dannyirishblue
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
this pleaseChancy Termites said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
See my post on the previous page.dannyirishblue said:this pleaseChancy Termites said:Can anyone give a theoretical example of someone who may have bought the intellectual property rights, but we wouldn't be able to say who they are?
vonksbignose
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 1,676
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Sorry fellas, how rude of me!
It's here, although it's quite a long read. The highlighted bit is from the 9th response from the bottom (I think I counted that right)!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
jrb said:vonksbignose said:prestonibbo_mcfc said:Cheers for that. Clicked the Martin Samuel Q & A on there. Oh what fun !
So did I, and this response that he gave to a question, made me sit up and take notice:
"Look at the origins of financial fair play and where it ended up, I think the elite clubs had a bigger influence on its final draft than you imagine. Also, I know where those intellectual property rights have gone and why it cannot be disclosed. When City can make an announcement, more will be understood".
I know we're all speculating and everybody seems to be making wild assumptions about things that aren't in the public domain at the moment, but could Samuel's comment be hinting at City refusing to accept punishments, based on deals that they know to be legitimate, but that they are unable to disclose the nature of to UEFA?
Perhaps PB knows more about how much City will have been willing or legally obliged to disclose to UEFA on the basis of confidential contractual agreements such as these?
Can anyone post a link or tell me exactly where the highlighted bit is. Can't find it. Thanks.
Sorry fellas, how rude of me!
It's here, although it's quite a long read. The highlighted bit is from the 9th response from the bottom (I think I counted that right)!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Navas >>| Fast Forward
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 91
Re: City & FFP (continued)
A European Team?
An English team being lined up as part of the proposed "B" ! Team rules?
A Team that hasn't started yet in a developing (in football terms) nation?
Chancy Termites said:Can anyone give a theoretical example of someone who may have bought the intellectual property rights, but we wouldn't be able to say who they are?
A European Team?
An English team being lined up as part of the proposed "B" ! Team rules?
A Team that hasn't started yet in a developing (in football terms) nation?
dannyirishblue
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
thank you PB interesting stuffPrestwich_Blue said:See my post on the previous page.dannyirishblue said:this pleaseChancy Termites said:Can anyone give a theoretical example of someone who may have bought the intellectual property rights, but we wouldn't be able to say who they are?
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I just read that MOST EXCELLENT "FFP Stinks" blog linked above (thanks for that).
if I didn't know it already (actually I did) what it reminded me of, is just how corrupt this whole thing is. It is transparent to anyone with a quarter, let alone a half, of a brain that there can be no justification whatsoever in barring owner equity investment in the name of protecting clubs from going bust. It is equally blindingly obvious that it is about protecting the interests of the cartel, to the detriment of newcomers. I guess the only really surprising thing is that clever lawyers at UEFA didn't manage to hide the real intentions a bit better than they have.
So given it is so intolerably bent, why on earth have we waited 5 years to let it get to this? I know the Bosman lawyer is doing his bit, but even that is quite recent.
I believe it was Edmund Burke who said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". And with FFP, lots of good men have done nothing. Would it not have made sense, back in 2009 when these rules were being drafted, to make it clear to UEFA that since the rules were obviously corrupt, that we would never accept them and if they went ahead and introduced them, we would seek to have them overturned in the ECJ. I don't know, but perhaps had we taken a firm line early on, all of this could have been avoided?
I just read that MOST EXCELLENT "FFP Stinks" blog linked above (thanks for that).
if I didn't know it already (actually I did) what it reminded me of, is just how corrupt this whole thing is. It is transparent to anyone with a quarter, let alone a half, of a brain that there can be no justification whatsoever in barring owner equity investment in the name of protecting clubs from going bust. It is equally blindingly obvious that it is about protecting the interests of the cartel, to the detriment of newcomers. I guess the only really surprising thing is that clever lawyers at UEFA didn't manage to hide the real intentions a bit better than they have.
So given it is so intolerably bent, why on earth have we waited 5 years to let it get to this? I know the Bosman lawyer is doing his bit, but even that is quite recent.
I believe it was Edmund Burke who said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". And with FFP, lots of good men have done nothing. Would it not have made sense, back in 2009 when these rules were being drafted, to make it clear to UEFA that since the rules were obviously corrupt, that we would never accept them and if they went ahead and introduced them, we would seek to have them overturned in the ECJ. I don't know, but perhaps had we taken a firm line early on, all of this could have been avoided?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It could be confidential as we could have signed contracts with them but are waiting for other negotiations, possibly with other partners or the council, to be concluded before we publicly announce anything. Anything that's ahead of the game you would want to keep confidential as long as you could.
It was player image rights and we wouldn't sell those to another club. It has to be a commercial organisation which is planning to use them and, as I said on page 659, my suspicion based on waht Samuel hinted at (and it really is a pure guess) is that it's something to do with the leisure attraction on the collar site.Navas >>| Fast Forward said:Chancy Termites said:Can anyone give a theoretical example of someone who may have bought the intellectual property rights, but we wouldn't be able to say who they are?
A European Team?
An English team being lined up as part of the proposed "B" ! Team rules?
A Team that hasn't started yet in a developing (in football terms) nation?
It could be confidential as we could have signed contracts with them but are waiting for other negotiations, possibly with other partners or the council, to be concluded before we publicly announce anything. Anything that's ahead of the game you would want to keep confidential as long as you could.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
maybe it has been a case of...give 'em enough rope.......
and the bent cartel protecting twats will hang themselves
[hopes]
Chippy_boy said:I just read that MOST EXCELLENT "FFP Stinks" blog linked above (thanks for that).
i didn't know it already (actually I did) what it reminded me of, is just how corrupt this whole thing is. It is transparent to anyone with a quarter, let alone a half, of a brain that there can be no justification whatsoever in barring owner equity investment in the name of protecting clubs from going bust. It is equally blindingly obvious that it is about protecting the interests of the cartel, to the detriment of newcomers. I guess the only really surprising thing is that clever lawyers at UEFA didn't manage to hide the real intentions a bit better than they have.
So given it is so intolerably bent, why on earth have we waited 5 years to let it get to this? I know the Bosman lawyer is doing his bit, but even that is quite recent.
I believe it was Edmund Burke who said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". And with FFP, lots of good men have done nothing. Would it not have made sense, back in 2009 when these rules were being drafted, to make it clear to UEFA that since the rules were obviously corrupt, that we would never accept them and if they went ahead and introduced them, we would seek to have them overturned in the ECJ. I don't know, but perhaps had we taken a firm line early on, all of this could have been avoided?
maybe it has been a case of...give 'em enough rope.......
and the bent cartel protecting twats will hang themselves
[hopes]
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Why wouldn't we be able to say who they are?
Navas >>| Fast Forward said:Chancy Termites said:Can anyone give a theoretical example of someone who may have bought the intellectual property rights, but we wouldn't be able to say who they are?
A European Team?
An English team being lined up as part of the proposed "B" ! Team rules?
A Team that hasn't started yet in a developing (in football terms) nation?
Why wouldn't we be able to say who they are?
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It's like a dictator saying he loves his people and would never torture them.
Everyone knows he's a lying b******, but nobody can do anything about it.
We all know what's going on behind the scenes, and how certain clubs, along with certain People at UEFA, are strengthening the cartel.
It's like a dictator saying he loves his people and would never torture them.
Everyone knows he's a lying b******, but nobody can do anything about it.
We all know what's going on behind the scenes, and how certain clubs, along with certain People at UEFA, are strengthening the cartel.