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

[Chris B]

Odd how Ashley plastering Sports Direct all over the place was never an issue. As soon as a Saudi wants to do the same the rules must be changed in a rush, even if it’s probably not legal. In any event, if PIF is found not to be connected to the state of Saudi Arabia, it is hard to see how it could be found to be connected to Aramco and the rest.

The most annoying thing is why this confected morality is always applied to football but never to society at large. Nobody protests every time they fill their car up (Saudi oil) or turn up the heating (Russian gas). Nobody says it’s immoral to shop at Sainsbury’s (Qatar) without protesting outside before you go in. We’re all happy enough to use products from China (iPhones, etc.). When it is football it is a different ball game, excuse the pun.

 

[cucumberman]

They only get a 3 year FFP 'grace' period, remember. If they're not bringing in significant commercial income after that, they'll be stuck. Just like Villa and Everton. You can guarantee that UEFA's next set of FFP regulations will be specifically designed to hinder them now 'oil money' clubs are a known quantity. They also have Premier League FFP to contend with. Huge investment in players is much more difficult now than 2008 - 2011.

As others have said, we sneaked in. Newcastle will find it much more difficult.

WE SAW YOU SNEAKIN' IN!!
WE SAW YOU SNEAKIN' IN!!

Brings back Maine Road memories...

 

[Chris B]

The one question in my mind is whether the Saudis will challenge this sponsorship ban in court, or whether they’ll go the whole hog and try get FFP in total overturned.

 

[Lavinda Past]

A decent manager will come in shortly and by the May they’ll be mid table. In summer they’ll recruit Elano / Petrov equivalents and they’ll be in the running for top 6/7 and so on and so forth - by the end of this decade they’ll be regulars in the top 4. Of course they’ll pay massively over the odds for these players - so what ?

As for the relative merits of the two cities. Transport - blinged out super cars travel just as well on the A1 as the M56. High end houses are the same everywhere. Employment - who for ? Weather - to your average Latino 12°and pissin down in Mcr is just the same as 10° and pissin down in Newcastle

Time will tell mate!

Personally, I think they'll go down this season. The weight of expectation and all that.

Their job is going to be a lot tougher than ours was.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Time will tell mate!

Personally, I think they'll go down this season. The weight of expectation and all that.

Their job is going to be a lot tougher than ours was.

I imagine they’ll appoint someone on a short term basis who they think can keep them up and then appoint a bigger name in the summer assuming they stay up. Someone like fat Sam although he proved a bad bet for West Brom and Newcastle aren’t that much better than West Brom, but only 8 games played and a winter transfer window to come

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Sorry to shout but WE DO NOT HAVE ANY RELATED PARTIES SPONSORING US!

If we did, it'd be noted in the accounts. And it isn't. We voluntarily agreed to limit a couple of Abu Dhabi sponsorships for the purposes of the 2014 Settlement but we never accepted, and still don't, that these two sponsors were related parties.

Please keep shouting, PB. For most of us claims about what FFP is and is not and what is accountable, discountable and so on are mysteries which we don't understand and which, anyway mask the real issues. Just as claims about the arrogance and sense of entitlement of certain clubs serve to rouse passions on here but don't deal with what is really at stake. One of the real tragedies of this whole business - and tragedies is the only appropriate word - is that the most influential group of clubs in English and European football are owned and controlled by people who don't care a tinker's cuss for the game. They are in it for their own commercial self interest. It is the so-called baddies who want to own clubs which entertain, win matches and carry off the trophies and are prepared to put their money where their mouths are. The cartel is hogged by a group of seedy Yanks who have fulfilled their duty to the game by learning the shape of the puck used in that game. They come from a very corporate background, where the law is favourable to owners and the courts support this corporatist approach, and if the law is not in your favour, simply ignore it. The law is to be ignored in football and things are to be done "the American way" and any rules are to be used to cut off the life blood of finance to those clubs who can challenge their view. This latest shabby trick is clearly aimed at halting Newcastle and it has appealed directly to the jealousy of all the other PL clubs - apart from one. The Americans must be shown that we do things differently here and the Saudis must take full advantage of the rights the law gives them .

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

The thing is they don't think they're purposefully lying.

To them, what they know about City and the UAE supersedes anything CAS or UEFA or anyone else rules.

It doesn't matter if factually City are owned by Sheikh Mansour, it doesn't matter if factually Etihad was ruled non-related and it doesn't matter if CAS explicitly stated sponsorships were not inflated.

Because they *know* what's true. So they write articles as if what they think is true is factual.

There's a touch of the religious zealot to it. When UEFA made their decision you had journalists who've spent the past 20 years mocking and criticising the corruption and incompetence of UEFA suddenly treating them as unimpeachable and getting very angry on podcasts that City would even appeal the decision despite it obviously being their right.

Yves Leterme got loads of mentions from a certain group of journalists in opinion pieces and twitter as if just mentioning he was a former Belgian Prime Minister (no mentions of his corruption scandals) was enough to say how stupid and blinkered were City fans for not accepting his verdict.

When CAS rules against UEFA, instead of accepting the decision there were several articles published suggesting CAS should be dismantled as it wasn't fit for purpose - which had not been mentioned at all before. In fact several expert journalists drafted in to talk about it had pointed out it's almost impossible for a ruling body or organisation like UEFA to lose at CAS, and they have an incredible winning record in the 90%'s.

But forget all that - if they arrived at a different verdict, it must be the CAS that's wrong, not us journalists.

I still very clearly remember a Guardian Football Weekly where Jonathan Liew called Soriano a liar intent on just muddying waters to undermine the institution of UEFA when he said City believed when the case was put before a proper, independent court they'd be cleared and the punishment walked back. He's never retracted it.

Matthew Syed has not given the apology he promised if City's ban was overturned either, has he?

Agree with most of that and certainly the overall spirit.

Still think Panja, Harris (Rob) and Conn are purposely lying. Nick Harris probably as well. As for the likes of Delaney, Liew, Evans, Wilson, Ronay, Smith - well they just follow suit based on what their buddies tell them.

Panja was still bleating that we got off on a technicality yet, unlike most of them, he will have been through the 95 page CAS document with a fine tooth comb. Ironically it was his detailed article (still pinned on his twitter) that spilt the dirt on Leterme. Yet I don't recall any sympathy from him when we singled out Leterme for his bias.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

This has to be unlawful. I can see the Court of Arbitration getting involved in this.

I don't think this is an appropriate matter for arbitration. 18 PL clubs seem determined to stop the Saudi owners investing in their club: the owners seem determined to invest. I don't think CAS can agree a deal allowing them to break FFP or limit sponsorship deals to a compromise figure. It seems more concerned with whether sporting bodies have acted in accordance with regulations in force. It seems that Newcastle's case is more fundamental: that the regulations cannot be enforced because they are unlawful themselves. This is more a case for the ECJ. And to avoid delays in the judicial system which might allow PL and/or UEFA to ban them from competition it might be that a Saudi company might take the case out because PL/UEFA prevents them from exercising their right to sponsor the club of their choice. But I suspect the PL are trying to win concessions and get a deal with Newcastle because what they are trying to do is flagrantly, contemptuously unlawful - and I suspect strongly that the PL's own lawyers have already told them this.

 

[Blue Llama]

Thanks so their only protection from litigation is they can black ball new members or expel those who litigate against their golf club rules?

Its not quite the same. The simplest but not the most accurate way of thinking about it is to say that organisations have to be very careful that because of a position of dominance that they do not abuse it aggressively to the detriment of smaller parties or organisations.

 

[SilverFox2]

Its not quite the same. The simplest but not the most accurate way of thinking about it is to say that organisations have to be very careful that because of a position of dominance that they do not abuse it aggressively to the detriment of smaller parties or organisations.

Does that mean all cartels are not necessarily illegal or that a group has to be careful it does not become a cartel?