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

[without a dream]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We only have press speculation re anything UEFA have done regarding City.

For all we know, it could be that they have tried to reach a settlement & City have told them to fuck off & either drop the lot or we'll see you in court.

Can I just ask how the hell fining us millions of pounds will help us balance our books ? I thought the point was to stop clubs from slipping into financial turmoil but fining massive amounts will surely ruin clubs and put them in debt ?

I can explain how I think it should be done but not how UEFA will do it.

I'd have no issues at all with a 'luxury tax' which is then held to fund the club should it all go tits up (not that that will happen in our case) but UEFA will probably just spend it on corporate jollies.

 

[squirtyflower]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A fucking 60m Euro fine?

Dick Turpin was less of a thief than these robbing bastards. What possible justification can they have for that? Just seems someone wants a slice of the pie.

 

[MCFC-alan88]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If it's true then I imagine there'll be a court case sooner rather than later. Although why UEFA would push a club to that I have no idea, they have no chance of winning in the courts.

 

[80s Shorts]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

[quote="squirtyflower"]A fucking 60m Euro fine?

Dick Turpin was less of a thief than these robbing bastards. What possible justification can they have for that? Just seems someone wants a slice of the pie.[/quote]

Says who ?

Twitter ?

 

[bobmcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If what they are doing is so illegal, why haven't we already started legal proceedings ?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

How can anyone argue with a straight face that £35 million p.a. to sponsor the shirts, ground and training complex for a club of our current stature is overvalued?

To suggest such a thing and truly believe it is straying into the mind of the psychotic.

They aren't. They are suggesting that £40m a year for a club of the stature we were in 10/11 is overvalued.

I mean they're still wrong and the Etihad deal is absolutely nothing to do with this FFP issue any more but that's their point.

Even so, my point remains.

If they apply that principle to 2010/11 then by rights they should also apply it to 2011/12 & 2012/13.

£120 million over that period is below market value imo. I am sure if we'd failed to develop as hoped in that period they would have been content to point to that.....errr.......trajectory as evidence of the implausibility and lack of integrity of the deal.

The fact is that no-one can suggest that we are not currently much, much higher profile since the deal was struck, which is itself as a result of this investment, prescience or, most likely, a combination of the two. On that basis the sum you refer to in 2010/11 should also be viewed as an investment that relates to the club's contemporary status, as much as building an extension on a pub and its cost can only be viewed through the prism of the subsequent (putative) increase in sales. To assume any other position has no basis in logic or the principles that underpin the economic system under which we operate. I am sure that the early sponsors of the Champions League took a similar speculative approach when first deciding to invest in that competition. I am sure UEFA remind them of the value of being involved on that basis from the outset, as to be seen to be attached to a growing sporting product carries a great deal of commercial currency. If those companies had made a bad call with regards to the prominence that the CL would have provided then their shareholders would have been entitled to ask searching questions of the board. Likewise the Etihad deal, if we had failed to develop as expected. Etihad's deal cannot be viewed merely through the prism of 2010, but also the direction the club has travelled since then, as that was the point of the investment in the first place

To suggest otherwise is completely insane.

 

[markbmcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If what they are doing is so illegal, why haven't we already started legal proceedings ?

How do you know we haven't?

Something like that won't be on the back page of a paper. It will be protected by all kinds of non disclosure agreements.

It's more than probable that we won't hear a single word of our legal intentions.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

My guess is that IF WE WIN THE LEAGUE on Sunday our position suddenly becomes a lot stronger.
I'd tell them that we're not prepared to accept any sanctions and if they want to exclude the English Champions
from next year's competition then fine, do it and we'll take them to court and seek punitive damages.
I'd hope we would then sign Messi. Lets then see who blinks first.

 

[bobmcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If what they are doing is so illegal, why haven't we already started legal proceedings ?

How do you know we haven't?

Something like that won't be on the back page of a paper. It will be protected by all kinds of non disclosure agreements.

It's more than probable that we won't hear a single word of our legal intentions.

I'm not sure this kind of thing could be so easily hidden with all the FFP experts chomping at the bit in anticipation of our expected sanctions/punishments.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If what they are doing is so illegal, why haven't we already started legal proceedings ?

Maybe Sheikh Mansour is waiting to see if he qualifies for legal aid?