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

[BobbyBoy]

City's statement from last month, when taking about legal action referred going to cas as "in the first instance". Only way this end's at cas is with an overwhelming victory, even then the club may well pursue the case for damages.

They will say that and they may well do. From experience though smart business people take the emotion out of it and make whatever decision is best for the business. You will have Puma, the new investor's, the Chinese, whoever the new sponsors are, all these will have a say and if moving on is the over riding feeling then that's what will happen.

 

[meltonblue]

A couple of very well made points however you are coming at this soley from the point of view of Man City. In the hypothetical scenario where Man City are challenging FFP in Switzerland or Brussels or wherever UEFA will say they legislate for hundreds of clubs across Europe, just because Man City are the exemption to the rule it doesn't mean the rule should be changed. They will say that legislation has worked and produce mountains of evidence to prove their point. Man City themselves are evidence of a club competing right at the very top of the game while operating within the FFP parameters for the last few years.

Based on where City are now I don't see them going down that route, I think it will end at CAS win lose or draw.

We won’t challenge the basis of ffp, not as part of this and I doubt at all - we’re a beneficiary of it now ultimately.

Personally, without my what’s purely best for city hat on, what I’d have liked to have seen Uefa do is say “the disparity in wealth is the main cause of teams overspending in an effort to try and catch up with you” to the bigger clubs and gone for a far greater redistribution of prize money right down through domestic leagues. Id also have not just put a limit on losses but on profits too, ensuring all owners were enforced to invest the majority straight back into the club. Couple that with a restriction on debt and an increase in losses allowed as long as it was covered in year by the owner, that would have got them shedloads of support, reduced the disparity and stopped plenty of clubs overspending.

 

[Gordyola]

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

Yeah and the media say what they want nothing stops them we all know it’s polluted by our the enermy we have no friends

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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.

That really is a limited remit then. Not quite sure how they judge whether a punishment is proportionate though, if they aren’t going to look at whether the offence is actually an offence in the first place. Either way, if we can only be exonerated on procedural grounds, I presume we’ll be heading off to the Swiss Courts irrespective of whether we win or lose? I must say on that score that I’m inclined to the view of BobbyBoy the Spurs fan, namely that persuading the Courts that FFP runs contrary to EU competition laws will be nowhere near the cakewalk many seem to expect

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

They will say that and they may well do. From experience though smart business people take the emotion out of it and make whatever decision is best for the business. You will have Puma, the new investor's, the Chinese, whoever the new sponsors are, all these will have a say and if moving on is the over riding feeling then that's what will happen.

I disagree, you only need to read the club statement's about this to feel the sense of anger and injustice. You don't hire some of the top law firms money can buy and then roll over at the first opportunity. There is also zero evidence that your hypothetical scenario regarding investor's pressuring the club is true. If we aren't exonerated at cas that won't be the end of it.

 

[paulsimpson]

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 hope CAS will be made aware of your line of argument which is really attacking the foundation of Uefa's own rules which may well be out of line with EU competition law. Excellent piece . Thank you .

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

That really is a limited remit then. Not quite sure how they judge whether a punishment is proportionate though, if they aren’t going to look at whether the offence is actually an offence in the first place. Either way, if we can only be exonerated on procedural grounds, I presume we’ll be heading off to the Swiss Courts irrespective of whether we win or lose? I must say on that score that I’m inclined to the view of BobbyBoy the Spurs fan, namely that persuading the Courts that FFP runs contrary to EU competition laws will be nowhere near the cakewalk many seem to expect

I'm sure the remit will be larger than just procedural. Ceferin himself said it's a big file when asked if the case would be concluded before the start of next season, that can't be just about procedure surely.

 

[BobbyBoy]

I disagree, you only need to read the club statement's about this to feel the sense of anger and injustice. You don't hire some of the top law firms money can buy and then roll over at the first opportunity. There is also zero evidence that your hypothetical scenario regarding investor's pressuring the club is true. If we aren't exonerated at cas that won't be the end of it.

I'm not suggesting anyone rolls over, I would suspect no one within the clubs anticipates anything other than winning. What I'm saying is when this is over you will have fans that want to go after UEFA no matter what, the accountants in Puma, the investor's in America and all other concerned parties won't give a shit about Man City fans in Manchester or Beirut, whatever is best for their bottom line is the angle they will peddling to the ears of the people that run the club. If that means move on or take it further then so be it but I can guarantee the fans thoughts will be a million miles away from the thought process.

 

[ancoats]

Yeah and the media say what they want nothing stops them we all know it’s polluted by our the enermy we have no friends

but there are laws and lines you don't cross and the first time you stand up to them and they back down quick

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I'm not suggesting anyone rolls over, I would suspect no one within the clubs anticipates anything other than winning. What I'm saying is when this is over you will have fans that want to go after UEFA no matter what, the accountants in Puma, the investor's in America and all other concerned parties won't give a shit about Man City fans in Manchester or Beirut, whatever is best for their bottom line is the angle they will peddling to the ears of the people that run the club. If that means move on or take it further then so be it but I can guarantee the fans thoughts will be a million miles away from the thought process.

You said cas will be the end of it, win, lose or draw in another post. Losing and that being the end of it will be rolling over. You seem to think the investor's won't want the club to fight to clear their name which seems a strange angle to me, the opposite could just as well and more likely be true.