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
BLUE THUNDER
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 502
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. 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.
I agree 100%. Designed pure and simple out of fear to stop us and others like us.
FFP wont stand the test of time.
I always felt we should have called UEFA's bluff however chances are someone else will do it for us anyway eg Du Pont. unless of course they try and punish us again and force our hand, which I doubt they would have the balls to do because they know legally their rules are dubious. We should spend what we want like PSG and let them have a go at us.
The biggest farce of all was that PSG got the same penalties as us yet they spent a tonne more money on transfers with revenue streams that were made in Disneyland. That's how farcical this thing is.
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
I absolutely sympathise with many of your points, because, as we both know, FFP isn't really doing the job that UEFA claim.
I differ from you in that I think the battle to defeat it will be more complex.
Formula One has spending limits. So there's a precedent for sport putting spending limits on teams. What good it's actually done Formula One is another matter!.... but other sports have had spending restrictions applied... either in terms of how much you can spend on the development of the team, or on how much you can spend on salaries (as a combined unit).
We also have to deal with the slightly banal argument that UEFA could put forwards... 'we aren't FORCING you to take part in our competition', We are, in theory, able to go and form some other competition, or a breakaway league. It's not a very practical option, but they can certainly make that argument. They aren't forcing any club to do anything.
We can demonstrate all the great things we've done - beautiful stadium, amazing training facilities, community involvement etc, and UEFA can say 'that's great, that's precisely how we want to steer investment, back into facilities and opportunities'. Cheeky of them, but no doubt they've got cheek enough to say it.
UEFA are never going to mention any specific club in their general chat about FFP, after all, even if it was specifically targeting certain clubs, they can't admit that!... they are always going to use general terms.
They'll also cheekily say 'since their investment, City have won 4 trophies and partaken in CL almost every year, and were it not for FFP, there's a very real danger they'd have become too dominant'. I KNOW it's a bloody cheek, but it's what they'll say. They'll also say, despite FFP, we have managed to do that, thus proving success is still possible, even with restrictions!
In our favour, we can demonstrate that the consumer has not seen any significant benefit. TV subscription prices have not fallen, not have ticket prices or merchandise costs'. in UEFA's favour they'll say that football's now available through even more channel, more accessible across the world, with revenues rising and more fans watching, and *cough* no teams have dominated.
They'll also say that UEFA didn't act arbitrarily, but acted on behalf of the industry who asked for regulation. The clubs themselves wanted it. Of course, we all know that was a limited subset of clubs, most of whom could be accused of merely protecting themselves.
They'll probably say that it's too soon to judge the effects of FFP yet - which could be a great point for us to use against them.... what studies did they carry out prior to developing the rules? what other measures did they consider (if any)? Why were they ruled out? etc. I think there's a very good argument to say they could have introduced far less stringent controls first, and adjust those accordingly over a period of time, not jump right in with pretty heavy restrictions.
They've also paid absolutely no heed to debt levels (I agree with you on that entirely). Debt's not necessarily bad, but debt, is essentially a risk, and large debt is a large risk. The staggering avoidance of tackling that won't look good in court.
I don't know if we're getting anywhere discussing these aspects forever. We'll say one thing, UEFA will say another until the cows come home, or someone puts a stop to them.
I differ from you in that I think the battle to defeat it will be more complex.
Formula One has spending limits. So there's a precedent for sport putting spending limits on teams. What good it's actually done Formula One is another matter!.... but other sports have had spending restrictions applied... either in terms of how much you can spend on the development of the team, or on how much you can spend on salaries (as a combined unit).
We also have to deal with the slightly banal argument that UEFA could put forwards... 'we aren't FORCING you to take part in our competition', We are, in theory, able to go and form some other competition, or a breakaway league. It's not a very practical option, but they can certainly make that argument. They aren't forcing any club to do anything.
We can demonstrate all the great things we've done - beautiful stadium, amazing training facilities, community involvement etc, and UEFA can say 'that's great, that's precisely how we want to steer investment, back into facilities and opportunities'. Cheeky of them, but no doubt they've got cheek enough to say it.
UEFA are never going to mention any specific club in their general chat about FFP, after all, even if it was specifically targeting certain clubs, they can't admit that!... they are always going to use general terms.
They'll also cheekily say 'since their investment, City have won 4 trophies and partaken in CL almost every year, and were it not for FFP, there's a very real danger they'd have become too dominant'. I KNOW it's a bloody cheek, but it's what they'll say. They'll also say, despite FFP, we have managed to do that, thus proving success is still possible, even with restrictions!
In our favour, we can demonstrate that the consumer has not seen any significant benefit. TV subscription prices have not fallen, not have ticket prices or merchandise costs'. in UEFA's favour they'll say that football's now available through even more channel, more accessible across the world, with revenues rising and more fans watching, and *cough* no teams have dominated.
They'll also say that UEFA didn't act arbitrarily, but acted on behalf of the industry who asked for regulation. The clubs themselves wanted it. Of course, we all know that was a limited subset of clubs, most of whom could be accused of merely protecting themselves.
They'll probably say that it's too soon to judge the effects of FFP yet - which could be a great point for us to use against them.... what studies did they carry out prior to developing the rules? what other measures did they consider (if any)? Why were they ruled out? etc. I think there's a very good argument to say they could have introduced far less stringent controls first, and adjust those accordingly over a period of time, not jump right in with pretty heavy restrictions.
They've also paid absolutely no heed to debt levels (I agree with you on that entirely). Debt's not necessarily bad, but debt, is essentially a risk, and large debt is a large risk. The staggering avoidance of tackling that won't look good in court.
I don't know if we're getting anywhere discussing these aspects forever. We'll say one thing, UEFA will say another until the cows come home, or someone puts a stop to them.
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
BLUE THUNDER said: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. 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.
I agree 100%. Designed pure and simple out of fear to stop us and others like us.
FFP wont stand the test of time.
I always felt we should have called UEFA's bluff however chances are someone else will do it for us anyway eg Du Pont. unless of course they try and punish us again and force our hand, which I doubt they would have the balls to do because they know legally their rules are dubious. We should spend what we want like PSG and let them have a go at us.
The biggest farce of all was that PSG got the same penalties as us yet they spent a tonne more money on transfers with revenue streams that were made in Disneyland. That's how farcical this thing is.
They had their sponsorship deal halved as a related party, we managed to avoid that.
But yes, in hindsight, we might as well have spent more!
Just as interesting though was that PSG also chose to 'take the pinch' - so they didn't fancy the legal battle either.
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
Damanino said:Anything about the possible new sponsors? How big they are, what they are...
A few posters have said SAP are one of them, and there's been rumours of an improved deal with Etihad. Citibank were also mentioned I believe. I have no inside info though. A few on here might have.
The FFP sanctions (again) put some restrictions on us having improved deals with some sponsors, so we'll have to see if that goes away over the summer.
I'd guess City would prefer to get rid of the FFP shackles over the summer, finish the south stand, then launch the new season with a brand new stand, new signings, and improved sponsorship, and get us all excited again. *fingers crossed*
Damanino said:Anything about the possible new sponsors? How big they are, what they are...
I would imagine that someone will replace etihad as our shirt sponsor with them continuing the stadium and campus.
Could be worth an additional £25m per year if we play our cards right.
I beleive this was mooted a couple of years ago but never materialised
Citibank would look good on our shirts, imagine the banter :). But would Etihad allow that? We still have a long-term deal with them and even though there is an obvious association, why would they want that to end (rather than renegotiating it)?
LoveCity said:Citibank would look good on our shirts, imagine the banter :). But would Etihad allow that? We still have a long-term deal with them and even though there is an obvious association, why would they want that to end (rather than renegotiating it)?
Their partnership with us would not end , in fact we could legitimately increase the amount we get for the naming rights alone. The stadium will gain even more exposure next season with the expansion and the news that will generate.
Increase the naming rights by £20m per season, plus £25m for a blue chip shirt sponsor.
We will be the most talked about club in the summer , I'm of the opinion that we are about to get serious again with some stellar names arriving....
Companies will be falling over themselves to be a part of that.