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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%
  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%
  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%

  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.

kalouk

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 Apr 2010
Messages
2,004
Funny thing is, that when you strip it back - people will say FFP is designed to stop clubs overspending and going bump... well, where was it for Bolton or Bury?
Also, even if Mansour himself had rocked up, opened his wallet and said there's £60mil quid... it's his fucking club, his business - how can they say that an owner, investing his own cash to better his club, is wrong?
I always remember Niall Quin on Sky Sports talking about FFP when we were first punished saying he wasn't surprised at the result. The interviewer was ready for him to dig out City but he told him that when the draft was first put to the clubs it needed a few things sorting but it would have served it's purpose in protecting clubs. When they saw the second draft which had input from clubs it was unrecognisable and no longer fit for purpose, he then said something along the lines of you have to wonder why that was. The interviewer changed the subject.
 

Parisian

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Jan 2019
Messages
1,303
Team supported
Paris Saint Germain
I don't think the context of "inflated" where FFP is concerned, has anything to with anything other than fair market value. So it has nothing to do with what UEFA think Etihad can afford, it's if they feel we wouldn't be able to to get the same deal elsewhere and UEFA already said that's not the case from what we've heard.

Also fair market value would only be relevant if Etihad were a related party and they have not established that link. An unrelated party can pay whatever they feel the deal is worth to them. If Etihad aren't related but Sheikh Mansour has been paying them directly for our sponsorship, the problem isn't inflation but deception/not disclosing things they legally have to. Which I don't think is happening given what City have said.
But the whole thing of fair market value is a joke as well.

I'm still referring to PSG case but FFP bodies are still disagreeing among themselves about a contract of PSG that has been known for 7 years ! They used several external audit companies and they still fail to give a value.

And let's be serious, MU is a big PR machine but at the time, when they got their Chevrolet deal, it was not at a fair market value either. The guy responsible for the deal got sacked : https://www.autonews.com/article/20...-manchester-united-deal-turning-into-a-fiasco

And wait for it ! Two agencies (Repucom et Octagon) was valueing QTA deal around 123 000 euros and 2,78 millions euros yearly according to the Football Leaks. I mean seriously, what kind of club will sign a 123 000 € deal ? Certainly not one of the size and with the brand of PSG. Just think in reverse : how much money Qatar should have paid to get the publicity they got from PSG with traditional PR ? Certainly not 123 k€/year.

And as i pointed out, even the big clubs have some untangled relationships with their sponsors. Bayern with Allianz, Audi, Adidas. They are not related parties by definition but they do have some deep relationship being shareholders of Bayern Munich.
 
Last edited:

mikemcfc

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Mar 2009
Messages
3,003
Team supported
CTID

I wonder if this story is linked to our clubs predicament?
i wouldn't know about the timing, but that proposal cited in that link must be killed for the integrity for all of football.
that proposal is the most retarded model i have ever seen, theoretically a team could be relegated domestically five years in a row but as long as they don't finish lower than 6th in their CL group they maintain top european status. ok, exagerated i admit. but true.
but this means that man united and arsenal would probably still be in the champions league based on having always been there before and still being better than the likes of shacktars and cska moscows and Young boys and red star belgrades at the bottom of the group.
in a few years, inevitably, lots of big clubs, like mentioned above will have fallen off from time to time. so we'd get to see 5th to worse placed domestic teams playing in the so called champions league at the expense of the clubs who are actually playing the best football.
this would be protectionism of the ultimate proportion and money grab for the old guard clubs.
 

citytillicry65

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Apr 2008
Messages
173
I have been with two senior sports journalists for the last couple of days and they both thought that we wouldn't end up being banned for next season and it is 50/50 for the one after
 

Chi-town blues

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 May 2012
Messages
16,456
Take out the Arab sponsorships which total < £100m pa, City still make huge revenues.

City were financially doped if you like after the takeover but another description would be owner investment in the fabric of the club to build it up. That's wrong is it?

Now it would be if it was against the rules as decided by football....but UEFA changed the rules midway through the assessment process hence the scramble for monies. That context was never once explained by the financial media.

The Liverpool fans and assorted haters genuinely think we are cheats, we are not.
I just don’t like the word doping. Who ever came with that word in this context needs some tight slapping. When others do they gloss with everything under the sun and glitters but when we follow the same exact path paved by so called elites , it’s called doping . This is where it all stems from , pure jealousy.
 

Parisian

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Jan 2019
Messages
1,303
Team supported
Paris Saint Germain

I wonder if this story is linked to our clubs predicament?
No.

It is again different lobbies at play. Leagues don't want this proposition as it weakens their product. If clubs don't need to perform in the league to qualify for European Champions League, they become kinda pointless. Especially when said CL will bring ginormous incomes. Clubs are not idiots, they will chose the competition that brings in the more income.

The ECA clubs want more (and easier and guaranteed) money. PL is a big problem for ECA as a whole because the TV rights is bringing what we are seeing now : a domination in the european competition. Before, it was not such a problem since PL clubs were not bringing the top coaches. Now, they have the top coaches with the top players with the top money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.