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.
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
I'm not sure what the links between City and the Abu Dhabi regime are at the moment but I suspect that the club can expect a great deal of support if the Sheikh (Mansour) feels he needs it. UEFA and the cartel appear to fear that City are simply out to "buy" every trophy there is and FFP was their first, clumsy, ineffective way to do this. If they abandon this approach, as it seems they might have done, they will find that Sheikh Mansour actually wants to run the club along sound, sustainable lines. We will still be successful but football will still be very competitive. If, however, the aim is to pump money into other clubs they may find they simply provoke the Abu Dhabi establishment to ensure that City are very successful by using some of the trillions of dollars at their disposal to fund sponsorship deals that really do damage the opposition. Real may be difficult to annihilate, but Arsenal, United, Chelsea, Dortmund, Munich etc etc
Click to expand...
Thanks BHSHR for your thoughts on the way things may go.
I think that their main reason to create the "Barrier to Entry" was because they feared his business acumen. All those years building the cash cow for the shareout then along comes someone with limitless money to invest of all things and a track record of making it pay as well. The man was a real threat because he was good at investment and had experience across every sector of business.
They had done their best to create the myth that football was a special case and defied normal business rules but this man would definitely explode their smoke screen.
 
dickie davies said:
Spurs will likely be in the 16 invited clubs.
Click to expand...

They ain't on the founding members list[/QUOTE]
The proposed format is 32 clubs with 4 groups of 8 clubs. So a minimum of 14 matches per club.
Among those 32 clubs, there are 16 founding clubs that got, de facto, their spot. And then, there will be 16 invited clubs according to elements like global popularity, european success, importance in their (big) national league. For example, Tottenham, Benfica, Porto, Marseille, Atletico, Sevilla or Valencia, a club of Bundesliga.
 
Parisian said:
The proposed format is 32 clubs with 4 groups of 8 clubs. So a minimum of 14 matches per club.
Among those 32 clubs, there are 16 founding clubs that got, de facto, their spot. And then, there will be 16 invited clubs according to elements like global popularity, european success, importance in their (big) national league. For example, Tottenham, Benfica, Porto, Marseille, Atletico, Sevilla or Valencia, a club of Bundesliga.
Click to expand...
They'll be relegated before 2022
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
If they no longer plan to seek the origin of the money, then City and PSG can never be targeted again.

All bets are off because they can pump in whatever cash they like.

Both clubs are and always will be in the green.

Personally, it's a crock of shit.

The new European format is a cartel of clubs and with the huge TV money on offer, neither City of Paris will have the type of financial advantage previously held if Barca, United and Real can also offer similar wages.

I suspect the first £1m a week footballer will be seen during the next five years.
Click to expand...


Nah I think City can still outstrip the TV revenue that those teams will make, especially when we see the first £1m per week footballer. We could afford a whole team of those if it's financially viable, or even if not financially viable.
 
I wish that international football had some way to drastically reduce qualifications and friendlies and if “founders” were automatically in the finals I’d be ok with that.


But doing it at club level is a terrible idea because it doesnt reduce the games required for qualification.

What are the criteria for “founder” status anyway?
 
meltonblue said:
No, it was from the 2011/12 accounts. The 2013/14 year was a slight profit for them. This is what the guardian reported at the time:

“Liverpool made a loss of £49.8m for the 2012-13 season, and £40.5m for the 10-month period before that but have been able to write off a big chunk of those losses as allowable stadium expenditure - the 2011-12 accounts reported that £49.6m was associated with Liverpool’s stadium costs, £35m coming from the former co-owner Tom Hick’s aborted plan to build a new stadium on Stanley Park which new owners Fenway Sports Group had to scrap”
Click to expand...
Ah so it wasn't the stand expansion then?

That still doesn't really address the fact that they would have failed had they submitted their accounts for the first review though(ie not dropped out of UEFA competition for a year). They would have still been over the allowable losses, not by that much(although £3.4m is a lot to some clubs) if they were able to write off £49.6m of it but they still failed it.

Wouldn't it be great if something in the der speigel leaks comes out about the amount Liverpool reported they pissed away on a stadium that they didn't actually build, was scam to hide losses?
 
Last edited:
Rob Harris... "Turn off now City fans hahaha":



I trust the club will deal with him in the right manner... a reward of complimentary beer and sandwiches.
 
The knobhead with the beard by his own admission "hasn't read any of the stuff" but then proceeds to pontificate about what it contains and how wrong we are based on stuff he hasn't even fucking read. Total wankstain.

Is this what passes for journalism in the UK now? Whatever happened to facts?
 
There's not much to be said about those 90min hosts giving their opinion as football fans from the outside, they aren't claiming to be experts. Rob Harris is claiming to be an expert, is the problem. Isn't he the one who threatened to sue Prestwhich Blue?
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
Rob Harris... "Turn off now City fans hahaha":



I trust the club will deal with him in the right manner... a reward of complimentary beer and sandwiches.
Click to expand...


This is hilarious "Putting money into the club by illegal means" "Spending beyond their means". Get tae fuck.
 
Metalartin said:
There's not much to be said about those 90min hosts giving their opinion as football fans from the outside, they aren't claiming to be experts. Rob Harris is claiming to be an expert, is the problem. Isn't he the one who threatened to sue Prestwhich Blue?
Click to expand...
That was Nick Harris. Never had any dealings with Rob but he’s always seemed quite accurate in his reporting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top