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

[bluenose45]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Exactly. Too much defeatism on this thread. Long way to go yet.

We'll see. We're dealing with cunts, and I expect cunts to behave like cunts.

Out of interest, if Arsenal or the Dippers did appeal against our sentence, who hears that appeal and what would be the criteria for increasing its severity?

David Gill?

That's the most concerning thing about this.

There is no appeal process. If UEFA say you've failed, that's it, their word is law.

If you reject the sanctions, it goes to an UNAPPEALABLE panel. Who makes up this panel? I'm guessing people like Gill and Rummenigge.

Honestly if we think this independent panel will look at the evidence we out forward you are kidding yourselves.

G-14 and UEFA are on the same page. We are in a different book. They just don't want us in the Champion's League. End of. PSG are OK because they are a G-14 club and won't be competing with the G-14 except for in Europe.

We have upset the old financial powerhouses of England and obviously their lobbying power has convinced UEFA to attack us.

Whenever Platini talks about FFP he always says "clubs like Manchester City". He never uses PSG as his example.

The funny thing is United and Arsenal fans are convincing themselves FFP is for the good of clubs like Everton. They can't admit to themselves that it will only benefit the elite. It's quite sad that investing money in the game is now seen as something heinous, like a criminal act. Just look at how Arsenal and United are ran, like businesses, cash cows. The fans are getting ripped off and are lapping it up like lap dogs. They're convinced that our money Is bad money and their money is good money because it's generated from shirt sales in Taiwan.

Let's just hope that this sanction affronts Sheikh Mansour's pride and strengthens his resolve to utterly destroy all who appose us on the pitch and through the correct legal channels.

LET'S FUCKING WIN THE LEAGUE TOMMOROW AND LAUGH IN PLATINI'S FACE.

It's got nowt to do with "the old financial powerhouses of England" and everything to do with the cartel of American billionaires that own ManU, Arsenal and Liverpool. Why do you think it's been their mouthpieces that have been most vocal against us?!

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Do you think they are trying to force Sheikh Mansour to just go fuck this is not worth it and sell up ?
So they can then turn round and say look this is what we was protecting you from ?

Possibly so, but Arab capitulation to will of the Western World is more than a little anachronistic.

And on a personal level, I imagine he will have been angered by the charade being played out at the moment, and will not want to be worsted by a weasely little fuckstick like Platini

 

[Academica]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think you're looking at what is the worst possible scenario but there's plenty to play out yet on this.

Tell you something though, if United, Liverpool, and Arsenal want to go to war with us then there are numerous ways we can fuck them over. Hostile bids for all their best players would be a good start. And what better way to launch our new state of the art academy than to poach the best academy players from each of those respective clubs? I'm sure we could offer those players attractive enough packages to convince them to join us. As such, I wouldn't go around flapping just yet.

Exactly. Too much defeatism on this thread. Long way to go yet.

We'll see. We're dealing with cunts, and I expect cunts to behave like cunts.

Out of interest, if Arsenal or the Dippers did appeal against our sentence, who hears that appeal and what would be the criteria for increasing its severity?

Think I heard that it would be Gill and Ferguson that why eufa employed them.

 

[BlueTaylor91]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just had a rather heated discussion about this in work with a rag and arse fan. I had to walk away from the crap I was hearing

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just had a rather heated discussion about this in work with a rag and arse fan. I had to walk away from the crap I was hearing

Yeah, had the same with a rag at work, his entire argument was basically that the Champion's League is "by invitation only" and, as such, UEFA can do whatever they want. I tried to point out that he was wrong, that they can't do "whatever they want" as they still have to act in a legally sound manner but he wasn't getting it. Gave up.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just had a rather heated discussion about this in work with a rag and arse fan. I had to walk away from the crap I was hearing

Yeah, had the same with a rag at work, his entire argument was basically that the Champion's League is "by invitation only" and, as such, UEFA can do whatever they want. I tried to point out that he was wrong, that they can't do "whatever they want" as they still have to act in a legally sound manner but he wasn't getting it. Gave up.

This notion that UEFA can operate outside the rule of law is a curious one.

Are they also allowed to rape children as long as it's by "invitation only"?

 

[Ducado]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just had a rather heated discussion about this in work with a rag and arse fan. I had to walk away from the crap I was hearing

Yeah, had the same with a rag at work, his entire argument was basically that the Champion's League is "by invitation only" and, as such, UEFA can do whatever they want. I tried to point out that he was wrong, that they can't do "whatever they want" as they still have to act in a legally sound manner but he wasn't getting it. Gave up.

You can't argue with them, because to them it's their only hope against us, by arguing you are taking away their dream

 

[whicko]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Interesting Read Lads & Lasses

How Manchester City could use EU competition law to beat Financial Fair Play rules

Manchester City Football Club is considering challenging a record-breaking €60 million fine for breaching UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules by using EU competition law to prevent cartels and abuse of market dominance.

Despite Competition Commissioner Joaquín Almunia’s declared support for FFP, the European Commission’s antitrust department will examine any complaint made on its merits, EurActiv has learnt.

UEFA is European football’s governing body and runs the lucrative Champions League competition. Under FFP, clubs in UEFA competitions were allowed to make losses of about €45 million between 2011-13. City lost about €182 but argue that, when various exceptions are taken into account they narrowly hit the target.

Abu Dhabi-owned City was one of nine football clubs including Qatari-owned Paris St Germain to be charged with breaching the regulations. As well as a fine, City face having their Champions League squad cut from 25 players to 21.

Any complaint by City, set a deadline by UEFA of today (9 May) to accept a reduced fine or face stronger penalties, is likely be under EU treaty rules governing abuse of dominant market position and price-fixing, rather than state aid rules.

Article 101 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU states that a unilateral action can be anti-competitive. This rule covers decisions by associations, which would arguably include UEFA’s decision to fine City. By fining City, UEFA are giving a competitive advantage to other businesses (other football clubs), lawyers could argue.

Article 102 deals with abuse of dominant market position. City would have to establish what market, likely European football, is being dominated. Because the Champions League is so lucrative for participating clubs, there is a risk those clubs become entrenched as their financial advantage is so strong. It is only through large injections of cash that clubs like City and PSG can break the stranglehold of the established elite.

City could claim that the fine and squad cut constitutes a barrier to entry of the market but the European football market is so large it may be difficult to prove it is dominated by an elite.

Another ground for complaint is that FFP “directly or indirectly imposes unfair purchase,” that it illegally prevents City from trading as it wishes.

The concept of consumer prejudice also comes under article 102. City could argue that impairing its performance in the Champions League restrict competition with other clubs. That could lead to the established elite raising ticket prices, for example. The commission often looks favourably on consumer arguments, legal experts said.

The complaint is likely to include a number of differing aspects in a bid to convince the commission the case warrants further investigation.

Almunia’s support for FFP

Almunia’s support for FFP is based on the idea that good financial governance would prevent a breach of EU state aid rules. Those rules are designed to prevent competition in the marketplace being distorted by injections of public money.Seven Spanish clubs including Real Madrid and Barcelona and Almunia’s beloved Athletic Bilbao, were charged with breaches of state aid rules in December last year.

Almunia will be leaving his post in November when a new European Commission is appointed. His replacement may have a different view on FFP to the Spanish Socialist. The process kick-started by a complaint will likely continue beyond Almunia’s reign, especially if EU officials decide an investigation is warranted.

If the investigation goes City’s way they would be able to take that decision to a national court, and argue for recompense. Although UEFA is based in Nyon, Switzerland; the Swiss are governed by the same competition laws as EU member states. If UEFA appeals the commission decision, as would be expected, the case could take more than four years to resolve in the European Court of Justice.

PSG yesterday agreed to settle for a €25 million fine, rather than fight the UEFA charge any longer. City’s €42m-a-year sponsorship deal with Etihad and PSG’s €200m-a-year contract with the Qatar Tourism Authority were both deemed not to be a valid means for them to balance their books under FFP break-even rules

City, almost certain to claim their second English Premier League title in three years on Sunday, are understood to be furious at being bracketed with the French club. It’s been reported City argue their intention was always to comply with FFP, unlike PSG.

If the club doesn’t reach a deal, it will be referred to European football’s Club Financial Control Body, which would assess afresh whether the club failed to comply with FFP rules in their 2011-13 accounts and, if so, would likely impose an even sterner penalty.

If City do make a complaint, it will be the second made to the commission against FFP. Jean-Louis Dupont, the lawyer who successfully challenged football contract laws in the famous Bosman case made a complaint last year. Among his arguments is that FFP reduces revenue for football agents such as his client Belgian Daniel Striani.

James Crisp

 

[@BluePhil8]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The thruth of the matter could be that we have just used loopholes to pass and UEFA are fuming about it. Not our fault if they can't write watertight legislation though.

 

[Sigh]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I keep reading remarks from blues stating something along the lines of "if we accept any punishment we accept guilt" or words to the effect. This is a rather inartful way of expressing the entire problem with ffp: then there are many who sound (over these many, many months) as though they see FFP as some sort of super virtual accounting manager game where they demonstrate their smarts (and as they have a high opinion of same) work their way through it all with just a few health point losses along the way. For whatever reason - social conditioning, defeatism, ignorance - they have accepted the premise of FFP whilst the less erudite on here - those who say things akin to the quote in the opening sentence - instinctively see FFP for what it is, and have from the off.

The problem with FFP is that it exists; not how it is applied (or not applied) to any club, nor the process, nor service of process or anything else. The problem with FFP is one of subject-matter jurisdiction. UEFA can assert it does have subject-mater jurisdiction all it wants, the entire point is that it a. does not, and b. must not be permitted to boot-strap it's way into even more of footballing life.

When the question is one of subject-matter jurisdiction, however, it cannot be waived by any party to a case; analogous to involuntary servitude, a man is not at liberty to contract himself into slavery, or, rather he is, but any attempt will be void ab initio. This proceeds from the very idea of sovereignty. This has been handled incorrectly from the beginning.

City ought to have had nothing to do with FFP, nothing, aside from preserving all communications from UEFA. NOTHING. When UEFA then attempts to enforce it's will, it's judgment, at that point the case is ripe and City then proceed to seek a declaration that UEFA are do not possess subject-matter jurisdiction (as it were) because they cannot without usurping what the sovereign has reserved to itself. UEFA are not the sovereign. They are a private organization, whose remit is a private sporting competition. FFP is an attempt to micro-manage private businesses in ways even the sovereign power does not by using a sporting competition as leverage.

If I suggested that the organizers of the prestigious Milan International Car Show (invitation only) were readying themselves to implement policies that would limit any car manufacturers liberty to unionize or not, to employ CAD, to be flexible in work weeks (depending on demand), to recruit employees overseas subject to skills shortage notice, to seek out new markets freely and enter into bi-lateral agreements, to invest in new plant at will, to borrow and lend, to spend and invest etc. etc. you'd think the yourself clarkied. It is said football is sui generis, being neither wholly a sport, nor wholly a business; but whatever it is, it is still business and subject to the sovereign power which has ever been jealous of it's prerogatives in commerce.