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

Presumably the difference in treatment with PSG is that PSG just claimed crazy moneys, and had it reassessed and sanctions applied.

City had sanctions applied, but are now alleged to have been less than completely honest with UEFA when those sanctions were applied.

I think there's enough difference to justify different treatment from UEFA (who I don't think are especially driven by media imperative on this). As it is, with regard to the hacked email allegations, all UEFA have done so far is say they'll look into the allegations (which I can't see them having any other choice but to do so), and, er, that's it.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The Guardian are claiming we've refused to co-operate with UEFA on the basis that their information is from stolen emails.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jan/15/manchester-city-refuse-comment-uefa-ffp-allegations
Click to expand...

The final sentence states "Owners can put money into clubs via sponsorships, as long as the price paid is considered fair market value."

So Conn accepts that even if what is being suggested is true (about our owners paying the sponsors) there is no case to answer anyway.
 
jaigurugoat said:
The final sentence states "Owners can put money into clubs via sponsorships, as long as the price paid is considered fair market value."

So Conn accepts that even if what is being suggested is true (about our owners paying the sponsors) there is no case to answer anyway.
Click to expand...

The issue wasn't Etihad but the second tier agreements, which UEFA believed were inflated, plus the issue of image rights, where we took the income but not the costs.

But the simple fact is that UEFA's own rules allowed a get-out in the event of a club that failed FFP but met certain criteria re wages. That's what we were trying to achieve but UEFA made a small but significant change to those rules that meant we couldn't do that. I now firmly believe they made that change as, if they hadn't, they would have been under immense pressure to challenge us knowing we'd been a bit light on our feet, shall we say. By changing the rules to ensure we were sanctioned, they avoided that and put the ball in our court. I don't believe either party - us or UEFA - really wanted to face a court battle fought out in the public gaze as both of us had a lot to lose potentially. That's why I'm convinced UEFA would like this to go away quietly
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The issue wasn't Etihad but the second tier agreements, which UEFA believed were inflated, plus the issue of image rights, where we took the income but not the costs.

But the simple fact is that UEFA's own rules allowed a get-out in the event of a club that failed FFP but met certain criteria re wages. That's what we were trying to achieve but UEFA made a small but significant change to those rules that meant we couldn't do that. I now firmly believe they made that change as, if they hadn't, they would have been under immense pressure to challenge us knowing we'd been a bit light on our feet, shall we say. By changing the rules to ensure we were sanctioned, they avoided that and put the ball in our court. I don't believe either party - us or UEFA - really wanted to face a court battle fought out in the public gaze as both of us had a lot to lose potentially. That's why I'm convinced UEFA would like this to go away quietly
Click to expand...

As a general rule, if you talk tough about potential sanctions it's because you aren't going to do them. UEFA have to go through the process, but if they really were after City, then they'd have stayed silent and left City under pressure to justify themselves.
 
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.