Because they don't want to go to court, they want all the clubs to accept the new rules and play ball.welsh_andy said:my question is that if uefa are so confident over this, then why do they offer to negotiate rather than just enforcing a punishment
Dodgy in it's own right.Matty said:UEFA are trying to punish us as they say we've failed.
We don't believe we've failed at all.
However the process UEFA have in place has no element within it to challenge the decision on FFP, all we can do is challenge the punishment they are trying to apply.
.
welsh_andy said:my question is that if uefa are so confident over this, then why do they offer to negotiate rather than just enforcing a punishment
Roosty said:The CFCB was taking one final look at City’s accounts on Thursday to satisfy itself of the extent of their breach and whether it is indeed comparable to that of PSG.
Matty said:The main issue here seems to be one of viewpoint.
UEFA (via PWC) have assessed our accounts and deemed us to have failed FFP.
We had our accounts assessed by Deloittes amongst others and they deemed our accounts to have passed FFP.
UEFA are trying to punish us as they say we've failed.
We don't believe we've failed at all.
However the process UEFA have in place has no element within it to challenge the decision on FFP, all we can do is challenge the punishment they are trying to apply.
Why, if we don't believe we've failed at all, should we accept any form of punishment for failing?
As UEFA don't actually provide a forum by which we can challenge the pass/fail decision on FFP (just the punishment on failing) then we surely have no real course of action other than to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and challenge the way in which UEFA have applied the rules. The 2 key elements to this would be the Etihad deal and UEFA's (believed) decision that this is a related party, and inflated value one at that, and the (believed) exclusion of the sale of Intellectual Property. CAS should be able to make a decision, based upon UEFA's own FFP rules, as to whether the Etihad deal should indeed have been classed as a related party one (I simply can't see how UEFA can view it as one when their own measures are identical to the ones used in most western countries, and which clearly demonstrate it NOT to be related). They should also be able to decide whether the value of the Etihad deal (£40m p.a.) was inflated (again I can't see how they have reached that decision given DHL paid United £10m a year to sponsor their training kit only, and AON have signed a deal worth circa £20m a year to sponsor United's training ground only). CAS will also be able to see whether or not the removal of the IP sale is something UEFA is able to do within the FFP rules they've followed (there is nothing, as far as I can tell, that specifically allows them to do so. The only potential loophole they may have used is to deem the IP sale to a "third party", whom City will not confirm the identity of, as a "related party" as they are unable to confirm that it is not a related party without knowing who the third party actually is. However, even in this scenario, you'd have thought a suspended punishment, until such time as City are able to announce the name of the third party, and an accurate assessment of their "third party" status, or lack thereof, could be made, would have been a more apt punishment to apply).
City didn't really want to go down the legal challenge route, of that I'm certain, however UEFA seem to have given them no choice. UEFA may very well live to regret this hardline stance on City's FFP situation, they've poked the tiger with a stick a little too hard, they will need to be prepared for a ferocious response.
aguero93:20 said:Because they don't want to go to court, they want all the clubs to accept the new rules and play ball.welsh_andy said:my question is that if uefa are so confident over this, then why do they offer to negotiate rather than just enforcing a punishment
Looks like you're going to get your wish if they don't back down in the next 28.5 hours or so mate, seatbelts on.welsh_andy said:aguero93:20 said:Because they don't want to go to court, they want all the clubs to accept the new rules and play ball.welsh_andy said:my question is that if uefa are so confident over this, then why do they offer to negotiate rather than just enforcing a punishment
exactly and this is my point, they are not 100% they can win this in court, hence offer to negotiate, we need a club to stand up and fight them, would have been easier if other clubs would take the same stance, but they have obviously been let off lightly and us been given it big time. we need to take this all way, though i believe we would win this at the appeal stage once the full picture is looked at. i rather go down fighting than go cap in hand to those bunch of twat at uefa
aguero93:20 said:Dodgy in it's own right.Matty said:UEFA are trying to punish us as they say we've failed.
We don't believe we've failed at all.
However the process UEFA have in place has no element within it to challenge the decision on FFP, all we can do is challenge the punishment they are trying to apply.
.
UEFA apparently 'taking another look at the books' today, are they starting to back down?
welsh_andy said:aguero93:20 said:Because they don't want to go to court, they want all the clubs to accept the new rules and play ball.welsh_andy said:my question is that if uefa are so confident over this, then why do they offer to negotiate rather than just enforcing a punishment
exactly and this is my point, they are not 100% they can win this in court, hence offer to negotiate, we need a club to stand up and fight them, would have been easier if other clubs would take the same stance, but they have obviously been let off lightly and us been given it big time. we need to take this all way, though i believe we would win this at the appeal stage once the full picture is looked at. i rather go down fighting than go cap in hand to those bunch of twat at uefa