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

[bluemonkey71]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Go on you know you wanna lol

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Go on you know you wanna lol

Don't use spacebook or I would.

 

[john@staustell]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Platini yesterday - that's the 2nd time lately I have seen him distance himself from these sanctions. 'Wasn't me guv it's the chamber'. Wonder why?

Mind you I do love him telling international business superstars like Khaldoon and Mansour about corporate governance! They should be wasting more money on posh conferences and lunches perhaps?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Go on you know you wanna lol

And I have! Basically asked how he can defend FFP when it patently would not have stopped Portsmouth going into administration and nor would it have stopped us in 2008.

 

[blueinsa]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Funny how so called, "dirty, evil Arab oil money" wasn't so dirty, evil and Arab when it came to securing votes for a world cup!?

Khaldoon has assured us that come May 2020, the lot of us will be laughing at these clown!

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Although PSG's really do seem to be for the 2 year period regardless.

I still haven't seen anywhere any information that says our transfer cap is for one year only. The UEFA statement clearly says 2 years.

Well City certainly state

The nature of conditions that will result in the lifting of sanctions means that the Club expects to be operating without sanction or restriction at the commencement of the 2015-16 season.

That's good enough for me.

And around the houses we go again.

UEFA: "Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016."

The City statement would seem incompatible with this, so one of them is wrong, or at best misleading.

Until the details are confirmed, we just don't know. But you can flip a coin and chose to believe the City statement if you like.

 

[moomba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The City statement would seem incompatible with this, so one of them is wrong, or at best misleading.

Until the details are confirmed, we just don't know. But you can flip a coin and chose to believe the City statement if you like.

Does it really matter? I doubt we were looking at spending more than the current level of restrictions anyway. We have always said that the big spending of a couple of years ago was done to get the players in before FFP came into play.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sanctions are one year only if we meet FFP next year, which Khaldoon says we will ALREADY!

And, don't forget, transfers are NET of outgoings, so if we sell a player for €20M we get to add that to the €60M we can already spend!

Even though the media is making hay on the FFP "punishment," it is a virtual non-event given where we are and the plans already in place.

The teams that REALLY need to take notice are not based in Manchester!

Although PSG's really do seem to be for the 2 year period regardless.

I still haven't seen anywhere any information that says our transfer cap is for one year only. The UEFA statement clearly says 2 years.

Unless we hit break even target early which we will

 

[john@staustell]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Surely it's just that the sanctions are in place, but cancelled if we comply etc.......

So the 2 statements are compatible.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I still haven't seen anywhere any information that says our transfer cap is for one year only. The UEFA statement clearly says 2 years.

Well City certainly state

The nature of conditions that will result in the lifting of sanctions means that the Club expects to be operating without sanction or restriction at the commencement of the 2015-16 season.

That's good enough for me.

And around the houses we go again.

UEFA: "Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016."

The City statement would seem incompatible with this, so one of them is wrong, or at best misleading.

Until the details are confirmed, we just don't know. But you can flip a coin and chose to believe the City statement if you like.

"And around the houses we go again.", well of course we do, you keep asking the same question and those two statements are the only quotes from City and UEFA.
I was well aware of the UEFA one and you are correct to quote it but as you say they're contradictory and I've chosen to believe City's viewpoint on it.
Why would I believe the UEFA one over my own club?