How UEFA shifted the goalposts on FFP. The definitive story.

Prestwich_Blue said:
The sanctions weren't necessarily connected to the size of the deviation from the acceptable deficit. UEFA appear to have been shit-scared of our reaction to events and were seemingly desperate to get a settlement almost at any price. So we came out with a punishment much less than we might have got as I reckon UEFA didn't fancy going to court. I think they basically asked us to name our price for accepting a settlement.
Click to expand...

Might be going off on a tangent here, but this is where it looks like it's going to get all political.
Those soundbites coming out of the new guy, 'concrete case', 'maintain the integrity of UEFA' etc. are a bit worrying.
UEFA and the forces of darkness ('G' clubs), are looking to go for our owners somehow.

Are they looking for a way to disregard the agreement that Infantino, as mediator, struck with City to penalise us?
We know he did it to maintain some sort of decorum, keeping it out of court, and from what I can remember, they were all happy at the time of the fine and squad reduction.

However, look at what we've done since. Our success, which is earning us millions in TV, sponsorship and prize money, has turned the FFP rules on their head and they are now hindering the other G clubs. You would assume that FFP, as we know it, will soon be gone.

But it's also the development side of the group, loaning out and then selling the developing players who aren't good enough to make the first team squad, is also earning a healthy profit.

All of this must be frightening to them and they're looking for ways to cut the legs from under us.

I expect a ban.
 
citytilllidie said:
Might be going off on a tangent here, but this is where it looks like it's going to get all political.
Those soundbites coming out of the new guy, 'concrete case', 'maintain the integrity of UEFA' etc. are a bit worrying.
UEFA and the forces of darkness ('G' clubs), are looking to go for our owners somehow.

Are they looking for a way to disregard the agreement that Infantino, as mediator, struck with City to penalise us?
We know he did it to maintain some sort of decorum, keeping it out of court, and from what I can remember, they were all happy at the time of the fine and squad reduction.

However, look at what we've done since. Our success, which is earning us millions in TV, sponsorship and prize money, has turned the FFP rules on their head and they are now hindering the other G clubs. You would assume that FFP, as we know it, will soon be gone.

But it's also the development side of the group, loaning out and then selling the developing players who aren't good enough to make the first team squad, is also earning a healthy profit.

All of this must be frightening to them and they're looking for ways to cut the legs from under us.

I expect a ban.
Click to expand...

No chance of a ban for FFP as the club would immediately slap on an induction, the last thing that UEFA want
 
Surely if we were to cop for a ban the players would also have a case against UEFA for restraint of trade.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Our aggregate losses were just over £150m before adjustments. We could knock £35m off that for FFP purposes making an aggregate break-even deficit of £115m. We were allowed to lose £38m so we were £77m short of meeting FFP. That figure is the definitive one and, whatever UEFA did, we still failed by that amount. Had we been able to offset our £80m wages, as agreed with UEFA, under FFP's Annex XI, then in principle we wouldn't have faced any sanctions. But we'd have still failed FFP by £77m.
Click to expand...

We were never going to comply given the sort of losses we were making in the early monitoring periods, but the rule allowing the deduction of the pre-2010 wages seemed to give us a shot at avoiding punishment. At the time, the club seemed desperate to make that happen, I assume for PR reasons. However, even though we were shafted (and great credit to you, PB, for being the person to expose that), it might now be for the best that we faced sanctions and agreed the settlement, as that should make it much harder for UEFA to revisit matters that occured pre-settlement.
 
petrusha said:
We were never going to comply given the sort of losses we were making in the early monitoring periods, but the rule allowing the deduction of the pre-2010 wages seemed to give us a shot at avoiding punishment. At the time, the club seemed desperate to make that happen, I assume for PR reasons. However, even though we were shafted (and great credit to you, PB, for being the person to expose that), it might now be for the best that we faced sanctions and agreed the settlement, as that should make it much harder for UEFA to revisit matters that occured pre-settlement.
Click to expand...

Pity the ffp wasnt the same one that they changed to in 2015 and all this bullshit woundnt be happening.
 
Esteban de la Sexface said:
One simple question would end all this

"Why is it OK for the King of Spain to finance Real Madrid, but it's not OK for HRH, Sheikh Mansour to finance Manchester City?"
Click to expand...
The King of Spain is a well-known Atlético de Madrid supporter, so where do you get this idea from? The Spanish monarchy have never financed any club. Certainly, Real Madrid have been favoured heavily by corrupt politicans since Franco's days.
 
waspish said:
Pity the ffp wasnt the same one that they changed to in 2015 and all this bullshit woundnt be happening.
Click to expand...
Agreed, in fact they changed because the previous rule was obsolete for whatever reason. To try to implement a yesteryear rule a second time after admitting the laws unsuitability would surely be wrong even ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.