The end of financial 'fair' play?

[Falastur]

Surely one of the biggest holes that UEFA has for this " it's my ball and I'm taking it away with me" FFP is that not every UEFA country has the same accounting standards as we do in the UK because they are outside the EU - so it is not a level playing field and so clearly can legally be challenged if one countries accounts can show a profit that might be a loss if audited under UK accounting standards.

I know ADUG wants to look like we are playing nice. There is one way around it it seems so simple. Buy a team outside of UEFA, have them buy players and loan them to City just the wages or even reduced wages, are on the books. Also have them buy all our dead weight. I know it seems to simple and it would dirty ADUG hands since they want to be upstanding football owners.

You forget that the players would have to be complicit in this. Remembering how much time that agents spend extorting clubs for the maximum amount of wages and the best possible deal in all this, why would they agree to these terms knowing that it could also be conveniently used by the club in ways they couldn't object to? For instance, in the Tevez situation Mancini could have just cancelled the "loan" and sent Tevez to Abu Dhabi. Perfect for City, but can you really see Kia Joorabchian accepting that, seeing his key property be banished from the public eye, and thus decreasing his net worth for the next transfer? And yet there'd be absolutely nothing he could do as a loan cancellation can be done for any reason - or no reason.

Alternatively, if a player wants Champs League football, can you really see him accepting a transfer to Al Jazira knowing that if he doesn't fit into the manager's best XI then he could just be sent to Abu Dhabi where, in all likelihood, his career might be ended as he'd have disappeared from the sight of all the European scouts? And let's not forget that players have no real loyalty to their clubs - certainly not to ones they haven't even joined yet - so why would the players let themselves be pawns in the FFPR game when they can quite easily dodge the bullet by demanding a transfer to a club which did manage to post a profit?

 

[okstate99]

Surely one of the biggest holes that UEFA has for this " it's my ball and I'm taking it away with me" FFP is that not every UEFA country has the same accounting standards as we do in the UK because they are outside the EU - so it is not a level playing field and so clearly can legally be challenged if one countries accounts can show a profit that might be a loss if audited under UK accounting standards.

I know ADUG wants to look like we are playing nice. There is one way around it it seems so simple. Buy a team outside of UEFA, have them buy players and loan them to City just the wages or even reduced wages, are on the books. Also have them buy all our dead weight. I know it seems to simple and it would dirty ADUG hands since they want to be upstanding football owners.

You forget that the players would have to be complicit in this. Remembering how much time that agents spend extorting clubs for the maximum amount of wages and the best possible deal in all this, why would they agree to these terms knowing that it could also be conveniently used by the club in ways they couldn't object to? For instance, in the Tevez situation Mancini could have just cancelled the "loan" and sent Tevez to Abu Dhabi. Perfect for City, but can you really see Kia Joorabchian accepting that, seeing his key property be banished from the public eye, and thus decreasing his net worth for the next transfer? And yet there'd be absolutely nothing he could do as a loan cancellation can be done for any reason - or no reason.

Alternatively, if a player wants Champs League football, can you really see him accepting a transfer to Al Jazira knowing that if he doesn't fit into the manager's best XI then he could just be sent to Abu Dhabi where, in all likelihood, his career might be ended as he'd have disappeared from the sight of all the European scouts? And let's not forget that players have no real loyalty to their clubs - certainly not to ones they haven't even joined yet - so why would the players let themselves be pawns in the FFPR game when they can quite easily dodge the bullet by demanding a transfer to a club which did manage to post a profit?

I am not saying ADUG should or would do this. I am saying FFP has loopholes the size of wall of China, so in effect I dont see it ever banning a club because it would be taken to court and thrashed in fact if a club was denied it might get punitive damages if they were held out and lost money over it.

 

[Falastur]

I am not saying ADUG should or would do this. I am saying FFP has loopholes the size of wall of China, so in effect I dont see it ever banning a club because it would be taken to court and thrashed in fact if a club was denied it might get punitive damages if they were held out and lost money over it.

Yes but even then, if a club ever actually took UEFA to court over it, they would pull every trick in the book to slow down the case. Remember that court cases can and do take 3-4 years to get a result when big companies like these are involved, and when a result is achieved, it just goes back to court for another 2-3 years as both sides use the appeals process to the fullest.

By the time anyone extracted a favourable outcome out of UEFA, they'd have found a new rule to implement, and don't forget that until they are found guilty in court (IF they even were...) then they don't have to change the rules, so that could still be half a decade of banning City from the Champs League which they are under no obligation to compensate us for even if they lose in court.

Heck, those years out of Europe could even be long enough to achieve the designated goal of FFPR - breaking City's challenge on the European elite.

 

[primemutton]

I am not saying ADUG should or would do this. I am saying FFP has loopholes the size of wall of China, so in effect I dont see it ever banning a club because it would be taken to court and thrashed in fact if a club was denied it might get punitive damages if they were held out and lost money over it.

Yes but even then, if a club ever actually took UEFA to court over it, they would pull every trick in the book to slow down the case. Remember that court cases can and do take 3-4 years to get a result when big companies like these are involved, and when a result is achieved, it just goes back to court for another 2-3 years as both sides use the appeals process to the fullest.

By the time anyone extracted a favourable outcome out of UEFA, they'd have found a new rule to implement, and don't forget that until they are found guilty in court (IF they even were...) then they don't have to change the rules, so that could still be half a decade of banning City from the Champs League which they are under no obligation to compensate us for even if they lose in court.

Heck, those years out of Europe could even be long enough to achieve the designated goal of FFPR - breaking City's challenge on the European elite.

this is exactly the point , the fair play rules are there to protect the established elite, this business about protecting the smaller nations is a smokescreen , anyone remember when real madrid sold their training ground to some government department and then bought it back for €1?

 

[pirate]

I am not saying ADUG should or would do this. I am saying FFP has loopholes the size of wall of China, so in effect I dont see it ever banning a club because it would be taken to court and thrashed in fact if a club was denied it might get punitive damages if they were held out and lost money over it.

Yes but even then, if a club ever actually took UEFA to court over it, they would pull every trick in the book to slow down the case. Remember that court cases can and do take 3-4 years to get a result when big companies like these are involved, and when a result is achieved, it just goes back to court for another 2-3 years as both sides use the appeals process to the fullest.

By the time anyone extracted a favourable outcome out of UEFA, they'd have found a new rule to implement, and don't forget that until they are found guilty in court (IF they even were...) then they don't have to change the rules, so that could still be half a decade of banning City from the Champs League which they are under no obligation to compensate us for even if they lose in court.

Heck, those years out of Europe could even be long enough to achieve the designated goal of FFPR - breaking City's challenge on the European elite.

well then uefa would risk being sued for damages if they lost. The loss of income (plus interest) to city could be claimed back for all those years, which would effectively bankrupt uefa and give city a huge warchest in a single payment to go out and compete for any and all players.

 

[andyhinch]

Can I just say it's bollox if I want to put my hand in my pocket and upgrade all my computer systems to be better than the competition I'd be stopped from trading as I say bollox!!!

 

[Falastur]

well then uefa would risk being sued for damages if they lost. The loss of income (plus interest) to city could be claimed back for all those years, which would effectively bankrupt uefa and give city a huge warchest in a single payment to go out and compete for any and all players.

Like I said: UEFA wouldn't be liable for damages. UEFA run an invite-only competition where theoretically they can cherry-pick whatever teams they want to enter. If they wanted Accrington Stanley to enter every year "because it has a funny name" then there's no legal reason to stop them. UEFA created the competition, they set the rules. The fact that there are tens of millions of pounds of prize money hand-outs available is just the result of them making themselves insanely wealthy from the TV revenue. It's only if they enter into a contract with a club/an FA over allowing teams to enter at the FA's discretion (i.e. to the top 4 in the league) and then they back out that they become culpable - but they enter into these contracts on a yearly basis so at the worst they are going to be liable for one year of missed CL revenue. After that they'll just make it clear that any team breaking FFPR for X reason (i.e. us) isn't welcome. The issue for them wouldn't be the lawsuit, it would be upholding a modicum of integrity - i.e. making it at least look like they aren't singling us out, even though they are. But in the time a lawsuit took to go through, they would have plenty of time to think of a new rule to prevent us from entering - maybe a rule against owners with government links sponsoring clubs "for fear of state intervention", except of course that that would also impact Chelsea, AC Milan and so on. But that's just an example.

By the way, if you think UEFA couldn't afford to pay off the lawsuit you'd be sorely mistaken. You'd also be sorely mistaken if you believe they wouldn't somehow ban us from spending that money.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only way we can beat FFPR is to make ourselves super-compliant - to be the obedient lapdog who observes every letter of the law and never once tries to bend the rules. Trying to find loopholes only generates anger - and it creates ill-will against us in the football community at large for being churlish, which will only strengthen UEFA's position against us. Only by having a spotless reputation can we stymy FFPR.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

UEFA will take any opportunity to enhance their rep with an exclusion of City.

The new Prem TV deal will just inflame the situation and create further scrutiny, perhaps now towards out Etihad deal.

Platini will be seething at English clubs getting legitimate funds to combat their measures, so we simply have to show willing, lip service.

The worst thing our club ever did was bid £108m for Kaka.

It showed a frightening glimpse to UEFA and the rest of Europe what our owners are capable of.

 

[jrb]

The funny thing is, PSG aren't even in the Deloitte Football Money League 2012.

Napoli are 2Oth with £115mill. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/sportsbusinessgroup/sports/football/deloitte-football-money-league/d7b295aa0c415310VgnVCM1000001a56f00aRCRD.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/i ... 0aRCRD.htm</a>

So how the f*** are PSG going to buy all these players, pay thier wages, and stay within the FFPR.

Not only that, but the Ligue 1 revenues are dwarfed by the Premier League.

Let Mr Platini explan this one. Then again, why would he upset and go against a Frech team?

 

[petrusha]

The funny thing is, PSG aren't even in the Deloitte Football Money League 2012.

So how the f*** are PSG going to buy all these players, pay thier wages, and stay within the FFPR.

Not only that, but the Ligue 1 revenues are dwarfed by the Premier League.

Let Mr Platini explan this one. Then again, why would he upset and go against a French team?

I assume that people are aware that a certain Laurent Platini, son of Michel, is employed by Qatar Sports Investments, a company owned by the Qatar Investment Authority that's the holding entity for the QIA's investment in PSG: http://blogs.thescore.com/footyblog...rising-force-in-french—and-european—football/.