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

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I've come to quite enjoy imbibing the rich cultural canvas that visiting some of Europe's leading cities provides, by finding the biggest square and drinking there for two consecutive days.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Mg6Gfh9Co[/youtube]

careful GDM

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just a question to our ffp experts as this is above me.
Lets say the club break even in our next years accounts and we all think we've sailed through ffp then hand the books over to UEFA for them to asses.They pass them onto their accountants hinting they would like a fail.The accountants then go through the books and report they have disallowed this and that as it is not allowed under ffp also they have decided to reduce the level of so many sponsorship's as they are over market value so for ffp purposes our break even figure is turned into a loss and another fail under ffp and we end up with all this shit again next year.

The same accounts are used next year, with the addition of the ones for this year (2013/14) so that scenario is quite likely, unless we overturn the decision to disallow some revenue.

So they can punish us for losing the same amount of money in the same seasons more than once? How fucking bizarre. I cannot believe that if UEFA don't more or less cave in, that this won't end up in huge legal action. And they won't cave because the bullies in Stretford, Munich and North London won't let them. The main issue for me is, if we take these extortioners to court, can (or more importantly will) they ban us from Europe during any long drawn out action?

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I have been told that MCFC will not accept any punishment from UEFA as they consider that they have passed FFP.

Further, I was told recently, and posted it on here, that MCFC do not agree with and will now not work with FFP in its current form as they see FFP as illegal/contrary to fair sporting governance etc.

I am told that the owner(s) of City met with UEFA prior to buying City and were given assurances on what FFP was, how it would work and its principle targets of debt. FFP that City have 'failed' is none of those things.

"Get ready for a serious fight" was the advice I was given.

And as I have been boring people on this subject for long enough now I will leave it all to play out in front of us as I know nothing more than you lot.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I need some information about CAS. Its name suggests that it is simply a court of arbitration to find common ground for agreement between parties in dispute. Does this limit it to trying to find a level of fine and squad restrictions which City are prepared to accept? In other words, does it have to begin by accepting that these rules are actually consistent with the principles of European commercial law, or can it conclude that City have no case to answer because UEFA has no right to impose these regulations in the first place?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I have been told that MCFC will not accept any punishment from UEFA as they consider that they have passed FFP.

Further, I was told recently, and posted it on here, that MCFC do not agree with and will now not work with FFP in its current form as they see FFP as illegal/contrary to fair sporting governance etc.

I am told that the owner(s) of City met with UEFA prior to buying City and were given assurances on what FFP was, how it would work and its principle targets of debt. FFP that City have 'failed' is none of those things.

"Get ready for a serious fight" was the advice I was given.

And as I have been boring people on this subject for long enough now I will leave it all to play out in front of us as I know nothing more than you lot.

PM mate.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I need some information about CAS. Its name suggests that it is simply a court of arbitration to find common ground for agreement between parties in dispute. Does this limit it to trying to find a level of fine and squad restrictions which City are prepared to accept? In other words, does it have to begin by accepting that these rules are actually consistent with the principles of European commercial law, or can it conclude that City have no case to answer because UEFA has no right to impose these regulations in the first place?

CAS are superior to UEFA and have jurisdiction over them. They can order UEFA to change rules/regulations, strike out/increase punishments etc etc, the only thing they can't do is apply criminal charges, only a sovereign court can do that.

 

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I have been told that MCFC will not accept any punishment from UEFA as they consider that they have passed FFP.

Further, I was told recently, and posted it on here, that MCFC do not agree with and will now not work with FFP in its current form as they see FFP as illegal/contrary to fair sporting governance etc.

I am told that the owner(s) of City met with UEFA prior to buying City and were given assurances on what FFP was, how it would work and its principle targets of debt. FFP that City have 'failed' is none of those things.

"Get ready for a serious fight" was the advice I was given.

And as I have been boring people on this subject for long enough now I will leave it all to play out in front of us as I know nothing more than you lot.

If that is so, it really would be a fight. I can't see a prayer of UEFA backing down to that extent at all.

 

[schfc6]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Have SSN not been reporting this morning that PSG have been or agreed a fine of 20 million euro? If that is all they'll suffer, surely these 'leaked reports' are nothing more than bullshit?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I believe Martin Samuel was briefed by City last night that Paris have been fined just £20m, nothing else.

L'Equipe seem to be as guilty as the rest, in terms of speculating.

In turn, the Press Association lifted that article, which Sky and everybody else then chose to run with.

It would appear the blind are still leading the blind.

 

[Chris in London]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I need some information about CAS. Its name suggests that it is simply a court of arbitration to find common ground for agreement between parties in dispute. Does this limit it to trying to find a level of fine and squad restrictions which City are prepared to accept? In other words, does it have to begin by accepting that these rules are actually consistent with the principles of European commercial law, or can it conclude that City have no case to answer because UEFA has no right to impose these regulations in the first place?

CAS are superior to UEFA and have jurisdiction over them. They can order UEFA to change rules/regulations, strike out/increase punishments etc etc, the only thing they can't do is apply criminal charges, only a sovereign court can do that.

It cannot however make a definitive finding that FFPR is/is not compliant with EU law, especially competition law. Only the ECJ can do that. In other words, we might win in the CAS with an argument that FFPR breaches competition law but lose in the ECJ, or we might lose on that point in the CAS but win in the ECJ.

Personally, I think unless the EU law arguments were absolutely clear cut the CAS would probably approach the matter on the basis that FFPR are not unlawful under EU law, unless and until the ECJ ruled otherwise. That said, where a national court is asked to resolve a difficult question of EU law it has the power to refer the EU law question to the ECJ for determination. I don't know if CAS has the same power, or whether the ECJ would accept a reference from CAS for a ruling. But if CAS can do that it wouldn't surprise me if they did.