Platini: No Ban For Failing FFP This Time Around

[ruralblue]

I agree Lee - they can stick it up their arse as far as I am concerned. Hope the Sheikh does get his legal team on it as it is scandalous how we are being treated.

Dont think the Sheikh will be sat pottering as to whether to get his legal eagles to act upon it or not. They will have been all over FFP from the start.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

Just a quicky..

Whats peoples thoughts on fighting it a the risk of at ban from the CL?
Personally I think we should stick to our guns no matter what. They will soon cave in when they realise theyre not getting xx million

It wouldn't bother me to miss out but I doubt our owner will see it the same way.

[Tesl]

So looks like we are refusing to settle and are going to continue fighting this then?

http://www.theguardian.com/football/dav ... -fair-play

Really pleased to see that. Seems they have jumped on the opportunity to attack us here, and I really hope we fight them the whole way. I'd love to see the owners keep pushing even if it got us kicked out the CL.

[BlueMoonAwoken]

To get global exposure Mr mansour wanted city in champions league, if we are going to fight uefa and get kicked out of the champions league next year, then im sure we will get worldwide exposure just by going it alone and fighting the corrupt bastards. maybe in turn causing a revolution of fifa!

[dick dastardley]

Take the fuckers to court and let's see if their balls are as big as platinis mouth

[Original Dub]

To get global exposure Mr mansour wanted city in champions league, if we are going to fight uefa and get kicked out of the champions league next year, then im sure we will get worldwide exposure just by going it alone and fighting the corrupt bastards. maybe in turn causing a revolution of fifa!

You know what? You could well be onto something here.

If it could be proven how corrupt they are and we were the club that challenged and exposed them, it would be bigger than anything thw sheikh and co could have hoped for.

[zuricity]

To get global exposure Mr mansour wanted city in champions league, if we are going to fight uefa and get kicked out of the champions league next year, then im sure we will get worldwide exposure just by going it alone and fighting the corrupt bastards. maybe in turn causing a revolution of fifa!

I just hope we get Lionel Messi in the summer.

[DoomMerchant]

It'll be unfortunate if the sanctions are announced while we're having our parade

You are a karma-baiting cockface. Fuck the fuck off.

[patrickblue]

Which one of you has been editing wikipedia then?

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

So looks like we are refusing to settle and are going to continue fighting this then?

http://www.theguardian.com/football/dav ... -fair-play

Really pleased to see that. Seems they have jumped on the opportunity to attack us here, and I really hope we fight them the whole way. I'd love to see the owners keep pushing even if it got us kicked out the CL.

Here's the article:

Manchester City need only to draw with West Ham on Sunday to win the Premier League and, while the ghosts of calamities past hovered during the goalless first hour of Wednesday's 4-0 victory over Aston Villa, there is no longer genuine dread at City that something has to go wrong.

Sergio Agüero slayed many of City's demons with his stoppage-time winner in that nerve-shredding final game against Queens Park Rangers to seize the title two years ago and the talk has not, as in 2012, been all about the trophyless years since the 1970s. Six years and a still barely believable £1bn into the club's ownership by Sheikh Mansour, of Abu Dhabi's ruling Al Nahyan family, this is a transformed Manchester City.

Expected to claim their second title in three seasons, the League Cup won, a place in the Champions League knockout stage secured, City are where Mansour's executives, led by the chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak, targeted them to be by now. They have world-class footballers in each position, a manager they sought – whose calm and charm has been admired – a "brand" going global, with clubs bought in New York and Melbourne, while attending to thankful fans and local roots: a modern, corporate sports organisation, growing accustomed to getting what it wants.

That is why the talk during the run-in this time – raining on City's planned parade – about Uefa's "investigatory chamber" finding the club's £151m loss in 2011-12 and 2012-13 in breach of the financial fair play rules, has upset the ownership so markedly. Uefa set a deadline of Friday for City to accept a €60m (£49m) settlement to be paid to the European governing body over three years, a 21-player limit to next season's Champions League squad and a wage cap to the current level.

City's executives are understood to argue emphatically that they have not breached the rules, and are particularly affronted that their sponsorships with Abu Dhabi companies and the country's tourist authority have been called into question – and, on Friday, the deadline passed with no action by Uefa. It is now said that Uefa will decide on Monday what to do next; whether to stick with its finding and refer City to potentially tougher sanctions from its "adjudicatory chamber", which the club's ownership will almost certainly fight.

While, in crude terms, the Abu Dhabi relaunching of Manchester City is the most spectacular injection of cash by an owner to buy rapid success in football history – anathema to traditionalists and influential German clubs that are still owned by their supporters and have always sought to break even, financially – inside City, they pride themselves on having done things professionally and properly.

Uefa's break-even rules – the stated aim of which is to encourage financial responsibility and dampen down player wage inflation – limits clubs' losses to €45m between 2011 and 2013. City are understood to be adamant, however, that their £151m loss is brought within that much smaller limit after they discount major expenditure on youth development, community work and infrastructure, which is allowed by Uefa to encourage long-term progression.

The rules also say clubs will be considered "favourably" if their £37m deficit is due to their loss in 2011-12, and was due to player wages on contracts signed before the rules came into force. City, who lost £99m in 2011-12 and £52m in 2012-13, are understood to believe this applies to their situation.

Galling to City was the apparent Uefa determination that the sponsorships with Abu Dhabi companies – including the airline Etihad's £35m a year naming rights for the stadium, shirt and new training campus – are not "fair value"; that they are more lucrative given their connections with Mansour. City insist their sponsorships were properly agreed, and that Etihad receives good value, as opposed to the Qatar tourist authority's €200m per year deal with Paris Saint-Germain, which looks flagrantly overpriced.

Uefa's investigators are also thought not to have accepted the two deals that City's accounts stated had earned them £47m in 2012-13: £22m selling their branding, football and other expertise to their own women's and New York teams; £25m selling players' image rights to third-party agencies. Again, City executives argued these were genuine transactions for good corporate reasons.

More generally, they argue that they have shaped their football project the right way, whatever people feel about the gulf states' extraordinary super-funding to claim English and European trophies. They point to City's extensive community activities and the enormous campus – a £200m development on 80 acres taking concrete shape across Ashton New Road – where they will aim to develop young players. One corner, on 5.5 acres, has been given to a new college, sports centre and swimming pool, at a £20m cost to City, improving a blighted area of east Manchester.

After the loadsamoney talk of the first few days after Mansour's 2008 takeover – fronted then by the Dubai entrepreneur Sulaiman Al Fahim – Al Mubarak, a senior government advisor on his country's image and strategy, has steered a more seemly course, Manchester City being the most far-reaching, globally televised projection of Abu Dhabi. The country has been criticised by human rights groups alleging a repressive crackdown on dissent – long prison sentences for people found guilty in disputed trials of planning to overthrow the ruling regime – and for the historically low pay and poor conditions of migrant workers. In Manchester, they have been keen not to put a foot wrong: City are the only Premier League club committed to paying all staff a recognised living wage.

Across Manchester, the Glazer family bought United with £525m of borrowed money and have caused almost £700m to drain out of the club in interest, fees and other charges. Yet, because that has not pushed United into big losses in 2011-13, they face no sanction.

Uefa do approve of City's community investment, but, simply put, the club breached the rules, which were agreed in 2010 by the 200 top clubs in the European Club Association, and the European Professional Football Leagues, which includes the Premier League.

Eight of the nine clubs sanctioned, including PSG, have apparently settled, but City's ownership faced down Friday's deadline. They expect to win the Premier League on Sunday, and face Uefa again on Monday. Such is the state of the new Manchester City.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

And Simon Mulloch says:

Manchester City face expulsion from Champions League over FFP as they fight on [/size][/b]

Manchester City are heading for a Financial Fair Play showdown with UEFA.

The Blues, who will claim the Premier League title for the second time in three years if they avoid defeat against West Ham today, have refused to accept a punishment for allegedly breaching financial regulations.

The deadline to accept a £50million fine and restrictions on their Champions League squad expired on Friday night.

City’s fate will now be decided by UEFA’s club financial control body, which has the power to expel them from European competition.

But the club’s Abu Dhabi-based owners are now committed to take their fight all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. City have attempted to cut losses since FFP was introduced and expected their efforts to comply would be recognised by UEFA.

But the refusal of senior club officials to publicly acknowledge FFP – the regulations were not even mentioned in City’s annual accounts – is a clear indication of their belief that the regulations contravene European law.

City’s lawyers have been building a case to destroy FFP in its current guise for the last three years.

And their resolve has been strengthened further by a belief that Qatar-owned French club Paris Saint-Germain have been treated more favourably by UEFA.

Apparently this guy's being fed information by us, but I can't vouch for that.

[Blue Since 76]

And Simon Mulloch says:

Manchester City face expulsion from Champions League over FFP as they fight on

Manchester City are heading for a Financial Fair Play showdown with UEFA.

The Blues, who will claim the Premier League title for the second time in three years if they avoid defeat against West Ham today, have refused to accept a punishment for allegedly breaching financial regulations.

The deadline to accept a £50million fine and restrictions on their Champions League squad expired on Friday night.

City’s fate will now be decided by UEFA’s club financial control body, which has the power to expel them from European competition.

But the club’s Abu Dhabi-based owners are now committed to take their fight all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. City have attempted to cut losses since FFP was introduced and expected their efforts to comply would be recognised by UEFA.

But the refusal of senior club officials to publicly acknowledge FFP – the regulations were not even mentioned in City’s annual accounts – is a clear indication of their belief that the regulations contravene European law.

City’s lawyers have been building a case to destroy FFP in its current guise for the last three years.

And their resolve has been strengthened further by a belief that Qatar-owned French club Paris Saint-Germain have been treated more favourably by UEFA.

Apparently this guy's being fed information by us, but I can't vouch for that.

Is he the journo who's a City fan?

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

And Simon Mulloch says:

Manchester City face expulsion from Champions League over FFP as they fight on

Manchester City are heading for a Financial Fair Play showdown with UEFA.

The Blues, who will claim the Premier League title for the second time in three years if they avoid defeat against West Ham today, have refused to accept a punishment for allegedly breaching financial regulations.

The deadline to accept a £50million fine and restrictions on their Champions League squad expired on Friday night.

City’s fate will now be decided by UEFA’s club financial control body, which has the power to expel them from European competition.

But the club’s Abu Dhabi-based owners are now committed to take their fight all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. City have attempted to cut losses since FFP was introduced and expected their efforts to comply would be recognised by UEFA.

But the refusal of senior club officials to publicly acknowledge FFP – the regulations were not even mentioned in City’s annual accounts – is a clear indication of their belief that the regulations contravene European law.

City’s lawyers have been building a case to destroy FFP in its current guise for the last three years.

And their resolve has been strengthened further by a belief that Qatar-owned French club Paris Saint-Germain have been treated more favourably by UEFA.

Apparently this guy's being fed information by us, but I can't vouch for that.

Is he the journo who's a City fan?

No. The article in the previous post is from City 'fan' David Conn, who hates us, as the sneering final line of his piece indicates.

[Bianchi on Ice]

Go for it. Lets see the cunts in court.

[mcfc93]

Are we supposed to get any official announcement by uefa on the sanctions?

[ruralblue]

Are we supposed to get any official announcement by uefa on the sanctions?

Bastards willl announce it today at 14.45pm.

[john@staustell]

Go for it. Lets see the cunts in court.

Looking that way.

Any sort of challenge outside UEFA will kick it into the long grass for years.

[Benjay]

Am I imagining it or did I read somewhere that City had employed a while back 2 people who were integral in setting up Ffp. And also the guy who fought the case at court for Bosnan was on the books? I imagine that the board have the best of the best on this. They will need it.

[mr_nool]

This worries me. I don't think UEFA will let us pull their pants down in public. They will probably play very hard if pushed against the wall.

City and the Sheikh must have felt very hard done to choose this confrontational road. I imagine that being the evil, rich guys who refuse to accept to play fair isn't the image that we would like to have (not my opinion, obviously, but that's how it will be portrayed in the media).

[Socrates]

Am I imagining it or did I read somewhere that City had employed a while back 2 people who were integral in setting up Ffp. And also the guy who fought the case at court for Bosnan was on the books? I imagine that the board have the best of the best on this. They will need it.

You didn't imagine the first part, sadly their attempts to work round the legislation has not been initially successful. The Bosman person is not someone working for us, there is a case about restriction of trade for agents being brought by someone who worked on the bosman case.