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

[razman]

.

Nothing to do with us ...but maybe something ongoing in the background with city and UEFA...it's been a bit quiet ...not wanting an all out court battle ?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I don't have sympathy for them either but contrary to PSG and City who had wealthy owners that brought with them some solid sponsors (considered related or not parties), Milan has almost 0 on the commercial side. While they are a big club and are well known, they missed the train to develop the brand. Thus, they experience troubles to adhere to the break even rule.

You highlight a sensible point when you mention the need of big investment to grow. This is what Elliot, the new owner, is asking from UEFA. They want UEFA to give them more time to be able to invest and have a successful business plan. They want 5 year when UEFA allows you 3 year time.

I agree with this. Why is UEFA being so destructive and obstructing clubs that are trying to grow? Everyone knows that Milan have done some dodgy practices in the past but Italian football will be much stronger if someone (eg both Milan clubs) can provide competion for Juve.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

.

Nothing to do with us ...but maybe something ongoing in the background with city and UEFA...it's been a bit quiet ...not wanting an all out court battle ?

Similar to PSG having to sell players a few years back? This only seems to make sens in terms of specific accounting totals, and City's case is not to do with that.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I agree with this. Why is UEFA being so destructive and obstructing clubs that are trying to grow? Everyone knows that Milan have done some dodgy practices in the past but Italian football will be much stronger if someone (eg both Milan clubs) can provide competion for Juve.

I don't think UEFA are specifically being awkward, they're just trying to catch up with the mess FFP's flaws have left them.

FFP made new-owner investment essentially impossible (which is why several PL clubs are difficult to find buyers for).
To make it easier, a rule was made giving new owners 3 years with some form of leeway (I can't remember what, but this is what is being discussed).
It appears Milan's owner is basically saying that 3 years isn't long enough (this will be made worse now 4 Italian clubs automatically make the CL groups, and gain a big slab of cash that others don't have).

Memory says that Milan went way overboard in the first years of a recent takeover, and I think it was them who had a punitive bank loan which needed repaying- i'm sure others can confirm.

 

[Parisian]

I agree with this. Why is UEFA being so destructive and obstructing clubs that are trying to grow? Everyone knows that Milan have done some dodgy practices in the past but Italian football will be much stronger if someone (eg both Milan clubs) can provide competion for Juve.

Because FFP, in the way it has been designed, is there to protect the clubs at the top on the cover of cleaning european club finances.
I'm all for FFP enforcing clubs and their owners to fulfill their financial obligations : this is the case of the clubs that have been banned from UEFA competitions so far.
I'm all for FFP enforcing clubs and owners to show they can and will repay their debts.
But the whole you can't spend the money you have because we say so is bullshit.
UEFA is not being destructive or obstructive. It is just the result of the power and influence some clubs have over UEFA. UEFA has to please their members. When you read some Ceferin interviews, it is evident there are a lot of clubs with vested interests that are trying to push some agendas that would benefit them. UEFA is just mirroring those clubs agendas.

 

[Parisian]

I don't think UEFA are specifically being awkward, they're just trying to catch up with the mess FFP's flaws have left them.

FFP made new-owner investment essentially impossible (which is why several PL clubs are difficult to find buyers for).
To make it easier, a rule was made giving new owners 3 years with some form of leeway (I can't remember what, but this is what is being discussed).
It appears Milan's owner is basically saying that 3 years isn't long enough (this will be made worse now 4 Italian clubs automatically make the CL groups, and gain a big slab of cash that others don't have).

Memory says that Milan went way overboard in the first years of a recent takeover, and I think it was them who had a punitive bank loan which needed repaying- i'm sure others can confirm.

Yup. Milan got initially banned because their chinese owner was dodgy. Elliot was the fund he needed to repay some money to. He failed to do that and , as a consequence, Elliot took over. And this is why CAS decided to broke the decision of UEFA to ban them (no club has been banned so far except for those not able to actually pay for their expenses).

Elliot is unhappy because they are shackled by sanctions from late Berlusconi days and first chinese year. This mean, they couldn't even put their business plan into work that they are already pulled down.

The leeway is they let you invest after the takeover but you have to show them a 3 year business plan showing how you'll comply with the break even rule after this term. If you are not fullfilling your own business plan, UEFA will put some sanction on you, even before the 3 year period has ended.

 

[SWP's back]

.

Nothing to do with us ...but maybe something ongoing in the background with city and UEFA...it's been a bit quiet ...not wanting an all out court battle ?

I doubt it. That agreement relates to the here and now.

City have no issues at all anymore as we make a profit. Our issues relate to the period 2011-14 (and we’ve already been punished once for those accounts). We won’t be agreeing to anything.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yup. Milan got initially banned because their chinese owner was dodgy. Elliot was the fund he needed to repay some money to. He failed to do that and , as a consequence, Elliot took over. And this is why CAS decided to broke the decision of UEFA to ban them (no club has been banned so far except for those not able to actually pay for their expenses).

Elliot is unhappy because they are shackled by sanctions from late Berlusconi days and first chinese year. This mean, they couldn't even put their business plan into work that they are already pulled down.

The leeway is they let you invest after the takeover but you have to show them a 3 year business plan showing how you'll comply with the break even rule after this term. If you are not fullfilling your own business plan, UEFA will put some sanction on you, even before the 3 year period has ended.

Thanks, it appears I was broadly right! I'd forgotten who went mad at Milan, and didn't know where Elliott came into it.

It sounds as though he has a specific case which the rules make difficult to get out of, while not being really his fault.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Great song that.

 

[Salford_Blue]

Weren't Milan one of the recent cartel that complained to UEFA that their owners don't want to pump much money into the club, so why doesn't the seedings take into account the history of each club?

manyoooo were one as well (obvs).

I know they still have to qualify in their respective League.

Did it ever happen?