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

[moomba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This may have been covered, but the squad size thing puzzles me somewhat. If we are reduced to a squad of 21, then the number of home grown players should reduce proportionally, however, all the speculation on this seems to say the reduction will only come from the 'main' category (17 players). As it's all guesswork at this time, it's probably just the media putting the worst spin on things.

The other categories are 4 association trained and 4 club trained players btw.

Isnt that discriminatory in itself. A rule that specifically punishes foreign players only.

 

[Keith Moon]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Anybody that have any info about this guy: <a class="postlink" href="https://twitter.com/andyelliott4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://twitter.com/andyelliott4</a> "UK media liason for UEFA" who's retweeting Ed Thompsons FFP fantasies?

..alos check out
@PedroPintoUEFA
"Chief of Press for UEFA in the President's Office. Official Spokesman for European Football's Governing Body."

Following every rag player on the planet, and he also just started to follow City & Aguero.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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.

Exactly right, which is why I marvel that this seems to have come as a surprise to many on here.

Right from the word go, Platini mentioned City (and City alone) in just about every speech relating to FFP, a practice which ceased some 6 to 12 months ago presumably only as the result of UEFA's own lawyers intervening to prevent their case from becoming compromised.

Every aspect of FFP is a carefully orchestrated charade, complete with moving goalposts and false promises, all at the behest of the cartel, but I think many City fans are being extremely naive if they think victory in Court is either a) guaranteed or b) likely to result in UEFA finally playing ball.

If I had to make a couple of predictions they would be that if we go to the Court of Arbritration we will be given a Champions League ban, something that UEFA both wants and is trying to goad us into, as they can't hit us with such a punishment initially without lamping PSG with the same hammer. If we then go all the way through to the law Courts and win, they will either simply exclude us from future European competitions (they're invite only remember), or redraft their own qualifying criteria to the same effect.

Rummenigge, Gill and all the rest of those horrible bent cunts want us nobbled. The CL squad limitation clause will do that without a shadow of doubt. We need to refresh our squad with Europe's finest over the next 3 years (Silva, Ya Ya, Dzeko, Kompers are all 28+), but won't be able to do so. They know we can't accept that clause, and, unlike most posters, I don't expect a compromise to be reached. Remember who lies behind the concept of FFP and what their motivation is. No matter how shamelessly they have to behave, they will do what is necessary to achieve their goals.
Oh, and if we do pursue the matter further, don't expect Everton to be the recipient of our vacated CL spot. Unprecedented situation......short notice.......felt it best to issue an invite to.......?! There's too many people on here thinking like decent, fair minded human beings. That's not who or what we're dealing with. Money talks

 

[nmc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Didn't the FA tell Pompey they wouldn't get a license a few years ago because they'd entered administration. Turned out to me wholly untrue but the FA used it to get their beloved Liverpool into the Europa league. Who'd have thought the FA would do such a thing.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Whilst I enjoy a little Liverpool bashing myself, this does make sense. It's the first year of FFP, and they have spend months reviewing accounts of the clubs from previous years. If they had opened that up to 'possibles' then it would have taken a lot longer. I suspect they may in future years as it won't take as long to audit those they've done previously.

Sorry mate but I cannot agree with that.

1. If the intention was always to "let off" clubs that were not yet in the CL, then the rules should say so. If they do not say so, we can reasonably and quite justifiably assume they are making it up as they go along, which is totally unacceptable.

2. UEFA's inability to audit accounts - were that to be the case - cannot reasonably be used as an excuse to favour one club vs another, when £50m fines are being banded about.

3. Once the CL qualifiers for the next season are known, there's plenty of time for them to submit break-even result information for audit before the season starts. What on earth is the point of auditing break-even results for clubs who have not or may not qualify? A complete waste of time and effort for all concerned.

I think you might be overestimating how quickly these things can be done. If the process didn't start for some clubs till next week, then with the auditing, plus review times, possible appeals etc, it's highly unlikely everything would be sorted before the start of the CL qualifying.

As it's the first year UEFA know this is crunch time for the process and it's likely that there could be challenges and arguments. I don't doubt that this process has been hijacked in some way by current big teams as a way to keep the status quo, but I don't buy the pro-Liverpool agenda.

I hear where you are coming from mate, and I am not sure there's a pro-Liverpool agenda per se. More of a blind-eye to certain clubs and infringements and ton-of-bricks coming down on others. Terrible double-standards at best.

I still stand by me assertion that unless it is clearly stated in the rules somewhere that break-even requirement does not apply if you are not currently in the CL, then they cannot be given a free pass unless blatant cheating is going on.

Please can anyone show me where in the FFP rules it says the break-even requirement does not apply if you are not currently in the CL? I don't see it anywhere.

 

[moomba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Pretty sure UEFA has said in the past that every club competing in UEFA conpetitions must be compliant.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sorry mate but I cannot agree with that.

1. If the intention was always to "let off" clubs that were not yet in the CL, then the rules should say so. If they do not say so, we can reasonably and quite justifiably assume they are making it up as they go along, which is totally unacceptable.

2. UEFA's inability to audit accounts - were that to be the case - cannot reasonably be used as an excuse to favour one club vs another, when £50m fines are being banded about.

3. Once the CL qualifiers for the next season are known, there's plenty of time for them to submit break-even result information for audit before the season starts. What on earth is the point of auditing break-even results for clubs who have not or may not qualify? A complete waste of time and effort for all concerned.

I think you might be overestimating how quickly these things can be done. If the process didn't start for some clubs till next week, then with the auditing, plus review times, possible appeals etc, it's highly unlikely everything would be sorted before the start of the CL qualifying.

As it's the first year UEFA know this is crunch time for the process and it's likely that there could be challenges and arguments. I don't doubt that this process has been hijacked in some way by current big teams as a way to keep the status quo, but I don't buy the pro-Liverpool agenda.

I hear where you are coming from mate, and I am not sure there's a pro-Liverpool agenda per se. More of a blind-eye to certain clubs and infringements and ton-of-bricks coming down on others. Terrible double-standards at best.

I still stand by me assertion that unless it is clearly stated in the rules somewhere that break-even requirement does not apply if you are not currently in the CL, then they cannot be given a free pass unless blatant cheating is going on.

Please can anyone show me where in the FFP rules it says the break-even requirement does not apply if you are not currently in the CL? I don't see it anywhere.

You didn't miss anything, it's not there.

 

[more lazy than useless]

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.

What UEFA are doing, to extend this rather tedious analogy, is catching somebody doing 31 in a 30 zone, but then using the rules on what actually constitutes speeding to increase the recorded speed artificially from 31 to 60.

And then fine you £50m.

A better analogy would be that if you had a car for the last three years ago that could do 100mph then that is the speed limit now for you. However, if your car of three years ago could only do 30mph, and two years ago could do 50mph, and last year 100mph, then your speed limit is still 30mph. Only when you have had a sports car for three years can put your foot down. This rule isn't because a pedestrian might get hurt, but because you might get in the way of the existing sports cars.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Fucking hell..

Villareal fined £10000 for the bannana throwing incident at Alves!
City fined £50,000000 for investment in the local community,keeping dreams alive and investing in the future of our club.

Get to fuck Platini you corrupt ****.
Oh and Gillespie you are a tarquin twat.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Anybody that have any info about this guy: <a class="postlink" href="https://twitter.com/andyelliott4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://twitter.com/andyelliott4</a> "UK media liason for UEFA" who's retweeting Ed Thompsons FFP fantasies?

..alos check out
@PedroPintoUEFA
"Chief of Press for UEFA in the President's Office. Official Spokesman for European Football's Governing Body."

Following every rag player on the planet, and he also just started to follow City & Aguero.

Pedro Pinto is legitimate if boring and uninformative, the other guy I came across before, he's not UEFA staff, rarely does anything but repeat other people's statements and definitely retweets a lot of things that would make UEFA unhappy if he was associated, I'd ignore him tbh.