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

[I'm no cynic but...]

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

The law is the law is the law, and unless something is in statute then there is little they can do other than to adhere to the Court's judgement.

 

[Maly]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Question for the legal beagles on here:
If Dupont wins the case and due to evidence supplied it implies that there is a cartel in football.....what happens then?

Would the courts go after the Clubs involved &/or the executives involved?

If so, would said clubs face potential heavy fines & directors/executives face fines or prison terms?

 

[SilverFox2]

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.

Exactly, but the 10 year statement was made by ADUG not another clubs owner so it was possibly made as a warning to new investors that they must gamble on having an efficient business plan that must breakeven in the short term and/or as well as seeming to be constructive about FFP for meeting consumption.

Lets be fair, ADUG are uninterested in the outcome of the upcoming court case.

So if it is thrown out they are warning the potentially new investors and if it is not then they must appear to work to advance its cause whilst striding away from the rest with the next phase of their global plan.

 

[CatMan]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Question for the legal beagles on here:
If Dupont wins the case and due to evidence supplied it implies that there is a cartel in football.....what happens then?

Would the courts go after the Clubs involved &/or the executives involved?

If so, would said clubs face potential heavy fines & directors/executives face fines or prison terms?

In a world where a cold blooded murderer can seemingly avoid a Jail term, do you seriously believe UEFA could allows themselves to lose let alone leave individuals open to prosecution.

City's situation is simple here and in short we need to drink to survive. The problem is that the only drink available is Tetley and to coin a phrase 'If you can't beat them, join them'

 

[Maly]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Question for the legal beagles on here:
If Dupont wins the case and due to evidence supplied it implies that there is a cartel in football.....what happens then?

Would the courts go after the Clubs involved &/or the executives involved?

If so, would said clubs face potential heavy fines & directors/executives face fines or prison terms?

In a world where a cold blooded murderer can seemingly avoid a Jail term, do you seriously believe UEFA could allows themselves to lose let alone leave individuals open to prosecution.

City's situation is simple here and in short we need to drink to survive. The problem is that the only drink available is Tetley and to coin a phrase 'If you can't beat them, join them'

Not sure I've explained properly or if you've misunderstood.

I'm not really talking UEFA here, more the clubs ie old G14 clubs creating a cartel.

So, I'm wondering if this is akin to huge corporations illegally manipulating the marketplace to gain a competitive advantage. If this is the case, what penalties would the clubs and their directors face.

 

[80s Shorts]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

Exactly, but the 10 year statement was made by ADUG not another clubs owner so it was possibly made as a warning to new investors that they must gamble on having an efficient business plan that must breakeven in the short term and/or as well as seeming to be constructive about FFP for meeting consumption.

Lets be fair, ADUG are uninterested in the outcome of the upcoming court case.

So if it is thrown out they are warning the potentially new investors and if it is not then they must appear to work to advance its cause whilst striding away from the rest with the next phase of their global plan.

Wholly wrong. How on earth can they be uninterested?

 

[Falastur]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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

Exactly, but the 10 year statement was made by ADUG not another clubs owner so it was possibly made as a warning to new investors that they must gamble on having an efficient business plan that must breakeven in the short term and/or as well as seeming to be constructive about FFP for meeting consumption.

Lets be fair, ADUG are uninterested in the outcome of the upcoming court case.

So if it is thrown out they are warning the potentially new investors and if it is not then they must appear to work to advance its cause whilst striding away from the rest with the next phase of their global plan.

Wholly wrong. How on earth can they be uninterested?

City's plan was always to hyper-inflate City's income and then move to a self-sufficient model. Whether that involves breaking even earlier on lower revenues than anticipated due to FFPR or not until 2020 but turning over enough money to buy a Messi each season, their plan was never to sink £200m more into City than they get back every season for the next 100 years, that just wouldn't make sense. FFPR vastly sped up ADUG's plans to make City self-sufficient, but it got them there all the same. Now that City is looking at breaking even, and with no plans to limit the revenue-making on the horizon, FFPR really makes little impact. OK, it determines whether we can spend £50m this season or £250m, but then it's fairly obvious MCFC was never intended to be run on a Galacticos model anyway, so even if we banked a billion every year we wouldn't spend that much, and I think in the next few seasons you'll probably see us start to only spend what needs to be spent, while other teams dominate the transfer market and draw all of the headlines. We could do that whether restricted under FFPR or not.

At least, this is my interpretation of SilverFox's message.

 

[Bluemoon230989]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

UEFA secures landmark formal cooperation agreement with European Commission
Tuesday 14 October 2014 17.00 CET

049 - Arrangement for Cooperation marks historic achievement in UEFA-EU relations

UEFA and the European Commission have today signed a historic agreement between the two organisations, marking a momentous milestone in relations between the European bodies. UEFA President Michel Platini, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and European Commissioner responsible for sport Androulla Vassiliou met this afternoon at the Commission’s headquarters in Brussels to launch the Arrangement for Cooperation which sets out the basis for a formal UEFA-EC partnership.

The Arrangement for Cooperation comes as UEFA celebrates its 60th anniversary. It cements the organisations’ joint commitment to structured cooperation in key policy areas and underlines UEFA’s strong desire to continue working with the Commission and other national and European public bodies. UEFA is pleased that the Commission shares its vision for the future of European football and fully supports its major initiatives, including the implementation of Financial Fair Play.

UEFA President Michel Platini said: “We have come a long way in our relationship with the European Commission and this Arrangement for Cooperation is proof that our bond is stronger than ever. With the increased support of the European Commission, we will intensify our fight to safeguard the ethics of sport and to promote good governance. By working together, we will make sure football can overcome the many challenges it faces, whether it be discrimination, match-fixing, third party player ownership or violence. UEFA is also pleased to have the commitment of the European Commission to cooperate in the promotion of grassroots football and to continue to support the implementation of the Financial Fair Play process, which will ensure football can grow and prosper in years to come. I am very proud of this Arrangement for Cooperation and believe that it comes at a crucial time for European Football."

Androulla Vassiliou, the European Commissioner responsible for sport, said: "This agreement is a significant step forward in our cooperation with UEFA, which is an important partner for the European Commission in its dialogue with the world of sport. I am pleased that, over the course of my mandate, the Commission has strengthened its ties with UEFA, working closely on a wide range of issues affecting football. Our goal has always been to maintain stability in the world of professional sport, appreciating its specificity while fully respecting EU law. We are also committed to maximising the impact that sport can have on society as a catalyst for social change in areas such as improving health and gender equality. We have worked well with UEFA in the past on these issues and this agreement ensures that our close collaboration will continue."

The Arrangement for Cooperation commits the two organisations to regular bilateral meetings and includes a target of holding senior level meetings at least once a year. In order to further promote the social role of sport, and in particular in relation to health and physical activity, the agreement also envisages collaboration between the European Commission and UEFA in the context of the planned European Week of Sport.

See here for the full text of the Arrangement for Cooperation between the European Commission and UEFA: <a class="postlink" href="http://uefa.to/1u0l8C9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://uefa.to/1u0l8C9</a>


I'd not heard any mention of this "agreement" in the press, but found this on UEFA's website this evening.
Read the third paragraph.
Call me suspicious but I think I can guess where that fat bastard Platini thinks he's going with this.

 

[80s Shorts]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Exactly, but the 10 year statement was made by ADUG not another clubs owner so it was possibly made as a warning to new investors that they must gamble on having an efficient business plan that must breakeven in the short term and/or as well as seeming to be constructive about FFP for meeting consumption.

Lets be fair, ADUG are uninterested in the outcome of the upcoming court case.

So if it is thrown out they are warning the potentially new investors and if it is not then they must appear to work to advance its cause whilst striding away from the rest with the next phase of their global plan.

Wholly wrong. How on earth can they be uninterested?

City's plan was always to hyper-inflate City's income and then move to a self-sufficient model. Whether that involves breaking even earlier on lower revenues than anticipated due to FFPR or not until 2020 but turning over enough money to buy a Messi each season, their plan was never to sink £200m more into City than they get back every season for the next 100 years, that just wouldn't make sense. FFPR vastly sped up ADUG's plans to make City self-sufficient, but it got them there all the same. Now that City is looking at breaking even, and with no plans to limit the revenue-making on the horizon, FFPR really makes little impact. OK, it determines whether we can spend £50m this season or £250m, but then it's fairly obvious MCFC was never intended to be run on a Galacticos model anyway, so even if we banked a billion every year we wouldn't spend that much, and I think in the next few seasons you'll probably see us start to only spend what needs to be spent, while other teams dominate the transfer market and draw all of the headlines. We could do that whether restricted under FFPR or not.

At least, this is my interpretation of SilverFox's message.

That is as strange a comment as SilverFox believing that ADUG are uninterested in any upcoming court case. Why on earth would we spend what does not need to be spent ?

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Exactly, but the 10 year statement was made by ADUG not another clubs owner so it was possibly made as a warning to new investors that they must gamble on having an efficient business plan that must breakeven in the short term and/or as well as seeming to be constructive about FFP for meeting consumption.

Lets be fair, ADUG are uninterested in the outcome of the upcoming court case.

So if it is thrown out they are warning the potentially new investors and if it is not then they must appear to work to advance its cause whilst striding away from the rest with the next phase of their global plan.

Wholly wrong. How on earth can they be uninterested?

City's plan was always to hyper-inflate City's income and then move to a self-sufficient model. Whether that involves breaking even earlier on lower revenues than anticipated due to FFPR or not until 2020 but turning over enough money to buy a Messi each season, their plan was never to sink £200m more into City than they get back every season for the next 100 years, that just wouldn't make sense. FFPR vastly sped up ADUG's plans to make City self-sufficient, but it got them there all the same. Now that City is looking at breaking even, and with no plans to limit the revenue-making on the horizon, FFPR really makes little impact. OK, it determines whether we can spend £50m this season or £250m, but then it's fairly obvious MCFC was never intended to be run on a Galacticos model anyway, so even if we banked a billion every year we wouldn't spend that much, and I think in the next few seasons you'll probably see us start to only spend what needs to be spent, while other teams dominate the transfer market and draw all of the headlines. We could do that whether restricted under FFPR or not.

At least, this is my interpretation of SilverFox's message.

My own take on this is that City would definitely be interested if it was a rolling ten year plan rather than a fixed ten year plan whereby we would have to rejoin the fold on expiry. Business cycles are flexible and there will be good years and there will be bad years within that timeline In ten years time, we might be hunky dory, but circumstances might change and another petrodollar club might emerge, to which we must respond or face the possibility of being sidelined.