Serious question relating to us and FFP(update P17)

[coleridge]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

And if it hasn't already been mentioned, perhaps clubs who fail to pay their tax demands should also face sanction.

Malaga have been treated with disgust, just try breaking into the top 2 and see what happens:
UEFA's club finance judicial body also fined Malaga €300,000 (NZ$481,000).

The club can appeal the sanctions direct to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and Malaga spokesman Vicente Casado said it would do so when it "receives documentation from UEFA about the decision".

Late on Friday Casado said the club "did not know why" it had been banned, adding that "as of today all our players have been paid their wages for this year and previous years."

He added that Malaga had paid off all its pending debts for transfers and was suffering a "campaign of harassment" from European football's governing body.

Think there's more to it than that, mate. Al Thani wants to sell. Difficult to make out the ins and outs. As you know, Spain's a basket case and has no concept of the rule of law. So not a good example of anything else, for me, but what do I know...

 

[paulchapo]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

I really hope somebody challenges all this crap in court and wins,that will be the whining old top four fucked then,as we can blow them out of the water.A good starting point would be how can you stop someone investing in their own business so long as they are not running up debts? Tied in with that shouldn't the clubs and owners WITH debts,like the rags,use their revenue to pay them off before they can carry on spending,so increasing their debts??

 

[LoveCity]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

If they are truly worried about owners packing up and leaving the club in the dirt (their whole reasoning behind this), why not an exclusion for those owners willing to sign some sort of guarantee that ensures £x million (enough to ensure the club's survival) must be paid if they decide they've had enough? Or is that too convenient for UEFA's blatant agenda?

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

I really hope somebody challenges all this crap in court and wins,that will be the whining old top four fucked then,as we can blow them out of the water.A good starting point would be how can you stop someone investing in their own business so long as they are not running up debts? Tied in with that shouldn't the clubs and owners WITH debts,like the rags,use their revenue to pay them off before they can carry on spending,so increasing their debts??

i really will be godsmacked if they can get ffpr through the courts and if they do it is the beginning of the end for the premiership as the force it is today.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

Just to point out a large chunk of the Etihad £400m deal (over 10 years) is outside the scope of FFP as it is being spent on local infrastructure - of course the club will have to supply details to UEFA if asked for the split of which is FFP/non FFP related.

Arsenal's Emerates deal now means that 'Fair Value' for the FFP bit is at least £30m a year in combined Shirt and Stadium sponsorship (or £300m over 10 years).

Our Etihad deal will easily pass muster on the ridiculous 'Fair Value' provision. If it doesn't UEFA will be taken to court - and they will lose.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

Seems like we are back to the same old confusion. Uefa and the press seem to be saying our sponsorship might not meet fair market value tests while others on Bluemoon (who seem more informed) say it is irrelevant as it is not a related party.

The only thing that confuses me is that if UEFA are wrong and we have already passed then why don't we have a deal the size of PSG?

Could it be that the deal can be investigated as fair market value even if it isn't a related party?

Keeps going round and round this question.

 

[moomba]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

UEFA's rules define what is and isn't a related party.

We'll declare that Etched isn't related. That's all the proving we'll need to do.

Even if it was related it would be very difficult to prove it wasn't market value.

 

[birchwoodgingerste]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

They won't be happy until the top level of European football is a franchised system like NFL, Rugby League or Formula 1. Each country will have 1 to 3 teams based around urban/ city population or traditional footballing hotbeds. We will have 3 teams, their second names all based on African animals:

London Lions
Birmingham Buffalo
Warrington Wildebeest

Warrington Wildebeest will serve as the team for the catchment area and footballing hotbed of Manchester-Liverpool.

Were not changing our name we want to be warrington wolves!!:)

 

[Shaelumstash]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

Not calling you a Rag.

A club can't keep on buying players and paying those kind of wages. That includes City. There are only so many players a club can buy and field. We had 4 strikers at the start of this season. If we had signed RVP we would have sold either Tevez, Dzeko, or Mario. The only reason why one of those strikers stayed at City was because City missed out on RVP.

As it is City have 2 players for every position. The playing staff is maxed out. There will be a clear out of players at the end of this season which will free up player places and spending money. In essence the team/squad will be rebuilt again, regardless if we win the title or not.

Yeh it wasn't you who called me a rag, it was the other guy. I agree we had 4 strikers at the start of the season, and that we pretty much have 2 players for every position.

However, if there was no such thing as FFP I believe we would have signed Van Persie, and I believe Scott Sinclair wouldn't be at the club, and neither would Javi Garcia. We would have had whoever was Mancini's first choice for those positions, and we would have had them at the start of the summer to allow them time to bed in.

Instead, we bought our 3rd and 4th choice back up players on the last day of the window because Marwood believed that would give us the best chance of getting the best deal financially to comply with FFP. And we are now left with 3 strikers for the rest of the season, and allowed De Jong to leave to be replaced by a far inferior player on far lower wages.

There is no doubt in my mind that without the impending threat of FFP, none of these things would have happened and we'd be in a far better position today if the regulations had never been brought in.

Putting Van Persie to one side Mancini's other widely reported main targets were Hazard and De Rossi. The former went for the bright lights of London, the latter wanted to stay at his boyhood club. Neither opted to come to City for differing reasons.

If money was the only factor then Messi and Ronaldo would both be playing for us. Life is much more complex than that, which based on your post you seem to fail to appreciate.

Just to clarify, none of my posts on this thread were intended as a comment on "life" but rather as comments on City's activity in the transfer market. Happy to clear that up for you.

There is no question that FFP has affected City's activity in the transfer market in the last 2 windows. Anyone who thinks it hasn't is being naive. Not sure why that makes me a rag, but that's the 'go to' comment for the Little Dickies on Bluemoon when they disagree with a point, so crack on.

 

[sir baconface]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

I don't think these changes were to stop City per se, but rather its broader aim was to prevent new money coming into the game to challenge the established order. It is bound to fail imo. Human history teaches us that those with the most money always end up ultimately wielding the most power, no matter how much the prevailing establishment tries to prevent it.

For AC Milan and Ajax read the landed gentry; for City and PSG read Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. The former might have the nicest furniture, but their influence in the modern world is forever dwindling. Cash is King, especially when it's of the black, liquid variety.

Yeah, this.

I view the FFP nonsense within this context of a pushback by the ancien regime. Is it a factor? Sure. But will it smash our beloved City back down into permanent subservience to the filth? Not a chance.

I'll take our oil tankers full of cash v. the filth's mountain of debt - the servicing of which requiring that braying 13-year olds the world over keep buying their shirts ad infinitum. FFP or no FFP. The 13 year-olds tend to move on if you go without a trophy for a few years running.

Also, as an attorney I can damn well tell you that ALL statutory regimens have workarounds and loopholes. I'm not an expert on this area of the law per se, but I cannot for an instant feature the thought of trying to implement an enforceable set of standards to constrain massive enterprises operating on a worldwide basis and under the potential jurisdiction of an almost unlimited number of courts. As I posted somewhere here before - just TRY putting teeth into PSG when PSG drops that lawsuit at the Palais de Justice. Just try going into a court in Dagestan and fighting off Anzhi. And the instant these other European clubs kick a card out of that FFP house it will never stand up across the whole of the continent.

In short, they may be able to slow us down. But they will not TIE us down.

Cash money will find its way. If the filth and the degenerate Ottoman Empire-esque entities of the EPL (red dippers, Arse) think they can prevail over that with FIFA/UEFA/or even the EPL as their water-carriers, I think they will be sorely disappointed in the end.

That's one guy's opinion, of course, but I've never seen a set of rules that I myself couldn't run 15 circles around and through. And I've got 1/1,000th the talent of the people our ownership would have on the case.

Excellent posts from Der Bomber and GDM. City weren't important enough at the time to warrant a specific "agenda" but it's entirely credible that vested interests have since hijacked the juggernaut. No prizes for guessing who. And while I'm no legal expert, my flabber would be gasted if ADUG'S 's counsel hasn't prepared a plan B based on sound analysis.

Some posters seem to think FFP is our sole constraint and that, without it, we would hoover up all and sundry. Balderdash! There is more than a faint possibility that Van Pussy, Hazard and Villa would have passed us up because they sought virtually guaranteed first team places. Similarly there are indications that the likes of Falcao and Neymar aren't (yet) gagging to come to M11. We might also assume that, as seasoned businessmen, the owners seek value for money, even in the rarefied world of football.

We spent £50m pre-season: enough to buy two top class players or one galactico. If you don't think that's what we got, shaelumstash, look to the footballing side rather than the money men. And let's not have the "little dickies" playground stuff as a smokescreen.<br /><br />-- Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:53 pm --<br /><br />

I really hope somebody challenges all this crap in court and wins,that will be the whining old top four fucked then,as we can blow them out of the water.A good starting point would be how can you stop someone investing in their own business so long as they are not running up debts? Tied in with that shouldn't the clubs and owners WITH debts,like the rags,use their revenue to pay them off before they can carry on spending,so increasing their debts??

Fear not. I'm sure they will when the time is right.