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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

aguero93:20 said:
big blueballs said:
aguero93:20 said:
Short, snappy and entirely true. IAI instead of FFP?
Could it be that maybe UEFA wants FFP challenged in court, which may break the cartel that is G14 and stop the tail wagging the dog so to speak?
I'd say UEFA are like any other organisation and have factions that favour the G14 and factions that don't. I'd love to know what Deloittes think of FFP as they were consulted about it beforehand.
Tbh the illegal parts of FFP seem to have been put in sure to the influence of the G14 so they could be sharpening the axe for their own necks sure to greed and stupidity, it's one way to read Platini's comments to Samuel.

You know these are both great points. I've thought for a long while that this isn't really a battle that UEFA wanted, well not this way. It hadn't occurred to me that UEFA might have actually gone along with it in order to distance themselves from it if it once it was challenged. The ECA run UEFA. Lets hope the ECJ take no notice of the EC.

There's a lot of abbreviations there!
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

JoeMercer'sWay said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
mannycity said:
Always enjoy the read,this thread will be very interesting over the next few weeks,I do wonder who's paying this lawyer for his services??????
Quite possibly the same person who paid for a little dossier to be delivered to Mike Riley when we started getting the shitty end of the stick from his referees in 2011/12.

so why have the Dippers got Clattenburg then?

No good if we haven't still got the ammo 2 years later when we need it again.
Just be pleased they can't have Foy. Not that you should read anything into that.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

So the battle begins, if true?

Manchester City are still a long way off agreeing a settlement with UEFA over sanctions for breaking financial fair play rules, it can be disclosed.

The club have until the end of the week to agree to the sanctions or face the case being handed to a panel for a non-negotiable decision.

City are one of nine European clubs, also including Paris St-Germain who are being dealt with for rule breaches, and it is understood they are one of those furthest away from reaching an agreement.

The initial settlement offer made to City included financial restrictions on their Champions League squad for next season, and possibly a cut in the size of the squad, as well as a heavy fine.

Neither City nor UEFA would comment but it is understood the Manchester club have been negotiating forcefully for a significant reduction in that sanction but have been struggling to make progress.

The risk, however, is that if they are unable to agree a deal with UEFA then they could face even stiffer sanctions from UEFA's club financial control board's adjudicatory panel.

No club is expected to be excluded from the Champions League for breaching the spending limits, the maximum possible sanction.

Both Manchester City and Paris St-Germain are believed to have fallen foul of the FFP rules with sponsorship deals related to each clubs' owners.

Abu Dhabi-owned City have a £40million-a-year deal with Etihad Airways, while Qatar-owned PSG have a back-dated deal with the Qatar Tourist Authority which is worth up to 200 million euro (£165million) a year.

Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger said last week UEFA needs to show it means business over FFP.

Wenger said: "There are rules to apply for the financial fair play. If you don't respect them, you have to apply the rules.

"One of the rules is that normally you should be banned for the excess of the financial amount that is not justified, that is if you are £100million overboard, you should be punished for £100million of your wages bill in the Champions League."
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Prestwich_Blue said:
JoeMercer'sWay said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Quite possibly the same person who paid for a little dossier to be delivered to Mike Riley when we started getting the shitty end of the stick from his referees in 2011/12.

so why have the Dippers got Clattenburg then?

No good if we haven't still got the ammo 2 years later when we need it again.
Just be pleased they can't have Foy. Not that you should read anything into that.

Well I know he's a dipper (but we can still have him on sunday) but the point still stands, we continue to get fuck all in the way of decisions compared to other big clubs.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

jrb said:
So the battle begins, if true?

Manchester City are still a long way off agreeing a settlement with UEFA over sanctions for breaking financial fair play rules, it can be disclosed.

The club have until the end of the week to agree to the sanctions or face the case being handed to a panel for a non-negotiable decision.

City are one of nine European clubs, also including Paris St-Germain who are being dealt with for rule breaches, and it is understood they are one of those furthest away from reaching an agreement.

The initial settlement offer made to City included financial restrictions on their Champions League squad for next season, and possibly a cut in the size of the squad, as well as a heavy fine.

Neither City nor UEFA would comment but it is understood the Manchester club have been negotiating forcefully for a significant reduction in that sanction but have been struggling to make progress.

The risk, however, is that if they are unable to agree a deal with UEFA then they could face even stiffer sanctions from UEFA's club financial control board's adjudicatory panel.

No club is expected to be excluded from the Champions League for breaching the spending limits, the maximum possible sanction.

Both Manchester City and Paris St-Germain are believed to have fallen foul of the FFP rules with sponsorship deals related to each clubs' owners.

Abu Dhabi-owned City have a £40million-a-year deal with Etihad Airways, while Qatar-owned PSG have a back-dated deal with the Qatar Tourist Authority which is worth up to 200 million euro (£165million) a year.

Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger said last week UEFA needs to show it means business over FFP.

Wenger said: "There are rules to apply for the financial fair play. If you don't respect them, you have to apply the rules.

"One of the rules is that normally you should be banned for the excess of the financial amount that is not justified, that is if you are £100million overboard, you should be punished for £100million of your wages bill in the Champions League."

Pure conjecture, as it can't be down to our Etihad sponsorship as this is significantly undervalued compared to other clubs.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.