distort the free market or create anti-competitive markets (yes), is it for "good" reason (ostensibly yes but only just) and are the measures proportionate (can other methods achieve the same goals without being anti-competitive?). Too pass muster with the ECJ, you have to be able to say that the FFPR are the only ways to achieve sound financial governance even if they distort the market they are the best available Rules.

Perhaps I have very blue tinted vision but I can't see any way that the FPPR, as they currently stand, represent the best method regulating the affairs of Football Clubs.

They don't, but that's not the point is it?! For all the postulating and increased optimism on this thread, I still expect exactly nothing from these crooked bastards. They won't give us jack shit unless they are compelled to at legal gunpoint

 

[JGL07]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Quite an interesting read...

in this respect, redistribution mechanisms concerning, for example, audiovisual media revenues

Spanish TV deal anyone?

also same para

long-term financial viability and competitive balance

Competitive balance - one of the factors behind the seeding changes for the CL perhaps and how does this effect TV revenue distribution for the CL which is hugely imbalances and skews competitive balance?

Also everything has to be compliant with EU law. Hence why, as people have mentioned, FFP fine tuning re debt and outside investment is suddenly on the table. Additionally UEFA in bed with the EU makes a breakaway league/organisation more difficult and gives UEFA some leverage with the old G14?

Interesting times.

n


Most Importantly the EC is the "Cabinet" of the EU, the test for the legality of FFPR will be done by the ECJ, the independent Courts of the EU. Any UEFA deal with the EC won't influence the ECJ.

Remember the key tests of the FPPR will be does they distort the free market or create anti-competitive markets (yes), is it for "good" reason (ostensibly yes but only just) and are the measures proportionate (can other methods achieve the same goals without being anti-competitive?). Too pass muster with the ECJ, you have to be able to say that the FFPR are the only ways to achieve sound financial governance even if they distort the market they are the best available Rules.

Perhaps I have very blue tinted vision but I can't see any way that the FPPR, as they currently stand, represent the best method regulating the affairs of Football Clubs.

They don't, but that's not the point is it?! For all the postulating and increased optimism on this thread, I still expect exactly nothing from these crooked bastards. They won't give us jack shit unless they are compelled to at legal gunpoint

This approach may be seen as offering UEFA a way out of the legal issues that FFP has landed them in.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Quite an interesting read...

in this respect, redistribution mechanisms concerning, for example, audiovisual media revenues

Spanish TV deal anyone?

also same para

long-term financial viability and competitive balance

Competitive balance - one of the factors behind the seeding changes for the CL perhaps and how does this effect TV revenue distribution for the CL which is hugely imbalances and skews competitive balance?

Also everything has to be compliant with EU law. Hence why, as people have mentioned, FFP fine tuning re debt and outside investment is suddenly on the table. Additionally UEFA in bed with the EU makes a breakaway league/organisation more difficult and gives UEFA some leverage with the old G14?

Interesting times.

Most Importantly the EC is the "Cabinet" of the EU, the test for the legality of FFPR will be done by the ECJ, the independent Courts of the EU. Any UEFA deal with the EC won't influence the ECJ.

Remember the key tests of the FPPR will be does they distort the free market or create anti-competitive markets (yes), is it for "good" reason (ostensibly yes but only just) and are the measures proportionate (can other methods achieve the same goals without being anti-competitive?). Too pass muster with the ECJ, you have to be able to say that the FFPR are the only ways to achieve sound financial governance even if they distort the market they are the best available Rules.

Perhaps I have very blue tinted vision but I can't see any way that the FPPR, as they currently stand, represent the best method regulating the affairs of Football Clubs.

How eloquently and clearly put - good post mate.

That, in a nutshell, is the position.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'd guess that City suggested the extended monitoring period because:

a) It vindicates the owners and gets UEFA to effectively admit they made a mistake on the principle of owner investment.
b) It's sensible generally.
c) It encourages other owners or potential owners to invest in clubs, which could diminish the power of the old G-14 cartel.

Exactly, wouldn't a 10 year monitoring period effectively remove a lot of the negative effects of FFP ? I mean it would allow an owner to initially invest, and give time to increase the commercial income to match the expenses. Perhaps this is City's attempt to change the system from within.

Cheers

Jazzman

Conversely it may indicate that it would take ten years to break even making it a long haul for most serious investors.

they only have to look at us to know it doesn't though.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Exactly, wouldn't a 10 year monitoring period effectively remove a lot of the negative effects of FFP ? I mean it would allow an owner to initially invest, and give time to increase the commercial income to match the expenses. Perhaps this is City's attempt to change the system from within.

Cheers

Jazzman

Conversely it may indicate that it would take ten years to break even making it a long haul for most serious investors.

they only have to look at us to know it doesn't though.

I don't know what you mean. We were on the brink of greatness anyway before Thaksin got involved. That's what I kept telling myself for the last 40 years.

 

[paulchapo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It is odd they now want to talk to PSG and ourselves i just hope we don't trust them and show them no leeway after the way they shafted us, especially by divvying up our money between our rivals, shameful.

Like most blues i hate everything about these bloated European fatcats and their odds stacked in the favour of the cartel competition, i dream they will get hammered in the courts!