Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"
Burtonblue said:
hgblue said:
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
It has to be fair. The argument in favour of FFPR is that it tries to enforce certain regulations which appear to be inconsistent with European commercial law on competition because these regulations actually protect competition and are, therefore, in the wider interests of the game by protecting clubs by insisting on greater financial responsibility. These regulations are open to serious question as general principles - they clearly restrict the rights of shareholders to invest in their business (a right enshrined in law) and they expressly wish to limit expenditure on wages. To that extent they are clearly anti-competitive, and UEFA lawyers would have a hard task convincing judges that they are necessary to fulfil the avowed aims of FFPR - and City would be bound to ask the question in court, especially in a case involving competitor clubs! But City's case would also be that none of the actions of the club have anything other than steps to behave with financial prudence and, actually to fulfill the objectives which UEFA has identified, and to do this while protecting the long term interests of the club and the game. City have competed and competed prudently.
UEFA would have to convince a court that this was not a convincing case - a court of law, not Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool.
UEFA need to be taken to court by a debt free club that has attempted to comply with FFP regulations like it needs the proverbial hole in the head. Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool are mightily pissed off because FFP was intended to stop the likes of City, but there's bugger all they can do about it and I suspect they know it.
Spot on!
Our profitability has surprised a number of clubs.
We have the 5th highest turnover. Our financial rise is meteoric. After this season this will continue to improve.
We are in a far better place than PSG and there is no way twattini is going to compromise them by picking fights with our owners.
They know we are unstoppable and are all clutching at straws!
It's more to do with the idiotic press and their rag agenda.
FFP rules are - and MUST be - compatible with generally accepted accounting principles and with European law. You know it, I know it, EUFA knows it, Chelsea knows it. Probably the press know it (though some of them are so utterly dense, I really do have my doubts sometimes.) Unfortunately the man in the street does NOT know it, and that's where the opportunity for mischief, slurs and even libel come in.
First, the Daily Mail - for example - states that our losses over 2 years are £150m, compared to the £37m allowable. They make no mention that the £37m allowable is the FFP "Break-even result" amount, not the actual allowed losses. So it makes us look bad, deliberately.
Then they say that some of our losses "may" be excluded. Again this is a lie, designed to stir up animosity and make us look bad. They know that much of the loss *IS* allowed and can be excluded.
Third, they suggest underhand dodgy dealings in relation to alleged related-party transactions. They fail to mention the fact that our AUDITED, yes AUDITED accounts are necessarily signed off by an independant law firm whose whole reputation would be destroyed were in found that they were cooking the books - something that they clearly would never do. There is NO room for investigation about any of these figures without calling into question the proberty not of Manchester City plc, but also of our auditors. This is never going to happen.
The press almost certainly know all this. So the only conclusion is that it is the usual shit we have to put up with: Print any old garbage to sell a few extra copies and if you can damage the reputation of City while you are at it, jobs a good un. It's about time we sued the bastards.
