The Super League | FA + PL: New Charter & Fines | UEFA: Settlement

[Mid Wales blue]

Stuart Brennan and an excellent article:

What Man City's court defeat over FFP investigation secrecy actually means

The Court of Appeal decided that Manchester City's bid, supported by the Premier League, to stop publication of details of the ongoing investigation should be thrown out. But what does it all mean, and what have we learned?

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

After reading this article, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is City who wants the information (reference, league investigation) out in the public eye.
Why would City, having agreed a privacy pact with the premier league, then go to court knowing there would be high probability of the case Judge finding in favour of the league. I’m pretty sure that City probably realised that going to a court of law would end the privacy agreement put in place between both parties.

or maybe I’m missing something.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

FWIW, I heard first-hand from a City director early in the 2017-18 season that the press were no more biased against City than any other club. Apparently the club had “done their research” into articles about all the major clubs and the proportion of negative articles was no greater regarding City than any of the other clubs!

There've been plenty of Blues on here who've adopted that same position down the years, in the face of an absolute welter of evidence to the contrary I might add. The fact that there are positive articles out there about City and negative ones about United and Liverpool though, doesn't detract from the core argument that newspapers in the modern online era are almost entirely reliant on clicks for income, and that in that regard the back pages are no different to the front pages. The Mail (as an obvious example) knows that the bulk of its readers are right wing Brexiteering bigots and so fills its online edition every day with endless poison about Meghan Markle and made up nonsense in its battle against EU ‘traitors’, 'wokeness' (schools supposedly banning the use of the word 'blackboard' and that kind of shite) and 'luvvies', whilst its back pages are stuffed with puff pieces for the dippers and the rags, cos they have the largest demographics. In that capacity City come gift wrapped as a ready made bogeyman, being hated by both the rags and the dippers, and so articles about us are frequently couched in such a way as to encourage the nouveau riche, cheats, no history, empty seats narratives, knowing that the global army of plastic reds will be all over the comments sections like a rash.
'Cor blimey' organisations like Talkshite and Sky Sports are little different in their attempts to appeal to the masses, only substitute the word 'readers' for 'listeners' and 'viewers', and BT Sports coverage of our Champions League games between 2016 and 2019 frankly had to be seen to be believed. No club has ever had to put up with the amount spiteful nonsense that we've had to for the past decade. No-one even comes close and I'm surprised that a City director might think otherwise.

 

[Centurions]

After reading this article, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is City who wants the information (reference, league investigation) out in the public eye.
Why would City, having agreed a privacy pact with the premier league, then go to court knowing there would be high probability of the case Judge finding in favour of the league. I’m pretty sure that City probably realised that going to a court of law would end the privacy agreement put in place between both parties.

or maybe I’m missing something.

What makes you think "there would be high probability of the case Judge finding in favour of the league"?

They're working off the same exact 6(?) emails that UEFA did plus whatever information we supply? Yes, UEFA found us 'guilty' but CAS laughed at that decision.

 

[blueju]

If we are ever punished in respect of anything related to FFP, we should never, ever accept that we have "cheated" anything.

No matter how much propaganda is thrown around we must never forget that the real fraud, the real threat against morality is FFP itself. Any action taken against us would be a victory for the enemies of football. We should be proud of our role as the "disruptors" or "the resistance", if you like.

Either way, if we end up getting shot, I'd rather be on our side.

Correct, has FFP actually saved a club, any club from going under?

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Correct, has FFP actually saved a club, any club from going under?

No, of course not because that was never its objective. The only element of club finance affected in any significant way was expenditure on transfers and players' wages. Partly this is because UEFA knew the courts would never stomach regulations so anticompetitive and draconian that they banned investment on such as infrastructure or training and partly because holes in the roof at OT could do with repairing. Transfers and wages were the easy target because the clubs UEFA was/is scared of had built up sizeable revenues and looked forward to a sunny future in which they would always be able to buy and pay the best... But maybe it's not turned out quite as simple as that. What do Eddie and David think?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Correct, has FFP actually saved a club, any club from going under?

It can't because it's backwards looking.

A club is profitable and someone buys it. In their first year of ownership they overspend and take out cash so it breaks even. The second year they absolutely run it into the ground and it makes a loss.

But as long as the 3 year aggregate figure is within limits, it's OK under FFP. A few weeks later it can't pay its tax & NI and HMRC take action, put it into administration and it folds.

 

[Mid Wales blue]

What makes you think "there would be high probability of the case Judge finding in favour of the league"?

They're working off the same exact 6(?) emails that UEFA did plus whatever information we supply? Yes, UEFA found us 'guilty' but CAS laughed at that decision.

We don’t know if it relates to the emails, as we don’t have that information.
However, if the league is conducting an investigation, and request all relevant documentation covering a certain time period. Then we say we’re not prepared to supply that information, for whatever reasons. Our legal team would know the courts would find in favour of the investigating parties.

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

After reading this article, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is City who wants the information (reference, league investigation) out in the public eye.
Why would City, having agreed a privacy pact with the premier league, then go to court knowing there would be high probability of the case Judge finding in favour of the league. I’m pretty sure that City probably realised that going to a court of law would end the privacy agreement put in place between both parties.

or maybe I’m missing something.

I'm still none the wiser myself

 

[Xhavenjoe]

I'm still none the wiser myself

As Johnny Nash sang "There are more questions than answers and the more I find out the less I know"

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

As Johnny Nash sang "There are more questions than answers and the more I find out the less I know"

And ‘My Merry Go Round’