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

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not bothered going back and looking for my post but Steven, the Oxford law professor who wrote that paper on how EU law and FFP could co-exist got back to me on how UEFA could justify the linked sanctions :

Lots of open questions!

I think the argument would probably be that Man City and PSG don't have precarious finances only because they have sources of income that are unrelated to their earning power as a football club - i.e. that they are the recipients of 'financial doping'. So the sanction is meant to deter/ punish, under an assumption that they can pay because they have resources in the background which FFP treats as in effect illegitimate

It's all a bit crude/ odd, i admit


best
steve

He was playing Devil's advocate with that paper methinks.

Not sure what the question was to the answer above ;-) but my understanding is that he is saying we are being punished excessively for having rich owners and, furthermore, he seems to think this is strange (potentially unworkable is the impression I get).

Does that sum it up?

Sorry mate! :)
This would not apply only if (as was not shown) the rules went beyond what is necessary to ensure the proper conduct of competitive sport (e.g. by imposing excessively severe penalties)."
(A line from his paper)
Bit of an open question this, it was in the context of a larger discussion:
In light of the reported punishments for the football clubs PSG and Manchester City rumoured in the media this week (in particular fines of £50,000,000 and upwards) is there really any possibility in your opinion that UEFA could convince the ECJ that these rules are supposed to protect football clubs with precarious finances? After all, fining somebody who is losing money, especially at such large amounts seems to defeat the purpose, especially when you take into account that there are no provisions within the regulations to prevent clubs becoming overly leveraged with debt, a far bigger danger.

EDIT: to the last line, yes, as do a lot of other legal minds I've spoken to.

 

[SiMCFC]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think the fact we got over the line and won the Premier League has helped us to be honest, UEFA are stuck between a rock and a hard place now as they will look incredibly daft banning the current champions of England and France who happen to have some of the best marketed players in the world playing for them, does anyone think the Chumps League sponsors will be happy? Whether the G14 clubs are happy or not the Chumps League relies heavily on sponsorship, the Premier League is the most marketable league in the world and for the credibility of the competition City as champions of England have to be in this competition as far as sponsors go, had Liverpool (spit) won it, we would be banned already IMO.

People underestimate quite how popular the City brand is abroad, yes we are relatively new to Europe but the style of football, the stellar names in the squad, our dignified manager etc all make us a popular team within big football supporting countries.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think the fact we got over the line and won the Premier League has helped us to be honest, UEFA are stuck between a rock and a hard place now as they will look incredibly daft banning the current champions of England and France who happen to have some of the best marketed players in the world playing for them, does anyone think the Chumps League sponsors will be happy?

Indeed so. To lose one Champion, Mr Platini, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sorry if this has been covered. But, by my reckoning, city have never ever publicly mentioned or acknowledged FFP in any way. Annual report, chairman's statement, nothing. If I'm right about that, make no mistake about it, there's a reason. And that reason is that they have always kept the legal challenge option open, even just as a threat.

Yet more good top-level management from MCFC

 

[BlueTony]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Where exactly is Platini going to go?
He is next in line for head of FIFA and has stuck 2 fingers up to PSG and us. The bloke is a ****. Honestly who gives a Frenchman power it goes right to his cheese eating surrender monkey head

It doesn't matter where he goes. The point is that he's spreading his credibility very thin, and may very easily end up with a massive amount of egg on his face.

Blatter says he wants to stand for a fifth term ... JOY!! ... He's barking mad!!! ....Platini on the other hand appears to be an arrogant c*nt !!

Cogent analysis!

 

[SWP's back]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

According to this French media source, PSG looking to renegotiate their sanctions:

Been reported by Le Parisien too. The rumour is that PSG were taken aback by the wave of anti FFP media coverage last week and attempted on Thursday to reopen negotiations with UEFA on the basis that UEFA had not formally announced the sanctions. Whether or not UEFA have agreed to renegotiate with Paris isn't clear.

What is certainly clear from what is being reported in France is that PSG had no idea that City were going to fight this quite so hard, and reading between the lines it's being suggested that PSG have changed their stance since seeing City's reaction. Hence UEFA even though their own deadline was May 5th, are yet to announce any sanctions.

Would surprise me if Sheikh Mansour hasn't picked up the phone to the Qataris and had a quick natter.

It would surprise me hugely seeing as Qatar and the UAE are not best if friends at the minute.

 

[BlueTony]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

According to this French media source, PSG looking to renegotiate their sanctions:

Been reported by Le Parisien too. The rumour is that PSG were taken aback by the wave of anti FFP media coverage last week and attempted on Thursday to reopen negotiations with UEFA on the basis that UEFA had not formally announced the sanctions. Whether or not UEFA have agreed to renegotiate with Paris isn't clear.

What is certainly clear from what is being reported in France is that PSG had no idea that City were going to fight this quite so hard, and reading between the lines it's being suggested that PSG have changed their stance since seeing City's reaction. Hence UEFA even though their own deadline was May 5th, are yet to announce any sanctions.

My guess is that UEFA have f****d up massively here and it wouldn't surprise me if the lawyers of both clubs haven't met to discuss a pincer type movement. Although the concept of FFP is sensible there are so many flaws and loopholes in it that it isn't workable in its present format.

The concept of FFP is not sensible, it's insane.

The idea that a rich football fan cannot put his money into a club and make it successful and therefore get into Europe is ludicrous. It puts cash into the system and makes the competitions more interesting.

All FFP is designed to do is keep the ruling elite at the top. I would welcome a system that stops owners putting their clubs in hock to the bank or drawing huge amounts of cash from the club e.g. Portsmouth and the rags but for the life of me I cannot see what is wrong with the likes of a Jack Walker putting millions into his boyhood club and making them champions.

Much as I hate the scousers and chelski it would have been a much more boring title race without them ( although my heart would have appreciated it) and both have spent millions to get where they are (losers).

 

[coleridge]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sorry if this has been covered. But, by my reckoning, city have never ever publicly mentioned or acknowledged FFP in any way. Annual report, chairman's statement, nothing. If I'm right about that, make no mistake about it, there's a reason. And that reason is that they have always kept the legal challenge option open, even just as a threat.

Yet more good top-level management from MCFC

I think this is right, Dave.

Clearly, documents have been disclosed as per due process and which MCFC will seek to rely upon in any future proceedings.

Second, it must be the case that without prejudice discussions have are or taking place.

Hence, there is thus far no 'statement of case' from MCFC and, as you say, that leaves the door open to litigation.

However, I re-iterate that I believe this threat of court to be a tactic in order to do a deal.

I also repeat that Platini must be under severe pressure now. He couldn't believe his bad luck when both us and PSG became champions. FIFA are looking like a slick body compared to the chaos that he has brought upon UEFA.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sorry if this has been covered. But, by my reckoning, city have never ever publicly mentioned or acknowledged FFP in any way. Annual report, chairman's statement, nothing. If I'm right about that, make no mistake about it, there's a reason. And that reason is that they have always kept the legal challenge option open, even just as a threat.

You know Dave that is indeed interesting. I made the comment about 600 pages ago about all the comments we have made about working towards FFP compliance. I could have sworn there were many. So I had a quick search (a couple of weeks ago), and I couldn't find any, which surprised me enormously. There's nothing in the annual reports and nothing on the website (that I could find).

Like you suggest, this can't be coincidence.

 

[coleridge]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Been reported by Le Parisien too. The rumour is that PSG were taken aback by the wave of anti FFP media coverage last week and attempted on Thursday to reopen negotiations with UEFA on the basis that UEFA had not formally announced the sanctions. Whether or not UEFA have agreed to renegotiate with Paris isn't clear.

What is certainly clear from what is being reported in France is that PSG had no idea that City were going to fight this quite so hard, and reading between the lines it's being suggested that PSG have changed their stance since seeing City's reaction. Hence UEFA even though their own deadline was May 5th, are yet to announce any sanctions.

Would surprise me if Sheikh Mansour hasn't picked up the phone to the Qataris and had a quick natter.

It would surprise me hugely seeing as Qatar and the UAE are not best if friends at the minute.

They have kissed and made up, mate, as reported in Gulf News recently.