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

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I can't believe people are having a go at Kompany for talking about FFP in a newspaper article.

The notion that he would have done so without the express consent of the club descends into the realm of the absurd. It is quite possibly that he has, in actual fact, done so at the club's behest.

Accordingly, he is beyond reproach in that regard.

It's open season on Vinny at the moment because he hasn't had the best of seasons. Talk about fickle eh?

It's very sad.

We've always had a strand of supporters who seem to get aroused by viciously vilifying certain players, even though they bleed blue. Paul Power springs to mind. David White got it in the neck at times too.

I expect it's because of shortcomings in their wider lives.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Then I suppose the question is who at the club would have sanctioned it? I am sure the owner wants to play nice with UEFA in public. Khaldoon can't make too much of the effect of the sanctions after his pinch comment.

I hope the management know what they are doing.

I can't believe people are having a go at Kompany for talking about FFP in a newspaper article.

The notion that he would have done so without the express consent of the club descends into the realm of the absurd. It is quite possible that he has, in actual fact, done so at the club's behest.

Accordingly, he is beyond reproach in that regard.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I hope the management know what they are doing.

Yeah, I reckon they might.

 

[Phil1]

Then I suppose the question is who at the club would have sanctioned it? I am sure the owner wants to play nice with UEFA in public. Khaldoon can't make too much of the effect of the sanctions after his pinch comment.

I hope the management know what they are doing.

I can't believe people are having a go at Kompany for talking about FFP in a newspaper article.

The notion that he would have done so without the express consent of the club descends into the realm of the absurd. It is quite possible that he has, in actual fact, done so at the club's behest.

Accordingly, he is beyond reproach in that regard.

I believe the interview has been done by Simon Mullock from the Sunday Mirror?
He's a blue first and foremost and his writing has never been of the "sensationalist" persuasion, just honest facts without bias. I don't for one second think there'll be any negative slants put on it, just a straightforward Q&A with Kompany being told by the club how far he can go.
There's not a chance on earth he's been given Carte Blanche to say what he wants. The club are way to savvy for that these days.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Surely the restriction of spending in F1 and the likes of the salary cap in the NFL , for example, have to be agreed by every participating member of said groups or organisations and not just supported by a handful of interested parties to be used to limit others in the same market from becoming competitive, which would make the point of "precedence" redundant in this case. For uefa to try and imply that it was demanded by the clubs is not strictly accurate, or as you could say , an untruth.
And surely too, they could not say that without FFP , we "would" or "could" have become dominant, as that would require a good deal of speculation which could not be allowed in any court.

Yes and no. Some F1 teams weren't happy with it, but it happened anyway, and now there are new teams entering the game who are against parts of it.
The precedent is that financial restrictions on sports teams can happen. It's not de facto 'illegal'. If agreed and implemented appropriately it's allowed.


.

So it's not been legally challenged then? So not a legal precedent?

Not as far as I'm aware (not for sport). It's been challenged for other industries, but they aren't comparable to this issue.
As far as I know, it's a bit of an 'unknown', someone needs to test the water... but nobody wants to get wet doing it!

EDIT:
There are SOME precedents prior to 101 that can still be used, where sport HAS been deemed worthy of special exemption, and there equally plenty of others where it hasn't!. In general sport is never above the law. But that's not the argument here really, the argument is if FFP qualifies under 101(3).
The law will still take into account precedents that simply 'happen' in society. Less so once there's a legal precedent set. Even if one is set, it can be changed (just much more rare).
I think we've got a great case, but since we may not be hindered by it any more, if it worth City being the guinea pig?

 

[Stoned Rose]

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.

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.

 

[EricBrooksGhost]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Yes and no. Some F1 teams weren't happy with it, but it happened anyway, and now there are new teams entering the game who are against parts of it.
The precedent is that financial restrictions on sports teams can happen. It's not de facto 'illegal'. If agreed and implemented appropriately it's allowed.


.

So it's not been legally challenged then? So not a legal precedent?

Not as far as I'm aware (not for sport). It's been challenged for other industries, but they aren't comparable to this issue.
As far as I know, it's a bit of an 'unknown', someone needs to test the water... but nobody wants to get wet doing it!

EDIT:
There are SOME precedents prior to 101 that can still be used, where sport HAS been deemed worthy of special exemption, and there equally plenty of others where it hasn't!. In general sport is never above the law. But that's not the argument here really, the argument is if FFP qualifies under 101(3).
The law will still take into account precedents that simply 'happen' in society. Less so once there's a legal precedent set. Even if one is set, it can be changed (just much more rare).
I think we've got a great case, but since we may not be hindered by it any more, if it worth City being the guinea pig?

FFS just breathe a little; if there was ever a lesson in "less is more"

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

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.

No it isn't. Bluesincehyderoad is a poster I like reading but I think he's got a bee in his bonnet about FFP being illegal whereas most of us feel it's not quite so black and white.

I don't like FFP anymore than he does and feel it attacks the wrong targets in the wrong way, so I'm fully on his side in that respect. He's also right in saying that the stated objectives undermine their case. But it's simply not correct to say that UEFA has no right to impose restrictions.

 

[FanchesterCity]

So it's not been legally challenged then? So not a legal precedent?

Not as far as I'm aware (not for sport). It's been challenged for other industries, but they aren't comparable to this issue.
As far as I know, it's a bit of an 'unknown', someone needs to test the water... but nobody wants to get wet doing it!

EDIT:
There are SOME precedents prior to 101 that can still be used, where sport HAS been deemed worthy of special exemption, and there equally plenty of others where it hasn't!. In general sport is never above the law. But that's not the argument here really, the argument is if FFP qualifies under 101(3).
The law will still take into account precedents that simply 'happen' in society. Less so once there's a legal precedent set. Even if one is set, it can be changed (just much more rare).
I think we've got a great case, but since we may not be hindered by it any more, if it worth City being the guinea pig?

FFS just breathe a little; if there was ever a lesson in "less is more"

'sonly words.

 

[FanchesterCity]

The vast majority of debate's been very civil.