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

[onceabluealways]

I may be being a bit stupid here, but for arguments sake lets say we finish fourth.

City spend 200 mill to try and compete next season and UEFA come down on us.

We are a business and UEFA by restricting us as stopping us from competing with the major players and our competitors. Holding us back stops us getting better sponsors etc.

This must contravene some European business laws

 

[FanchesterCity]

I may be being a bit stupid here, but for arguments sake lets say we finish fourth.

City spend 200 mill to try and compete next season and UEFA come down on us.

We are a business and UEFA by restricting us as stopping us from competing with the major players and our competitors. Holding us back stops us getting better sponsors etc.

This must contravene some European business laws

That's a whole other topic and been discussed no end on this very thread.
One school of though believes it's illegal, other school of thought believes it may be legal, and that means to find out for sure, somebody will have to take UEFA to court to obtain a judgment on it.

That is a risk for UEFA because it may be deemed illegal.
It's also a risk for whoever takes them to court, because it may be deemed legal.

The legal process is a very costly one, not just financially, but it can cause damage to investor relations / sponsors / PR etc. It is also a very lengthy process and can take years to resolve. That is why even though someone may believe something to be illegal (or legal), neither side wants to engage in a legal battle... it gets messy for both sides, and often better settled out of court. Of course sometimes, things get so bad, there is no choice but to take it to court, but so far, City haven't reached that stage. UEFA are being taken to court by other parties with regards to specific aspects of FFP, but that's another story. As far as City vs UEFA are concerned, both sides don't (yet) fancy the fight.

With that in mind, Manchester City decided not to take UEFA to court when we were judged to fall foul of FFP. Instead we chose to reach a compromise with UEFA... effectively a private agreement. That meant UEFA could say they'd punished us, and we could say we got off reasonably lightly and didn't suffer any significant damage. It does NOT mean Manchester City accepted guilt. That's a very important thing to note. Both UEFA and City 'reached a private agreement'. The results of the private agreement were published by UEFA (but we can't be sure ALL the detail of the agreement is shown. It's most likely just a summary of the agreement, since some specific aspects will be very confidential and not for public viewing, understandably).

Does that make sense?

 

[Ric]

The two statements at the time, from UEFA and City, were so contradictory regarding our spend this summer that it's hard to tell what position we are in. Pellegrini's recent quotes suggest we're in the clear, but I'm not taking anything for granted. Nothing would surprise me any more when it comes to UEFA. A shifting of the goalposts almost seems inevitable.

 

[onceabluealways]

I may be being a bit stupid here, but for arguments sake lets say we finish fourth.

City spend 200 mill to try and compete next season and UEFA come down on us.

We are a business and UEFA by restricting us as stopping us from competing with the major players and our competitors. Holding us back stops us getting better sponsors etc.

This must contravene some European business laws

That's a whole other topic and been discussed no end on this very thread.
One school of though believes it's illegal, other school of thought believes it may be legal, and that means to find out for sure, somebody will have to take UEFA to court to obtain a judgment on it.

That is a risk for UEFA because it may be deemed illegal.
It's also a risk for whoever takes them to court, because it may be deemed legal.

The legal process is a very costly one, not just financially, but it can cause damage to investor relations / sponsors / PR etc. It is also a very lengthy process and can take years to resolve. That is why even though someone may believe something to be illegal (or legal), neither side wants to engage in a legal battle... it gets messy for both sides, and often better settled out of court. Of course sometimes, things get so bad, there is no choice but to take it to court, but so far, City haven't reached that stage. UEFA are being taken to court by other parties with regards to specific aspects of FFP, but that's another story. As far as City vs UEFA are concerned, both sides don't (yet) fancy the fight.

With that in mind, Manchester City decided not to take UEFA to court when we were judged to fall foul of FFP. Instead we chose to reach a compromise with UEFA... effectively a private agreement. That meant UEFA could say they'd punished us, and we could say we got off reasonably lightly and didn't suffer any significant damage. It does NOT mean Manchester City accepted guilt. That's a very important thing to note. Both UEFA and City 'reached a private agreement'. The results of the private agreement were published by UEFA (but we can't be sure ALL the detail of the agreement is shown. It's most likely just a summary of the agreement, since some specific aspects will be very confidential and not for public viewing, understandably).

Does that make sense?

Yes you're obviously got more legal nous than me. Whenever i feel low with the team playing poorly / results etc. ( after I've vented my frustration on the forum) then i have to sit back and think how lucky we have been and these guys know what they are doing.

I don't quite agree with annoying life long supporters to accomodate people who will pay more money for premium seats, but we have developed far beyond I ever thought we would years ago.

 

[Balti]

I may be being a bit stupid here, but for arguments sake lets say we finish fourth.

City spend 200 mill to try and compete next season and UEFA come down on us.

We are a business and UEFA by restricting us as stopping us from competing with the major players and our competitors. Holding us back stops us getting better sponsors etc.

This must contravene some European business laws

That's a whole other topic and been discussed no end on this very thread.
One school of though believes it's illegal, other school of thought believes it may be legal, and that means to find out for sure, somebody will have to take UEFA to court to obtain a judgment on it.

That is a risk for UEFA because it may be deemed illegal.
It's also a risk for whoever takes them to court, because it may be deemed legal.

The legal process is a very costly one, not just financially, but it can cause damage to investor relations / sponsors / PR etc. It is also a very lengthy process and can take years to resolve. That is why even though someone may believe something to be illegal (or legal), neither side wants to engage in a legal battle... it gets messy for both sides, and often better settled out of court. Of course sometimes, things get so bad, there is no choice but to take it to court, but so far, City haven't reached that stage. UEFA are being taken to court by other parties with regards to specific aspects of FFP, but that's another story. As far as City vs UEFA are concerned, both sides don't (yet) fancy the fight.

With that in mind, Manchester City decided not to take UEFA to court when we were judged to fall foul of FFP. Instead we chose to reach a compromise with UEFA... effectively a private agreement. That meant UEFA could say they'd punished us, and we could say we got off reasonably lightly and didn't suffer any significant damage. It does NOT mean Manchester City accepted guilt. That's a very important thing to note. Both UEFA and City 'reached a private agreement'. The results of the private agreement were published by UEFA (but we can't be sure ALL the detail of the agreement is shown. It's most likely just a summary of the agreement, since some specific aspects will be very confidential and not for public viewing, understandably).

Does that make sense?

I don't quite agree with annoying life long supporters to accomodate people who will pay more money for premium seats, but we have developed far beyond I ever thought we would years ago.

and at the same time we have lost so much too

more than I would have thought

 

[FanchesterCity]

With regard to the whole legality, and in doing by best to present a 'fair' summary of things:

Some people think FFP is just illegal, Full stop.
Some people think FFP is legal. Full stop.
Some people think it's a very grey area and some aspect might be legal, some might not. (my view).

People will say 'It's the Sheik's money - he can do as he pleases with it'. That's just wrong. There are many regulations about what people can and can't do with their money. Just because it's your money, you can't do anything you like with it.

People will say 'it's wrong to limit investment in a business'.
Generally speaking that's true, but there are laws that can limit how businesses are run, or how certain companies can invest. Those laws are 'usually' designed to look after a wider public interest, or consumer benefit, or simply to prevent one company having a monopoly on a market.
UEFA use FFP under this guise.... saying it's to help protect football, keep things 'fair', and make it better for the consumer (the fans).

Now of course, as City fans (and a fair few other fans too), we don't agree that it's fair at all. We can list all manner of reasons why we think it's bullshit, and actually designed to keep the big clubs in place, and stop clubs like City from progressing. I am one of those people that believe this. However, if it goes to court, we have to PROVE why it's not fair, and why UEFA are wrong. UEFA likewise have to prove why it is fair and is a good idea.
It's not automatically illegal to put restrictions on clubs spending.... if UEFA can justify their reasons, they will win.

Most of us don't think they can justify them, but they'll have a good go. They COULD win. We don't think so, but they 'could'.

I've grossly over-simplified everything for the sake of brevity, but that's the long and short of it.
A lot of the debate on here is about our own judgment of how strong a case either side might have with regard to FFP in general, plus debate over the current sanctions we have, and how much we can spend to stay within FFP.

There's a lot of guessing, a lot of optimism, a lot of pessimism, some inside information, and some pot smoking.

 

[Ric]

I think it's fair to say none of us really know how the court will rule. You hope that sanity prevails, and FFP is exposed for what it is but it's far from a given.

 

[FanchesterCity]

I think it's fair to say none of us really know how the court will rule. You hope that sanity prevails, and FFP is exposed for what it is but it's far from a given.

Yep, I've believed that all along. You never can tell. You can get some unexpected rulings. I'm reluctant to use the term 'perverse decisions' as that's a specific legal term which implies more than just an unexpected ruling!

And no matter what we think if UEFA, they do have a legal team, and they aren't incompetent. They do have have a 'defence' for FFP, no matter what we think of it. I suppose it's like any acrimonious divorce. No matter how strong your case, the other side will twist things and sling some mud back, and you'll be hard pressed to find any barrister who'll guarantee you a win.

 

[Ric]

I think it's fair to say none of us really know how the court will rule. You hope that sanity prevails, and FFP is exposed for what it is but it's far from a given.

I've believed that all along. You never can tell. You can get some unexpected rulings. I'm treluctant to use the term 'perverse decisions' as that's a specific legal term which implies more than just an unexpected ruling!

And no matter what we think if UEFA, they do have a legal team, and they aren't incompetent. They do have have a 'defence' for FFP, no matter what we think of it. I suppose it's like any acrimonious divorce. No matter how strong your case, the other side will twist things and sling some mud back, and you'll be hard pressed to find any barrister who'll guarantee you a win.

I think the most likely scenario is that FFP will remain, but with greater leniency on secured losses over a longer period. Either way, it won't affect us greatly given the new TV deal. The big question, for me, is if our spending us restricted again this summer. I hope that with the court case ongoing, UEFA will be reluctant to sanction us further.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

I think it's fair to say none of us really know how the court will rule. You hope that sanity prevails, and FFP is exposed for what it is but it's far from a given.

I've believed that all along. You never can tell. You can get some unexpected rulings. I'm treluctant to use the term 'perverse decisions' as that's a specific legal term which implies more than just an unexpected ruling!

And no matter what we think if UEFA, they do have a legal team, and they aren't incompetent. They do have have a 'defence' for FFP, no matter what we think of it. I suppose it's like any acrimonious divorce. No matter how strong your case, the other side will twist things and sling some mud back, and you'll be hard pressed to find any barrister who'll guarantee you a win.

I think the most likely scenario is that FFP will remain, but with greater leniency on secured losses over a longer period. Either way, it won't affect us greatly given the new TV deal. The big question, for me, is if our spending us restricted again this summer. I hope that with the court case ongoing, UEFA will be reluctant to sanction us further.

well we'd have to be run by the biggest bunch of numpties from the Sheikh downwards to go out and spend £200m if we didn't know we would be allowed to.

You have to assume with all the business and legal experts we use, and used in negotiations with UEFA last year, that we've got everything nailed down. If we haven't, we'll be the biggest embarrassment I can think of.