You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
Re: City & FFP (continued)
As shit has this has been the bonus get out posted on the site for every fucker to read is a get of jail free card fit future seasons. If Sagna is done he can say I was offered 80k but an fa runners medal is not what I wanted on my mantle piece to show grand kids. I ve come to city for a quarter of that to win silver ware oh thanks very much got the 4 m bonus for prem survival
As shit has this has been the bonus get out posted on the site for every fucker to read is a get of jail free card fit future seasons. If Sagna is done he can say I was offered 80k but an fa runners medal is not what I wanted on my mantle piece to show grand kids. I ve come to city for a quarter of that to win silver ware oh thanks very much got the 4 m bonus for prem survival
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I've not read the last few pages so excuse me if this has been covered, but the rule on home-grown players is "Article 18.12: If a club has fewer than eight locally trained players in its squad, then the maximum number of players on List A is reduced accordingly." <a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/competitions/Regulations/01/94/62/34/1946234_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>
Therefore, any club which only has four locally trained players in its squad would have to reduce the total squad to 21 players. As we can only have 21 players, you'd think that rule should apply in reverse. But as UEFA are making it up as they go along...
I've not read the last few pages so excuse me if this has been covered, but the rule on home-grown players is "Article 18.12: If a club has fewer than eight locally trained players in its squad, then the maximum number of players on List A is reduced accordingly." <a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/competitions/Regulations/01/94/62/34/1946234_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>
Therefore, any club which only has four locally trained players in its squad would have to reduce the total squad to 21 players. As we can only have 21 players, you'd think that rule should apply in reverse. But as UEFA are making it up as they go along...
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Why do people think that if we took this to court & won, that the media would think we did everything right ?
Are you really that fucking stupid ?
It would be 'cheats' who got away with it. The publicity would be 10 times worse.
Why do people think that if we took this to court & won, that the media would think we did everything right ?
Are you really that fucking stupid ?
It would be 'cheats' who got away with it. The publicity would be 10 times worse.
cleavers
Moderator
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Funny how they never wanted to stop themselves doing it though eh ?Marvin said:Everyone knows that City have bought success, and that the existing elite clubs wanted to stop that.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Hear hearcorky1970 said:Exeter Blue I am here said:RandomJ said:Exactly. If I see one more person trying to twist this as a victory for the club I'm gonna tear my hair out. It's impossible for it to be a victory for the club because the club has been fucking shafted. And by bending over and taking that shafting every journalist, TV pundit, football fan, man on the street is going to think we cooked the books and are cheats. I'm livid the club has not fought this.
It stinks, but the potential consequences of mounting a full blown legal challenge included, in no particular order:
1. Being banned from the CL for a couple of years whilst the legal process took place
2. Potentially losing our best players because of that ban
3. No guarantee of victory at the end of it
4. Pissing UEFA off to the point we would never be invited to play in the CL again, or worse still bankrupting them and leaving the cartel to run the game completely, in their absence.
We were up against bent cunts, and all things considered we've escaped relatively unscathed (a Candlepool or Arseholenal appeal notwithstanding). Do you not think if it was as simple as just challenging UEFA in Court, winning, and all living happily ever after, our owners wouldn't have taken that option?
But we would have been right, that's the fucking truth
Being right sometimes matters
Being right deserves fighting for
People are missing the whole fucking point here so I'll spell it out as simple as I can for the financial and legal experts I wouldn't trust to tell me the weather in Siberia .
FFP. Is in it's entirety illegal in any other business or walk of life, City should have made a stand
So take you millions this, home quota that, politics this and parley
It's what right that matters and we have joined and sucked the cock of Uefa , with a little tickling of the balls
So in all due respect fellow posters, take your " expertise " and fuck off
No one believes you anymore
Re: City & FFP (continued)
so what?
they are hypocrites
Neville Kneville said:Why do people think that if we took this to court & won, that the media would think we did everything right ?
Are you really that fucking stupid ?
It would be 'cheats' who got away with it. The publicity would be 10 times worse.
so what?
they are hypocrites
Bodicoteblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 5,903
Re: City & FFP (continued)
This is essentially an out of court settlement .
The wording of the club's statement makes that clear.
We could have gone to all sorts of legal actions , dragging the whole thing out for years and spending a load of dosh ( not one of the sheikh's serious problems ) but losing sympathy and judging by the statement , potentially losing sponsors , who don't really want to be associated with legal battles . Remember , they are not sponsors because they love this club or are life - long City fans , they are sponsors for purely commercial reasons , and long drawn out legal battles with us being painted as villains would be horrific. Where would our plans for the future be then?
We have compromised , sure , but so have they - we have agreed to disagree and we can all walk away relatively unscathed. That's the real world I'm afraid , not always what you want , but often just what you can get.
Hopefully this whole scam will unravel after the current action , and we will reap the benefit without taking any of the flak.
I think they call that a "win, win " situation.
This is essentially an out of court settlement .
The wording of the club's statement makes that clear.
We could have gone to all sorts of legal actions , dragging the whole thing out for years and spending a load of dosh ( not one of the sheikh's serious problems ) but losing sympathy and judging by the statement , potentially losing sponsors , who don't really want to be associated with legal battles . Remember , they are not sponsors because they love this club or are life - long City fans , they are sponsors for purely commercial reasons , and long drawn out legal battles with us being painted as villains would be horrific. Where would our plans for the future be then?
We have compromised , sure , but so have they - we have agreed to disagree and we can all walk away relatively unscathed. That's the real world I'm afraid , not always what you want , but often just what you can get.
Hopefully this whole scam will unravel after the current action , and we will reap the benefit without taking any of the flak.
I think they call that a "win, win " situation.