UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[bobbyowenquiff]

He is a good journalist but biased and yesterday he let his guard down. His tweet that the BBC and the CEO of a major football club were in cahoots is exactly what City have been claiming has been going on for years. Thanks Simon.

Sorry Marvin he can't be a good journalist if he gives away his sources on Twitter. Remember he is the man who produced an article promoting United sponsor Tag Heur watches after attending an event at United. He has also been hugely behind the pack on the FFP saga while the US media, and recently The Times, have been leading the way. His articles about City have been riddled with errors for years. There are still some excellent journalists at the BBC (even in Salford) but he is not one of them.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

That is true but you show me an ally of the Emirati. There's Saudi Arabia and on the quiet the British Foreign Office but they are deeply unpopular. I don't think we have any natural allies in the footballing world.

The US for starters!

 

[dublinblue12]

Hi Lurking rag

 

[mcfcphil]

We won’t end up getting banned and this will just make it all the sweeter when we keep on winning trophies.

The only damage is to our reputation mainly with fans of other clubs who detest us anyway. Neutrals wont giving a flying fuck - in the same way I couldn’t care less when PSG/Milan etc were going through this.

 

[JOGAMIGMOG]

Right, if we get the ban upheld then so what? After winning the FA Cup in 1904 we were implicated in a bribery scandal and had to sell off our best players - and the rag twats snapped most of them up and went on to win the league - with our team! It's not like we've had to fight against the system before lads. Let's rally behind the club we love and we'll come back better and stronger for it in the end.
Up the Blues!

 

[Uptop]

The same media that called UEFA a corrupt lot from top down not so long ago and did it change a thing in that organisation , blud oath it didn't.

Media are as fickle and pathetic as UEFA so lets as Tolmie said embrace the hatred , they want to keep us in the news we don't give a toss whether its good or bad it means nothing in the end.

Too many don't like a new kid on the block and never will even if replaced by another.

Yeh the media have targeted us as its like a golden goose for them, the more negative a story the more the hordes of rags and dippers click / read / buy their products. For UEFA it is just a happy coincidence that we are portrayed negatively as it gives them a chance to try fob us off and please the cartel clubs, knowing most people will be on their side as we are the 'bad guys'. If we weren't perceived so negatively I think it would be more difficult for them to try fuck us over if public opinion was more balanced and the media held them to account for the bullshit they pull.

 

[WRicko]

Rival fans where consistently saying that even our non Abu Dhabi sponsorship must be inflated. That companies like Nissan say must be getting special tax rates land factories etc in the UAE in exchange for extra sponsorship whilst on a level this is clearly not possible since we are the Sheiks private property and he is only a small part of the government and not directly involved in these issues and its frankly just too much effort I am sure its also possible for him to do this sort of thing if he needed which begs the question why would do what we are alleged to have done and why would be make it so obvious according to some

 

[HarrytheBlue]

I’m not actually bothered about being banned from the champions league. Most city fans couldn’t care less about it anyway.

it’s more the clear agenda UEFA have against us

I am glad in a weird way that UEFA have tried to throw the book at us. CAS are already dismayed at UEFA's conduct and CAS will be largely about due process. The club seem to be saying we have irrefutable evidence that we're innocent. Good enough for me.

 

[KS55]

For the avoidance of doubt, here are PL FFP medium term rules.
The Board will in due course consider the Annual Accounts for the Accounting Reference Period in respect of which information pursuant to Rule E.53.2 is submitted and in particular examine whether any material variances indicate that the estimated financial information was not prepared in accordance with Rule E.53.2.2. E.54. The Board shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Board shall restate it to Fair Market Value. E.55. The Board shall not exercise its power set out in Rule E.54 without first having given the Club reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to: E.55.1. whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or E.55.2. what constitutes its Fair Market Value. E.56. If the aggregation of a Club’s Earnings Before Tax for T-1 and T-2 results in a loss, any consideration from Related Party Transactions having been adjusted (if appropriate) pursuant to Rule E.54, then the Club must submit to the Board the calculation of its Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for each of T, T-1 and T-2. E.57. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of up to £15m, then the Board shall determine whether the Club will, until the end of T+1, be able to pay its liabilities described in Rule E.14.7.1 and fulfil the obligations set out in Rules E.14.7.2 and E.14.7.3. E.58. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of in excess of £15m then the following shall apply: E.58.1. the Club shall provide, by 31 March in the relevant Season, Future Financial Information to cover the period commencing from its last accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the Act) until the end of T+2 and a calculation of estimated aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax until the end of T+2 based on that Future Financial Information; E.58.2. the Club shall provide such evidence of Secure Funding as the Board considers sufficient; and E.58.3. if the Club is unable to provide evidence of Secure Funding as set out in Rule E.58.2, the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15. E.59. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in losses of in excess of £105m: E.59.1. the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15; and E.59.2. the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly the Board shall refer the breach to a Commission constituted pursuant to Section W of these Rules. E.60. The sum set out in Rule E.59 shall be reduced by £22m for each Season covered by T-1 and T-2 in which the Club was in membership of The Football League.

Point me in that direction of the actual premier league rule book

If you make losses of more than 105m in any accounting period, sanctions are possible but if you can show sustainability and do not owe any football debts, it may be a different matter. As it says above " the board MAY... etc., which I take to be discretionary.
We have not, of course, made any losses in the last 5 years, so cannot have breached, unless they start looking at relatedness again. That would be a whole new ball game.
Go to Premierleague.com and search handbook. Good luck. I couldn't get E 14 and E 15 to copy.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

How do you silence the media?

The only thing to be done is to stop using none-City media. Come the West Ham game there will still be City fans commenting online in the newspapers match reports. Use City blogs and City social media and don't make money for organisations who use Man City as a way of marketing their product.

I have been seriously contemplating setting up my own City news platform in recent months, as a business separate from my other commitments.

I'm still unsure if I will be able to monetize it to the extent I need, as not to be so reliant on other areas of income.

I would appreciate any feedback from Blues.