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

[Academica]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm in.

 

[adrianr]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If Dupont managers to defeat this farce in court, does that mean we at the very least get our money back?

If Dupont manages to get the FFP regulations declared illegal under EU law then any financial penalties applied under those regulations would also be deemed illegal, so we'd get the 20m euros we should have been given as prize money, but was retained, given to us belatedly. I don't think we'd be able to get anythign further from UEFA, in terms of compensation for the reduced squad list, or the hampering of our transfer ambitions with the funding cap, as we've probably had to agree to no further court action under the terms of the settlement. Seems odd however that a settlement reached as part of a ruling based on illegal regulations could be binding but there you go.....

Were it not for our desire to kick up as little public fuss as possible, I would have thought there would be a myriad of avenues to woman slap UEFA if it gets thrown out of court. Player transfers hampered, potential progression into the CL hampered, knock on effect into other competitions due to recruitment limitations.. Only question is given I assume we still want to be playing in the CL once the dust has settled to what extent we go after them?

Dupont is saying all the same things plenty of people on here have been saying since this all came about. It sounds convincing and pretty cut and dry, but who knows where it will go. I'm still not ruling out our owners wanting FFP as a protectionist tool. They won't want it if it's a set of moving goal posts with little more purpose than to shackle us at every possible turn.

 

[ped]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

"all relevant stakeholders"......bullseye you bastards

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I suspect that one of the reasons we settled was that players' agents were telling the club that players were reluctant to come if there was any question of a ban from the CL. A judgement in the Bosman case took over 4 years, a large slice of a player's career.

 

[unexpected item]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

5. It simply ensures that such competition is not distorted by clubs living beyond their means

Manchester City have the means to compete with the elite. However, the elite have conspired with UEFA to distort the competition to favour themselves.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I suspect that one of the reasons we settled was that players' agents were telling the club that players were reluctant to come if there was any question of a ban from the CL. A judgement in the Bosman case took over 4 years, a large slice of a player's career.

we all find reasons to justify what we do by instinct - the instinct of our owners is sound I think.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I suspect that one of the reasons we settled was that players' agents were telling the club that players were reluctant to come if there was any question of a ban from the CL. A judgement in the Bosman case took over 4 years, a large slice of a player's career.

That may be so, but the reality is that all competing clubs are restricted to naming seventeen overseas players in their squads, and it is also a reality that there are probably only half a dozen clubs that would have a realistic chance of lifting the trophy. That means there are just over a hundred players who can feature at this level. We may not be able to attract too many established players from the likes of Real or Barca, but there are many others who are almost as good as the superstars and are at lesser clubs. Our signings last summer are evidence of this, and even if we can't pay top whack fees or wages anymore, we will still have a far better chance of signing them than all but a cherished handful of clubs. Even now, money will talk ahead of medals, especially if players know these restrictions are only likely to last for just one year.

 

[NorthamptonBlue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

FFP is blatantly unfair as most of us believe. If I have £100K in the bank (I wish) and spend £40K on a car that is no problem at all. If I have £50 in the bank and spend £10k then that is more problematic. Debt should be targeted rather than spend.

Clearly these regulations exist to protect the big clubs from upstarts. I would, however, point out that we are now one of the big clubs! Not a very inclusive or fair view I know but true for all of that.

Our owners and management are not fools. In the short term it hurts a bit but in the medium term this is all in our favour - though not in football's IMO.

 

[willipp]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I was thinking about Uefa suddenly having an extra 20 million of us and 20 million of PSG. As far as I know they haven't said what they are doing with the money but I can see it from two perspectives. They are fining us and PSG huge amounts of money. If Dupont fights FFP and wins then Uefa will surely have to give that money back, so.

1. Are they fining us huge amounts because they are extremely confident they wont have to give that money back to us and PSG as FFP as watertight, or
2. They aren't saying where that money will be committed too as they are so unsure as to if they will have to give that money back.

I don't know European law and all the ins and outs of Duponts challenge, but for me it would seem that with such huge fines for City and PSG they are confident that FFP will hold up in court.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

DuPont is my hero and Martin Samuel too.

DuPont seems to be encouraging us all to take this FFPR and HG nonsense to ECJ as the clubs can't.

Bluemoon whipround? :-)