I'm pretty sure that applies to clubs from the same association, we could appeal Liverpool's lack of a punishment.fbloke said:I haven't checked but I assume City could appeal against the 'punishment' that UEFA hand down to PSG just as any club could appeal against ours?
He'll look pretty bad trying to fine a vast expanding business 10% of their gross worth for overspending when he's in the dock ;)Pam said:FredTilson said:http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-united-slump-manchester-city-7090867#.U2t_gg7IAKM.twitter
Rivals Manchester City, meanwhile, have been handed a further boost ahead of their potential title-winning match against West Ham on Sunday - seeing their value increase by an extremely healthy 25 per cent.
The Blues, who are increasingly looking like the Premier League champions elect after their 4-0 triumph over Aston Villa, are now valued at £508m and sit seventh on the list. Only German giants Bayern Munich increased their percentage more in the last year – they are now valued at £1.1bn, a rise of 41 per cent.
Twatini's timing is perfect. What an utter, utter clown.
welsh_andy said:No-one wants a court battle mate. It's cheap words on here to say sue the bastards, but we (fans) aren't the ones paying the legal fees which could run into 10's of millions in extremis. And apart from that, it's not a very edifying prospect for City, UEFA or football in general to have a bitter court battle played out in public. It's also an enormous drain on Exec's time and resources trying to fight a legal battle and run a business at the same time. No-one wants it.
Much better all around to settle,
The problem is, we will not want to accept anything ridiculous (obviously) and certainly nothing that will materially hurt us financially or in the competition going forward. And neither will we want to accept anything that leaves us open to the same mess happening again next year and the year after that.
On the other hand, UEFA have Gill and Rummenigge et al bending their ear all the time and need to appease them in some way.
I suspect the upshot of all of this will be a last minute compromise with VERY much reduced penalties that enable UEFA to save face, and us to walk away largely unscathed. UEFA will probably say that a further review of our accounts, and more detailed explanantions from City have satisfied them that we are close to compliance and on track to comply. £10m fine and squad reduction suspended pending some future criterion that we can easily meet. Something like that. We'd almost certainly accept that given the fact we'd easily piss that away on legal fees with no guarantee of winning.
but by negotiating, we basically admitting guilt, over something that looks like a technicality . so what if they tighten rules again next season, this could be ongoing to protect the old established teams, just isnt fair, ffp was designed to stop clubs doing a leeds or portsmouth, not to punish investment, the city has gained massively since the sheik to over
aguero93:20 said:He'll look pretty bad trying to fine a vast expanding business 10% of their gross worth for overspending when he's in the dock ;)Pam said:Twatini's timing is perfect. What an utter, utter clown.
If all the speculation is true though (sorry I know I keep saying that but it is still just speculation) there's a couple of people involved in this who should definitely know better and can't expect to avoid the blame.Chippy_boy said:aguero93:20 said:He'll look pretty bad trying to fine a vast expanding business 10% of their gross worth for overspending when he's in the dock ;)
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he is not that bright and is being manipulated by others. His dad was a footballer and he left school at 16. And although this is a bit of a generalisation, footballers and their trophy wives are not exactly renowned as being at the top end of the intellectual gene pool. He's already openly admitted that he didn't really understand the finer points of the FFP rules, which is a pretty staggering admission considering his position.
I don't think City will settle and admit guilt for one second.Didsbury Dave said:Chippy_boy said:No-one wants a court battle mate. It's cheap words on here to say sue the bastards, but we (fans) aren't the ones paying the legal fees which could run into 10's of millions in extremis. And apart from that, it's not a very edifying prospect for City, UEFA or football in general to have a bitter court battle played out in public. It's also an enormous drain on Exec's time and resources trying to fight a legal battle and run a business at the same time. No-one wants it.
Much better all around to settle,
The problem is, we will not want to accept anything ridiculous (obviously) and certainly nothing that will materially hurt us financially or in the competition going forward. And neither will we want to accept anything that leaves us open to the same mess happening again next year and the year after that.
On the other hand, UEFA have Gill and Rummenigge et al bending their ear all the time and need to appease them in some way.
I suspect the upshot of all of this will be a last minute compromise with VERY much reduced penalties that enable UEFA to save face, and us to walk away largely unscathed. UEFA will probably say that a further review of our accounts, and more detailed explanantions from City have satisfied them that we are close to compliance and on track to comply. £10m fine and squad reduction suspended pending some future criterion that we can easily meet. Something like that. We'd almost certainly accept that given the fact we'd easily piss that away on legal fees with no guarantee of winning.
My guess, and it is a guess, is that this is the most accurate take on the situation.
Good post chippy.