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

[blue oli]

3 possible answers:

1) There is credible evidence that City broke FFP rules, although City seem incredibly sure of their ground on this
2) There is wrongly interpreted/circumstancial evidence that City broke FFP rules, but why on earth would the AC come out with such a harsh penalty against City if this were the case?
3) EUFA politics, we've become too big for our boots in some people's eyes - by which I mean we have broken their nice cosy cartel which generated them each £50-£100m a year because of their history. Also don't forget the way the CL prize money was altered to further reward the 'istry clubs - that seems to have been largely forgotten about on this thread, that's a prime example of self-serving corruption right there.


I am actually starting to love all this drama, I just hope it ends decisively one way OR the other. We either blow EUFA apart or we go back to York away (I didn't get there 1st time around so has to be on the bucket list...), either will be a fun ride!


City 'Til I Die

Can you imagine the fights breaking out for tickets is we were to draw National League (North) York away in the FA cup 3rd round next year

 

[MillionMilesAway]

We were spending that kind of money on Lee Bradbury around that time and we weren’t even in the PL

Was that Bradbury era? Blimey. That might say more about us than anything else!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Actually whilst we had to overcome UEFA's "Barrier to Entry" version of a Cartel we currently benefit from its effect.

Obviously our owner is not afraid of competition like the others, but he is benefiting from its effect now that we have matured from purely investment phase to delivering some profits.

We will be the wrong end of ref and var decisions permanently, not just to allow Pool the advantage for this season so players and fans get used to it.

Agree with this. City clearly want to be 'in', benefit from the barriers behind us, and (sadly, IMO) aren't that bothered about the less well-off.

 

[Rochdale Blue]

I've seen this quoted a fair amount. Do you have a source doc for it at all?

I'm not saying you're wrong - plenty of others have quote the 50M - just after background interest in the details.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/f...early-50m-in-latest-annual-club-accounts.html

 

[chaddblue]

Was that Bradbury era? Blimey. That might say more about us than anything else!

Slightly before. July 97 we paid a club record £3m for him and we were in the championship

 

[dublinblue12]

I predict there will be a lot of Boiled piss once the dust settles on this and it won't be Manchester City fans

 

[laserblue]

£1.5M in 1995 was a serious amount of money.

I think Spurs' entire turnover was about £20M around then.

Yes but it wasn't a really huge increase from the original fine and Spurs were more than happy to take that hit in exchange for the points deduction and FA Cup ban being scrapped. That season Liverpool paid Millwall £1.5 million for Mark Kennedy.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/f...early-50m-in-latest-annual-club-accounts.html

thanks, shame it's firewalled!
I found a similar piece which talked of fthe loss, but didn't put assign it to the stadium planning.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yes but it wasn't a really huge increase from the original fine and Spurs were more than happy to take that hit in exchange for the points deduction and FA Cup ban being scrapped. That season Liverpool paid Millwall £1.5 million for Mark Kennedy.

True, but potentially 8% of turnover? That's 40M to City nowadays (roughly), still the price of a decent player (as Kennedy was thought to be!) - I can imagine the reaction here if the FA tried fining City 40M!

 

[sir baconface]

Most of the posters on and viewers of this thread, including myself, can easily beat 3-4 hours a day :)

That’s a hell of a lot of self-abuse.