BertTrautmann'sParachute
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Ole Gunner SolskjaerPrestwich_Blue said:
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
Matty
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
But if this gets thrown out in the courts then that's FFP dead, a complete non entity. I can't see UEFA being happy with that. I really don't understand what UEFA are doing here, they must have known that City weren't going to accept a punishment of this magnitude. That opens it up to the "panel" who no doubt will be UEFA lackys who will just rubber stamp the original punishment, and then CAS. UEFA have a terrible record at CAS and lose far more often than they win.
I can only assume this is shear arrogance from UEFA, they seem to be the only ones who actually believe their regulations would stand up to any form of professional critique.
blueinsa said:
But if this gets thrown out in the courts then that's FFP dead, a complete non entity. I can't see UEFA being happy with that. I really don't understand what UEFA are doing here, they must have known that City weren't going to accept a punishment of this magnitude. That opens it up to the "panel" who no doubt will be UEFA lackys who will just rubber stamp the original punishment, and then CAS. UEFA have a terrible record at CAS and lose far more often than they win.
I can only assume this is shear arrogance from UEFA, they seem to be the only ones who actually believe their regulations would stand up to any form of professional critique.
CitizenTID
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 5,053
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It's no coincidence Gill in now involved is it? Can this fact be challenged in court? Conflict of interests and all that?
haha brilliant.gordondaviesmoustache said:TCIB said:
It's no coincidence Gill in now involved is it? Can this fact be challenged in court? Conflict of interests and all that?
gmckennasell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2005
- Messages
- 1,504
Re: City & FFP (continued)
call their bluff , refuse to pay or accept sanctions , they ban us , we go to court , european law will back city all the way , FFP is not enforceable or legal , similiar to bosman , a restriction of trade etc ., whilst we wait for the court ruling , we play a few friendlies in dubai and the USA. When we win in court , we then sue UEFA for loss of revenue , fcuk 'em
call their bluff , refuse to pay or accept sanctions , they ban us , we go to court , european law will back city all the way , FFP is not enforceable or legal , similiar to bosman , a restriction of trade etc ., whilst we wait for the court ruling , we play a few friendlies in dubai and the USA. When we win in court , we then sue UEFA for loss of revenue , fcuk 'em
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
He's claiming the Etihad deal is the problem when it's far more likely the sale of IP rights that is causing the issue.adrianr said:
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
We are well on our way to break-even, based on the monetary amounts and accounting rules we have used. Which UEFA now say they don't accept or they would not be seeking to punish us.
So unless we get them to back down, then this is going to hurt us next season and the season after and the season after that. Obviously as our revenue grows, at some point we will break-even using UEFA's rules, but it could take a while and certainly could adversely impact upon our spending plans.
jimbopm said:
We are well on our way to break-even, based on the monetary amounts and accounting rules we have used. Which UEFA now say they don't accept or they would not be seeking to punish us.
So unless we get them to back down, then this is going to hurt us next season and the season after and the season after that. Obviously as our revenue grows, at some point we will break-even using UEFA's rules, but it could take a while and certainly could adversely impact upon our spending plans.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
What about RPF - 'Regional population fair-play'? or OTC - 'Overpriced ticket costs' - what a load of Bollocks!
bitter men who can't stand City taking over as a football super-power.
United Liverpool and Arsenal - will benefit from this bollocks.
What about RPF - 'Regional population fair-play'? or OTC - 'Overpriced ticket costs' - what a load of Bollocks!
bitter men who can't stand City taking over as a football super-power.
United Liverpool and Arsenal - will benefit from this bollocks.
Hart of the Matter
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 5,180
City & FFP (continued)
Only 13 none home grown allowed to be named. Will drastically affect our ability to recruit and hold onto players. Makes signing the likes of Cole and other home grown more likely. Keep Gael and sell Kolorov for regulation reasons not football. Some big names will not get European football in our squad next year.
Only 13 none home grown allowed to be named. Will drastically affect our ability to recruit and hold onto players. Makes signing the likes of Cole and other home grown more likely. Keep Gael and sell Kolorov for regulation reasons not football. Some big names will not get European football in our squad next year.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Ok, I've not read the whole thread so apologies if I'm repeating, but how in the hell can UEFA justify issuing financial penalties, when they claim the sole purpose of FFP is to protect members from over-spending and going bust? Shirley a massive fine is only ADDING to the problem?
Ok, I've not read the whole thread so apologies if I'm repeating, but how in the hell can UEFA justify issuing financial penalties, when they claim the sole purpose of FFP is to protect members from over-spending and going bust? Shirley a massive fine is only ADDING to the problem?
The slaughtered lamb
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2014
- Messages
- 4,619
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I would pay the £50m fine on the following conditions;
a) As the fine for us and PSG is the same, that would suggest that the extent of the financial breach of the regulations is unimportant. Therefore, ANY club who falls foul of the ffp regulations in the future must also pay a £50m fine and not be able to a negotiate a lower settlement due to their circumstances. In the interest of fairness, this must be applied to all clubs, not just those deemed to be financially able to pay. For example, when Liverpool are assessed they would also have to pay the same fine if and when they fail, as would United after this summer's splurge. This may work in our favour if you think about it.
b) All monies raised from fines to be ring fenced until it has been proved that UEFA intend to apply these rules across the board. if they are not applied equally to all teams, all monies to be returned.
c) Eventually, all monies raised to be invested in grass roots football across Europe. As others have said, it isn't right that an owner can't invest in football but can give £50m to UEFA.
The wage limit on the Champions' League squad is unlikely to pose a problem due to a couple of high earners coming off the books this year and if we use the likes of Rekik, Huws and Lopes, they don't have to be included in the Champions' league Squad of 21 anyway and wouldn't be on big wages.
Having said all that, it's obvious that these regulations are about anything but fair play and I would fully expect the club to challenge every aspect of the ruling to get the best deal possible.
I would pay the £50m fine on the following conditions;
a) As the fine for us and PSG is the same, that would suggest that the extent of the financial breach of the regulations is unimportant. Therefore, ANY club who falls foul of the ffp regulations in the future must also pay a £50m fine and not be able to a negotiate a lower settlement due to their circumstances. In the interest of fairness, this must be applied to all clubs, not just those deemed to be financially able to pay. For example, when Liverpool are assessed they would also have to pay the same fine if and when they fail, as would United after this summer's splurge. This may work in our favour if you think about it.
b) All monies raised from fines to be ring fenced until it has been proved that UEFA intend to apply these rules across the board. if they are not applied equally to all teams, all monies to be returned.
c) Eventually, all monies raised to be invested in grass roots football across Europe. As others have said, it isn't right that an owner can't invest in football but can give £50m to UEFA.
The wage limit on the Champions' League squad is unlikely to pose a problem due to a couple of high earners coming off the books this year and if we use the likes of Rekik, Huws and Lopes, they don't have to be included in the Champions' league Squad of 21 anyway and wouldn't be on big wages.
Having said all that, it's obvious that these regulations are about anything but fair play and I would fully expect the club to challenge every aspect of the ruling to get the best deal possible.