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

[Pam]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is there a chance that City have actually leaked this. To whip up some outrage before anything is finalised? Sorry if this has been covered already.

 

[EL APACHE TEVEZ]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What dirt could we have?

Do we have photo's of him and fat Ronaldo banging a load of Trannies in a suburb of Rio?

Not got a Scooby mate but from a few posts today its clear that something is doing the rounds shall we say.

He is a genetic mutant toadstool from a parallel universe. He must die.

You might get your wish,the way things are going someone's going to end up doing him.

 

[@BluePhil8]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not got a Scooby mate but from a few posts today its clear that something is doing the rounds shall we say.

He is a genetic mutant toadstool from a parallel universe. He must die.

You might get your wish,the way things are going someone's going to end up doing him.

Are we talking about Platini or me?

 

[Pam]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not got a Scooby mate but from a few posts today its clear that something is doing the rounds shall we say.

He is a genetic mutant toadstool from a parallel universe. He must die.

You might get your wish,the way things are going someone's going to end up doing him.

I wouldn't even mind.

 

[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).

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 :-)

I know the way the media works. All the pro-City stories read pretty much the same so they've clearly come from the club, either directly or via a third party. There is simply no way people like Hayward or Herbert would run these unless they had a very strong incentive to. And that incentive would usually be an ever better story and it would have to be a stormer. There is possibly one I could think of but that would be seismic.

 

[terraloon]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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 and past 3 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".

What am I missing?

I have to be honest when I first read the regulations I too thought that but I was told that its not within the FAs remit to look at FFP for UEFA.

Liverpool will now be granted a license to play in the CL and so they will be assessed to see if that met the break even requirements. As it says UEFA start the monitoring process in the year that you qualify .In Liverpool's case T = year ending May 2014 T-1 = 2013 & T-2 =2012. If they didn't meet the break even requirements in 12 months time they too will be facing the same sort of issue as Man City are now.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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 :-)

I know the way the media works. All the pro-City stories read pretty much the same so they've clearly come from the club, either directly or via a third party. There is simply no way people like Hayward or Herbert would run these unless they had a very strong incentive to. And that incentive would usually be an ever better story and it would have to be a stormer. There is possibly one I could think of but that would be seismic.

Is Gary Glitter involved?

 

[nickson71]

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.

sounds like an interesting summer is on the horizon or could it be a few years of court action

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).

will be interesting to see what UEFA has been up too.........

 

[without a dream]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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 :-)

I know the way the media works. All the pro-City stories read pretty much the same so they've clearly come from the club, either directly or via a third party. There is simply no way people like Hayward or Herbert would run these unless they had a very strong incentive to. And that incentive would usually be an ever better story and it would have to be a stormer. There is possibly one I could think of but that would be seismic.

Please be about Walton and Mason

 

[blueinsa]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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 :-)

I know the way the media works. All the pro-City stories read pretty much the same so they've clearly come from the club, either directly or via a third party. There is simply no way people like Hayward or Herbert would run these unless they had a very strong incentive to. And that incentive would usually be an ever better story and it would have to be a stormer. There is possibly one I could think of but that would be seismic.

So you do know something.

Seismic!