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

BluessinceHydeRoad · 10 May 2014

Re: City & FFP (continued)

MANCHESTER THANKS YOU SHEIKH MANSOUR!

It's time to proclaim this loud and long from the rooftops. For us it's one of those 1940 moments when the world has sol out to, or been forced to accept, a set of values so perverted the civilised men are driven to despair. Wenger and his bunch of self-interested failures are so determined that everyone should see their selfish interests as high principles that all they can do is bleat that "they're the rules. You have to obey the rules!" as though they're an appeaser unconcerned at the fact they're defending the Nuremberg laws. The reality is that the Sheikh is showing up the intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy of the football establishment. Who is actually developing young footballers in Britain? The FA? The cartel? You must be f***ing joking! Who is providing more tickets at more affordable prices? Pontius Wenger and his cronies? You are f***ing joking! And who is respecting their football club's history and traditions and reinforcing its links with its community? Well it must be the Glaziers. Now we know you're f***ing joking! No! It' all the man who's such a threat to football that he has to be fined more than anyone ever before.

Well, we're loud, proud and loyal in these parts and perhaps we need to show it. And Sunday isn't a bad time to bear witness to the fact that Manchester, the people of all Manchester, thank Sheikh Mansour, and thanks him with an eternal gratitude.

cookster · 10 May 2014

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Great article

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu...-eu-competition-law-beat-financial-fair-play?

Manchester City Football Club is considering challenging a record-breaking €60 million fine for breaching UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules by using EU competition law to prevent cartels and abuse of market dominance.

Despite Competition Commissioner Joaquín Almunia’s declared support for FFP, the European Commission’s antitrust department will examine any complaint made on its merits, EurActiv has learnt.

UEFA is European football’s governing body and runs the lucrative Champions League competition. Under FFP, clubs in UEFA competitions were allowed to make losses of about €45 million between 2011-13. City lost about €182 but argue that, when various exceptions are taken into account they narrowly hit the target.

Abu Dhabi-owned City was one of nine football clubs including Qatari-owned Paris St Germain to be charged with breaching the regulations. As well as a fine, City face having their Champions League squad cut from 25 players to 21.

Any complaint by City, set a deadline by UEFA of today (9 May) to accept a reduced fine or face stronger penalties, is likely be under EU treaty rules governing abuse of dominant market position and price-fixing, rather than state aid rules.

Article 101 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU states that a unilateral action can be anti-competitive. This rule covers decisions by associations, which would arguably include UEFA’s decision to fine City. By fining City, UEFA are giving a competitive advantage to other businesses (other football clubs), lawyers could argue.

Article 102 deals with abuse of dominant market position. City would have to establish what market, likely European football, is being dominated. Because the Champions League is so lucrative for participating clubs, there is a risk those clubs become entrenched as their financial advantage is so strong. It is only through large injections of cash that clubs like City and PSG can break the stranglehold of the established elite.

City could claim that the fine and squad cut constitutes a barrier to entry of the market but the European football market is so large it may be difficult to prove it is dominated by an elite.

Another ground for complaint is that FFP “directly or indirectly imposes unfair purchase,” that it illegally prevents City from trading as it wishes.

The concept of consumer prejudice also comes under article 102. City could argue that impairing its performance in the Champions League restrict competition with other clubs. That could lead to the established elite raising ticket prices, for example. The commission often looks favourably on consumer arguments, legal experts said.

The complaint is likely to include a number of differing aspects in a bid to convince the commission the case warrants further investigation.

Almunia’s support for FFP

Almunia’s support for FFP is based on the idea that good financial governance would prevent a breach of EU state aid rules. Those rules are designed to prevent competition in the marketplace being distorted by injections of public money.Seven Spanish clubs including Real Madrid and Barcelona and Almunia’s beloved Athletic Bilbao, were charged with breaches of state aid rules in December last year.

Almunia will be leaving his post in November when a new European Commission is appointed. His replacement may have a different view on FFP to the Spanish Socialist. The process kick-started by a complaint will likely continue beyond Almunia’s reign, especially if EU officials decide an investigation is warranted.

If the investigation goes City’s way they would be able to take that decision to a national court, and argue for recompense. Although UEFA is based in Nyon, Switzerland; the Swiss are governed by the same competition laws as EU member states. If UEFA appeals the commission decision, as would be expected, the case could take more than four years to resolve in the European Court of Justice.

PSG yesterday agreed to settle for a €25 million fine, rather than fight the UEFA charge any longer. City’s €42m-a-year sponsorship deal with Etihad and PSG’s €200m-a-year contract with the Qatar Tourism Authority were both deemed not to be a valid means for them to balance their books under FFP break-even rules

City, almost certain to claim their second English Premier League title in three years on Sunday, are understood to be furious at being bracketed with the French club. It’s been reported City argue their intention was always to comply with FFP, unlike PSG.

If the club doesn’t reach a deal, it will be referred to European football’s Club Financial Control Body, which would assess afresh whether the club failed to comply with FFP rules in their 2011-13 accounts and, if so, would likely impose an even sterner penalty.

If City do make a complaint, it will be the second made to the commission against FFP. Jean-Louis Dupont, the lawyer who successfully challenged football contract laws in the famous Bosman case made a complaint last year. Among his arguments is that FFP reduces revenue for football agents such as his client Belgian Daniel Striani.

James Crisp

Blue Beard · 10 May 2014

Re: City & FFP (continued)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/how-manchester-city-could-use-eu-competition-law-beat-financial-fair-play" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-f ... -fair-play</a>

right on the money this link guys

Groke · 10 May 2014

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Never forget Arsenal's role in this sham. Every player, fan and their manager should shit it when visiting east Manchester

CitizenTID · 10 May 2014

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Does anyone know if we're charging those gypsies to park their caravans on the grounds of Carrington? This could count as income to FFP if we do.

Henkeman · 10 May 2014