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

[FanchesterCity]

Our staff costs for y/e 2013 were: 233m
Our staff costs for y/e 2014 were: 205m

UEFA's sanctions (I believe) are on the 205m figure, but also include bonuses, so any new contracts offering lower salary / more bonus don't necessarily help (although one would assume this year's lack of success will result in less cost to City!).

As I understand it, 205m is our cap. Is this correct?

sniff

Almost every single one of his posts contains a negative slant towards the club.

I don't cower to silly forum lynch mobs who can't stomach someone with an opinion.
The 'sniff' and 'are you a City' fan jibes are just unbecoming. I'm a season ticket holder and have loved City for close to 50 years.

Please post these so called negative comments about City... I'd like to see them for myself, because I'm not posting any.

Discuss the topic, FFP, and quit the slagging off and insinuations. It's pathetic.

 

[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 Those lathere are laws that can limit how businesses are run, or how certain companies can invest. ws 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.

Fanchester, your treating us to your usual vague, generalised waffle. No-one will argue that Sheikh Mansour can do what he likes with his money as you state, but they will argue that his right to invest in his football club is guaranteed in law and they will quote Article 101 of the EU Treaty to support that claim. They will go further and argue that the agreement between City and UEFA made last May is automatically void as stipulated in part 2 of the article. The onus is,therefore, upon UEFA to prove that it has imposed this limit on investment by the Sheikh because he is using his investment to prevent technical or economic progress or to try and eliminate competition. He has clearly NOT done any of these thing, and the argument that he has sought to do any of the things UEFA have tried to prevent is laughable (UEFA never mentions the exceptions justifying a ban on investment and certainly never argue that FFP is necessary in these terms). There is no case to answer, and your argument that UEFA can reasonably argue that Manchester City have established, or are in any way near to establishing "a monopoly on a market" or that "the wider public good" (whatever that is - and it would have to be specified clearly in court) is patently ridiculous as a cursory examination of the present situation shows. Since you never refer to Article 101 I reproduce it salient points for you to consider. It's hard to see UEFA not having to refer to it in court.

Article 101

1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings...which...

(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.

If you're going to use 101, use ALL of it... you've deliberately omitted part 3 which explains allowable exceptions which is PRECISELY what UEFA are arguing. That, is in no way 'condoning / supporting' UEFA. It's merely demonstrating what THEIR side are using as their rationale.

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:

any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,
any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,
any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,
which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:

(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;
(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.

Part 3 is THEIR rationale, not mine. But you cannot deny they are using that to implement FFP.
I believe it's wrong of them, I think they'd probably lose in court, but it's happening right now, and we are sanctioned by it. UEFA do HAVE a rationale, and that's it. We both think it's wrong, but you can't pretend they aren't using section 3 to try and justify it.

I can't spell it out any more clearly, section 3 is what UEFA are using to justify the existence of FFP. This is a fact.

All the talk in the world about 'no case to answer', 'UEFA don't have a leg to stand on' stacks up to nothing when we are currently affected by FFP!!!
FFP as it stands, is bullshit in my (and you eyes), but you're bonkers to think UEFA don't think they have their side of the story. They THINK they have justification, and part 3 is that justification in their eyes.
When people ask 'how can UEFA do this' - I'm telling them. Because part 3 gives them that little foothold.

 

[hgblue]

In most multinational businesses, they'd account for the profit in the most favourable country, and take the losses in perhaps a different more favourable country for that. Each part of the 'group' would charge other parts for its services in the most cost effective manner for the group as a whole.

In a sense, yes, it's creative accounting, or rather optimising your cost centres to maximise profits and minimise losses / costs (including tax). Now of course, there's a backlash against firms avoiding tax (not evading), as thought it's some morale outrage, and not just smart business.

Until now, UEFA have never really had to deal with the complexities of this. For the large part, Real Madrid are just RM and operate as a company in Spain. They will have a few small little ventures abroad, but for the large part, it's a simple (but big) Spanish company. Same with most clubs. I'm no dismissing how big clubs like RM and United are, or how great they've been at monetising their brand - they've been excellent, but they are still generally monolithic football clubs, with football club mentality.

What City are doing scares them, as it's a vastly different approach... multiple teams in multiple continents, sharing resources, potentially swapping players, and creating a synergy that benefits all the groups.
When a sponsor looks at City, they will be potentially be looking at multiple teams across the world, and it's very hard to say Manchester City is worth x% and New York City is worth y%, and the sponsor probably won't care. They've bought into the 'group' and are happy with the overall deal, and that's that.

Right now, it's obviously Manchester City that are the jewel in the crown by a long way, but in future, that might change. I'd like to think we'll always be the jewel in the crown, but the gap between us and NYC etc might not be quite as large.

What on earth are UEFA going to do if (hypothetical example), Apple sponsor CFG in America, primarily because of NYC, but they sponsor the group for 1bn. CFG split the funds equally between each part of the group (as the sponsorship IS for the group). And City end up with 200m of that.

UEFA are a footballing body, not business regulators, and they'll come unstuck if they try to venture into the business world much further.

It's none of UEFAs business how we raise our money and where we choose to invest it. It's not for UEFA to decide how much money our owner invests in his own business in order to make it grow. The restriction on investment is an absolute outrage that is purely about protecting elite level clubs and not about tackling debt. If UEFA had been serious about stopping clubs carrying debt, they merely had to introduce a limit on the amount of debt allowable before clubs could enter their competitions. But we all know why they didn't.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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 Those lathere are laws that can limit how businesses are run, or how certain companies can invest. ws 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.

Fanchester, your treating us to your usual vague, generalised waffle. No-one will argue that Sheikh Mansour can do what he likes with his money as you state, but they will argue that his right to invest in his football club is guaranteed in law and they will quote Article 101 of the EU Treaty to support that claim. They will go further and argue that the agreement between City and UEFA made last May is automatically void as stipulated in part 2 of the article. The onus is,therefore, upon UEFA to prove that it has imposed this limit on investment by the Sheikh because he is using his investment to prevent technical or economic progress or to try and eliminate competition. He has clearly NOT done any of these thing, and the argument that he has sought to do any of the things UEFA have tried to prevent is laughable (UEFA never mentions the exceptions justifying a ban on investment and certainly never argue that FFP is necessary in these terms). There is no case to answer, and your argument that UEFA can reasonably argue that Manchester City have established, or are in any way near to establishing "a monopoly on a market" or that "the wider public good" (whatever that is - and it would have to be specified clearly in court) is patently ridiculous as a cursory examination of the present situation shows. Since you never refer to Article 101 I reproduce it salient points for you to consider. It's hard to see UEFA not having to refer to it in court.

Article 101

1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings...which...

(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.

I enjoy your posts but I just think you're not correct on the legal situation. There are no certainties in law full stop so to say "there is no case to answer" is a bit silly. There's always a case to answer.

Plaintiffs seeking to challenge FFP under Article 101 would claim it restricts competition & investment and effectively sets up a cartel. UEFA would challenge that, probably on the grounds that FFP benefits the sport as a whole. There is an exemption where such agrements benefit consumers and I'm not a lawyer but I would expect UEFA's would claim this as a consumer benefit, which stops clubs gettng into debt and failing, etc.

I assume that Dupont wants groups like our OSC onboard in order to demonstrate that the break-even requirement has disadvantaged consumers (i.e. us, the paying fans) through higher prices at the turnstiles. I would also hope that he would seek to demonstrate that, by focusing on the mechanism of the break-even requirement and ignoring debt, there is really no benefit to the sport as the current mechanism offers no such protection to the financial health of clubs. Under current rules, Portsmouth would probably have passed FFP, which clearly renders it unfit for purpose. Also, in June 2008, we could easily have gone into administration and would still have probably passed FFP on the basis of the accounts to 2007 & 2008, even despite the fact that the assessment would have been carried out after we were in administration.

But let's be clear that there is no guarantee of success.

 

[FanchesterCity]

In most multinational businesses, they'd account for the profit in the most favourable country, and take the losses in perhaps a different more favourable country for that. Each part of the 'group' would charge other parts for its services in the most cost effective manner for the group as a whole.

In a sense, yes, it's creative accounting, or rather optimising your cost centres to maximise profits and minimise losses / costs (including tax). Now of course, there's a backlash against firms avoiding tax (not evading), as thought it's some morale outrage, and not just smart business.

Until now, UEFA have never really had to deal with the complexities of this. For the large part, Real Madrid are just RM and operate as a company in Spain. They will have a few small little ventures abroad, but for the large part, it's a simple (but big) Spanish company. Same with most clubs. I'm no dismissing how big clubs like RM and United are, or how great they've been at monetising their brand - they've been excellent, but they are still generally monolithic football clubs, with football club mentality.

What City are doing scares them, as it's a vastly different approach... multiple teams in multiple continents, sharing resources, potentially swapping players, and creating a synergy that benefits all the groups.
When a sponsor looks at City, they will be potentially be looking at multiple teams across the world, and it's very hard to say Manchester City is worth x% and New York City is worth y%, and the sponsor probably won't care. They've bought into the 'group' and are happy with the overall deal, and that's that.

Right now, it's obviously Manchester City that are the jewel in the crown by a long way, but in future, that might change. I'd like to think we'll always be the jewel in the crown, but the gap between us and NYC etc might not be quite as large.

What on earth are UEFA going to do if (hypothetical example), Apple sponsor CFG in America, primarily because of NYC, but they sponsor the group for 1bn. CFG split the funds equally between each part of the group (as the sponsorship IS for the group). And City end up with 200m of that.

UEFA are a footballing body, not business regulators, and they'll come unstuck if they try to venture into the business world much further.

It's none of UEFAs business how we raise our money and where we choose to invest it. It's not for UEFA to decide how much money our owner invests in his own business in order to make it grow. The restriction on investment is an absolute outrage that is purely about protecting elite level clubs and not about tackling debt. If UEFA had been serious about stopping clubs carrying debt, they merely had to introduce a limit on the amount of debt allowable before clubs could enter their competitions. But we all know why they didn't.

I agree entirely, and I think other clubs will soon try to copy what we are doing, because we'll show it to be successful. That will scupper some of UEFA's plans because some of the old G14 will start saying 'don't block that, because we need to use that ourselves!'.
That's already starting to happen now that FFP looks like it might affect some of the old guard, they suddenly start questioning FFP.

Technically, there's no restriction on levels on investment, just how we invest (stopping us spending on the team). We can spend as much as we like on infrastructure and youth development etc, but all the same, it's restricting what we do with it, and slowing us down.
Sadly F1 has set a precedent for this though, as they have restrictions on funding for teams, so it's happened in other sports. That said, F1's got similar problems now... smaller teams have no hope of competing with the big boys.

 

[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 Those lathere are laws that can limit how businesses are run, or how certain companies can invest. ws 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.

Fanchester, your treating us to your usual vague, generalised waffle. No-one will argue that Sheikh Mansour can do what he likes with his money as you state, but they will argue that his right to invest in his football club is guaranteed in law and they will quote Article 101 of the EU Treaty to support that claim. They will go further and argue that the agreement between City and UEFA made last May is automatically void as stipulated in part 2 of the article. The onus is,therefore, upon UEFA to prove that it has imposed this limit on investment by the Sheikh because he is using his investment to prevent technical or economic progress or to try and eliminate competition. He has clearly NOT done any of these thing, and the argument that he has sought to do any of the things UEFA have tried to prevent is laughable (UEFA never mentions the exceptions justifying a ban on investment and certainly never argue that FFP is necessary in these terms). There is no case to answer, and your argument that UEFA can reasonably argue that Manchester City have established, or are in any way near to establishing "a monopoly on a market" or that "the wider public good" (whatever that is - and it would have to be specified clearly in court) is patently ridiculous as a cursory examination of the present situation shows. Since you never refer to Article 101 I reproduce it salient points for you to consider. It's hard to see UEFA not having to refer to it in court.

Article 101

1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings...which...

(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.

I enjoy your posts but I just think you're not correct on the legal situation. There are no certainties in law full stop so to say "there is no case to answer" is a bit silly. There's always a case to answer.

Plaintiffs seeking to challenge FFP under Article 101 would claim it restricts competition & investment and effectively sets up a cartel. UEFA would challenge that, probably on the grounds that FFP benefits the sport as a whole. There is an exemption where such agrements benefit consumers and I'm not a lawyer but I would expect UEFA's would claim this as a consumer benefit, which stops clubs gettng into debt and failing, etc.

I assume that Dupont wants groups like our OSC onboard in order to demonstrate that the break-even requirement has disadvantaged consumers (i.e. us, the paying fans) through higher prices at the turnstiles. I would also hope that he would seek to demonstrate that, by focusing on the mechanism of the break-even requirement and ignoring debt, there is really no benefit to the sport as the current mechanism offers no such protection to the financial health of clubs. Under current rules, Portsmouth would probably have passed FFP, which clearly renders it unfit for purpose. Also, in June 2008, we could easily have gone into administration and would still have probably passed FFP on the basis of the accounts to 2007 & 2008, even despite the fact that the assessment would have been carried out after we were in administration.

But let's be clear that there is no guarantee of success.

Thank you for posting this, because I was going slightly insane trying to explain this and thought I was the only one who could see how UEFA will put forward their case.
It's awful trying to explain what 'the other side' will use as their defence, because people assume you're defending it yourself (and I'm not).
To win in court, you MUST know what the other side will throw at you, and what their arguments are going to be. That's how you defeat them. If you think they won't have any arguments, you'll almost certainly lose, because you've not done your job.

'No case to answer' is complacent in my view. It's much better to say 'we know what your case is, and here's why it's wrong'.

 

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

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 Those lathere are laws that can limit how businesses are run, or how certain companies can invest. ws 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.

Fanchester, your treating us to your usual vague, generalised waffle. No-one will argue that Sheikh Mansour can do what he likes with his money as you state, but they will argue that his right to invest in his football club is guaranteed in law and they will quote Article 101 of the EU Treaty to support that claim. They will go further and argue that the agreement between City and UEFA made last May is automatically void as stipulated in part 2 of the article. The onus is,therefore, upon UEFA to prove that it has imposed this limit on investment by the Sheikh because he is using his investment to prevent technical or economic progress or to try and eliminate competition. He has clearly NOT done any of these thing, and the argument that he has sought to do any of the things UEFA have tried to prevent is laughable (UEFA never mentions the exceptions justifying a ban on investment and certainly never argue that FFP is necessary in these terms). There is no case to answer, and your argument that UEFA can reasonably argue that Manchester City have established, or are in any way near to establishing "a monopoly on a market" or that "the wider public good" (whatever that is - and it would have to be specified clearly in court) is patently ridiculous as a cursory examination of the present situation shows. Since you never refer to Article 101 I reproduce it salient points for you to consider. It's hard to see UEFA not having to refer to it in court.

Article 101

1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings...which...

(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.

If you're going to use 101, use ALL of it... you've deliberately omitted part 3 which explains allowable exceptions which is PRECISELY what UEFA are arguing. That, is in no way 'condoning / supporting' UEFA. It's merely demonstrating what THEIR side are using as their rationale.

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:

any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,
any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,
any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,
which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:

(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;
(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.

Part 3 is THEIR rationale, not mine. But you cannot deny they are using that to implement FFP.
I believe it's wrong of them, I think they'd probably lose in court, but it's happening right now, and we are sanctioned by it. UEFA do HAVE a rationale, and that's it. We both think it's wrong, but you can't pretend they aren't using section 3 to try and justify it.

I can't spell it out any more clearly, section 3 is what UEFA are using to justify the existence of FFP. This is a fact.

All the talk in the world about 'no case to answer', 'UEFA don't have a leg to stand on' stacks up to nothing when we are currently affected by FFP!!!
FFP as it stands, is bullshit in my (and you eyes), but you're bonkers to think UEFA don't think they have their side of the story. They THINK they have justification, and part 3 is that justification in their eyes.
When people ask 'how can UEFA do this' - I'm telling them. Because part 3 gives them that little foothold.

Very much so, and FWIW excellent posts and coverage of these issues in my opinion as a (admittedly non-EU) attorney.

I do believe that any case against UEFA is fairly strong on the merits from the research I have done into this. Not to get back into all the legal minutiae (which has obviously been discussed to death), but if I were having a go at section three there would be a lot of material to mine for arguments. For example an antitrust argument along the lines of what worked in the Mastercard interchange case out of that court last fall on the basis of concentrated market power (think the cartel clubs) driving up prices for consumers (i.e. football fans.)

Subpart (b) as to the aspect of eliminating competition would trouble me greatly if I were a UEFA attorney.

As you say, "perverse" rulings can always come down, and in such high-stakes undertakings the typical litigants will usually have more interest in reaching a settlement of some sort than in going to the mattresses, so to speak. So the likely outcome to all of this would almost certainly be a looser set of restrictions.

Another excellent point made - the inherent complexity of regulating multinational enterprises operating in multiple jurisdictions across the world. Here is my thought as to CFG - you can't really unpack a commercial deal made with the whole of it very well. So certainly something theoretically done that affects a principal element of it (MCFC) has impact upon other elements. Say, for example, NYCFC.

So UEFA moves the goalposts yet again and attempts to squash some worldwide arrangement CFG has made with a large corporate sponsor.

Well then. Welcome to antitrust scrutiny in the United States, motherfuckers. (Complex issue and outside the scope of all this, but worth considering if the ECJ declines to get too involved with dismantling all this.)

I'm not saying this is why CFG was set up, obviously. But I see it having an ancillary benefit as a hedge against theoretical regulatory risk in one place or another.

 

[Ric]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Rob Pollard tweeted this earlier:

@RobPollard_: City fans: buy the Sunday Mirror tomorrow. #ffp

No idea what they're going to report though.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

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 Those lathere are laws that can limit how businesses are run, or how certain companies can invest. ws 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.

Fanchester, your treating us to your usual vague, generalised waffle. No-one will argue that Sheikh Mansour can do what he likes with his money as you state, but they will argue that his right to invest in his football club is guaranteed in law and they will quote Article 101 of the EU Treaty to support that claim. They will go further and argue that the agreement between City and UEFA made last May is automatically void as stipulated in part 2 of the article. The onus is,therefore, upon UEFA to prove that it has imposed this limit on investment by the Sheikh because he is using his investment to prevent technical or economic progress or to try and eliminate competition. He has clearly NOT done any of these thing, and the argument that he has sought to do any of the things UEFA have tried to prevent is laughable (UEFA never mentions the exceptions justifying a ban on investment and certainly never argue that FFP is necessary in these terms). There is no case to answer, and your argument that UEFA can reasonably argue that Manchester City have established, or are in any way near to establishing "a monopoly on a market" or that "the wider public good" (whatever that is - and it would have to be specified clearly in court) is patently ridiculous as a cursory examination of the present situation shows. Since you never refer to Article 101 I reproduce it salient points for you to consider. It's hard to see UEFA not having to refer to it in court.

Article 101

1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings...which...

(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.

If you're going to use 101, use ALL of it... you've deliberately omitted part 3 which explains allowable exceptions which is PRECISELY what UEFA are arguing. That, is in no way 'condoning / supporting' UEFA. It's merely demonstrating what THEIR side are using as their rationale.

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:

any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,
any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,
any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,
which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:

(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;
(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.

Part 3 is THEIR rationale, not mine. But you cannot deny they are using that to implement FFP.
I believe it's wrong of them, I think they'd probably lose in court, but it's happening right now, and we are sanctioned by it. UEFA do HAVE a rationale, and that's it. We both think it's wrong, but you can't pretend they aren't using section 3 to try and justify it.

I can't spell it out any more clearly, section 3 is what UEFA are using to justify the existence of FFP. This is a fact.

All the talk in the world about 'no case to answer', 'UEFA don't have a leg to stand on' stacks up to nothing when we are currently affected by FFP!!!
FFP as it stands, is bullshit in my (and you eyes), but you're bonkers to think UEFA don't think they have their side of the story. They THINK they have justification, and part 3 is that justification in their eyes.
When people ask 'how can UEFA do this' - I'm telling them. Because part 3 gives them that little foothold.

No they aren't using Part 3 of Article 101, Fanchester; that's actually the fact. UEFA make no reference at all to Article 101 and make no attempt to argue that any investment in football attempts to achieve any of the undesirable ends detailed in Part 3. I'v asked you before to tell me anythin Sheikh Mansour has invested in which would justify a limit on his investment and you can't, and UEFA can't. UEFA actally justifies FFP on the following grounds:-

• to introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances

• to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect

• to encourage clubs to compete with(in) their revenues

• to encourage long-term investments in the youth sector and infrastructure

• to protect the long-term viability of European club football

• to ensure clubs settle their liabilities on a timely basis.

The question raised is in what we at all have Manchester City done anything at all to merit any punishment at all? Manchester United, Real Madrid and Barcelona appear to be far more deserving of sanctions, but City don't need to argue that.

 

[squirtyflower]

Rob Pollard tweeted this earlier:

@RobPollard_: City fans: buy the Sunday Mirror tomorrow. #ffp

No idea what they're going to report though.

is he on the podcast?