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

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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......

To be fair mate I remember this also..

 

[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? :|

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>

All bent as fuck...an agreement just prior to a serious legal challenge to ffp.

FUCK OFF UEFA..bent cunts

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

God knows how many people have me foed and dont see my posts!

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

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>

All bent as fuck...an agreement just prior to a serious legal challenge to ffp.

FUCK OFF UEFA..bent cunts

last point of the new agreement

5.4. This Arrangement does not create rights or obligations under international, EU or
domestic law.

 

[Jazzman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

last point of the new agreement

5.4. This Arrangement does not create rights or obligations under international, EU or
domestic law.

That's what I thought too. The law is presumably still the same, so does this really change anything ?

Cheers

Jazzman

 

[Jazzman]

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.

Exactly, wouldn't a 10 year monitoring period effectively remove a lot of the negative effects of FFP ? I mean it would allow an owner to initially invest, and give time to increase the commercial income to match the expenses. Perhaps this is City's attempt to change the system from within.

Cheers

Jazzman

 

[BobKowalski]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Quite an interesting read...

in this respect, redistribution mechanisms concerning, for example, audiovisual media revenues

Spanish TV deal anyone?

also same para

long-term financial viability and competitive balance

Competitive balance - one of the factors behind the seeding changes for the CL perhaps and how does this effect TV revenue distribution for the CL which is hugely imbalances and skews competitive balance?

Also everything has to be compliant with EU law. Hence why, as people have mentioned, FFP fine tuning re debt and outside investment is suddenly on the table. Additionally UEFA in bed with the EU makes a breakaway league/organisation more difficult and gives UEFA some leverage with the old G14?

Interesting times.

 

[OB1]

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?

I saw your post ;-)

I think the point about compliance with competition law is absolutely crucial. This document though should carry no weight with the European Court of Justice and I see it as irrelevant to any legal challenge to FFP.

 

[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?

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.

Nothing personal to take, bud.

I can draw a clear distinction between the size of some of the deals I have been told are brokered for CFA, and what the ongoing reality is for our owners.

They want to make shitloads of cash, regardless of whether FFPR remains or not.

What we may project or say in meetings with Uefa will be half truths at best.

Certainly if we know we will always have the most chips and winning hand.

A phoney war, nothing more IMO.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I seem to remember a letter from the EU to UEFA some time ago ref FFP that was complementary to ''Cher Michel'' and his FFP plans etc...

Of course the EU is corrupt.
This is the main reason why audited accounts have not been made available for the last 13 years, but it does not stop them pontificating about all aspects of the way we should live our lives.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Quite an interesting read...

in this respect, redistribution mechanisms concerning, for example, audiovisual media revenues

Spanish TV deal anyone?

also same para

long-term financial viability and competitive balance

Competitive balance - one of the factors behind the seeding changes for the CL perhaps and how does this effect TV revenue distribution for the CL which is hugely imbalances and skews competitive balance?

Also everything has to be compliant with EU law. Hence why, as people have mentioned, FFP fine tuning re debt and outside investment is suddenly on the table. Additionally UEFA in bed with the EU makes a breakaway league/organisation more difficult and gives UEFA some leverage with the old G14?

Interesting times.

Most Importantly the EC is the "Cabinet" of the EU, the test for the legality of FFPR will be done by the ECJ, the independent Courts of the EU. Any UEFA deal with the EC won't influence the ECJ.

Remember the key tests of the FPPR will be does they distort the free market or create anti-competitive markets (yes), is it for "good" reason (ostensibly yes but only just) and are the measures proportionate (can other methods achieve the same goals without being anti-competitive?). Too pass muster with the ECJ, you have to be able to say that the FFPR are the only ways to achieve sound financial governance even if they distort the market they are the best available Rules.

Perhaps I have very blue tinted vision but I can't see any way that the FPPR, as they currently stand, represent the best method regulating the affairs of Football Clubs.

 

[oakiecokie]

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.

I`ve often wondered ... are you really Martin Samuels ??

 

[SilverFox2]

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.

Exactly, wouldn't a 10 year monitoring period effectively remove a lot of the negative effects of FFP ? I mean it would allow an owner to initially invest, and give time to increase the commercial income to match the expenses. Perhaps this is City's attempt to change the system from within.

Cheers

Jazzman

Conversely it may indicate that it would take ten years to break even making it a long haul for most serious investors.

 

[City Raider]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

todays events only highlight how seriously they're taking duponts legal challenge

they're trying to out manoeuvre him but i think this changes little with respect of the actual law

the only worry is the weight of bayern and the country they represent in terms of european political power - i can't see an unprejudiced process

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Quite an interesting read...

in this respect, redistribution mechanisms concerning, for example, audiovisual media revenues

Spanish TV deal anyone?

also same para

long-term financial viability and competitive balance

Competitive balance - one of the factors behind the seeding changes for the CL perhaps and how does this effect TV revenue distribution for the CL which is hugely imbalances and skews competitive balance?

Also everything has to be compliant with EU law. Hence why, as people have mentioned, FFP fine tuning re debt and outside investment is suddenly on the table. Additionally UEFA in bed with the EU makes a breakaway league/organisation more difficult and gives UEFA some leverage with the old G14?

Interesting times.

Most Importantly the EC is the "Cabinet" of the EU, the test for the legality of FFPR will be done by the ECJ, the independent Courts of the EU. Any UEFA deal with the EC won't influence the ECJ.

Remember the key tests of the FPPR will be does they distort the free market or create anti-competitive markets (yes), is it for "good" reason (ostensibly yes but only just) and are the measures proportionate (can other methods achieve the same goals without being anti-competitive?). Too pass muster with the ECJ, you have to be able to say that the FFPR are the only ways to achieve sound financial governance even if they distort the market they are the best available Rules.

Perhaps I have very blue tinted vision but I can't see any way that the FPPR, as they currently stand, represent the best method regulating the affairs of Football Clubs.

They don't, but that's not the point is it?! For all the postulating and increased optimism on this thread, I still expect exactly nothing from these crooked bastards. They won't give us jack shit unless they are compelled to at legal gunpoint

 

[JGL07]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Quite an interesting read...

in this respect, redistribution mechanisms concerning, for example, audiovisual media revenues

Spanish TV deal anyone?

also same para

long-term financial viability and competitive balance

Competitive balance - one of the factors behind the seeding changes for the CL perhaps and how does this effect TV revenue distribution for the CL which is hugely imbalances and skews competitive balance?

Also everything has to be compliant with EU law. Hence why, as people have mentioned, FFP fine tuning re debt and outside investment is suddenly on the table. Additionally UEFA in bed with the EU makes a breakaway league/organisation more difficult and gives UEFA some leverage with the old G14?

Interesting times.

n


Most Importantly the EC is the "Cabinet" of the EU, the test for the legality of FFPR will be done by the ECJ, the independent Courts of the EU. Any UEFA deal with the EC won't influence the ECJ.

Remember the key tests of the FPPR will be does they distort the free market or create anti-competitive markets (yes), is it for "good" reason (ostensibly yes but only just) and are the measures proportionate (can other methods achieve the same goals without being anti-competitive?). Too pass muster with the ECJ, you have to be able to say that the FFPR are the only ways to achieve sound financial governance even if they distort the market they are the best available Rules.

Perhaps I have very blue tinted vision but I can't see any way that the FPPR, as they currently stand, represent the best method regulating the affairs of Football Clubs.

They don't, but that's not the point is it?! For all the postulating and increased optimism on this thread, I still expect exactly nothing from these crooked bastards. They won't give us jack shit unless they are compelled to at legal gunpoint

This approach may be seen as offering UEFA a way out of the legal issues that FFP has landed them in.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Quite an interesting read...

in this respect, redistribution mechanisms concerning, for example, audiovisual media revenues

Spanish TV deal anyone?

also same para

long-term financial viability and competitive balance

Competitive balance - one of the factors behind the seeding changes for the CL perhaps and how does this effect TV revenue distribution for the CL which is hugely imbalances and skews competitive balance?

Also everything has to be compliant with EU law. Hence why, as people have mentioned, FFP fine tuning re debt and outside investment is suddenly on the table. Additionally UEFA in bed with the EU makes a breakaway league/organisation more difficult and gives UEFA some leverage with the old G14?

Interesting times.

Most Importantly the EC is the "Cabinet" of the EU, the test for the legality of FFPR will be done by the ECJ, the independent Courts of the EU. Any UEFA deal with the EC won't influence the ECJ.

Remember the key tests of the FPPR will be does they distort the free market or create anti-competitive markets (yes), is it for "good" reason (ostensibly yes but only just) and are the measures proportionate (can other methods achieve the same goals without being anti-competitive?). Too pass muster with the ECJ, you have to be able to say that the FFPR are the only ways to achieve sound financial governance even if they distort the market they are the best available Rules.

Perhaps I have very blue tinted vision but I can't see any way that the FPPR, as they currently stand, represent the best method regulating the affairs of Football Clubs.

How eloquently and clearly put - good post mate.

That, in a nutshell, is the position.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

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.

Exactly, wouldn't a 10 year monitoring period effectively remove a lot of the negative effects of FFP ? I mean it would allow an owner to initially invest, and give time to increase the commercial income to match the expenses. Perhaps this is City's attempt to change the system from within.

Cheers

Jazzman

Conversely it may indicate that it would take ten years to break even making it a long haul for most serious investors.

they only have to look at us to know it doesn't though.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Exactly, wouldn't a 10 year monitoring period effectively remove a lot of the negative effects of FFP ? I mean it would allow an owner to initially invest, and give time to increase the commercial income to match the expenses. Perhaps this is City's attempt to change the system from within.

Cheers

Jazzman

Conversely it may indicate that it would take ten years to break even making it a long haul for most serious investors.

they only have to look at us to know it doesn't though.

I don't know what you mean. We were on the brink of greatness anyway before Thaksin got involved. That's what I kept telling myself for the last 40 years.

 

[paulchapo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It is odd they now want to talk to PSG and ourselves i just hope we don't trust them and show them no leeway after the way they shafted us, especially by divvying up our money between our rivals, shameful.

Like most blues i hate everything about these bloated European fatcats and their odds stacked in the favour of the cartel competition, i dream they will get hammered in the courts!