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

[Hamann Pineapple]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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

Samir Nasri must be offered up for sacrifice at the altar of the Grand Lodge of Illuminati in Paris

 

[CitizenTID]

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.

Ok cheers

 

[vonksbignose]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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

Samir Nasri must be offered up for sacrifice at the altar of the Grand Lodge of Illuminati in Paris

His missus won't be happy!

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...thing-attack-on-didier-deschamps-9367175.html

 

[Balti]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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

Samir Nasri must be offered up for sacrifice at the altar of the Grand Lodge of Illuminati in Paris

 

[Eebo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That geezer Martin Samuel, he is the f*cking man!

 

[Bodicoteblue]

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.

At the start of this farce , I think that City knew that under the rules of FFP at the time ( crucial) we would probably pass and things would carry on . We'd be safe and uefa would have appeared to do the bidding of we all know who.
Both sides could have said that they had both done their jobs properly. Faces saved all round.
Then , at the last minute , the cartel realised that this was a scenario that was not what they were seeking to achieve at all , so they decided to tell uefa to shift the goalposts .
Result - the chaos and confusion we see now. I think the cartel has well and truly hit the panic button .

 

[trotsky]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That geezer Martin Samuel, he is the f*cking man!

+1
An articulate voice of reason against a wail of screaming ill-informed fuckwits!

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

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.

But how much detail about these deals will City have disclosed to UEFA? I ask, because if City are saying to UEFA that these deals are sound, but that they are unable or unwilling to disclose the nature of them, then could this be partly what the disagreement is about?

Or is that unlikely, and City will have disclosed the details of the deal to UEFA, on a non disclosure basis?

It could be that City don't want David Gill finding out what we're upto before it happens.

 

[goalmole]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

Is the correct answer. City don't want to break the cartel, they want to join it.

 

[stony]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So did I, and this response that he gave to a question, made me sit up and take notice:

"Look at the origins of financial fair play and where it ended up, I think the elite clubs had a bigger influence on its final draft than you imagine. Also, I know where those intellectual property rights have gone and why it cannot be disclosed. When City can make an announcement, more will be understood".

I know we're all speculating and everybody seems to be making wild assumptions about things that aren't in the public domain at the moment, but could Samuel's comment be hinting at City refusing to accept punishments, based on deals that they know to be legitimate, but that they are unable to disclose the nature of to UEFA?

Perhaps PB knows more about how much City will have been willing or legally obliged to disclose to UEFA on the basis of confidential contractual agreements such as these?

Can anyone post a link or tell me exactly where the highlighted bit is. Can't find it. Thanks.

Sorry fellas, how rude of me!

It's here, although it's quite a long read. The highlighted bit is from the 9th response from the bottom (I think I counted that right)!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

What a great read that was. It's always nice to see someone with a brain engaging idiots. It's hardly a fair fight but great fun nonetheless.