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

[Skip Donoghue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Why is everyone assuming negotiations are ongoing, when they've now announced it?

No-one from City or Uefa have announced, confirmed or denied anything.

Then where is it coming from?

See Tolmies post a couple of pages back....it looks like it's coming from the French written press

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

As Tolm has pointed out, this is still nothing more than press speculation at this stage.

I wouldn't expect City to receive a fine as big as the £50m being bandied around. If it is true any fine imposed can be paid off without affecting future FFP calculations then it doesn't achieve anything other than to swell UEFA coffers.

I would expect sanctions to revolve more around a squad/salary limitation for next season's competition. Assuming they reduce our squad by 4, I doubt that will do much damage. According to our official UEFA squad page we could comfortably lose Eirik Johansen, Dedryck Boyata, Jack Rodwell and Joleon Lescott and still be very competitive.

Now we stand to enter the competition from pot 2, we theoretically will get a much easier group and should benefit from our experiences this season.

Don't forget that according to our owners, we are well on the way to break even so I only expect this year to be our only hiccup.

Eirik Johansen, Dedryck Boyata, Jack Rodwell and Joleon Lescott are part of the 'home grown' quota so it would indeed affect us.
If the reduction of 4 players is true it wouldn't come off the 8(?) homegrown rule.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

My thought is that if UEFA really want an amended version Platini would get his crew to agree to a settlement of a partial fine with a big suspended fine, and something like a suspended reduction in CL squad numbers should, we say, here's our 2013/14 accounts in August and look we're in the black, or words to that effect, and then let the cartel take him to court over it, and find that they can't win so UEFA get to amend it to how they want.

I would say a more reasonable fine, with a bigger fine suspended if we fail again, plus a 3 game group stage reduction in our squad size, with the rest suspended, provided we can provide evidence of this year's accounts that we are achieving what UEFA want. I don't see that being too unfair and it would bail UEFA out, and allow the onus to be put onto the cartel to complain and take it to court.

I still have hope that UEFA want to guillotine the likes of Gill for their own gain and so they can have complete authority over European football, however if we get a serious punishment off them I'll start to feel that they'd rather protect the cartel than cement their own position like FIFA do, by making sure the whole is bigger than any individual parts.

 

[blueinsa]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

@OliverKayTimes · 2h

About to get very ugly between #MCFC and Uefa re FFP. City so far rejecting proposed €60m fine (over 3 yrs) & reduction of Champs Lge squad

Fucking too right it is.

Still thin UEFA know what they are doing here and that we will get it thrown out of court and they can then go to the rags etc and say we tried blah blah blah.

Im just not even remotely worried by this.

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.

Im of the opinion that UEFA couldn't give a flying fuck if its the end of FFPR.

What started as a noble and right thing got piggybacked by the greedy usual few for there own ends and its now turned into something that anyone with half a brain knows is unworkable.

 

[SJT]

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.

 

[Blue Is the Opposite of Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The story is a lift by the Press Association from today's edition of L'Equipe, nothing more.

The assumption being, L'Equipe's excellent contacts within PSG give the article a major degree of credibility.

P.A. have done nothing more than this and the subsequent UK news outlets are now piggy-backing their lead.

The figures being attached to City, are an educated 'guess' that they will be in line with PSG.

Ask yourselves this question, how would Paris know what our assessments and fine are?

City have not been informed what PSG are facing from the Uefa audits.

If it is £50m, which is not even the amount you can accumulate for actually winning the Champions League, you will see the English champions throw down the ultimate gauntlet.

As I have stated, previously, I suspect Uefa want this to be challenged in court, so they can have the thing amended properly.

Exciting times ahead.

 

[kennycar]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This stuck out in the guardian article:

Abu Dhabi-owned City have a £40m-a-year deal with Etihad Airways, while Qatar-owned PSG have a backdated deal with the Qatar Tourist Authority worth up to €200m (£165m) a year.

The French newspaper L'Equipe has reported that Uefa has ruled the QTA deal should be valued at only half that sum.

Well that's not bloody fair. How have they deemed that a backdated PSG sponsorship with no logo on the shirt is way over twice as valuable as Etihads sponsorship of us?

 

[Goo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Level with me guys... Have my pants just been shat for no reason?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Why is everyone assuming negotiations are ongoing, when they've now announced it?

No-one from City or Uefa have announced, confirmed or denied anything.

Then where is it coming from?

It's not coming from anyone.

It's an article in L'Equipe, today, reporting PSG's penalties.

P.A in this country have simply put a new coat on in and called it Miss Man City.

The Press Association in this country have become a joke over the last decade or so, nobody gives them anything exclusively, they supply a wire service to the nationals, nothing more.

It's an calculated guess that the measures won't be too dissimilar to what is being alleged in Paris.

Sky and the other outlets, then legitimise running it themselves, as surely PA wouldn't rip off a piece from another country, would they?

...

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

@OliverKayTimes · 2h

About to get very ugly between #MCFC and Uefa re FFP. City so far rejecting proposed €60m fine (over 3 yrs) & reduction of Champs Lge squad

An easy guess. I bet he doesn't have a clue.

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.

I just don't see how legally the Etihad deal can have anything to do with this. Even if I accept (which I don't based upon the measures they have to apply) that the Etihad deal actually IS a related party one, the value of said deal is quite clearly comparable with other deals out there already. £400m over 10 years, for shirt, stadium and campus rights. Remind me how much United are getting from Chrysler for just the shirts again? Of from DHL this season for their fucking training kit for christs sake!

Any attempt by UEFA to deem the Etihad deal a related party one, and then to reduce the value of it, would be laughed out of any court in about 3 seconds.

It simply has to be the Intellectual Property items, and more likely the third party one as opposed to the MYCFC/MCWFC one.