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

What narks me greatly here is that other clubs are now going to be allowed to do what we have done, but where we got punished for it and under the "new" rules still prevents us (if we needed to) any further accellerated spending). The sting in the tail is the punishment side of it. We took (the pinch). Not only did we curb our spending in the past 4 years to try and comply with UEFA, (we only failed as they moved the goalposts) so we had a squeze on spending whilst our revenue generator got going, but then got a kick in the gonads for failing....just.

So we are expected to sit by and watch other clubs spend our fine whilst writing cheques we were no allowed to write.

I'm sure the City Lawyers will be grinning from ear to ear reading this latest concoction of utter garbage. We have to, have to go after these cunts now, and not just sit back, taking a dry rooting whilst others do what we were not allowed to do.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
The thing is, there are so many 'experts' who are now so entrenched by their views/comments on FFP (whatever their motivation or qualifications) that it is becoming increasingly difficult for them with each passing day to backtrack, they don't have the integrity or the bollocks to admit they might either be wrong or don't possess all of the facts.

I would have more respect for those who did. Instead, they feel the need to over egg the pudding to not lose face.
Click to expand...

I just don't get the necessity to be publically OK'd by UEFA by a press statement. Why would they want to? Why would City want them to?

We have a deal where we can make a loss of £20m in season 2014-15 (excluding FFP fine) and a loss of £10m in season 2015-16
The FFP rulebook states that that if we're FFP break-even compliant (i.e. in profit for all FFP related transactions) then all sanctions except the unconditional fine element are over
It is stated in it's most succinct form in the UEFA FAQ
http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html
UEFA FFP FFQ said:
17) How are clubs that have contravened financial fair play being incentivised to become break-even compliant?

Settlements require the clubs to become compliant with financial fair play within a short period of time. Failure to meet settlement terms will lead to the club being automatically referred to the adjudicatory chamber.

Conversely if a club fulfils each individual requirement of the settlement, it may be released from the limitation on the number of players for UEFA competitions for the following season. If a club becomes break-even compliant during the course of the settlement, all sanctions shall cease to apply for the following season, with the exception of the non-conditional element of the financial measure.
Click to expand...

Note the bit I have underlined.
 
BlueAnorak said:
I just don't get the necessity to be publically OK'd by UEFA by a press statement. Why would they want to? Why would City want them to?

We have a deal where we can make a loss of £20m in season 2014-15 (excluding FFP fine) and a loss of £10m in season 2015-16
The FFP rulebook states that that if we're FFP break-even compliant (i.e. in profit for all FFP related transactions) then all sanctions except the unconditional fine element are over
It is stated in it's most succinct form in the UEFA FAQ
http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html


Note the bit I have underlined.
Click to expand...

I remember, there was someone, who posted all this months ago...well ahead of the game...
 
This thread goes round in circles. It was done to death back when someone at the club said we were ‘now’ free from sanctions. The conclusion was that we are profitable so are therefore out of sanctions. As I see it the only FFP issue is the ongoing break even test which should be fine for the foreseeable given the expected growth in income in the league on top of the good years we have had and will hopefully continue to have.
 
The Response from our legal team just sent to me .

Reaction to UEFA’s changes to Financial Fair Play


Our clients (Mr. Daniel Striani, Manchester Football Club Supporters Club and supporters of Paris St Germain) have been informed of the amendments to the Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations adopted yesterday by UEFA.


First, they find the crucial measure taken, namely to allow a degree of over-spending (as long as this over-spending is guaranteed by shareholders of the club), to be precisely one of the measures they had requested before the courts. Before the judges, UEFA nevertheless argued during 2 years that such an alternative was totally incompatible with the objectives of FFP. Good to know that UEFA has finally updated its software…


UEFA says that with these amendments, FFP is evolving from a "period of austerity to a sustainable growth period." In more direct terms, UEFA is simply moving from an entirely illegal rule to a rule that becomes a little bit less illegal.


Indeed, in competition law, any excessive restriction of the freedom of enterprise is by definition illegal. With these amendments yesterday, UEFA is therefore fully confessing that the previous version of the rule was excessive and therefore illegal under competition law.


The questions referred by the Court of First Instance in Brussels to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have now been registered with the European Supreme Court under the case number C-299/15.


UEFA has appealed to the Brussels Court of Appeal of the decision of the trial judge, while stating publicly that it is fully convinced that the ECJ will confirm the legality of the regulation. If this is the case, one wonders why the UEFA makes every effort to try to delay this necessary "European game"? Why is it "playing the clock"? And why is it so desperate to avoid playing that game on its natural pitch, i.e. before the ECJ? To ask the question is, in effect, to answer it.


The questions currently before the ECJ are clearly more relevant than ever since, on the one hand, the ECJ will judge the legality of the rules that UEFA has applied to all European clubs for several years (until today) and, on the other hand, it will - by contrast - assess the legality of the new version of the regulation.


Finally, we are particularly puzzled about the fact that, according to UEFA. some clubs (those already sanctioned or under agreement procedure) will not immediately benefit from the adopted amendments. At first sight, this is absolutely discriminatory. Our clients reserve the right to inject this issue into the proceedings.


Jean-Louis DUPONT Martin HISSEL
 
Not worried one bit. We just carry on spending in the full knowledge that any further sanctions from UEFA and we squash them in court, and really blow the whole thing up.
 
Didsbury Dave said:
Not worried one bit. We just carry on spending in the full knowledge that any further sanctions from UEFA and we squash them in court, and really blow the whole thing up.
Click to expand...


Very much doubt that as a club we play nice stick to the rules take our medicine and carry on within the rules...
 
I don't get it, even if we don't fall under the 'relaxed' FFP, was our plan not since early in 2015 to spend heavily? Our turnover is the 6th highest in the world, we're not a tinpot club with a £20m budget.
 
gh_mcfc said:
The Response from our legal team just sent to me .

Reaction to UEFA’s changes to Financial Fair Play


Our clients (Mr. Daniel Striani, Manchester Football Club Supporters Club and supporters of Paris St Germain) have been informed of the amendments to the Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations adopted yesterday by UEFA.


First, they find the crucial measure taken, namely to allow a degree of over-spending (as long as this over-spending is guaranteed by shareholders of the club), to be precisely one of the measures they had requested before the courts. Before the judges, UEFA nevertheless argued during 2 years that such an alternative was totally incompatible with the objectives of FFP. Good to know that UEFA has finally updated its software…


UEFA says that with these amendments, FFP is evolving from a "period of austerity to a sustainable growth period." In more direct terms, UEFA is simply moving from an entirely illegal rule to a rule that becomes a little bit less illegal.


Indeed, in competition law, any excessive restriction of the freedom of enterprise is by definition illegal. With these amendments yesterday, UEFA is therefore fully confessing that the previous version of the rule was excessive and therefore illegal under competition law.


The questions referred by the Court of First Instance in Brussels to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have now been registered with the European Supreme Court under the case number C-299/15.


UEFA has appealed to the Brussels Court of Appeal of the decision of the trial judge, while stating publicly that it is fully convinced that the ECJ will confirm the legality of the regulation. If this is the case, one wonders why the UEFA makes every effort to try to delay this necessary "European game"? Why is it "playing the clock"? And why is it so desperate to avoid playing that game on its natural pitch, i.e. before the ECJ? To ask the question is, in effect, to answer it.


The questions currently before the ECJ are clearly more relevant than ever since, on the one hand, the ECJ will judge the legality of the rules that UEFA has applied to all European clubs for several years (until today) and, on the other hand, it will - by contrast - assess the legality of the new version of the regulation.


Finally, we are particularly puzzled about the fact that, according to UEFA. some clubs (those already sanctioned or under agreement procedure) will not immediately benefit from the adopted amendments. At first sight, this is absolutely discriminatory. Our clients reserve the right to inject this issue into the proceedings.


Jean-Louis DUPONT Martin HISSEL
Click to expand...

That bit stands out for me. They can't pick and choose who the rules apply to and expect to have a chance in court. However, what they can do in the meantime is play the same card as they played last time...make it very difficult for clubs who want to enter their competitions with ramifications for those clubs' sponsorship deals etc.
 
LoveCity said:
I don't get it, even if we don't fall under the 'relaxed' FFP, was our plan not since early in 2015 to spend heavily? Our turnover is the 6th highest in the world, we're not a tinpot club with a £20m budget.
Click to expand...

I don't know if any big signings have been done but either we holding of spending till the FFP meeting and the new rules by UEFA are out, so the club can go over them, or the deals are that tricky and expensive it takes a long time to sign them..
 
The fact that UEFA are performing such regulatory contortions to ensure that we are still captured by these regulations must surely be sufficient confirmation for the doubters that they have served no other purpose since day 1.
 
I'm worried now. If we're restricted by these corrupt twats again, then there's no way we'll compete for the title next season.

I fucking hate UEFA and FFP. Cheating fuckers.

Completely agree with Wreckless Alec that the entire purpose of FFP was to handicap us above anyone else.
 
Big Yaya Wilko 12 said:
I'm worried now. If we're restricted by these corrupt twats again, then there's no way we'll compete for the title next season.

I fucking hate UEFA and FFP. Cheating fuckers.

Completely agree with Wreckless Alec that the entire purpose of FFP was to handicap us above anyone else.
Click to expand...


what do you expect when Gill is overlooking FFP. there is a conflict of interest right there but Hey UEFA are a bunch of bent twats..
 
Is anyone asking if we'll be restricted forgetting we have broke even and our sanctions have been lifted? Confirmed by UEFA to members of the press.

The questions are: will we have the extra freedom to spend freely and did our projected spending even rely on that anyway (especially since first reports of our planned spree came well before UEFA's public plan to relax FFP - unless we got advance notice).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top