You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,012
I'd be very surprised if anyone came out to criticise FFP, or blame it for the performance this season, bearing in mind the club's public stance so far and Khaldoon's pinch comment.
If Kompany does come out with that, it would be very interesting to know who had authorised it.
If Kompany does come out with that, it would be very interesting to know who had authorised it.
Prestwich_Blue said:I've got some strident views on Kompany. He was a lot better at Palace but I wish he'd shut his mouth and do his talking on the pitch. The club has kept its counsel on FFP (although I'm sure certain journos are aware of their feelings) so why let Kompany have a public whinge?dasblues said:mrtwiceaseason said:Pretty safe bet that on the day of the derby it will be very anti city !
It's an interview with kompany where he gives some strident views on FFP
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
When you're not playing well, individually, or as a team, any mention of FFP just looks like sour grapes.
Still, let's not hang him out to dry before we've read what he has to say.
The trouble is, journalist will 'lead' a player into mentioning it. They'll ask 'what's your view on the restrictions', and then a player will answer honestly, but the media will make it look like it's a moan. They can even say something like 'do you think United's spending has strengthened them?' and a player will say 'of course'. Then the headline is 'United's money gives them the advantage' - and the rest of the world thinks 'thats a bit rich from City'.
But what can you do? if don't give press interviews, they'll stitch you up, if you vet the questions, they'll report that, and make you look anal, and if you give a frank interview, they'll cherry pick your frank views!
Still, let's not hang him out to dry before we've read what he has to say.
The trouble is, journalist will 'lead' a player into mentioning it. They'll ask 'what's your view on the restrictions', and then a player will answer honestly, but the media will make it look like it's a moan. They can even say something like 'do you think United's spending has strengthened them?' and a player will say 'of course'. Then the headline is 'United's money gives them the advantage' - and the rest of the world thinks 'thats a bit rich from City'.
But what can you do? if don't give press interviews, they'll stitch you up, if you vet the questions, they'll report that, and make you look anal, and if you give a frank interview, they'll cherry pick your frank views!
BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
I'll try and explain my argument more clearly. FFP imposes a permanent ban on owner investment in football clubs for the purpose of buying players. This is clearly at odds with Article 101 of the EU Treaty which prohibits any agreement to limit investment. Paragraph 3 does envisage circumstances in which a limit on investment may be justified. My point is that a limit is justified only in these circumstances and Paragraph 3 does certainly not permit any permanent ban or limit on investment. Now, another interesting fact is that UEFA has never put forward any defence of its position, which may not be surprising for two reasons: it has never had to defend its regulations in court (yet) and the circumstances outlined in Paragraph 3 clearly do not obtain in City's case. Article 101 is clearly a massive obstacle to UEFA and would therefore appear insuperable generally, but certainly in the case of the sanctions imposed on Manchester City.
When UEFA's literature on FFP is studied one of the most obvious and glaring omissions is any attempt to justify FFP on legal grounds. The problem of Article 101 is simply ignored. All the UEFA literature is generalised, deals with general problems and aspirations and makes no mention of Manchester City or Sheikh Mansour. In fact, it relies on assertion; FFP is in the best interests of football, and as it is UEFA saying this we are simply expected to put up with it. It then goes on to tell us that FFP is necessary,
• 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 first thing to notice is that these have nothing at all in common with the grounds for a limit on investment outlined in Paragraph 3 and will probably be rejected on those grounds alone. The second is that there is a degree of vagueness, a lack of clarity which raises the question as to what they actually mean and in many cases as to what concern of UEFA they actually are. The court will decide that these are not sufficient to consider a ban or limit on investment. To take them in the order in which I have listed them:
In the specific case of Manchester City it is necessary to ask in what way they justify any sanction. What is the indiscipline and irrationality in the finances of a club which has no debt? What business is it of UEFA's? If UEFA aren't happy, why are they convinced that a world record fine will make City's finances more disciplined and rational?
Competing within their revenues is a highly misleading phrase because UEFA have already disqualified, on grounds without any regard to club owners' rights, a potentially significant part of a club's revenues. Competing within club revenues as defined by Europe clearly means competing on unequal terms for many clubs and it perpetuates that situation by a permanent ban on investment to improve. Such investment is taken for granted in every other sector of the economy.
To decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect is one of those phrases designed to elicit approval without rational thought. One has to ask whether this is any of UEFA's business. Every company in the world will argue that it has to, and does, reserve the right to pay what it needs to recruit the right staff and football clubs are no exception. But here, we see clearly that if there are clubs inflating the transfer market Manchester City is not one of them. Of the 20 most expensive transfers ever 15 have taken place since Sheikh Mansour bought Manchester City, and yet not a single one has inolved City! Nearly half (7) have taken players to Real Madrid, Barcelona have bought 2 while Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal have bought one each. In the case of Mancheter United, Real Madrid and Barcelona UEFA must be concerned at the lack of disciplineand rationality in their finances because their debts are the largest in football, as are those of Chelsea's holding company! In the case of Manchester United their wage bill has increased this year as a result of their record spending on players in the summer of 2014! Manchester City's wage bill went down. None of these other clubs is subject to any sanction because of UEFA's arbitrary and irrational refusal to count money invested by the owner as revenue and to argue that that the five other clubs are, therefore, living within their means. This ignores the fact that it is actually money spent which has an inflationary effect and that money taken in from player sales can have an inflationary effect. Perhaps, therefore, revenue from TV, sponsorship and marketing should be disqualified to control any inflationary effect - if it is found to be any business of UEFA's.
Manchester City have recently opened a training facility which many observers consider the best in the world and so should be commended by UEFA, and I doubt UEFA are claiming that we have not settled any liabilities on time, which leaves the question of the long term viability of European club football. It is hard to see what role world record fines, squad restrictions and spending caps can do here when applied to clubs whose long term viability is not in question. Manchester City are not in debt, are worth a great deal more than they were in 2008, have assets which are more valuable than most and enjoys revenues even from "UEFA sources" which are growing rapidly. If the Sheikh were to " (and UEFA have no right or evidence to believe he will, and no right to concern themselves with the question) walk away" he would sell a club in robust good health. UEFA does not ask the question of Manchester United, but asserts that its debt of some £350 million (unlike our total lack of debt) is not a cause for concern! It is irrational, against natural justice and unlawful to punish a club simply because the owner wants to buy good players and will pay for them. Manchester City under Sheikh Mansour are improving and growing and are simply building a better club and team - they do not threaten the long term viability of club football.
It is not good enough to say that FFP "benefits sport as a whole" if its used to clobber clubs which are benefitting the sport and if you can't point to particular benefits. You can't argue that investment in City makes City better than other teams and thus damages "the sport as a whole" since the aim of investment is to make your business better able to compete! The corollary may also be true - the sanctions and FFP are aimed at making City less competitive and are therefore anti-competitive.
When UEFA's literature on FFP is studied one of the most obvious and glaring omissions is any attempt to justify FFP on legal grounds. The problem of Article 101 is simply ignored. All the UEFA literature is generalised, deals with general problems and aspirations and makes no mention of Manchester City or Sheikh Mansour. In fact, it relies on assertion; FFP is in the best interests of football, and as it is UEFA saying this we are simply expected to put up with it. It then goes on to tell us that FFP is necessary,
• 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 first thing to notice is that these have nothing at all in common with the grounds for a limit on investment outlined in Paragraph 3 and will probably be rejected on those grounds alone. The second is that there is a degree of vagueness, a lack of clarity which raises the question as to what they actually mean and in many cases as to what concern of UEFA they actually are. The court will decide that these are not sufficient to consider a ban or limit on investment. To take them in the order in which I have listed them:
In the specific case of Manchester City it is necessary to ask in what way they justify any sanction. What is the indiscipline and irrationality in the finances of a club which has no debt? What business is it of UEFA's? If UEFA aren't happy, why are they convinced that a world record fine will make City's finances more disciplined and rational?
Competing within their revenues is a highly misleading phrase because UEFA have already disqualified, on grounds without any regard to club owners' rights, a potentially significant part of a club's revenues. Competing within club revenues as defined by Europe clearly means competing on unequal terms for many clubs and it perpetuates that situation by a permanent ban on investment to improve. Such investment is taken for granted in every other sector of the economy.
To decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect is one of those phrases designed to elicit approval without rational thought. One has to ask whether this is any of UEFA's business. Every company in the world will argue that it has to, and does, reserve the right to pay what it needs to recruit the right staff and football clubs are no exception. But here, we see clearly that if there are clubs inflating the transfer market Manchester City is not one of them. Of the 20 most expensive transfers ever 15 have taken place since Sheikh Mansour bought Manchester City, and yet not a single one has inolved City! Nearly half (7) have taken players to Real Madrid, Barcelona have bought 2 while Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal have bought one each. In the case of Mancheter United, Real Madrid and Barcelona UEFA must be concerned at the lack of disciplineand rationality in their finances because their debts are the largest in football, as are those of Chelsea's holding company! In the case of Manchester United their wage bill has increased this year as a result of their record spending on players in the summer of 2014! Manchester City's wage bill went down. None of these other clubs is subject to any sanction because of UEFA's arbitrary and irrational refusal to count money invested by the owner as revenue and to argue that that the five other clubs are, therefore, living within their means. This ignores the fact that it is actually money spent which has an inflationary effect and that money taken in from player sales can have an inflationary effect. Perhaps, therefore, revenue from TV, sponsorship and marketing should be disqualified to control any inflationary effect - if it is found to be any business of UEFA's.
Manchester City have recently opened a training facility which many observers consider the best in the world and so should be commended by UEFA, and I doubt UEFA are claiming that we have not settled any liabilities on time, which leaves the question of the long term viability of European club football. It is hard to see what role world record fines, squad restrictions and spending caps can do here when applied to clubs whose long term viability is not in question. Manchester City are not in debt, are worth a great deal more than they were in 2008, have assets which are more valuable than most and enjoys revenues even from "UEFA sources" which are growing rapidly. If the Sheikh were to " (and UEFA have no right or evidence to believe he will, and no right to concern themselves with the question) walk away" he would sell a club in robust good health. UEFA does not ask the question of Manchester United, but asserts that its debt of some £350 million (unlike our total lack of debt) is not a cause for concern! It is irrational, against natural justice and unlawful to punish a club simply because the owner wants to buy good players and will pay for them. Manchester City under Sheikh Mansour are improving and growing and are simply building a better club and team - they do not threaten the long term viability of club football.
It is not good enough to say that FFP "benefits sport as a whole" if its used to clobber clubs which are benefitting the sport and if you can't point to particular benefits. You can't argue that investment in City makes City better than other teams and thus damages "the sport as a whole" since the aim of investment is to make your business better able to compete! The corollary may also be true - the sanctions and FFP are aimed at making City less competitive and are therefore anti-competitive.
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
how can a player criticise FFPR?
"It's bad that the club can't buy players because I'm not good enough to deliver the success they require".
Maybe if you played to the level expected of you Vinnie we'd still be challenging Chelsea, your "performance" at home to Arsenal was a key turning point in the season.
"It's bad that the club can't buy players because I'm not good enough to deliver the success they require".
Maybe if you played to the level expected of you Vinnie we'd still be challenging Chelsea, your "performance" at home to Arsenal was a key turning point in the season.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't be concerned how the Sunday Mirror dressed any Kompany interview they might have.
Simon Mullock would no doubt have conducted it and he's not going to leg City over.
I do agree, however, Vinny needs to keep his own counsel because he's not able to back his mouth up this season.
Simon Mullock would no doubt have conducted it and he's not going to leg City over.
I do agree, however, Vinny needs to keep his own counsel because he's not able to back his mouth up this season.
Kazzydeyna
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 3,010
I might be missing something here but can we refrain as a fan base from hanging out our captain to dry on the weekend of a derby?
We don't yet know what, if anything, Kompany has said to the mirror. A paper with a long and proud history of writing hit pieces on our club.
And a captain who has given our club more in the last few years than almost any player in my lifetime (I'm 44).
Never forget, it's the weekend of a derby. Believe what you read tomorrow very much at your peril and FFS get, and stay, behind the team.
Including, and especially, our captain.
We don't yet know what, if anything, Kompany has said to the mirror. A paper with a long and proud history of writing hit pieces on our club.
And a captain who has given our club more in the last few years than almost any player in my lifetime (I'm 44).
Never forget, it's the weekend of a derby. Believe what you read tomorrow very much at your peril and FFS get, and stay, behind the team.
Including, and especially, our captain.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
No it doesn't. It imposes a limit on club's spending based on their income. Another part of FFP restricts the amount an owner can invest to €40m over three seasons. Using hysterical words like 'ban' doesn't encourage me to read on.BluessinceHydeRoad said:I'll try and explain my argument more clearly. FFP imposes a permanent ban on owner investment in football clubs for the purpose of buying players.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Here, here.Kazzydeyna said:I might be missing something here but can we refrain as a fan base from hanging out our captain to dry on the weekend of a derby?
We don't yet know what, if anything, Kompany has said to the mirror. A paper with a long and proud history of writing hit pieces on our club.
And a captain who has given our club more in the last few years than almost any player in my lifetime (I'm 44).
Never forget, it's the weekend of a derby. Believe what you read tomorrow very much at your peril and FFS get, and stay, behind the team.
Including, and especially, our captain.
Jeez, we don't even know what it's about except being broadly FFP directed or who they've spoken to and people are jumping all over Kompany.
He's been hung out to dry all season. The last few posts just reiterate that. He's been slagged in his birthday thread, his two other threads and now this one has suddenly given the same people another opportunity.Kazzydeyna said:I might be missing something here but can we refrain as a fan base from hanging out our captain to dry on the weekend of a derby?
We don't yet know what, if anything, Kompany has said to the mirror. A paper with a long and proud history of writing hit pieces on our club.
And a captain who has given our club more in the last few years than almost any player in my lifetime (I'm 44).
Never forget, it's the weekend of a derby. Believe what you read tomorrow very much at your peril and FFS get, and stay, behind the team.
Including, and especially, our captain.
It's a sad state of affairs how our fanbase have turned on him, not unsurprising though unfortunately.