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

[chaddblue]

this is my point ? city have a bigger fight than just proving we are innocent with uefa and the FFP, because the damage to our image has been dragged through the mud by the media and city have done little about it and bringing them to justice as well, innocent to proven guilty not a kangaroo court or those without sin cast first stone, city with our media team are cannon fodder a sitting duck and toothless ?? can you see united or liverpool or any big club letting the media walk all over them

its funny that so many fans believe what they read in the media until its their club ? with this city have let them throw mud at us and it has stuck big time ? many on here from the early days of the take over had the same feeling about the media team city have ? and questions have been asked before and lots or damaging insults ?? even this season with the mendy and B,silva tweet ?? city just settled for the punishment ? and what skysports did to us live on tv after the everton game was truly shocking and a witch hunt again city just did nothing

my hope of manchester city clearing our name is low to no chance of winning ? i have a feeling city will settle for a reduce punishment and let uefa and FFP and media free to walk all over us again, the damage as been done the image is blacken and only a innocent verdict would help in the future that you can not mess with manchester city anymore

Even if we’re totally exonerated and UEFA apologise, there will be clueless bellends who will still call us cheats.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

The problem with arguing against FFP is UEFA will argue it was introduced to get a control on losses. They have the numbers to back it up.

Interesting article below, particularly this piece

FFP & EU Competition Law

The principles of EU competition policy are set down in Article 101 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The key decision in the context of sporting rules and EU competition law is that of Meca-Medina.7 The ECJ confirmed the finding in Wouters & Others8 and found that the following must be taken into account when considering the effect rules set out by a regulatory body may have on competition:

• The context in which the rule was adopted or produces its effects and objectives;
  
  
• Whether the restrictions caused by the rule are inherent in the pursuit of its objectives;
  
  

  The problem with arguing against FFP is UEFA will argue it was introduced to get a control on losses. They have the numbers to back it up.
  
  Interesting article below, particularly this piece
  
  FFP & EU Competition Law
  
  The principles of EU competition policy are set down in Article 101 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The key decision in the context of sporting rules and EU competition law is that of Meca-Medina.7 The ECJ confirmed the finding in Wouters & Others8 and found that the following must be taken into account when considering the effect rules set out by a regulatory body may have on competition:
  
  

  • The context in which the rule was adopted or produces its effects and objectives;
    
    
  • Whether the restrictions caused by the rule are inherent in the pursuit of its objectives;
    
    
  • The proportionality of the restriction on competition in light of the objectives of the rules.

  The middle one is backed up by financial results across Europe.
  
  https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/features/item/the-deficiency-of-fairness-in-financial-fair-play

• The proportionality of the restriction on competition in light of the objectives of the rules.

The middle one is backed up by financial results across Europe.

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/features/item/the-deficiency-of-fairness-in-financial-fair-play

In a case in which the principle on which FFP is based UEFA will almost certainly argue that FFP was introduced to create financial stability and they will produce a barrage of statistics which they claim show that the losses made by clubs across Europe have reduced massively. This they will argue means that the achievement of this objective justifies any restriction of competition. This case seems to me flawed on at least two grounds and we should not accept UEFA's justification of its actions.

Firstly, the claim that FFP is to reduce losses is not the case and UEFA was not concerned with financial stability. In fact it caved into intimidation by a group of clubs frightened of plans to tackle the problem of debt. Restrictions have been brought in on the spending of clubs instead and the irony is that those clubs most heavily in debt have been allowed to spend more that all others on players and other assets. This has brought no greater financial stability to these clubs because their debt levels have increased significantly and they have inflated the transfer market by paying very large sums of money for the best players, sums other clubs are not allowed to match. Manchester City missed out on at least one player because one of the most heavily indebted clubs in the world, Manchester United, agreed to a transfer fee Manchester City could not match because of FFP. This is not a justifiable restriction of competition but rather a protectionist series of measures for the benefit of a self proclaimed elite.

The second basis of a challenge specifically from City is that experience has shown that the financial stability of the club has never been under threat and that the club has never actually made losses. Sheikh Mansour has invested heavily in the club but he has also invested very, very well indeed. At no time has he loaded debt on to the club as have at least two near rivals, he has built up the club so that it is now at the heart of a multinational group worth some $5 billion compared to the $250 million or so for which he bought the club. City are more stable financially than they have ever been and the only world in which its financial stability is threatened is the fantasy world of a clique of clubs who took advantage of the circumstances of the late '80s and early '90s to increase their revenue and dominate football and for whom City are an inherently "small club". Even when only the revenue streams and restrictions laid down by UEFA are allowed City have not made a paper loss since 2013 and the owner bought shares in the club to increase its value a policy which has increased the performance of the team on the field to the extent it is now regarded as one of the best and most attractive in the world to watch. It has to be said that UEFA are actually arguing that City must be made more stable by being refused money from sponsors because they are too close, to "related" and so hey presto you're making a loss! In what bizarre universe is this the case! Manchester City are to be punished not because their financial stability is threatened but because they have used investment to grow, because too many, including La Liga know City are too stable and too competitive on the field.

City are a shining example to the rest of football and if a new owner in any sector of economic life had achieved what Sheikh Mansour has achieved at the club there would be no question of ludicrous bans from competition or very large fines. In any other sector of the economy his business would most certainly not be held to fall foul of financial regulations for building up his business and providing a product the public so clearly prizes. If the new owners of British steel were to transform the steel industry in the way Sheikh Mansour has transformed Manchester City the Queen's award for industry would rain down on them, honorary knighthoods would be awarded to the owners and executives would be invited to address august meetings on how the miracle had been achieved. FFP clearly is not what is needed in its present form.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

I use the. Ow we are banned are we...what for? Cheating. How did we cheat...? Ask for any detail and they cant give it.

They cant give an answer because nobody really know until after the appeal when I presume it will all come out. It good seeing them tie themselves in knots though trying to get a rise.

Laugh and take it all as banter and remember its only football at the end of the day.

We must be banned because Simon Jordan keeps on saying so.

 

[ancoats]

Even if we’re totally exonerated and UEFA apologise, there will be clueless bellends who will still call us cheats.

and why is that ?? because the media team at city are clueless ? right from day one they did nothing to stop the media band wagon and witch hunt reporting and sky and bbc had a field day on the back of many stories and this and the bitching and the going on's behind the scenes, its just year after year same old shit and when you want to see a fight back city just roll over ??

the first time uefa and the FFP did us and city just paid up and took it ?? that's was the the breaking point they knew they had us and could walk all over us ? if we took them on back then this shit now would not be happening today ? because we just lied down and took it up the shitter ? uefa knew they could take the piss anytime they wanted and they was just waiting for the right moment

funny that both barcelona and madrid are in a down slope and need a rebuild and manchester city are looking good and fav to win it this season so pull the plug and kick us out for 2 years, it lets the elite rebuild and free to spend money that is not there's and stops the manchester city machine, and you can bet the so called elite will have eyes on the city players and get the agents to dirty the waters and make players look unhappy and waiting moves

 

[Gordyola]

this is my point ? city have a bigger fight than just proving we are innocent with uefa and the FFP, because the damage to our image has been dragged through the mud by the media and city have done little about it and bringing them to justice as well, innocent to proven guilty not a kangaroo court or those without sin cast first stone, city with our media team are cannon fodder a sitting duck and toothless ?? can you see united or liverpool or any big club letting the media walk all over them

its funny that so many fans believe what they read in the media until its their club ? with this city have let them throw mud at us and it has stuck big time ? many on here from the early days of the take over had the same feeling about the media team city have ? and questions have been asked before and lots or damaging insults ?? even this season with the mendy and B,silva tweet ?? city just settled for the punishment ? and what skysports did to us live on tv after the everton game was truly shocking and a witch hunt again city just did nothing

my hope of manchester city clearing our name is low to no chance of winning ? i have a feeling city will settle for a reduce punishment and let uefa and FFP and media free to walk all over us again, the damage as been done the image is blacken and only a innocent verdict would help in the future that you can not mess with manchester city anymore

Can’t win with the media they print/say what they want, regardless of what our media team do. A threat of legal action, that puts the shits up the editor might work if he thinks the reporter is on dodgy ground. It’s a never ending fight just doing that though. If we go legal and win what do we get? A small apology on page 20, damages but that ties up our executive for weeks, it’s really not worth it
I’m reading a book about Sir Brian Clough and one of his players gave an interview in which he was asked about his pre-match meal, Beans on Toast what was the headline? I will have Barnes on Toast, they were due to play Liverpool at weekend and the player was shitting it as he thought Clough would see it has a motivation for Barnes and he’d get a bollocking.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

In a case in which the principle on which FFP is based UEFA will almost certainly argue that FFP was introduced to create financial stability and they will produce a barrage of statistics which they claim show that the losses made by clubs across Europe have reduced massively. This they will argue means that the achievement of this objective justifies any restriction of competition. This case seems to me flawed on at least two grounds and we should not accept UEFA's justification of its actions.

Firstly, the claim that FFP is to reduce losses is not the case and UEFA was not concerned with financial stability. In fact it caved into intimidation by a group of clubs frightened of plans to tackle the problem of debt. Restrictions have been brought in on the spending of clubs instead and the irony is that those clubs most heavily in debt have been allowed to spend more that all others on players and other assets. This has brought no greater financial stability to these clubs because their debt levels have increased significantly and they have inflated the transfer market by paying very large sums of money for the best players, sums other clubs are not allowed to match. Manchester City missed out on at least one player because one of the most heavily indebted clubs in the world, Manchester United, agreed to a transfer fee Manchester City could not match because of FFP. This is not a justifiable restriction of competition but rather a protectionist series of measures for the benefit of a self proclaimed elite.

The second basis of a challenge specifically from City is that experience has shown that the financial stability of the club has never been under threat and that the club has never actually made losses. Sheikh Mansour has invested heavily in the club but he has also invested very, very well indeed. At no time has he loaded debt on to the club as have at least two near rivals, he has built up the club so that it is now at the heart of a multinational group worth some $5 billion compared to the $250 million or so for which he bought the club. City are more stable financially than they have ever been and the only world in which its financial stability is threatened is the fantasy world of a clique of clubs who took advantage of the circumstances of the late '80s and early '90s to increase their revenue and dominate football and for whom City are an inherently "small club". Even when only the revenue streams and restrictions laid down by UEFA are allowed City have not made a paper loss since 2013 and the owner bought shares in the club to increase its value a policy which has increased the performance of the team on the field to the extent it is now regarded as one of the best and most attractive in the world to watch. It has to be said that UEFA are actually arguing that City must be made more stable by being refused money from sponsors because they are too close, to "related" and so hey presto you're making a loss! In what bizarre universe is this the case! Manchester City are to be punished not because their financial stability is threatened but because they have used investment to grow, because too many, including La Liga know City are too stable and too competitive on the field.

City are a shining example to the rest of football and if a new owner in any sector of economic life had achieved what Sheikh Mansour has achieved at the club there would be no question of ludicrous bans from competition or very large fines. In any other sector of the economy his business would most certainly not be held to fall foul of financial regulations for building up his business and providing a product the public so clearly prizes. If the new owners of British steel were to transform the steel industry in the way Sheikh Mansour has transformed Manchester City the Queen's award for industry would rain down on them, honorary knighthoods would be awarded to the owners and executives would be invited to address august meetings on how the miracle had been achieved. FFP clearly is not what is needed in its present form.

Brilliant!
I wish we could get every fan and every so-called journalist in the country to read this.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I think they will also look at the spirit of the rules in question and whether we deliberately tried to manipulate them. And yes, I know that’s probably what a great number of other clubs do (vis. Bayern and their “partners”), but we were the ones dumb enough to leave a paper trail for the hackers to pin on us

I really don't think they will do that. They're not a court of law. I doubt they'll judge whether Etihad is or isn't a related party or what was meant within the spirit of IAS24 or whether HH is Sheikh Mohammed or Mansour. They'll look at UEFA's processes and procedures in bringing the case and coming to their verdict and (assuming they say UEFA has acted properly) whether the punishment is in proportion to the offence.

 

[ancoats]

Can’t win with the media they print/say what they want, regardless of what our media team do. A threat of legal action, that puts the shits up the editor might work if he thinks the reporter is on dodgy ground. It’s a never ending fight just doing that though. If we go legal and win what do we get? A small apology on page 20, damages but that ties up our executive for weeks, it’s really not worth it
I’m reading a book about Sir Brian Clough and one of his players gave an interview in which he was asked about his pre-match meal, Beans on Toast what was the headline? I will have Barnes on Toast, they were due to play Liverpool at weekend The player was shitting it as he though Clough would see it has a motivation for Barnes

its a total different ball game today, the media is the power and the image of a player or club is valued ? the stock is taken with the amount of media headlines they can make and all it takes is one bad headline and your stock falls ? the media team at city are weak and don't back up the good name of manchester city why ?? well maybe its because they let the first one walk all over them and just sat and did nothing ?? the amount of shit talked about city on Skysports and the BBC is a joke ? skysport been doing for years with the show sunday supplement so many times they was reporting crap YAYA toure on £160.000, mancini sat in the stand, the FFP the etihad sponsorship, city ruining football with the transfer market ?? i could keep on but its so long the list that its crazy

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

The problem with arguing against FFP is UEFA will argue it was introduced to get a control on losses. They have the numbers to back it up.

Interesting article below, particularly this piece

FFP & EU Competition Law

The principles of EU competition policy are set down in Article 101 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The key decision in the context of sporting rules and EU competition law is that of Meca-Medina.7 The ECJ confirmed the finding in Wouters & Others8 and found that the following must be taken into account when considering the effect rules set out by a regulatory body may have on competition:

• The context in which the rule was adopted or produces its effects and objectives;
  
  
• Whether the restrictions caused by the rule are inherent in the pursuit of its objectives;
  
  
• The proportionality of the restriction on competition in light of the objectives of the rules.

The middle one is backed up by financial results across Europe.

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/features/item/the-deficiency-of-fairness-in-financial-fair-play

If the numbers they have are the ones that show how losses across clubs have come down by huge numbers. The counter argument/explanation will surely be "That is correct 100%, however club debt has also risen almost as much as losses have come down. Surely if you're borrowing to cover losses then that isn't a system that you can possibly say is working."

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

this is my point ? city have a bigger fight than just proving we are innocent with uefa and the FFP, because the damage to our image has been dragged through the mud by the media and city have done little about it and bringing them to justice as well, innocent to proven guilty not a kangaroo court or those without sin cast first stone, city with our media team are cannon fodder a sitting duck and toothless ?? can you see united or liverpool or any big club letting the media walk all over them

its funny that so many fans believe what they read in the media until its their club ? with this city have let them throw mud at us and it has stuck big time ? many on here from the early days of the take over had the same feeling about the media team city have ? and questions have been asked before and lots or damaging insults ?? even this season with the mendy and B,silva tweet ?? city just settled for the punishment ? and what skysports did to us live on tv after the everton game was truly shocking and a witch hunt again city just did nothing

my hope of manchester city clearing our name is low to no chance of winning ? i have a feeling city will settle for a reduce punishment and let uefa and FFP and media free to walk all over us again, the damage as been done the image is blacken and only a innocent verdict would help in the future that you can not mess with manchester city anymore

We have been piss poor from a pr point of view, but the club will not let uefa walk over us again. We have already asked for damages at cas, who ruled it inadmissible, as we hadn't been banned at that stage. No doubt in my mind the gloves are off now though. I'm certain cas is just the beginning.