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

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

No-one wants a court battle mate. It's cheap words on here to say sue the bastards, but we (fans) aren't the ones paying the legal fees which could run into 10's of millions in extremis. And apart from that, it's not a very edifying prospect for City, UEFA or football in general to have a bitter court battle played out in public. It's also an enormous drain on Exec's time and resources trying to fight a legal battle and run a business at the same time. No-one wants it.

Much better all around to settle,

The problem is, we will not want to accept anything ridiculous (obviously) and certainly nothing that will materially hurt us financially or in the competition going forward. And neither will we want to accept anything that leaves us open to the same mess happening again next year and the year after that.

On the other hand, UEFA have Gill and Rummenigge et al bending their ear all the time and need to appease them in some way.

I suspect the upshot of all of this will be a last minute compromise with VERY much reduced penalties that enable UEFA to save face, and us to walk away largely unscathed. UEFA will probably say that a further review of our accounts, and more detailed explanantions from City have satisfied them that we are close to compliance and on track to comply. £10m fine and squad reduction suspended pending some future criterion that we can easily meet. Something like that. We'd almost certainly accept that given the fact we'd easily piss that away on legal fees with no guarantee of winning.

My guess, and it is a guess, is that this is the most accurate take on the situation.

Good post chippy.

I don't think City will settle and admit guilt for one second.

That's not the way they operate.

Who said anything about admitting guilt? It's about finding a way forward that gives us what we need and allows both parties to save face.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Reports that PSG fine will only be 29M - has anybody else seen this

seriously is it - all i heard was that PSG were getting a 50M fine and that is where our number came from

Daily Mail today....

 

[goalmole]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

.

Dodgy in it's own right.
UEFA apparently 'taking another look at the books' today, are they starting to back down?

It sounds like it if it's true. City will have been making threats of their own and piling on the pressure, so the cunts will just go through a charade to make it look like they've followed some kind of procedure, when the truth is that they've blinked because they haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

[laserblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Who said anything about admitting guilt? It's about finding a way forward that gives us what we need and allows both parties to save face.

Accepting a fine is admitting guilt. The same as accepting a police caution (ask Martin Edwards) is an admission of guilt.

 

[goalmole]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

No.

That's pretty much what I thought .
Why then ( another simple , but I hope not stupid question ) does Uefa think that they can operate in this manner, contrary to laws which apply to every other sphere of business?
Have they become so consumed with self - importance that they think they are above the law?
Or has their unchallenged term of football omnipotence led them to believe that somehow they are different from everyone else and that they can make rules which are patently illegal?
I am confused.

This is the answer that UEFA give to the legality http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html

9) Is FFP in line with European law?

UEFA has been in permanent dialogue with the European Commission about financial fair play and has received continued support for this initiative. There is also a joint statement from the UEFA President and the EU commissioner for competition, emphasising the consistency between the rules and objectives of financial fair play and the policy aims of the EU commission in the field of state aid.

They can of course claim all they want and the commission can agree with them but it's worthless until tested in law

Exactly. The twats at the EU commission are as bent as these fuckers at EUFA. They all have their noses in the trough so i wouldn't give too much weight to their opinion. It's the ECJ that counts.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Who said anything about admitting guilt? It's about finding a way forward that gives us what we need and allows both parties to save face.

Accepting a fine is admitting guilt. The same as accepting a police caution (ask Martin Edwards) is an admission of guilt.

No it isn't, the "settlement" could be agreed without prejudice as has already been stated.

 

[jonmcity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

No.

That's pretty much what I thought .
Why then ( another simple , but I hope not stupid question ) does Uefa think that they can operate in this manner, contrary to laws which apply to every other sphere of business?
Have they become so consumed with self - importance that they think they are above the law?
Or has their unchallenged term of football omnipotence led them to believe that somehow they are different from everyone else and that they can make rules which are patently illegal?
I am confused.[/quote]

This is the answer that UEFA give to the legality http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html

9) Is FFP in line with European law?

UEFA has been in permanent dialogue with the European Commission about financial fair play and has received continued support for this initiative. There is also a joint statement from the UEFA President and the EU commissioner for competition, emphasising the consistency between the rules and objectives of financial fair play and the policy aims of the EU commission in the field of state aid.

They can of course claim all they want and the commission can agree with them but it's worthless until tested in law[/quote]
Exactly. The twats at the EU commission are as bent as these fuckers at EUFA. They all have their noses in the trough so i wouldn't give too much weight to their opinion. It's the ECJ that counts.[/quote]

Manchester City has been in permanent dialogue with EUFA about financial fair play. Did,t help us any

 

[laserblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Who said anything about admitting guilt? It's about finding a way forward that gives us what we need and allows both parties to save face.

Accepting a fine is admitting guilt. The same as accepting a police caution (ask Martin Edwards) is an admission of guilt.

No it isn't, the "settlement" could be agreed without prejudice as has already been stated.

I stand corrected. I missed that bit.

 

[Selbyblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Who said anything about admitting guilt? It's about finding a way forward that gives us what we need and allows both parties to save face.

Accepting a fine is admitting guilt. The same as accepting a police caution (ask Martin Edwards) is an admission of guilt.

No it isn't, the "settlement" could be agreed without prejudice as has already been stated.

Same as a compromise agreement. A ex-colleague of mine submitted tribunal papers against our employer. During the course of solicitors corresponding he offered a compromise agreement. We thought we would win but the thought of the bad publicity and legal costs meant we accepted and paid a settlement. The agreement was worded such that there was no admission of guilt etc.

Can't believe the weasel got a nice lump sum that he didn't deserve.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

God you are tiresome Johnny.

He is, tiresomely accurate as well. Try harder to see the good in folk Sooty - like I do with Herr Rummenigge & his pals ;-)

Same as a compromise agreement. A ex-colleague of mine submitted tribunal papers against our employer. During the course of solicitors corresponding he offered a compromise agreement. We thought we would win but the thought of the bad publicity and legal costs meant we accepted and paid a settlement. The agreement was worded such that there was no admission of guilt etc.
Can't believe the weasel got a nice lump sum that he didn't deserve.

If you were confident you'd done nothing unlawful you should have taken him to the tribunal then. The standard wording of an Acas COT3 always requires a clause stating that the settlement sum is paid without admitting liability on the part of the employer but you could have proved that in court without paying a bean.