Stick your champions league platini

[Bombo]

With mr platini's new anti-city ruling which will also stop any future clubs being in our fortunate position in benefiting from a highly funded takeover I say ignore his stupid new rule. How stupid will the champions league look as a competition if for example we win the premier league 3 times on the spin and are excluded from European competition due to our transfer spending.
It would totally devalue winning the champions league. The media uproar if us, real Madrid and Chelsea dud not meet the legislation to enter would make platini look like a laughing stock. It may lead to the breakaway European super league FIFA have longed feared and if it does they can only blame themselves.
I say ignore platini and plenty of other clubs will take our lead I also think it is unfair to stop any other club being taken over and proppelled to greater things.
Being the champions of Europe will sound preety hollow if europes best teams are excluded

 

[Crocker]

As things stand the rags wont be allowed in because f their losses announced today but I'm sure UEFA will find a way to accommodate them.

There's ways round the rule like for instance if City were to get a £100,000,000 per year sponsorship or if our owners decide to buy our training ground for £300,000,000.

 

[Bluemoon115]

As things stand the rags wont be allowed in because f their losses announced today but I'm sure UEFA will find a way to accommodate them.

There's ways round the rule like for instance if City were to get a £100,000,000 per year sponsorship or if our owners decide to buy our training ground for £300,000,000.

Wouldn't work, as it would be a one off payment as opposed to revenue.

They could however "rent" the training ground off City on a 99 year lease at say £10,000,000 per year. Then it would be classed as revenue ;-P

 

[Cellarite]

i've been thinking this myself lately. most clubs are desperate to get into the champions league for the revenue it creates. city however, don't need the extra money, it's just the prestige of competing and one day winning it that matters.
if we won the league a couple of times and were still denied entry, the pressure would mount for uefa to let us in.

 

[Mothball]

I agree with this win the League then tell Platini to go fk himself and stick the Chimps League where the sun don't shine

 

[Marvin]

i've been thinking this myself lately. most clubs are desperate to get into the champions league for the revenue it creates. city however, don't need the extra money, it's just the prestige of competing and one day winning it that matters.
if we won the league a couple of times and were still denied entry, the pressure would mount for uefa to let us in.

You are assuming that City's owners would finance huge losses for the long term. Why would they do that?

City need Champions League football

 

[Cellarite]

i've been thinking this myself lately. most clubs are desperate to get into the champions league for the revenue it creates. city however, don't need the extra money, it's just the prestige of competing and one day winning it that matters.
if we won the league a couple of times and were still denied entry, the pressure would mount for uefa to let us in.

You are assuming that City's owners would finance huge losses for the long term. Why would they do that?

City need Champions League football

no, i'm asking would the pressure grow on uefa to include the best team from one of the best 3 leagues in europe from the european champions league. i am not saying that the owners should continue to plough money in with no return. the thread is about the champs league ban. i am merely giving a hypothetical situation that uefa would come under huge pressure if they allowed debt-ridden clubs in but not a club in the black with some of the world's best players.

 

[Chippy_boy]

As things stand the rags wont be allowed in because f their losses announced today but I'm sure UEFA will find a way to accommodate them.

There's ways round the rule like for instance if City were to get a £100,000,000 per year sponsorship or if our owners decide to buy our training ground for £300,000,000.

Wouldn't work, as it would be a one off payment as opposed to revenue.

They could however "rent" the training ground off City on a 99 year lease at say £10,000,000 per year. Then it would be classed as revenue ;-P

No, that wouldn't work either. The income with related parties has to be accounted for on the basis of fair value.

The one loophole I haven't seen a problem with (yet) is if the Sheikh tomorrow gave us say £2bn in cash. This would generate perhaps £100m per year in interest income which would not be subject to the fair value rules. As he's the sole owner of the club, he wouldn't have lost his £2bn because he would still own it anyway. So although it might seem like a ludicrous and unrealistic gift, from his perspective all he would be doing is moving £2bn from one institution he owns to another that he owns. No big deal. And the gift would be before any of the fair play rules come in, so it could not be excluded.

No doubt UEFA would come up with some on the spot ruling though. Their intention is maintaining the superiority of the big clubs and has nothing to do with fair play, so I am sure they are hell bent plugging any loopholes and would probably just change the rules to suit. I am surprised they hadn't spotted this and I can see an amendment coming in to limit a club's cash reserves, or at least the amount of interest income that you can count towards fair play revenue.

 

[jmdmc]

Issue I have with this change is that it clearly favours existing 'big' clubs. Only those with a large fan base will have the ability to buy the best players and stay within the rules.

Football has always had patrons who are willing to invest in clubs to improve them,make them more competitive against these bigger clubs.

So long term it seems this will just crystallise the big clubs (fan base/shirt sales/etc) in their dominance.

What is the problem if someone wants to heavily invest? It creates competition (City now are competition) and also creates demand for further investment by other 'patrons' of sport.

Yes it is a business, but football teams are also clubs. Investing in a Club comes first and EVENTUALLY the business comes round. The City owners have invested heavily in FOOTBALL first and foremost ... distributing cash all about.

How much of Arsenal's lauded profit wuld exist if we hadn't spent all those millions with them?

I can't see the logic here at all.

 

[Bill]

With mr platini's new anti-city ruling which will also stop any future clubs being in our fortunate position in benefiting from a highly funded takeover I say ignore his stupid new rule. How stupid will the champions league look as a competition if for example we win the premier league 3 times on the spin and are excluded from European competition due to our transfer spending.
It would totally devalue winning the champions league. The media uproar if us, real Madrid and Chelsea dud not meet the legislation to enter would make platini look like a laughing stock. It may lead to the breakaway European super league FIFA have longed feared and if it does they can only blame themselves.
I say ignore platini and plenty of other clubs will take our lead I also think it is unfair to stop any other club being taken over and proppelled to greater things.
Being the champions of Europe will sound preety hollow if europes best teams are excluded

exactly. well said mate.

fuck em.