Serious question relating to us and FFP(update P17)

[Ardwick Green Blue]

A lot of posters on this seem to assume that the club are merely reacting to events as if the chairman is phoning Sheikh Mansour and saying 'Have you seen what the bastards are doing now?'. I believe the club will have a strategy based on a worst case scenario that makes all these puny attempts to block us futile.

I don't envisage any legal challenge by us because firstly we can get round the new rules anyway plus there is no guarantee that it would succeed no matter how strong the case is so why take a chance?

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Ever since UEFA and now the Premier League attempted to broach this subject, I have reached the conclusion too many people believe they know the pertinent facts.

One thing I have yet to hear is the policing process in terms of the Premier League assessing the accounts of clubs.

UEFA have invested millions into investigative units. I will be interested to see which clubs ask the Premier League to drill down into our released accounts, ask for elaboration.

It'll be like the UEFA belgium bloke - a financial expert and advisor currently unemployed due to his dire financial track record. Failing that it will be Gill in a bowler hat.

Our owners voted against it for a reason. The avenue of cheating the system or challenging it in court is open to them but it's not an attractive one given their motivation. The amount of abuse they and us as a club have taken over the last 4 years, some of it blatantly racist, the rest bitter, while our owners have acted impeccably. Imagine the flak if they started really throwing their weight about. I'd love to see it, but I'm doubtful it's what they want. They must maintain the threat of further action though and hope someone else challenges it IMO though.

I somehow think that we are about to piss once again on someones toes, when we reveal further sponsorship deals for the forthcoming season,possibly from further afield than Abu Dhabi.
I think City have half been expecting this outcome and deals are well in place.

Indeed. It would be a surprise if, as one of the largest exporters of one of the world's most valuable commodities, Sheikh Mansour wasn't able to do deals all over the globe. What I'd like to see is sponsorship from say a Chinese multinational that those utter cnuts in UEFA can't squeal is based on nepotism. A nice fat juicy one that would drive a coach and fucking horses through that bastard Gill's plans......

 

[trotsky]

To really stop clubs getting into financial difficulties, then I think City should table a motion stating that:
Any clubs with debt should use 50% of their turnover to repay the debt expeditiously. A club like United would have to reduce wages and transfer fees until the debt was paid. This would show clubs with less revenue the correct way to act and there would be no more 'Portsmouths'.
Sounds better than the current restriction on dreams.

 

[chesterbells]

I just hope at some point there is such a sucker punch message from our owners which ensures all the other clubs turn round and fuck off with their tails between their legs.

Timing is the key - as much as I'm gagging for it to be now - I hope it's a message with Nuclear Bomb/Meteorite proportions

Fuck em all

I'm lost; got no idea what you're referring to here, but it sounds good!

Not followed the whole thread but there's a lot of positivity on here - is it based on something specific & as yet not public knowledge, or is it just that people think as it stands now we'll be fine?

 

[Blue Mooner]

Why are only Man U allowed to service a historical debt of 2 x their total revenues and yet no club can run an annual loss of more than 35 million per year ?

By rights in order for this to be fair we should be able to run up a debt of circa £560 million on a similar ratio to the rags. United should be showing that they are moving towards a debt free business in order that they are not running an unfair advantage over the rest of the league. But of course because the arse and the rags both service big debts this does not come into FTP regulations. Ycnmiu you really couldn't

We all know this is bullsh@t and nothing to do with 'fairness' the agenda is alive and well.

 

[Bluep*ss]

Our owners voted against it for a reason. .......[/quote]
.................How do we know this. Haven't seen anything in print from yesterdays meeting. ???

 

[coleridge]

Our owners voted against it for a reason. .......

.................How do we know this. Haven't seen anything in print from yesterdays meeting. ???[/quote]

Radio 4 this morning said that both us an Chelsea voted for it, and so I am now confused!

 

[Keith Moon]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

You seriously think our turnover will surpass United's in 3 years? I hope it's true but I seriously doubt that will happen, particularly as it looks like they are likely to win more trophies than us during that period.

You seriously doubt it will happen?

Our commercial revenue is already up with them, despite prostituting themselves to over 30 companies over the last 12 months.

United are maxed-out, we are within striking distance of turnover, already. That's despite United winning silverware for 20 years and us only getting investment four years ago.

Regardless of what they win, and they certainly haven't won more trophies than us in the last two years, you need to factor in what you cannot yet see.

A campus and series of developments that are akin to printing money hand-over-fist.

Soon, everyone will see and it will seriously blow minds, as well as any concerns over FFPR.

I'm always bemused by people envisaging our owners are sat on their hands, waiting to be put back in their corner.

Nobody puts City in the corner.

I like that, will get the t-shirt..

 

[M18CTID]

A couple of things:

It's been mentioned on this thread already but while I can understand the reasons why most of the so-called lesser clubs would vote in favor why on earth, assuming the reports are true, have QPR done so? Their wages to turnover ratio must be running at 150% or more. Has Tony Fernandes got some mega-sponsorship deal lined up?

As for preventing another Pompey, Leeds, or Rangers, there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous owner stll running up huge losses before the end of the 3 year monitoring period and leaving a club deep in the shit.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

It's been mentioned on this thread already but while I can understand the reasons why most of the so-called lesser clubs would vote in favor why on earth, assuming the reports are true, have QPR done so?

I was wondering this as well. I assumed 3 of the clubs who knocked it back would have been Us, Chelsea and QPR. QPR must, like us, be making huge losses at the moment too. Why FFP suit's them is beyond me.

This sounds ridiculous but is there a chance Abramovich/Fernandes thought the outcome was a forgone conclusion and that the FFP structure would certainly have been voted in, so voted yes purely to try and make themselves look like they are doing "the right thing"? After the result was published, is it possible that Abramovic/Fernandes automatically regreted their 'yes' vote knowing that if only they had said 'no' it wouldn't be implemented?