80s Shorts
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,616
Re: City & FFP (continued)
lol.
willy eckerslike said:
lol.
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
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It depends on what it is treated as. Fines surely technically count as an expense and therefore must be included in any calculation. Pretty barmy really because how can a club make money to pass FFP if they are fined such extortionate amounts. A fine must be justified and fair for the 'crime' : it isn't and there is no like for like comparison basis to justify it. We of course will be entitled to an appeal either with UEFA or we can take it through to the Court for Abitration for Sport which would surely instantly quash this because it has no legal standing nor justification.
IanBishopsHaircut said:Surely the fine would be exempt from our FFP financial figures for next year if true?
Even UEFA couldn't be that stupid
It depends on what it is treated as. Fines surely technically count as an expense and therefore must be included in any calculation. Pretty barmy really because how can a club make money to pass FFP if they are fined such extortionate amounts. A fine must be justified and fair for the 'crime' : it isn't and there is no like for like comparison basis to justify it. We of course will be entitled to an appeal either with UEFA or we can take it through to the Court for Abitration for Sport which would surely instantly quash this because it has no legal standing nor justification.
nijinsky's fetlocks
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Take UEFA to court with the best legal team money can buy, tear them a second starfish, and put down a marker that we won't be fucked with.
It's time these inept, corrupt chancers were put in their place.
And stop picking on Bieber as well.
Take UEFA to court with the best legal team money can buy, tear them a second starfish, and put down a marker that we won't be fucked with.
It's time these inept, corrupt chancers were put in their place.
And stop picking on Bieber as well.
Hart of the Matter
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 5,180
City & FFP (continued)
21 players must include 8 hm grown and no further spending on Champions league squad. what does that mean.
21 players must include 8 hm grown and no further spending on Champions league squad. what does that mean.
badmash
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
£50 mil hahaha is it worth even being in the Chumps league?
£50 mil hahaha is it worth even being in the Chumps league?
BertTrautmann'sParachute
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
If this is true, it's staggeringly unjust and needs to be challenged in the courts. Bent bastards.
If this is true, it's staggeringly unjust and needs to be challenged in the courts. Bent bastards.
Ducado
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I doubt UEFA will let it get that far, they will blink in this game of Russian Roulette
nijinsky's fetlocks said:Take UEFA to court with the best legal team money can buy, tear them a second starfish, and put down a marker that we won't be fucked with.
It's time these inept, corrupt chancers were put in their place.
And stop picking on Bieber as well.
I doubt UEFA will let it get that far, they will blink in this game of Russian Roulette
Cheadle Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
And there we go, the usual media leaks, the day after we get a bit of good fortune, the media kick us in the bollocks
And there we go, the usual media leaks, the day after we get a bit of good fortune, the media kick us in the bollocks
bigf42
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
From Oliver Kay in the Times this AM.
Tensions are rising between Manchester City and Uefa after the Barclays Premier League club rejected proposed sanctions relating to a breach of Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations.
Uefa has proposed that City, along with Paris Saint-Germain and a handful of other clubs, agree to a heavy fine and a reduction to the number of players they can register for next season’s Champions League after their failure to meet break-even requirements. While several clubs are understood to be on the verge of accepting similar punishments, The Times understands that City have rejected the initial proposal as talks with Uefa continue.
Officials from City and Uefa declined to comment last night, with discussions at a highly sensitive stage. The sides are understood to be a long way apart in their view of the situation, with City vehemently opposed to accepting a multimillion-pound fine or a reduction to the number of players that Manuel Pellegrini, the manager, can name for their Champions League squad.
Discussions between the clubs and Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) have already dragged on longer than was expected, with European football’s governing body agreeing to extend talks into this week in the hope that settlements can be reached without the need to enforce punishments against clubs’ will.
Under the terms of FFP, clubs are allowed to make maximum losses of €45 million (about £37 million) over the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons, although that figure excludes expenditure on infrastructure, youth development and the cost of historical player contracts. Uefa can also take action if it feels that a club’s commercial deals, such as City’s with Etihad, the Abu Dhabi airline, do not represent “fair value”.
City recorded an operating loss of £50.6 million for the financial year ending May 31, 2013, but a large amount was attributed to investments in infrastructure and youth development, in particular the Etihad Campus, next to the stadium, which will be the training base for all the club’s teams from next season. The Premier League club’s long-held view on FFP is that they have complied willingly with Uefa.
While questions have been asked about their ten-year £350 million commercial contract with Etihad, City have long argued that the deal, which includes sponsorship of the stadium and the training ground as well as the team’s kit, represents “fair value” — particularly when set against PSG’s deals with the Qatar Tourist Authority.
The legitimacy of FFP was questioned again yesterday by Jean-Louis Dupont, the Belgian lawyer who defended Jean-Marc Bosman.
“The premise that you shouldn’t spend more than you earn is a good idea, but Uefa’s solution is not the answer,” Dupont said. “The public will love it, but you would need an economic, political and legal analysis to explain why it’s wrong.
“The system is inadequate and illegal under European law. The rules create a number of restrictions, like limiting investments and limiting transfers. Clubs will employ fewer players and will pay lower wages. It also affects the right of free movement of capital, workers and providing services.
“Uefa says football shouldn’t be a contest of money, but you can only laugh when you look at the teams that dominate the Champions League. These are the richest teams out there.”
From Oliver Kay in the Times this AM.
Tensions are rising between Manchester City and Uefa after the Barclays Premier League club rejected proposed sanctions relating to a breach of Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations.
Uefa has proposed that City, along with Paris Saint-Germain and a handful of other clubs, agree to a heavy fine and a reduction to the number of players they can register for next season’s Champions League after their failure to meet break-even requirements. While several clubs are understood to be on the verge of accepting similar punishments, The Times understands that City have rejected the initial proposal as talks with Uefa continue.
Officials from City and Uefa declined to comment last night, with discussions at a highly sensitive stage. The sides are understood to be a long way apart in their view of the situation, with City vehemently opposed to accepting a multimillion-pound fine or a reduction to the number of players that Manuel Pellegrini, the manager, can name for their Champions League squad.
Discussions between the clubs and Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) have already dragged on longer than was expected, with European football’s governing body agreeing to extend talks into this week in the hope that settlements can be reached without the need to enforce punishments against clubs’ will.
Under the terms of FFP, clubs are allowed to make maximum losses of €45 million (about £37 million) over the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons, although that figure excludes expenditure on infrastructure, youth development and the cost of historical player contracts. Uefa can also take action if it feels that a club’s commercial deals, such as City’s with Etihad, the Abu Dhabi airline, do not represent “fair value”.
City recorded an operating loss of £50.6 million for the financial year ending May 31, 2013, but a large amount was attributed to investments in infrastructure and youth development, in particular the Etihad Campus, next to the stadium, which will be the training base for all the club’s teams from next season. The Premier League club’s long-held view on FFP is that they have complied willingly with Uefa.
While questions have been asked about their ten-year £350 million commercial contract with Etihad, City have long argued that the deal, which includes sponsorship of the stadium and the training ground as well as the team’s kit, represents “fair value” — particularly when set against PSG’s deals with the Qatar Tourist Authority.
The legitimacy of FFP was questioned again yesterday by Jean-Louis Dupont, the Belgian lawyer who defended Jean-Marc Bosman.
“The premise that you shouldn’t spend more than you earn is a good idea, but Uefa’s solution is not the answer,” Dupont said. “The public will love it, but you would need an economic, political and legal analysis to explain why it’s wrong.
“The system is inadequate and illegal under European law. The rules create a number of restrictions, like limiting investments and limiting transfers. Clubs will employ fewer players and will pay lower wages. It also affects the right of free movement of capital, workers and providing services.
“Uefa says football shouldn’t be a contest of money, but you can only laugh when you look at the teams that dominate the Champions League. These are the richest teams out there.”