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

[@BluePhil8]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Of course City are in a position to walk away from the Champions League.

But it's the sentiment that this will damage UEFA more than us that is wrong.

-- Wed May 07, 2014 3:15 pm --



Mate, you might think it's "a farce", but if it was it wouldn't be the biggest sporting competition there has ever been.

Give me the premier league title anyday over the chumps league DD.

That wont pay the bills though mate.

CL success is absolutely key to our plans going forward.

The Premier Legue doesn't pay the bills? It's the most lucrative competition in the world.

 

[moomba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

All clubs that took part in UEFA competitions were assessed.

UEFA then looked further at 76 <a class="postlink" href="clubshttp://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/287581.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">clubshttp://www.espn.co.uk/football/spo ... 87581.html</a>

They looked at all those clubs that made a loss in 11/12. They disregarded everyone else.

That is not an assessment.

Call it what you like assessment, measured ,evaluated, appraised picked out, picked on, monitored the selection only came from clubs who played in UEFA tournaments last season

So exactly what I've said. They've not even applied their own rules.

I'll draw your attention to article 11

The licensor ensures equal treatment of all licence applicants during the core process.

 

[nellyonthewing]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You can bet it would have an effect on the current and incoming players if we did not compete in the UCL.

"You betcha "...

 

[sam-caddick]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It would be a massive statement us not participating in the Champions League but can we really afford to?

I don't see it being illegal for Uefa to ban us from the Champions League either, it is their competition and to to get in it's by invite only, surely if they don't see you applying by their rules then they can dump you out if they want?

Maybe they need to dump a big club out to prove that this FFP has actually got legs regardless of whether it devalues the competition?

Surely if we are on our way to balancing our books next season this will FFP fine will only be a one off and will become a distant memory in the future? If we were to drop out of the CL or get banned next season we would be missing out on some serious big money and at the same time having to pay a 50m fine.

It's a big risk but I trust the club.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

There is definitely a mood swing in the media towards us after the £50mill fine came out.

City are finally realising that you have to play dirty sometimes. It's my strong suspicion that the media are being told that if they take our line, they will get first dibs at a big story shortly (and may even have been told what it is).

 

[Skashion]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It now seems pretty clear that the whole FFP process was a sham.

The FFP that should be in place was handed to the ECA and we got a bastard child of the old G14.

But even those rules were basically warped to get punishments in place.

The truth is that the club and its owner(s) can easily afford to pay the fine and we could also get by with a struggle with the squad limitations too.

But late last month a line was crossed which, I am reliably informed, proved that there is no point in MCFC trying to 'negotiate' the way forward with UEFA.

What happens next could surprise us all but I for one expect a pretty serious move away from UEFA and FFP or for UEFA to to put a hold on some parts of FFP until a legal challenge has run its course.

I hope your info is correct. I think UEFA needs to have a day in court to deflate its crazily oversized ego and make them realise they're not a law unto themselves. There is very good reason to believe we'll win and if we lose, so what?

 

[EL APACHE TEVEZ]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Give me the premier league title anyday over the chumps league DD.

That wont pay the bills though mate.

CL success is absolutely key to our plans going forward.

The Premier Legue doesn't pay the bills? It's the most lucrative competition in the world.

I would say 95-100 mill should pay the bills plus sponsorship.

 

[blueinsa]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

There is definitely a mood swing in the media towards us after the £50mill fine came out.

City are finally realising that you have to play dirty sometimes. It's my strong suspicion that the media are being told that if they take our line, they will get first dibs at a big story shortly (and may even have been told what it is).

Not for the first time today someone suggests that we may have dirt on Platini.

I know you have not named him PB but its clear that some of you have info :-)

 

[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.

Sorry to disagree but it is in the regulations.

The brief process is that if a club in EPL will be granted (by the FA) a licence to play in UEFA competitions. A licence is only for one season

The timelines are such that quite a few clubs would apply because they might qualify but come end of the season if they don't qualify then their name isn't put forward by the FA. In effect the only clubs that get granted a licence are those that qualify for CL or EL

As was explained by someone else there are lots of other requirements such as safety, youth development etc.

So in the case of Liverpool they don't have a licence. Man City(by virtue of them competing in the CL in season 2013/14 do)

It is only when a club is granted a licence that the FFP monitoring requirements start and are explained within articles 53 & 54 of UEFAs Licensing Regulations <a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>

Also the FA confirm that the financial tests only take place during the year of qualification.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/more/financial-regulation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... regulation</a>


I would also suggest that a look at article 43 would be worthwhile in that it talks about by applying for a club license you in effect agree to accept UEFAs regulations or if appropriate rulings from CAS

I have read all this before, but it's been helpful to get another pair of eyes on it, so thanks.

What I am struggling with is this:

1. The monitoring process starts on submission by the licensor <<the FA>> of the list of licensing decisions <<i.e. list of UEFA competition qualifiers>> to the UEFA administration and ends at the end of the licence season. Got that.
   ...
2. All licensees that have qualified for a UEFA club competition must comply with the monitoring requirements, i.e. with the break-even requirement (Articles 58 to 63) and with the other monitoring requirements (Articles 64 to 68).
   ...
3. A monitoring period is the period over which a licensee is assessed for the purpose of the break-even requirement. As a rule it covers three reporting periods:
   a) the reporting period ending in the calendar year that the UEFA club competitions commence (hereinafter: reporting period T), and
   b) the reporting period ending in the calendar year before commencement of the UEFA club competitions (hereinafter: reporting period T-1), and
   c) the preceding reporting period (hereinafter: reporting period T-2).

Surely this says that:

1. The FA will tell UEFA that Liverpool have qualified.
2. Liverpool - along with everyone else who's qualified - must meet the FFPR rules.
3. The FFPR rules will look at Liverpool's current year (y/e 2014) and prior 2 years revenues.

It even goes on to say what the exceptions are and who does not need to meet the break-even requirement over the monitoring period and the exceptions are limited and specific and do not say "clubs not previously licensed".

Unless I am grossly misunderstanding, a Monitoring Period is not like some ongoing thing when they look at things month on month as it progresses. It merely defines the window over which the assessment takes place. So in the case of Liverpool that would be their 2014, 2013 and 2012 accounts. They will look at those now and determine if the break-even result has been achieved or not.

What am I missing?

 

[Robert Jordan]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I find this UEFA story revolting. Enough said.