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

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The strange thing is.

If Samuel knows about it, and he wrote that article in February, I can't believe that UEFA still don't know what it is, yet he does, and City won't tell UEFA, even though UEFA must have asked City about it on numerous occasions during the FFPR negotiations.

Something doesn't add up. What's the real truth?

 

[Chancy Termites]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Can anyone give a theoretical example of someone who may have bought the intellectual property rights, but we wouldn't be able to say who they are?

this please

See my post on the previous page.

Thanks. Missed that first time round. Yes that could definitely make sense.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Can anyone give a theoretical example of someone who may have bought the intellectual property rights, but we wouldn't be able to say who they are?

A European Team?
An English team being lined up as part of the proposed "B" ! Team rules?
A Team that hasn't started yet in a developing (in football terms) nation?

It was player image rights and we wouldn't sell those to another club. It has to be a commercial organisation which is planning to use them and, as I said on page 659, my suspicion based on waht Samuel hinted at (and it really is a pure guess) is that it's something to do with the leisure attraction on the collar site.

It could be confidential as we could have signed contracts with them but are waiting for other negotiations, possibly with other partners or the council, to be concluded before we publicly announce anything. Anything that's ahead of the game you would want to keep confidential as long as you could.

My money is on a broader international deal with Nike.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I just read that MOST EXCELLENT "FFP Stinks" blog linked above (thanks for that).

i didn't know it already (actually I did) what it reminded me of, is just how corrupt this whole thing is. It is transparent to anyone with a quarter, let alone a half, of a brain that there can be no justification whatsoever in barring owner equity investment in the name of protecting clubs from going bust. It is equally blindingly obvious that it is about protecting the interests of the cartel, to the detriment of newcomers. I guess the only really surprising thing is that clever lawyers at UEFA didn't manage to hide the real intentions a bit better than they have.

So given it is so intolerably bent, why on earth have we waited 5 years to let it get to this? I know the Bosman lawyer is doing his bit, but even that is quite recent.

I believe it was Edmund Burke who said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". And with FFP, lots of good men have done nothing. Would it not have made sense, back in 2009 when these rules were being drafted, to make it clear to UEFA that since the rules were obviously corrupt, that we would never accept them and if they went ahead and introduced them, we would seek to have them overturned in the ECJ. I don't know, but perhaps had we taken a firm line early on, all of this could have been avoided?

Because I seriously doubt City are the good guys here, at least not deliberately. City wanted to get in before the door slammed shut, and yes, voted against it. But ultimately FFP will benefit City by preventing anyone new coming along to challenge. City wanted to pass no question, but I find it a bit hard to believe that if they did or even do, they'll then go on on a moral mission to protest the inequity of it to the likes of Aston Villa.

what if we don't want to pass a made up test invented to protect a cartel?

i hope our intent is to expose it for the illegal bag of cartel driven shite that it looks, smells and feels like

then perhaps we would indeed have done Villa a favour if they get lucky and can attract an upgrade on their current uninterested rich foreign owner.....

If this was the case, why did we not just throw another £10m at the Isco deal, to make sure he came here. And Cavani. And umpteen other targets we wanted, but ultimately lost out on.

No, the fact is, demonstrably we have been trying to balance the books and meet the break-even requirement. If the destruction of FFP was our goal, we would not have been playing ball for so long.

 

[blueparrot]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A European Team?
An English team being lined up as part of the proposed "B" ! Team rules?
A Team that hasn't started yet in a developing (in football terms) nation?

It was player image rights and we wouldn't sell those to another club. It has to be a commercial organisation which is planning to use them and, as I said on page 659, my suspicion based on waht Samuel hinted at (and it really is a pure guess) is that it's something to do with the leisure attraction on the collar site.

It could be confidential as we could have signed contracts with them but are waiting for other negotiations, possibly with other partners or the council, to be concluded before we publicly announce anything. Anything that's ahead of the game you would want to keep confidential as long as you could.

My money is on a broader international deal with Nike.

I've wondered about a renegotiated deal with Nike to include the mini stadium and training facility for a while. Not with any knowledge just seems to fit to me. Could it be one big deal ?

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just thinking out loud

As others have stated, perhaps it's to do with the proposed leisure destination, or more likely, the new training academy?

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It was player image rights and we wouldn't sell those to another club. It has to be a commercial organisation which is planning to use them and, as I said on page 659, my suspicion based on waht Samuel hinted at (and it really is a pure guess) is that it's something to do with the leisure attraction on the collar site.

It could be confidential as we could have signed contracts with them but are waiting for other negotiations, possibly with other partners or the council, to be concluded before we publicly announce anything. Anything that's ahead of the game you would want to keep confidential as long as you could.

My money is on a broader international deal with Nike.

I've wondered about a renegotiated deal with Nike to include the mini stadium and training facility for a while. Not with any knowledge just seems to fit to me. Could it be one big deal ?

As long as there is a "no shield" clause inserted.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just thinking out loud

As others have stated, perhaps it's to do with the proposed leisure destination, or more likely, the new training academy?

Don't forget, Aon are offering United £150mill to sponsor their training academy.

 

[CitizenTID]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Have EUFA announced anything yet on punishment etc.? Not been able to follow the thread last few days

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Have EUFA announced anything yet on punishment etc.? Not been able to follow the thread last few days

Nope, they're now saying negotiations could be ongoing for quite some time.