Socrates wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:City don't back FFP at all, they voted against it & fought to stop it being brought into the Premier League, so they are hardly going to be backing it in Europe.
Not one shred of evidence to suggest City backed ffp anywhere at any time. They have reserved the right to take legal action as well.
Absolutely the plan has been to break even & become self sufficient, but that's got fuck all to do with ffp, it's just that nobody in their right mind would want to keep spending 100 mil per year on a football club, when it's perfectly capable of financing itself long term.
They opposed the Premier League version as it is more restrictive and, more importantly, removed the option of spending as they wished and just being restricted for a while in UEFA competitions. They certainly have made no such noises about the UEFA version other than when they felt they were being treated unfairly by the sanctions under it. Is perfectly possible to back one but not the other if you see one as ultimately being in your favour but not the other.
The Premier League version is far less restrictive in every single aspect, from squad limitations to financial spending. We are on record as opposing it.
Here is a quote from Khaldoon:
"We have zero debts. We don't pay a penny to service any debt. For me, that is a sustainable model. However, our friends in UEFA seem to believe otherwise.
"They have a view, we have ours, I disagree with their views, but we are pragmatic. But I think there is one thing our fans need to know: we will do as always what is best for this club and for the fans. And if it means sometimes it means to take a pinch, we will take a pinch, and we will move on.
"And we will be pragmatic and know that we have the right model, we believe in this model, and it is the right model. And at the same time it will not compromise us and it will not compromise the strategy that we have started and we will continue to implement."
"I'm really looking forward to six years from now when we look back at this interview and we look back at financial fair play and these rules and regulations which have been put in place,
which have a particular model in mind, in that they preserve other models that I disagree with, and the model that we have started on six years ago and is going to take us forward on the next six years -
and I think history will judge what was right for football.
"I have all the confidence in the world where we are going to be in six years and what we are going to show in terms of being the right model. I really look forward to that interview in May 2020."
No way on earth can anyone possibly take that as anything other than City disagreeing with ffp. He's not mentioning the sanctions there, he is mentioning that he actually disagrees with the 'model' that FFP , 'seeks to preserve'. There is no room for misinterpretation here, he is CLEARLY saying he doesn't agree with it.
He is basically saying exactly the same as us: FFP preserves the rags etc etc whilst punishing us. He is saying that fans can rest assured that IN SPITE OF FFP, it won't change the way City operate, & we are on course with OUR model, & we will see who was right.
City do not, & never have, backed FFP & there is no evidence anywhere to support the idea that they do.