UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules - City in the clear

Re: Possibly the most important thread since the Sheikh arrived.

thread title over eggs the pudding somewhat....but fair play for going to so much trouble fbloke.
 
Re: Possibly the most important thread since the Sheikh arrived.

Thanks for the kind words from those who have offered them.

Thanks also for the constructive criticism where offered.

The thread title seems to have got under the skin of a few people, and perhaps it was a little OTT but is it really worth commenting on such a minor detail? I do wonder what would motivate such a comment but I am also sure that we're all grown up enough to move on without internet blood being spilt.

The simple truth is that I have been provided with direct quotes from the UEFA press office. The Press Officer (flunky is mightily arrogant of anyone who suggests such a thing btw) had to gain some sort of authority or clearance to use the words she did on a subject that is of great importance to ALL clubs in Europe.

Take the time and ask yourself what you would think if it had been reported by the BBC or The Times etc.

If the Beeb had said - 'UEFA have stated that'.......or 'the Times can exclusively report that the UEFA Press Office has categorically made it clear that'

I feel that some here have belittled what has been said because of where it has come froM and that more weight would be given to this rather important bit of news if the source were more widely recognised.

Whatever I am not too worried about it as I am not interested in gaining brownie points.

I wanted information and was getting frustrated by the lack of it.

I found out something quite interesting, if nothing else and I have let everyone know which is what we do here isnt it?

I happen to think that this news is very significant and perhaps when the Beeb catch up with me so will some of the doubting Thomas's?
 
Re: Possibly the most important thread since the Sheikh arrived.

ifiwasarichfan said:
I dont want to fall out with anybody on this Forum so I hope D Teacher accepts my apologies and we shall agree to differ.

Maybe I should have put " Slightly out of Order".

I will let other Posters decide who is attention seeking.
Click to expand...


Same here and I am happy to apologise if I caused any offence but, to be fair, I did not start a thread titled
'Possibly the most important thread since the Sheikh arrived.' - I merely COMMENTED, so feel free to decide who was attention seeking.
 
Re: Possibly the most important thread since the Sheikh arrived.

bluefandk said:
Damocles said:
Having a bad day mate?
Click to expand...

Not really no.
Click to expand...


I have others answering for me now! LOL ;o)
 
Re: Possibly/NOT? the most important thread since the Sheikh??

Thread title slightly changed for those who felt let down by such an abuse of thread starting privileges ;-)
 
Re: Possibly the most important thread since the Sheikh arrived.

fbloke said:
Didsbury Dave said:
Fair play to you for getting off your arse,fbloke, but your thread title is a little bit of a gimmick.

I wouldnt place great significance on a little chat with a flunky at this stage.

Obviously if it were true that any business deal can be conducted in any way as long as its legal then City are home and dry. But that conversation is not worth getting worked up about one way or the other.

Again, well done for having a go though.
Click to expand...

Lol, Glass still half empty DD ;-)
Click to expand...

In my experience, glasses that are half empty often contain false teeth.
 
Re: Possibly the most important thread since the Sheikh arrived.

DTeacher said:
Apologies fbloke but your thread title does not live up to the words used by you and I have to say it stinks of attention seeking as in ''How can I get people to read my preciousssssss thread?''

Have to agree with a couple of others who made fair, pertinent but quite reserved comments about the futility of your naive (daren't say 'childish') attempts and actually displayed remarkable restraint and respect for Bluemooners! However, I would go as far as to say that you have achieved nothing of worthy substance whatsoever. So you made a couple of phone calls to clerks (for clerk, see 'flunky'). A waste of your time, efforts and a completely unnecessary addition to your phone bill.

For you to then 'dress that up' as

'....Possibly the most important thread since the Sheikh arrived....'

is quite frankly, not only wrong, but quite laughable.

Forget other people's threads, I have seen better threads from YOU yourself!

I often read a lot of your posts and a number of threads you start (you clearly appear to enjoy starting threads, which is fair enough most of the time) and you normally make reasonable sense.

Hope this sort of self-promotion doesn't become the norm for you, as it does you no favours IMHO.

I request that you return to making decent contributions to the site and leave the blatant whoring to other sadder individuals.

D.T.
Click to expand...

FFS, your not up ur own arse at all are you.
 
Re: Possibly/NOT? the most important thread since the Sheikh??

Nice bit of work there fbloke and kudos to you for taking the initiative, after all this proposal seemingly was designed to affect City more than anyone else.

I for one am grateful you did this and am happy with the news; so far so good.

As the mighty Neil Young once sang "...don't let it bring you down..."

Forza Mancini, forza celesti!
 
Just though I would add more confirmation for all those interested -


UEFA plans will make billionaire bailouts official: Chelsea and Manchester City could be banned under new rules

By ROB DRAPER, MAIL ON SUNDAY CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER Last updated at 11:52 PM on 06th March 201

Roman Abramovich and Sheik Mansour may still be able to fund their teams under UEFA's new financial rules but will have to do so in the future by sponsoring their own clubs.

European football chiefs have vowed to ban clubs who consistently make a loss, as Chelsea and Manchester City do, only surviving because of subsidies from their billionaire owners.

UEFA's new rules, due to take effect in 2012, are likely to still allow owners to put money into clubs, albeit only through an official deal.

'This is being looked into,' said UEFA general secretary Gianni Infantino. 'It would be difficult to monitor this, but a sponsorship agreement is still better than a club being funded by a benefactor, because it has clear payment schedules and a contract.

'It is better than a loan because then if someone gets tired of paying, the club are left with the debt. At least this way you have a contract in your hand.'

Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1256068/UEFA-plans-make-billionaire-bailouts-official-Chelsea-Manchester-City-banned-new-rules.html#ixzz0hW1SMgGA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z0hW1SMgGA</a>
 
The report form the Mail just confirms what i was told, which was the reason for the thread.

It seems like UEFA have basically now given up and are trying to save face, but not succeeding in my eyes.
 
That certainly appears to be good news for us. But Twatini was always on a sticky wicket here as there's no way you could stop owners funding clubs if they want to and have the means to do so.

If he wants a level playing field then he has to do something about player salaries and the completely unequal division of income.
 
Blatter and Platini are both demented fuckwits. I wouldn't put anything past that pair. How they can dismiss goal line technology in favour of more half-witted 'assistants' just about sums them up (yes I know it was FIFA but those two cnuts will have bent over and agreed anyway).
 
fbloke said:
Just though I would add more confirmation for all those interested -


UEFA plans will make billionaire bailouts official: Chelsea and Manchester City could be banned under new rules

By ROB DRAPER, MAIL ON SUNDAY CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER Last updated at 11:52 PM on 06th March 201

Roman Abramovich and Sheik Mansour may still be able to fund their teams under UEFA's new financial rules but will have to do so in the future by sponsoring their own clubs.

European football chiefs have vowed to ban clubs who consistently make a loss, as Chelsea and Manchester City do, only surviving because of subsidies from their billionaire owners.

UEFA's new rules, due to take effect in 2012, are likely to still allow owners to put money into clubs, albeit only through an official deal.

'This is being looked into,' said UEFA general secretary Gianni Infantino. 'It would be difficult to monitor this, but a sponsorship agreement is still better than a club being funded by a benefactor, because it has clear payment schedules and a contract.

'It is better than a loan because then if someone gets tired of paying, the club are left with the debt. At least this way you have a contract in your hand.'
Click to expand...

Thanks for your work on this, fbloke. I've not commented on this issue before, because it's difficult to discuss certain proposals without seeing the detail: sometimes, one small and innocuous-looking sentence can change the whole thrust of things. But if the text in bold above is true, then it would really seem that we've nothing to worry about.
 
I understand the need to crack down on the spiraling debt in football. But surely clubs like ourselves and Chelsea are the absolute least to worry about. Yet Platini and his goons have always tried to use us as an example of what they are trying to cleanse. The amount of clubs going into administration or running close to financial ruin are far more important.
 
Dyed Petya said:
'It is better than a loan because then if someone gets tired of paying, the club are left with the debt. At least this way you have a contract in your hand.'[/b]
Click to expand...

More holes than Swiss Cheese.

What happens when the benefactor sets up a company that sponsors the football club.
When the benefactor becomes sick and tired of football, he lets the sponsor go into admin.
The contract then isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Not only this scenario, we've had outside sponsors in the past that have gone tits up, First Advice and Eidos. The rags only just got out of jail with AIG
 
The Pink Panther said:
Dyed Petya said:
'It is better than a loan because then if someone gets tired of paying, the club are left with the debt. At least this way you have a contract in your hand.'[/b]
Click to expand...

More holes than Swiss Cheese.

What happens when the benefactor sets up a company that sponsors the football club.
When the benefactor becomes sick and tired of football, he lets the sponsor go into admin.
The contract then isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Not only this scenario, we've had outside sponsors in the past that have gone tits up, First Advice and Eidos. The rags only just got out of jail with AIG
Click to expand...

That would only matter if the rules had been brought in for genuine, honest reasons rather than for Platini to kiss the arses of the 'elite' clubs & try to protect their Champions League places whilst in turn cement his power base.

UEFA & FIFA are corrupt, pathetic, useless organisations full of people promoting their own self interests & I wish we could sack the lot of them & start again.

Well done to fbloke btw. There was a lot of important stuff to be learned from his post even if some are too thick or smug to realise it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top