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

[andyhinch]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

No. You can deduct the £80m if it makes the difference between passing and failing.

Whilst I understand that is the case, I believe the wages settled before the introduction of FFP should be discounted whether you pass or fail
It seems a little against natural justice to take into account something that was put in place before the regs came out

Very true.

Say your pre-2010 contracts contributed £80m, but not allowing them to be excluded unless you fail, it's basically penalising those who pass anyway to the tune of £80m. They should be allowed to spend £80m more, as indeed the failing parties are being allowed to spend £80m more.

Probably another thing that would be challengeable in the courts. Add it to the list.

It's a fucking long list

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

No. You can deduct the £80m if it makes the difference between passing and failing.

Whilst I understand that is the case, I believe the wages settled before the introduction of FFP should be discounted whether you pass or fail

Why would you need to do it if you passed though? Wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference.

I posted the same, then deleted it because I thought I was being dim. And then posted saying I agree with Squirty.

But you are right, and I was not being dim the first time. Just the 2nd time ;-)

I had thought it was unduly penal on clubs that would anyway pass, that they were not allowed the extra leeway. But of course that's tripe. Clubs could work out that they would pass and spend their pre-2010 contract amounts on top (less a pound) and then still get through.

So the clause is equally fair to passing or failing clubs.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Whilst I understand that is the case, I believe the wages settled before the introduction of FFP should be discounted whether you pass or fail

Why would you need to do it if you passed though? Wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference.

I posted the same, then deleted it because I thought I was being dim. And then posted saying I agree with Squirty.

But you are right, and I was not being dim the first time. Just the 2nd time ;-)

I had thought it was unduly penal on clubs that would anyway pass, that they were not allowed the extra leeway. But of course that's tripe. Clubs could work out that they would pass and spend their pre-2010 contract amounts on top (less a pound) and then still get through.

So the clause is equally fair to passing or failing clubs.

So is it unfair to Liverpool, who don't have to pass or fail?

 

[squirtyflower]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Why would you need to do it if you passed though? Wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference.

I posted the same, then deleted it because I thought I was being dim. And then posted saying I agree with Squirty.

But you are right, and I was not being dim the first time. Just the 2nd time ;-)

I had thought it was unduly penal on clubs that would anyway pass, that they were not allowed the extra leeway. But of course that's tripe. Clubs could work out that they would pass and spend their pre-2010 contract amounts on top (less a pound) and then still get through.

So the clause is equally fair to passing or failing clubs.

So is it unfair to Liverpool, who don't have to pass or fail?

that is probably the most ridiculous of all the rulings, and another that is as far away from 'natural' justice as is possible

 

[vonksbignose]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So is it unfair to Liverpool, who don't have to pass or fail?

Schrodinger's FFP?

 

[squirtyflower]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

No. You can deduct the £80m if it makes the difference between passing and failing.

Whilst I understand that is the case, I believe the wages settled before the introduction of FFP should be discounted whether you pass or fail

Why would you need to do it if you passed though? Wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference.

my point was that pre 2010 wages shouldn't be included in anything as they were pre the regs

 

[Mcfchamps]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

so, what is our punishment. I might have missed it

They're taking away our ladders.

what are ladders?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Whilst I understand that is the case, I believe the wages settled before the introduction of FFP should be discounted whether you pass or fail

Why would you need to do it if you passed though? Wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference.

my point was that pre 2010 wages shouldn't be included in anything as they were pre the regs

The clubs objected that they had entered into long-term contracts before the advent of FFP and it was unfair to include those as they were done in good faith.

If you want an analogy, it's like someone taking out a mortgage for 3.5 times their income then the government introducing a rule that restricted them to 3x income and making it retrospective.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

PB: So deciding the actual scale of penalties at the point when FFP is evaluated is fair?

 

[MCFCarl95]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm hearing rumours that the head of the UEFA panel has passed away meaning charges are on hold? Can anyone confirm this or let me know if they've heard it too...