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

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Could anyone tell me why Liverpool was not looked at at all?

Because they were not present in Europe for that monitoring period at all.

But I think, even if they would have been, they would just about made it as they whole losses were cca. 40m / season and some of these figures do not count for FFP.

They would have made it but only after pre-June 2010 wages were taken into account.

Have you seen anywhere in the rules where it says the licensing requirements do not apply for years when you're not in the CL? I don't see it anywhere at all, yet the assumption is simply that Liverpool are not being looked at. And regards pre-2010 wages, surely they couldn't use that since their break-even result trend is getting worse not better, which as I understand it is a requirement if the pre-2010 wages exemption is to apply.

 

[Zabbasbeard]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Paul Hayward ‏@_PaulHayward 18h
So Man City are going to be fined £50m for putting too much money in but the Glazers are not fined for taking lots of money out. FFP.

Paul Hayward ‏@_PaulHayward 18h
The City-United comparison was to make a point about the arbitrary nature of FFP. I know it's about spend-what-you-earn.

Paul Hayward ‏@_PaulHayward 1h
Man City tried to comply with FFP. PSG didn't. But they're being treated the same. Tells you a lot about Qatari influence in world football.

Paul Hayward ‏@_PaulHayward 1h
Ok, City tried and failed. The point was about PSG, who aren't objecting to their punishment. Uefa's scale of justice not working.

Paul Hayward ‏@_PaulHayward 1h
A pattern of pro-Uefa views from, say, Chelsea and Arsenal fans. Both have billionaires. FFP is to protect Europe's cartel from 'new' money.

Paul Hayward ‏@_PaulHayward 52m
Try to avoid moral relativism, but Barcelona's Neymar tax fraud far more offensive than Man City's summer splurge. Campus at PSG? Unlikely.

Paul Hayward ‏@_PaulHayward 14h
Man City's £50m fine is arbitrary nonsense. Comment <a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/10812167/Uefa-missing-the-real-targets-with-their-50-million-fine-for-Manchester-City.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... -City.html</a> …

Fucking agree, Paul.

He is right. But it has been apparent FROM DAY ONE that this is all about the cartel. Where were these journos then?
At least they can see this is totally wrong now.

 

[bluemoondays]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If we end up paying the fine I think Sheikh Mansour should turn up at EUFA HQ with a fleet of armoured trucks and £50m euros in 10c coins.

Just park up the trucks and hand over the keys......... ;-)

 

[john@staustell]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Because they were not present in Europe for that monitoring period at all.

But I think, even if they would have been, they would just about made it as they whole losses were cca. 40m / season and some of these figures do not count for FFP.

They would have made it but only after pre-June 2010 wages were taken into account.

Have you seen anywhere in the rules where it says the licensing requirements do not apply for years when you're not in the CL? I don't see it anywhere at all, yet the assumption is simply that Liverpool are not being looked at. And regards pre-2010 wages, surely they couldn't use that since their break-even result trend is getting worse not better, which as I understand it is a requirement if the pre-2010 wages exemption is to apply.

UEFA has zero jurisdiction over domestic leagues, just not relevant. They can only look at people in their competitions.

 

[Zabbasbeard]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The more I consider this, and I try to with as cool a head as possible, is that City must take this to court. Why? Because UEFA and the CArtel have clearly been making this up as they go along to catch City and others out. City have tried to work with UEFA, but UEFA's warped and corrupt opinions have meant what we have been led a merry dance here. We thought what we did was meeting the target, but they have moved the target, continually. They are doing it now and will continue to do it. That's the way they work.

I'm no legal expert but it is obvious that UEFA's so-called "Financial Fair Play" regulations do contravene EU law. They are weak, half baked regulations and they must be defeated.

It of course depends what Sheikh Mansour and thhis board want to do. If they want to play along we can respect their wishes. Whatever, I trust Sheikh Mansour and the board to run MCFC (and I'm sure they are relieved to know that if they're reading!)

 

[hihosilva]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Patrick Barclay at it now.

If you put a 30mph limit on a stretch of road, and augment the clear signage with an intensive publicity campaign and then, having identified a few drivers who insist on blatantly exceeding it with 60mph dashes, sit them down and offer help in curbing the habit, and still they indulge in it, what are you supposed to do next? Abolish any speed limit, at whatever cost to pedestrians and the other road users who asked for it in the first place?



Manchester City’s posture in apparently opposing the heavy fine — estimated at between £39million and £49m — and Champions League squad restrictions imposed for a massive breach of the Financial Fair Play regulations is as ridiculous as some of the spending on players that caused them to exceed UEFA’s limit.

Sheikh Mansour and his advisers have known about FFP since they took over the club from Thaksin Shinawatra in 2008. They knew about it when they bought David Silva and Yaya Toure and didn’t let it prevent them from trying to outbid Manchester United for Robin van Persie in the middle of the FFP assessment period, even though they were already overpaying two other former Arsenal players, Gael Clichy and Samir Nasri.

While you can say what you like about FFP and what it might do for the dream factor in football — not as much harm as some claim but that’s an argument for another time — it exists and it’s constitutional, not a wild idea that UEFA president Michel Platini has been able to impose single-handedly.

It is also designed to encourage building from the roots up and City need no instruction in this, having embraced the principle enshrined in the exemptions for infrastructure and youth development by building an education complex of the highest standard. So they deserve the sort of success that should be confirmed on Sunday. But they cannot be above football’s international law.





He needs to get his facts right before writing drivel. Sheikh Mansour was not aware of any ffp when he purchased Manchester City. It was only agreed in principle in September 2009.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

allegedly Patrick Barclay is, or was, a Blue? I know when I was working in London in the 80's he was given some kind of honorary position in the London branch of the City Supporters club. He is clearly a very bitter twat

 

[Happy Feet]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Patrick Barclay is a twat.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Patrick Barclay at it now.

If you put a 30mph limit on a stretch of road, and augment the clear signage with an intensive publicity campaign and then, having identified a few drivers who insist on blatantly exceeding it with 60mph dashes, sit them down and offer help in curbing the habit, and still they indulge in it, what are you supposed to do next? Abolish any speed limit, at whatever cost to pedestrians and the other road users who asked for it in the first place?



Manchester City’s posture in apparently opposing the heavy fine — estimated at between £39million and £49m — and Champions League squad restrictions imposed for a massive breach of the Financial Fair Play regulations is as ridiculous as some of the spending on players that caused them to exceed UEFA’s limit.

Sheikh Mansour and his advisers have known about FFP since they took over the club from Thaksin Shinawatra in 2008. They knew about it when they bought David Silva and Yaya Toure and didn’t let it prevent them from trying to outbid Manchester United for Robin van Persie in the middle of the FFP assessment period, even though they were already overpaying two other former Arsenal players, Gael Clichy and Samir Nasri.

While you can say what you like about FFP and what it might do for the dream factor in football — not as much harm as some claim but that’s an argument for another time — it exists and it’s constitutional, not a wild idea that UEFA president Michel Platini has been able to impose single-handedly.

It is also designed to encourage building from the roots up and City need no instruction in this, having embraced the principle enshrined in the exemptions for infrastructure and youth development by building an education complex of the highest standard. So they deserve the sort of success that should be confirmed on Sunday. But they cannot be above football’s international law.

^^^^^^^^^^



He needs to get his facts right before writing drivel. Sheikh Mansour was not aware of any ffp when he purchased Manchester City. It was only agreed in principle in September 2009.

Gobshite, rules/regulations not law, only sovereign powers can legislate and enforce law.

 

[squirtyflower]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Patrick Barclay is a twat.

Didn't he write Fergie's biography?