Has he done a video full of rage yet
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Has he done a video full of rage yet
Manchester1894
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 6,357
So we expecting any news before the 24/25 season?
Spain?
Yeah they had what we had in premier ffp regarding wages increase allowed! But yep Gill took that rule out when his team wanted to buy more players about 8/9 years ago! That there is why ffp was brought in for us and only us Gill had ffp on speed dial in effect to change at will!
I'll keep saying it Gill is one rancid kunt
The Stockport Iniesta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 9,884
Villa account/aggregator.
Lads, we made it. We’re the ones trying to stay rich.
We were telling these knob heads what ffp was all about years ago.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,574
Masters crumbles under some minor cross examination from a Parliamentary select committee - got into a right state. A decent KC would have him soiling his pants.
I’d like to see the office junior explain how he got the charges wrong?
I’m actually pissing myself.
Ithryn Luin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2018
- Messages
- 672
- Team supported
- City & Bolton
Came across this great post in the Telegraph yesterday.....Yeah they had what we had in premier ffp regarding wages increase allowed! But yep Gill took that rule out when his team wanted to buy more players about 8/9 years ago! That there is why ffp was brought in for us and only us Gill had ffp on speed dial in effect to change at will!
I'll keep saying it Gill is one rancid kunt
"The establishment of the PL in 1992 was primarily driven by LFC , Man u & Arsenal. Renowned Liverpool fan, Rick Parry, fulfilled a principal role as a management consultant. Together they planned the PL as a breakaway from the English Leagues. Parry was then appointed first CEO of the PL.
The commercial gains from the PL mainly revolved around these 3 clubs with Spurs & Everton added.
The breakaway European Super League was led by the same 3 clubs. They were motivated by similar commercial aims as in 1992, and the realisation that they were not able to regularly qualify for the Champions League which provided huge income. In due course, the former CEO`s / Financial Directors of LFC and MUFC, Parry and Gill, obtained key positions at UEFA. Influence could be wielded.
New `rules` were crafted. Ultimately their purpose was to retain the `Golden Goose` in the hands of the G-14 organisation for the benefit of those clubs. The `rules` were not primarily for a wider altruistic, common good despite how they were presented, Self protectionism was the end game. Platini was briefed. The disingenuously labelled `financial fair play` (ffp) rules were re-drafted. High levels of club debt were allowed.
Later, when ffp began to be `tested`, the New York Times published stories based allegedly on confidential information to be the subject of UEFA proceedings. Through their sources, they produced misleading opinion pieces before ffp hearings were even held.
NUFC want to invest for growth and success, like most clubs and businesses. They are now aware of the deeper machinations. The PL`s Chair is a self confessed Man u fan. Gill is still at UEFA. Parry is before a Govt hearing next week.
Who are the masters of Masters? Who has been pulling the strings?"
Strange how these reporters are just waking up after 30 years of quite obvious corruption and mutual back scratching.Came across this great post in the Telegraph yesterday.....
"The establishment of the PL in 1992 was primarily driven by LFC , Man u & Arsenal. Renowned Liverpool fan, Rick Parry, fulfilled a principal role as a management consultant. Together they planned the PL as a breakaway from the English Leagues. Parry was then appointed first CEO of the PL.
The commercial gains from the PL mainly revolved around these 3 clubs with Spurs & Everton added.
The breakaway European Super League was led by the same 3 clubs. They were motivated by similar commercial aims as in 1992, and the realisation that they were not able to regularly qualify for the Champions League which provided huge income. In due course, the former CEO`s / Financial Directors of LFC and MUFC, Parry and Gill, obtained key positions at UEFA. Influence could be wielded.
New `rules` were crafted. Ultimately their purpose was to retain the `Golden Goose` in the hands of the G-14 organisation for the benefit of those clubs. The `rules` were not primarily for a wider altruistic, common good despite how they were presented, Self protectionism was the end game. Platini was briefed. The disingenuously labelled `financial fair play` (ffp) rules were re-drafted. High levels of club debt were allowed.
Later, when ffp began to be `tested`, the New York Times published stories based allegedly on confidential information to be the subject of UEFA proceedings. Through their sources, they produced misleading opinion pieces before ffp hearings were even held.
NUFC want to invest for growth and success, like most clubs and businesses. They are now aware of the deeper machinations. The PL`s Chair is a self confessed Man u fan. Gill is still at UEFA. Parry is before a Govt hearing next week.
Who are the masters of Masters? Who has been pulling the strings?"
StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,142
- Team supported
- City
Discontent with present financial regulation appears to be growing but the present investigation into City's affairs does not threaten the existence of what we know as FFP. The PL case is that City have disguised owner investment as sponsorship revenue to avoid failing FFP but City's case is not to question the legality of limiting owner investment. City's case is that the club has increased its revenue from those streams permitted by "FFP" and that there has consequently been no need for false accounting. In other words, the club has met the demands of FFP in every respect. This was our case back in 2018 and CAS found it to be valid.
If there is a threat to FFP it comes not from City - to whom FFP is now irrelevant - but from the recent ruling that sporting bodies may rule on purely sporting matters but cannot interfere in commercial affairs. This does seem to spell the end of FFP. I have always argued that FFP violates the bald statement in the treaty regulating commercial affairs in the EU (and in the UK) that any attempt to limit investment is prohibited and any sanctions to enforce such limitation are null and void. Recent rulings have emphasised (if such steps were necessary) the primacy of the law over any regulations. FFP's days may well be numbered but there is no scope for mixing and matching, no room for replacing one set of protectionist regulations with another. It seems that, at the moment, there is no alternative to allowing owners to invest what they want, when they want. The "sporting exception" UEFA claims is pure fantasy and years have been wasted not trying to find an acceptable way of controlling costs to maintain the "competitive balance" to which UEFA have paid lip service but have ignored consistently.
What City have shown since 2008 is that "governing bodies" which try to prevent money coming into their sport from rich (very, very rich) people who wish to develop the sport, benefit spectators and revive and invigorate an area, would be better employed trying to flog life back into a dead horse. In fact, they are trying to flog life OUT of an ailing horse. It is Sheikh Mansour and the people running our club with him, who point the way to a vigorous, optimistic future. It may have been Khaldoon or someone else at City who said in the days after the takeover, that "other clubs" (which?!) saw money as the problem whereas they saw money as part of the solution. Football has yet to understand that.
If there is a threat to FFP it comes not from City - to whom FFP is now irrelevant - but from the recent ruling that sporting bodies may rule on purely sporting matters but cannot interfere in commercial affairs. This does seem to spell the end of FFP. I have always argued that FFP violates the bald statement in the treaty regulating commercial affairs in the EU (and in the UK) that any attempt to limit investment is prohibited and any sanctions to enforce such limitation are null and void. Recent rulings have emphasised (if such steps were necessary) the primacy of the law over any regulations. FFP's days may well be numbered but there is no scope for mixing and matching, no room for replacing one set of protectionist regulations with another. It seems that, at the moment, there is no alternative to allowing owners to invest what they want, when they want. The "sporting exception" UEFA claims is pure fantasy and years have been wasted not trying to find an acceptable way of controlling costs to maintain the "competitive balance" to which UEFA have paid lip service but have ignored consistently.
What City have shown since 2008 is that "governing bodies" which try to prevent money coming into their sport from rich (very, very rich) people who wish to develop the sport, benefit spectators and revive and invigorate an area, would be better employed trying to flog life back into a dead horse. In fact, they are trying to flog life OUT of an ailing horse. It is Sheikh Mansour and the people running our club with him, who point the way to a vigorous, optimistic future. It may have been Khaldoon or someone else at City who said in the days after the takeover, that "other clubs" (which?!) saw money as the problem whereas they saw money as part of the solution. Football has yet to understand that.