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

[1.618034]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

"Tick-Tock" time has passed...


The alarms have all finally gone off!


-)

 

[Marvin]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

Rivals ganging up to ban City: Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal may test Champions League ruling on Financial Fair Play

Or they may not.
Biggest non news story this week as said earlier on here.

The timing suggests it's all Mourinho related, and therefore City v Chelsea related.

But if FFP was an old boys device to keep the new out, then it would be naïve not to expect the old guard to conspire and pressure UEFA to investigate and enforce the rulings.

But the horse has bolted. The Etihad deal that primarily concerns them is now less than 15% of City's revenue.

Daniel Taylor's piece for the Sunday Observer reported that City are twice as popular in China as any other European club and China represents 1/6th of the World's population. Think about that and the implications for future business deals. We're living in a world-wide digital age. Liverpool and Utd were dominant for generations, but in this new era, which allows foreign supporters much more exposure to our football, and much closer contact we have grown so much quicker.

 

[moon]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

This comes as we spend nothing while rags spend 37 million
Why dont they ban teams that are millions in debt yet still pay out big sums of cash

 

[squirtyflower]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

Ian herbert on BBC2 right now

love his red tie

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

I'm sure our owners are attempting to establish a branch of the City brand in China - Maybe Shanghai (or similar) City will be with us sooner than your think...

 

[herrock]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

For years they were happy to let us play with their "ball" but now that we are winning, they want it back. We paid out silly sums of money to join the "elite", we are now amongst them and can attract both new players for less money and fans, because of our profile ,so that balancing that books will become easier in the future. Add to that, the fact that we are snapping up some top youngsters, some of who will make it to the top, the future is bright and the future is blue.

 

[dw7]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

Or they may not.
Biggest non news story this week as said earlier on here.

The timing suggests it's all Mourinho related, and therefore City v Chelsea related.

But if FFP was an old boys device to keep the new out, then it would be naïve not to expect the old guard to conspire and pressure UEFA to investigate and enforce the rulings.

But the horse has bolted. The Etihad deal that primarily concerns them is now less than 15% of City's revenue.

Daniel Taylor's piece for the Sunday Observer reported that City are twice as popular in China as any other European club and China represents 1/6th of the World's population. Think about that and the implications for future business deals. We're living in a world-wide digital age. Liverpool and Utd were dominant for generations, but in this new era, which allows foreign supporters much more exposure to our football, and much closer contact we have grown so much quicker.

I'd expect city to be looking at buying a club from china next if that is the case

 

[Marvin]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

MOTD Extra with Ian Herbert on MOTD Extra on BBC 1 now. Let's see if he has anything to say on this. So far just talked about Leeds and reviewing today's games. At some point they will move on to City v Chelsea

 

[George Hannah]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

MOTD Extra with Ian Herbert on MOTD Extra on BBC 1 now. Let's see if he has anything to say on this. So far just talked about Leeds and reviewing today's games. At some point they will move on to City v Chelsea

just so you'll know him if you bump into him down Stretford way

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

I hear people talk of fairness - it wasn't intended to be fair. People talk of how ineffective it is in tackling the real problem of debt - it wasn't intended to tackle debt. People talk of how it's bad for the game by effectively stifling competition - it wasn't intended to be good for the game. UEFA was allowed to bring in FFP in it's current format by the top clubs, because they are all multi million pound businesses looking to protect their income streams, by effectively blocking the possibility of any rival clubs challenging their dominance by setting their financial advantage in stone. If UEFA had introduced FFP regulations that were fair, tackled debt and encouraged competition, we'd have seen a breakaway European Super League before you could say hypocritical bastards.

It has to be fair. The argument in favour of FFPR is that it tries to enforce certain regulations which appear to be inconsistent with European commercial law on competition because these regulations actually protect competition and are, therefore, in the wider interests of the game by protecting clubs by insisting on greater financial responsibility. These regulations are open to serious question as general principles - they clearly restrict the rights of shareholders to invest in their business (a right enshrined in law) and they expressly wish to limit expenditure on wages. To that extent they are clearly anti-competitive, and UEFA lawyers would have a hard task convincing judges that they are necessary to fulfil the avowed aims of FFPR - and City would be bound to ask the question in court, especially in a case involving competitor clubs! But City's case would also be that none of the actions of the club have anything other than steps to behave with financial prudence and, actually to fulfill the objectives which UEFA has identified, and to do this while protecting the long term interests of the club and the game. City have competed and competed prudently.

UEFA would have to convince a court that this was not a convincing case - a court of law, not Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

[ped]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

city.hogging the headlines again,

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: "City face Euro Expulsion"

Funny how this comes out just before we play Chelsea!

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

MOTD Extra with Ian Herbert on MOTD Extra on BBC 1 now. Let's see if he has anything to say on this. So far just talked about Leeds and reviewing today's games. At some point they will move on to City v Chelsea

just so you'll know him if you bump into him down Stretford way

Whatever Phil Townsend pays him is money well spent.

 

[MillisleBlue]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

I hope The Sheikh didn't lose too much sleep about this. It's further proof - if any were needed - that our enemies will stoop lower than a snake's bollocks to de-rail City. Fuck them all.

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

This whole idea ov ffpr is a farce and just to protect the elites,clubs who demanded it to be implemented were the ones who were financially viable and had there market established,now the problem is they can't dijest the idea of them being over taken by a new player in the play ground,if ffpr remains implemented then there can never be a new force in europe to challenge the existing big clubs,there could be other means to ensure clubs financial stability but ffpr is not the one,

 

[hgblue]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

I hear people talk of fairness - it wasn't intended to be fair. People talk of how ineffective it is in tackling the real problem of debt - it wasn't intended to tackle debt. People talk of how it's bad for the game by effectively stifling competition - it wasn't intended to be good for the game. UEFA was allowed to bring in FFP in it's current format by the top clubs, because they are all multi million pound businesses looking to protect their income streams, by effectively blocking the possibility of any rival clubs challenging their dominance by setting their financial advantage in stone. If UEFA had introduced FFP regulations that were fair, tackled debt and encouraged competition, we'd have seen a breakaway European Super League before you could say hypocritical bastards.

It has to be fair. The argument in favour of FFPR is that it tries to enforce certain regulations which appear to be inconsistent with European commercial law on competition because these regulations actually protect competition and are, therefore, in the wider interests of the game by protecting clubs by insisting on greater financial responsibility. These regulations are open to serious question as general principles - they clearly restrict the rights of shareholders to invest in their business (a right enshrined in law) and they expressly wish to limit expenditure on wages. To that extent they are clearly anti-competitive, and UEFA lawyers would have a hard task convincing judges that they are necessary to fulfil the avowed aims of FFPR - and City would be bound to ask the question in court, especially in a case involving competitor clubs! But City's case would also be that none of the actions of the club have anything other than steps to behave with financial prudence and, actually to fulfill the objectives which UEFA has identified, and to do this while protecting the long term interests of the club and the game. City have competed and competed prudently.

UEFA would have to convince a court that this was not a convincing case - a court of law, not Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool.

UEFA need to be taken to court by a debt free club that has attempted to comply with FFP regulations like it needs the proverbial hole in the head. Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool are mightily pissed off because FFP was intended to stop the likes of City, but there's bugger all they can do about it and I suspect they know it.

 

[Burtonblue]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

I hear people talk of fairness - it wasn't intended to be fair. People talk of how ineffective it is in tackling the real problem of debt - it wasn't intended to tackle debt. People talk of how it's bad for the game by effectively stifling competition - it wasn't intended to be good for the game. UEFA was allowed to bring in FFP in it's current format by the top clubs, because they are all multi million pound businesses looking to protect their income streams, by effectively blocking the possibility of any rival clubs challenging their dominance by setting their financial advantage in stone. If UEFA had introduced FFP regulations that were fair, tackled debt and encouraged competition, we'd have seen a breakaway European Super League before you could say hypocritical bastards.

It has to be fair. The argument in favour of FFPR is that it tries to enforce certain regulations which appear to be inconsistent with European commercial law on competition because these regulations actually protect competition and are, therefore, in the wider interests of the game by protecting clubs by insisting on greater financial responsibility. These regulations are open to serious question as general principles - they clearly restrict the rights of shareholders to invest in their business (a right enshrined in law) and they expressly wish to limit expenditure on wages. To that extent they are clearly anti-competitive, and UEFA lawyers would have a hard task convincing judges that they are necessary to fulfil the avowed aims of FFPR - and City would be bound to ask the question in court, especially in a case involving competitor clubs! But City's case would also be that none of the actions of the club have anything other than steps to behave with financial prudence and, actually to fulfill the objectives which UEFA has identified, and to do this while protecting the long term interests of the club and the game. City have competed and competed prudently.

UEFA would have to convince a court that this was not a convincing case - a court of law, not Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool.

UEFA need to be taken to court by a debt free club that has attempted to comply with FFP regulations like it needs the proverbial hole in the head. Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool are mightily pissed off because FFP was intended to stop the likes of City, but there's bugger all they can do about it and I suspect they know it.

Spot on!
Our profitability has surprised a number of clubs.
We have the 5th highest turnover. Our financial rise is meteoric. After this season this will continue to improve.
We are in a far better place than PSG and there is no way twattini is going to compromise them by picking fights with our owners.
They know we are unstoppable and are all clutching at straws!

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

We are fighting 2 london clubs and a london centric media.

The media want the arse to win the title and if not them Chelski because a) they're not city and b) because mou gives them headlines.

The media are printing this twaddle because they know who they want to win the title and also get the huge boost of peddling the mou myth.

When we thump them they'll all go quiet until barca are about to turn up and they have somebody else to back.

We have to keep beating everyone till they have no-one else to back but us, its how dippers end up speaking positively about the rags, giving them no other option but to.

 

[Turner92]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

 

[Damocles]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

*Too