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

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The ten year thing doesn't hold water for me.

A club could go on a berserk spending spree for 10 years with no hope of breaking even, win everything and at the end say "fuck you UEFA, now what".

Or they could go a spending spree for 3 or 4 years, grow their revenues enormously, move towards break-even and at the end of the 10th year be found to have narrowly missed. And then face sanctions for spending that happened 6 or 7 years before?

Neither scenario is very sensible. And nor would it protect clubs from growing beyond their organic means and risking bankruptcy in the future. Sounds like a model that works for us and PSG but in reality not for the good of football.

Depends upon how the monitoring periods are set out, what the objectives are, etc. For example if you post losses over 10 years but they are showing to become manifestly smaller after the initial five year investment, then that would be seen as virtuous and wouldn't require sanction. However if you are going deeper into a hole with no signs of reversing the trend then you're likely to be sanctioned.

 

[Shirley]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Why do City want the monitoring period extended if we're going to be ok with this years figures ?

Is there any possibility we are not going to be ok with this years figures or is it certain we will pass?

 

[kenzie115]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Summer will be the key for me,Reus,Pogba and Barklay would be my dream.

I reckon minimum 2 of those 3 come in.

When was the last time we signed a player coveted by numerous big European clubs?

Could see Barkley coming as he may want to stay in England but would Pogba or Reus really turn down the likes of Bayern, Madrid or Barca, who can all offer the same money as us, but also more prestige?

 

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Summer will be the key for me,Reus,Pogba and Barklay would be my dream.

I reckon minimum 2 of those 3 come in.

When was the last time we signed a player coveted by numerous big European clubs?

Could see Barkley coming as he may want to stay in England but would Pogba or Reus really turn down the likes of Bayern, Madrid or Barca, who can all offer the same money as us, but also more prestige?

Good question. The situations for all three players are different. Reus in a way is the most straightforward. Dortmund contractually have to sell him for an agreed price (20 million pounds) next summer. The fact he hasn't signed a new contract suggests he's ready to move. I don't see Madrid with Ronaldo, Bale, Isco, Jese, James, signing another direct, wide attacker. They have too many already. Barcelona will have a transfer ban next summer and won't be signing anyone. So that leaves the PL or Bayern. Personally I don't think he's going to Bayern. Just don't see Dortmund sanctioning their best player moving there for the third summer on the bounce. I see his destination as being the PL or staying at Dortmund. In the PL I think as reigning champions and with Txiki and Pellegrini doing the selling we can hold our own against any of our rivals in the transfer stakes. Especially if we really want a player.

Pogba - honestly I don't know. I don't know how much Juve would want, and I don't know if City would want to bring in one of Mino's players no matter how good he is. I suspect Pogba's going to Madrid or PSG.

Barkely. Well that's a no brainer for me. He's not gonna want to move to London being a scouse lad, and Liverpool aren't going to sign him so it's us or the rags. Again I'd back Txiki and Pellegrini to be doing enough to convince him.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread.

It was the same prior to the summer fines, how we had not publicly acknowledged FFP, as to challenge any sanctions.

The reality is a little more sobering, we want to be a member of the club and are willing to kiss a little ass to achieve it.

Fine by me. As I have stated previously, I couldn't give two hoots about the rest of football. Whatever it takes to keep our club successful.

We needed an invite to the party, the lottery-winning next-door neighbour who was reluctantly invited around for drinks and nibbles, and was eventually accepted as a member of the community, so long as they donated to the church fund.

On the flip side, however, the very fact Platini again raised the issue of fair-related sponsorship deals, suggests some of the other neighbours at the party still want the host to rescind our invitation and make us know our place.

Personally, I think City may have suggested the 10-year break-even rule because they know by then the Academy will have long started paying for itself and the leisure destination will be printing money.

The greatest irony for me, our poor offerings in the Champions League have probably lulled UEFA and a few others into a false sense of security, when equating our spend to outright success?

 

[BobKowalski]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread.

It was the same prior to the summer fines, how we had not publicly acknowledged FFP, as to challenge any sanctions.

The reality is a little more sobering, we want to be a member of the club and are willing to kiss a little ass to achieve it.

Fine by me. As I have stated previously, I couldn't give two hoots about the rest of football. Whatever it takes to keep our club successful.

We needed an invite to the party, the lottery-winning next-door neighbour who was reluctantly invited around for drinks and nibbles, and was eventually accepted as a member of the community, so long as they donated to the church fund.

On the flip side, however, the very fact Platini again raised the issue of fair-related sponsorship deals, suggests some of the other neighbours at the party still want the host to rescind our invitation and make us know our place.

Personally, I think City may have suggested the 10-year break-even rule because they know by then the Academy will have long started paying for itself and the leisure destination will be printing money.

The greatest irony for me, our poor offerings in the Champions League have probably lulled UEFA and a few others into a false sense of security, when equating our spend to outright success?

Nothing wrong with a bit of judicious ass kissing. Although I am encouraged by the 'full and frank meeting' bit which along with a 'robust exchange of views' usually means there was claret everywhere.

Its a fine line though. We want to be part of the club but not to the extent where our business is severely hampered by the club. Equally even the dullest members of the club can see the current ban on outside investment will only lead to 'ossification' and that is more damaging than the odd club going bust because of 'overspending' so evolving FFP to accommodate fresh investment is a no brainer.

As for some club members still wishing to put baby in the corner. Nobody puts baby in the corner.

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

And also, ultimately, the money invested by the billionaires filters down through football. The hypocracy of Arsene Wenger complaining g about our spending and then trousering £70m to pay off their stadium debt it astounding.

UEFA cannot be so stupid as to to not remember than it's only 25 years since the entire game was on it's arse, in terms of support and cash. It can happen again. Has there ever been another industry which was so cocksure that it turned away external investment?

That's always been my biggest hatred of Wenger and Arsenal. The fact they've pocketed more money from us than any other PL club, which has allowed them to be as financially strong as they are and pay off their stadium debts, and yet he still complains about our spending.

He complains about it because it suits his narrative, not because he actually believes it.

He also fails to mention the financial 'doping' he enjoyed whilst manager of Monaco.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread.

It was the same prior to the summer fines, how we had not publicly acknowledged FFP, as to challenge any sanctions.

The reality is a little more sobering, we want to be a member of the club and are willing to kiss a little ass to achieve it.

Fine by me. As I have stated previously, I couldn't give two hoots about the rest of football. Whatever it takes to keep our club successful.

We needed an invite to the party, the lottery-winning next-door neighbour who was reluctantly invited around for drinks and nibbles, and was eventually accepted as a member of the community, so long as they donated to the church fund.

On the flip side, however, the very fact Platini again raised the issue of fair-related sponsorship deals, suggests some of the other neighbours at the party still want the host to rescind our invitation and make us know our place.

Personally, I think City may have suggested the 10-year break-even rule because they know by then the Academy will have long started paying for itself and the leisure destination will be printing money.

The greatest irony for me, our poor offerings in the Champions League have probably lulled UEFA and a few others into a false sense of security, when equating our spend to outright success?

As newcomers to this meeting we are likely to have the mixed reception you describe.
Perhaps ADUG are happy for things to continue as they are rather than rant about the unfairness of its skewed targeted application within the meeting.

Asking for something you don't really need could be a red herring that others in the meeting may be complacent about and potential club buyers may have second thoughts about investment.
From ADUG point of view the longer that from a commercial point of view that the 'pinch' is seeming to be working the better.

 

[blueinsa]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread.

It was the same prior to the summer fines, how we had not publicly acknowledged FFP, as to challenge any sanctions.

The reality is a little more sobering, we want to be a member of the club and are willing to kiss a little ass to achieve it.

Fine by me. As I have stated previously, I couldn't give two hoots about the rest of football. Whatever it takes to keep our club successful.

We needed an invite to the party, the lottery-winning next-door neighbour who was reluctantly invited around for drinks and nibbles, and was eventually accepted as a member of the community, so long as they donated to the church fund.

On the flip side, however, the very fact Platini again raised the issue of fair-related sponsorship deals, suggests some of the other neighbours at the party still want the host to rescind our invitation and make us know our place.

Personally, I think City may have suggested the 10-year break-even rule because they know by then the Academy will have long started paying for itself and the leisure destination will be printing money.

The greatest irony for me, our poor offerings in the Champions League have probably lulled UEFA and a few others into a false sense of security, when equating our spend to outright success?

Told, don't take this personally mate but one week it's elvis vids and talk of, "they won't know what's hit them" and then we have your post above telling us all to calm down because the reality is a little bit sobering.

Personally, I'm not worried as our turnover is incredible given the small amount of time we have had its only going in one direction. Sponsorships and talk of related parties is and should be of no worry to us. We are like anyone else, looking for the biggest deals possible and if one club can announce a £750m deal for kits the so can everyone else, simple.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Why do City want the monitoring period extended if we're going to be ok with this years figures ?

Is there any possibility we are not going to be ok with this years figures or is it certain we will pass?

We were told last year by many posters we would pass & piss it & how did that end up?

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Yesterday's meeting was largely an irrelevance: lots of talking, no decisions taken, nothing changed but massive posturing. The presence of Dupont hung over proceedings. Both sides still have to play their cards very close to their chest because they both have to take into account the consequences of an adverse result in court.

Rummenigge has to try and project an image other than the bigoted, ranting fanatic who plans to plant his jack boots all over the balls of anyone who shows signs of frustrating Bayern's plans; yesterday he was the statesman eschewing coercion in favour of the reason which had converted Abramovitch and filled everyone with whom he had discussed FFP with "positive" thoughts. Platini was the born leader who, now that FFP had saved football from the destruction threatened,might now be prepared to consider some fine tuning which might make fair play fairer by tackling the problem of debt, letting some owners spend a bit of their own money and so on. Might. This is to convince everyone that UEFA isn't really the poodle of a Munich paymaster and a group of Yankie carpetbaggers, but the dedicated guardians of European football. And Berlusconi was simply hawking his begging bowl round to trying to cadge a place in the CL even though his clapped out club can't qualify. After all, Arsenal are only just better. The court has to be convinced that these groups are genuinely trying to be fair to all in the interests of European football. Despite some fairly convincing recent evidence to the contrary.

Then there's City and PSG. Despite the covert war they have waged against FFP for as long as anyone can remember, they daren't get involved in legal action and they have to operate within UEFA if Dupont loses. They can't come straight out and say that FFP is the typical bent product of an arrogant German who thinks he's in the ascendant and a French appeaser with a dodgy, trembly pair of knees and should be consigned to the dustbin. So City come up with a ludicrous scheme to extend the break even period beyond the horizon. "Well, Michel, we don't think FFP is quite the load of bollocks everyone else does..."

The decision will be made in court, and yesterday was simply jostling for position.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think the 10 year monitoring period is a clever tactic because

A) It extends the period for City to achieve true, commercial comfort.

B) Allows for other clubs to follow City making us pro-competition and anti-ossification

C) Negates the advantages that the current commercially big clubs have

D) Raises the stakes for UEFA because

i City can now justifiably claim to be playing the FFP game.
ii If they deny the request then the only argument is that FFP *IS* designed to maintain a status quo

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Why do City want the monitoring period extended if we're going to be ok with this years figures ?

Is there any possibility we are not going to be ok with this years figures or is it certain we will pass?

We were told last year by many posters we would pass & piss it & how did that end up?

Do you ever, EVER, post anything that's constructive and adds to the debate rather than being sneering and sarcastic? Compared to you, Victor Meldrew looks like Ken Dodd.

I said we would fail but would be able to use Annex XI to scrape through by the skin of our teeth. Had UEFA not changed the rules on that after it was too late to do anything about it, we might well have done.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A new, weighty doc about UEFA and the EU has landed


<a class="postlink" href="http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/2014/docs/uefa2014_en.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/2014/doc ... 014_en.pdf</a>

FFP mentioned here and it says that FFP has to be legal under competition laws doesnt it?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'd guess that City suggested the extended monitoring period because:

a) It vindicates the owners and gets UEFA to effectively admit they made a mistake on the principle of owner investment.
b) It's sensible generally.
c) It encourages other owners or potential owners to invest in clubs, which could diminish the power of the old G-14 cartel.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

COOKIE MONSTER...stop being so Victor Meldrewish...lol


You have been told.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is there any possibility we are not going to be ok with this years figures or is it certain we will pass?

We were told last year by many posters we would pass & piss it & how did that end up?

Do you ever, EVER, post anything that's constructive and adds to the debate rather than being sneering and sarcastic? Compared to you, Victor Meldrew looks like Ken Dodd.

I said we would fail but would be able to use Annex XI to scrape through by the skin of our teeth. Had UEFA not changed the rules on that after it was too late to do anything about it, we might well have done.

I just remember you and a few others absolutlely giving dogs abuse to anyone outside of city who said we would fail
In fact they came on here defended themselves for the articles they wrote & got further abuse, and if anyones fuckin miserable on here its you......

 

[LoveCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 40 seconds ago
UEFA issue statement announcing `landmark' cooperation agreement with European Commission... Good Luck with that FFP EU legal challenge

What does this mean? :|

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 40 seconds ago
UEFA issue statement announcing `landmark' cooperation agreement with European Commission... Good Luck with that FFP EU legal challenge

What does this mean? :|

Its means corruption is still very much rife within uefa..Amazing what a few brown envelopes can get you!

 

[Tueart1976]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 40 seconds ago
UEFA issue statement announcing `landmark' cooperation agreement with European Commission... Good Luck with that FFP EU legal challenge

What does this mean? :|

This is the press release from UEFA:

UEFA secures landmark formal cooperation agreement with European Commission
049 - Arrangement for Cooperation marks historic achievement in UEFA-EU relations
Published: Tuesday 14 October 2014, 17.00CET

UEFA and the European Commission have today signed a historic agreement between the two organisations, marking a momentous milestone in relations between the European bodies. UEFA President Michel Platini, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and European Commissioner responsible for sport Androulla Vassiliou met this afternoon at the Commission’s headquarters in Brussels to launch the Arrangement for Cooperation which sets out the basis for a formal UEFA-EC partnership.

The Arrangement for Cooperation comes as UEFA celebrates its 60th anniversary. It cements the organisations’ joint commitment to structured cooperation in key policy areas and underlines UEFA’s strong desire to continue working with the Commission and other national and European public bodies. UEFA is pleased that the Commission shares its vision for the future of European football and fully supports its major initiatives, including the implementation of Financial Fair Play.

UEFA President Michel Platini said: “We have come a long way in our relationship with the European Commission and this Arrangement for Cooperation is proof that our bond is stronger than ever. With the increased support of the European Commission, we will intensify our fight to safeguard the ethics of sport and to promote good governance. By working together, we will make sure football can overcome the many challenges it faces, whether it be discrimination, match-fixing, third party player ownership or violence. UEFA is also pleased to have the commitment of the European Commission to cooperate in the promotion of grassroots football and to continue to support the implementation of the Financial Fair Play process, which will ensure football can grow and prosper in years to come. I am very proud of this Arrangement for Cooperation and believe that it comes at a crucial time for European Football."

Androulla Vassiliou, the European Commissioner responsible for sport, said: "This agreement is a significant step forward in our cooperation with UEFA, which is an important partner for the European Commission in its dialogue with the world of sport. I am pleased that, over the course of my mandate, the Commission has strengthened its ties with UEFA, working closely on a wide range of issues affecting football. Our goal has always been to maintain stability in the world of professional sport, appreciating its specificity while fully respecting EU law. We are also committed to maximising the impact that sport can have on society as a catalyst for social change in areas such as improving health and gender equality. We have worked well with UEFA in the past on these issues and this agreement ensures that our close collaboration will continue."

The Arrangement for Cooperation commits the two organisations to regular bilateral meetings and includes a target of holding senior level meetings at least once a year. In order to further promote the social role of sport, and in particular in relation to health and physical activity, the agreement also envisages collaboration between the European Commission and UEFA in the context of the planned European Week of Sport.

See here for the full text of the Arrangement for Cooperation between the European Commission and UEFA: <a class="postlink" href="http://uefa.to/1u0l8C9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://uefa.to/1u0l8C9</a>