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

[Blue Mooner]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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

UEFA make the rules and they will make them to achieve their objectives and those objectives are clear. I see only one resolution, it is time for someone with foresight to set up a rival competition to the UEFA champions league. It may break the whole of football apart but that is what's needed. That way fans can make a 'choice' as to what variant of the sport they want to follow.

With bigger prize monies, big teams would chase the larger money's on offer. It is the only way I can see that you can break the cartel. Either that or the European Union holds football up to it's own competition laws. Football cannot and should not exist outside of the laws that govern all businesses and whether we like it or not, that is what football clubs have become.

 

[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.

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.

here's from his SJA profile:

Since the beginning of 2013, Elliott has taken on a fuller role with UEFA around media liaison, acting as a link between the media in the UK and Nyon. He also runs a small York-based content agency, Content Factory, which provides advice and supplies bespoke copy to a range of digital clients in the sports and technology worlds, including British horseracing.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sky Sports.

Manchester City have until Friday to negotiate a 'settlement' with UEFA for breaching Financial Fair Play rules, after it emerged the club faces a £50m fine and cut to its European squad.

If no agreement is reached, then City could potentially face tighter sanctions than those put forward by UEFA's investigatory panel, with the matter referred to UEFA's Club Financial Control Body adjudicatory chamber.

The panel could conceivably decide to impose an even tougher punishment, which could even see the club banned from next season's Champions League competition.

City's only remaining option would be the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which could see the case dragged into next season.

UEFA told Sky Sports News: "The Adjudicatory Chamber and CAS are ready to take their responsibility and are aware of the football calendar".

It is unclear if any punishment would be suspended whilst the process was ongoing.

UEFA have been looking over the accounts of 236 clubs that qualified for European competitions in the 2011-13 seasons. Manchester City are one of 9 clubs that have been offered 'settlements' after the club recorded losses of £149 million over the past two seasons.

Football Finance Expert David Bick has criticised UEFA, saying their FFP process should be more transparent: "When you publish a new set of rules, you thereafter quickly announce what the penalties will be depending on what the misdemeanour is.

"But these rules were agreed in principal five years ago in 2009 and we still haven't seen a tariff or a list that will be applied depending on the level of alleged wrongdoing.

"That can't be right. It's not fair or just".

It is unclear what UEFA will do with the money received from the punishments and Sky Sports News was told: "nothing has been decided on fines yet".

Manchester City have made no comment.

 

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Can someone explain where the rules have been changed to make a case against us?
This has been inferred several times on this thread. If UEFA gave us a set of rules to abide by at the introduction of FFP, surely they don't have a leg to stand on from a legal point of view if they are now retrospectively adding different clauses to these rules?
Or are they simply arguing the toss with us about the sale of IP rights?

This is a really good question, I'd like to know that too. I've tried to look it up but not found much.

 

[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.

here's from his SJA profile:

Since the beginning of 2013, Elliott has taken on a fuller role with UEFA around media liaison, acting as a link between the media in the UK and Nyon. He also runs a small York-based content agency, Content Factory, which provides advice and supplies bespoke copy to a range of digital clients in the sports and technology worlds, including British horseracing.

So basically he's an IT/HTML guy that has done a bit of work for UEFA. I've a mate (Everton Fan), a website designer who did the FAI website as well as some of the Government ones, but at least he doesn't assume he knows anything about in-house Government policies/goings on or who the next Irish manager is going to be.

 

[blueinsa]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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

Difficult to argue with much of this mate but I'm sticking to a belief we have this in hand behind the scenes and we are seeing nothing but bluster and tough talk that can be used in the end to tell everyone they wanted to punish us but couldn't.....

At least that's my hope.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Can someone explain where the rules have been changed to make a case against us?
This has been inferred several times on this thread. If UEFA gave us a set of rules to abide by at the introduction of FFP, surely they don't have a leg to stand on from a legal point of view if they are now retrospectively adding different clauses to these rules?
Or are they simply arguing the toss with us about the sale of IP rights?

This is a really good question, I'd like to know that too. I've tried to look it up but not found much.

Football Finance Expert David Bick has criticised UEFA, saying their FFP process should be more transparent: "When you publish a new set of rules, you thereafter quickly announce what the penalties will be depending on what the misdemeanour is.

"But these rules were agreed in principal five years ago in 2009 and we still haven't seen a tariff or a list that will be applied depending on the level of alleged wrongdoing.

"That can't be right. It's not fair or just".

 

[moomba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Can someone explain where the rules have been changed to make a case against us?
This has been inferred several times on this thread. If UEFA gave us a set of rules to abide by at the introduction of FFP, surely they don't have a leg to stand on from a legal point of view if they are now retrospectively adding different clauses to these rules?
Or are they simply arguing the toss with us about the sale of IP rights?

This is a really good question, I'd like to know that too. I've tried to look it up but not found much.

They've added the right of other clubs to appeal just recently.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

I agree.

So Liverpool's losses are way more than the allowed €45m, and they have minimal infrastructure investment and don't show an improving trend so they can't exclude pre-2010 contracts.

So they have failed to meet the break-even requirement.

We should expect a UEFA announcement of the Liverpool sanction along with all the other teams and if they are not on the list, we (or more spefically our lawyers) should demand to know why not.

 

[Keith Moon]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

here's from his SJA profile:

Since the beginning of 2013, Elliott has taken on a fuller role with UEFA around media liaison, acting as a link between the media in the UK and Nyon. He also runs a small York-based content agency, Content Factory, which provides advice and supplies bespoke copy to a range of digital clients in the sports and technology worlds, including British horseracing.

So basically he's an IT/HTML guy that has done a bit of work for UEFA. I've a mate (Everton Fan), a website designer who did the FAI website as well as some of the Government ones, but at least he doesn't assume he knows anything about in-house Government policies/goings on or who the next Irish manager is going to be.

..and here's a little something about him from the Mail:
"A UEFA charm offensive with the English media also includes appointing former Press Association sports chief Andy Elliott as a point of liaison with UEFA headquarters in Nyon."

<a class="postlink" href="http://fixmoneyy2minutes.com/sport/football/article-2239490/Stuart-Pearce-blamed-losing-Victor-Moses-Nigeria.html#ixzz312FQoK8m" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://fixmoneyy2minutes.com/sport/foot ... z312FQoK8m</a>