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

[cheddar404]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

They'll be quaking in their boots when they see who the Sheikh's cosy with

Pellegrini?

 

[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 :

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

I think he was doing a bit more than playing Devil's advocate! If we accept the concept of "financial doping" (and it's hard to define what it is, let alone discuss it!) we have to explain how having" sources of income that are unrelated to their earning power as a football club" actually makes a club unstable financially. It doesn't, of course, if you insist that any excess spending is covered by investment each year if necessary. We come, inevitably, back to the real threat to financial stability, the one UEFA avoid like the plague, debt. Every club which is a member of the elite, with the exception of Munich (whose big money sponsorship deals are all with shareholders in the club!), have debts which are alarmingly high, exceed their annual revenue and, in the case of Barcelona amounted, in 2010, to 60% of the total worth of the club. I on't think UEFA's aim of protecting " the long term viability and sustainability of European club football" through FFP would be taken too seriously in court. Stephen was trying to imagine how UEFA would defend the regs in court, but he made it quite clear that he didn't accept the case they could make.

You've got your happy ears/eyes on there mate.

He was very clear in his article that there could be a case, but that it's no slam dunk and would need to be tested. And above he says how it could be defended, even if the defence might appear odd.

Something else as well. There's nothing wrong with debt per se and especially if it's taken on to fund investment. Many large businesses have large amounts of long term debt. The issue is debt at a level that you cannot service, and you could argue that by forcing clubs not to spend more than the earn, you protect against this.

I am not taking Platini's side by the way, clearly not, as a City fan. But I do think we need to be balanced in our assessments. Anyone who just thinks sod it, sue the bastards, is not really thinking it though. It could damage our reputation enormously, cost a fortune, consume huge amounts of management time and effort - distracting execs from doing more productive things - and at the end of the day we could lose anyway.

Court has to be the very last resort after all other options have been exhausted.

Yes but when you're protecting clubs against being financially unstable, Debt is a far bigger problem than equity investment, Asset-stripping is a far bigger problem than equity investment. It will be very difficult to convince a court that the best way to protect a club is to stop their owner from investing his own money as equity.

EDIT: and one of the things UEFA will have to prove when Dupont brings it to the ECJ if not before is that there is no better alternative method to protect clubs from being financially unstable than the FFPR, which they won't be able to do if faced by decent legal counsel, after all, it's accepted within the world of commerce that the SOFP is at least an equal indication of a company's financial health than their yearly profit & loss account, if not greater.

 

[Dribble]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Much as I want to see the fancy plans for the collar site, you can understand why they developed the academy and community/college aspects first.
That's been a major trump card to play when the negativity gets a little too much. Aside from the initial Sulaiman Al Fahim hiccups the professionalism has been second to none. The 'build then talk about it'/watertight thoughts behind doors has been 'outstanding.

One cannot help but wonder if there'd been such haste to bring in FFP if Sulaiman Al Fahim hadn't mouthed off so much in September 2008.

This.

The good thing is that we quickly kicked him and his loads a money bullshit to the kerb. We are still trying to recover from that damage in the eyes of many and I fear irrespective of what we do in the future, that assumption about us will follow us around for years to come like 'same old Arsenal, always cheating'.

Every opportunity opposing managers get to mention money in relation to us, they take. Will we ever shake this assumption off? I don't know but it seriously pisses me off when it constantly gets mentioned.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Good point, GDM.

Didsbury's second finest.

third, no way is anyone trumping me.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

on a side note, with our trip to Abu Dhabi, I'm sure Sheikhy would request the presence of his key men there, and so I can't imagine there'll be much negotiating with UEFA, so maybe we will hear something.

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

on a side note, with our trip to Abu Dhabi, I'm sure Sheikhy would request the presence of his key men there, and so I can't imagine there'll be much negotiating with UEFA, so maybe we will hear something.

I imagine all of this is being done via the Lawyers and not with the club directly.

 

[rnblade]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It's Hitlertini and his cronies who don't like City.full stop.
There were some good points made in earlier posts about investment etc.
Why should an owner be dictated to as how he can spend his OWN money, not investors/shareholders?

 

[syedorf]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It's Hitlertini and his cronies who don't like City.full stop.
There were some good points made in earlier posts about investment etc.
Why should an owner be dictated to as how he can spend his OWN money, not investors/shareholders?

Good quotes earlier about asset stripping similar to what happened to county got bought ground used as a stop gap not given a fuck about look at them now. Ffp has got good intentions but for the wrong people and not done in the right way

 

[Jacks77]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Richard Conway ‏@richard_conway 29 min

Starting to resemble Groundhog Day but.. we may learn later if Manchester City reached a deal with Uefa over FFP. Then again, we may not.

Some bbc journo has some info or he has not.:)

 

[yerwot?]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

hypothetical scenario
if this goes to the highest level of court, on one side would be the ADUG legal team, on the other would be the massed ranks of the cartel legal team, backed by the glazers, usmanov et al. Could be the heavyweight fight of the century, certainly the most expensive.
Given the amount of money involved( mainly t.v. rights and sponsorship) the cartel will be desperate to keep their private gold-mine to themselves.
The law has often been used by the goliaths of business to bankrupt smaller competitors, BA tried it with Virgin and came unstuck when branson sold some of his music empire to fund the court costs.
It must be obvious to the arse/rag/munich axis that ADUG cannot be bullied, so, imho a compromise will be reached. BT NIKE BSKYB possibly AL JAZEERA will be very active in the background and could be crucial in the outcome of negotiations