Platini's Master Plan (Split from the bollox)

[Socrates]

I'm sure we can break even with a mind boggling Sponsorhip deal with Etihad again if necessary.

Very unlikely that one mate. Any deal between the 2 will remain on a commercial basis and, if it wasn't, then that alone could be used as a reason to fail the audit as either a) it would be excluded as it came from a connected party or b) if it was money from Mansour, syphoned through Etihad, then it would amount to fraud!

If the connected party owned by the applicant has zero connection with football(other than the sponsorship) then they are excluded from being audited by FIFA.

Doesn't matter. UEFA can rule that the sponsorship is not on a commercial basis, unless evidence is provided to the contrary, and refuse MCFC's license.

UEFA can only rule if they can look at Etihad's books and as I said...from the rules...they can't.

Sorry Slim, although your facts are right, you are drawing the wrong conclusion here. UEFA can frame the rules however they like and can still demand evidence to be provided where suspicion is raised. They will most DEFINITELY put the onus of proof on us, not the other way round. So while they cannot demand an audit, they can refuse a license until satisfied. End result = us not playing ECL!

[AlanBallsHat]

Getting a bit ahead of ourselves really. We have to qualify for the bloody thing first.

[Slim]

Sorry Slim, although your facts are right, you are drawing the wrong conclusion here. UEFA can frame the rules however they like and can still demand evidence to be provided where suspicion is raised. They will most DEFINITELY put the onus of proof on us, not the other way round. So while they cannot demand an audit, they can refuse a license until satisfied. End result = us not playing ECL!

With the footballing world getting more and more litigious, I cannot imagine that if we play by their rules to the letter that they would attempt to block us from entering. I realise it's an invitational, but the last thing Platini would want would be an lengthy appeal heading to a european court especially with the time constraints from when the positions are allotted to the time the competition starts.

[Socrates]

Sorry Slim, although your facts are right, you are drawing the wrong conclusion here. UEFA can frame the rules however they like and can still demand evidence to be provided where suspicion is raised. They will most DEFINITELY put the onus of proof on us, not the other way round. So while they cannot demand an audit, they can refuse a license until satisfied. End result = us not playing ECL!

With the footballing world getting more and more litigious, I cannot imagine that if we play by their rules to the letter that they would attempt to block us from entering. I realise it's an invitational, but the last thing Platini would want would be an lengthy appeal heading to a european court especially with the time constraints from when the positions are allotted to the time the competition starts.

But we wouldn't be playing their rules to the letter, would we? And the European Court wouldn't hear it. There would be no grounds within their remit. They may even get round it in a much simpler way and place a cap on the value of sponsorships that can count for the audit calculation, possibly just those from connected parties or maybe even all sponsorships?

[Blue Since 76]

I'm sure we can break even with a mind boggling Sponsorhip deal with Etihad again if necessary.

Very unlikely that one mate. Any deal between the 2 will remain on a commercial basis and, if it wasn't, then that alone could be used as a reason to fail the audit as either a) it would be excluded as it came from a connected party or b) if it was money from Mansour, syphoned through Etihad, then it would amount to fraud!

Surely income can come from any source, including owners - if not, Barca are fooked.

If we therefore get lots of sponsors who are willing to pay over the odds, what has that to do with the cheese eating, surrender monkey? Every team has sponsors and I imagine you pay more at the top teams than you do at the bottom, supply and demand and all that. How much a company decides to pay for sponsorship is up to that company and its owners.

In the same way, we can price boxes however we want. If we were to decide to price a box on the half way line in the Colin Bell at £100m a season, we wouldn't get many takers, but we might find one family who like to watch the games in comfort.

I despise Platini's ideas on 3 grounds:

1) He clearly thinks he's some sort of modern day Robespierre, protecting football from evil money men and keeping it safe for the people. What he's actually doing is maintaining an aristocracy of clubs who spent big previously (AC, Chelsea, Juve, Rags, Real) and stopping anyone else breaking in;
2) If someone with cash had bought Juve or a French side, he wouldn't have cared, it's mainly down to investment in England (Chelsea and now City);
3) He's French.

If Platini get his way, get set for years of legal wrangling regarding restriction of trade. Unfortunately, we'll be locked outside whilst that happens.

[Socrates]

I'm sure we can break even with a mind boggling Sponsorhip deal with Etihad again if necessary.

Very unlikely that one mate. Any deal between the 2 will remain on a commercial basis and, if it wasn't, then that alone could be used as a reason to fail the audit as either a) it would be excluded as it came from a connected party or b) if it was money from Mansour, syphoned through Etihad, then it would amount to fraud!

Surely income can come from any source, including owners - if not, Barca are fooked.

If we therefore get lots of sponsors who are willing to pay over the odds, what has that to do with the cheese eating, surrender monkey? Every team has sponsors and I imagine you pay more at the top teams than you do at the bottom, supply and demand and all that. How much a company decides to pay for sponsorship is up to that company and its owners.

In the same way, we can price boxes however we want. If we were to decide to price a box on the half way line in the Colin Bell at £100m a season, we wouldn't get many takers, but we might find one family who like to watch the games in comfort.

I despise Platini's ideas on 3 grounds:

1) He clearly thinks he's some sort of modern day Robespierre, protecting football from evil money men and keeping it safe for the people. What he's actually doing is maintaining an aristocracy of clubs who spent big previously (AC, Chelsea, Juve, Rags, Real) and stopping anyone else breaking in;
2) If someone with cash had bought Juve or a French side, he wouldn't have cared, it's mainly down to investment in England (Chelsea and now City);
3) He's French.

If Platini get his way, get set for years of legal wrangling regarding restriction of trade. Unfortunately, we'll be locked outside whilst that happens.

Wouldn't hamper Barca in any way, they don't have a single controlling owner at all!
We can price sponsorships in any way we want. But UEFA don't have to count them when it comes to their audits if they don't want! They could simply limit sponsorships to 25% or 30% of the total "qualifying income" that expenditure must not exceed.

[john@staustell]

I think we need to back off the idea that UEFA are out to get City. There are much more enticing English targets, even Spanish targets, for his stupidity.

[Socrates]

I think we need to back off the idea that UEFA are out to get City. There are much more enticing English targets, even Spanish targets, for his stupidity.

They have proposals aimed specifically at us, or any club like us. They are acting on behalf of a cartel that are seeking to protect their own positions. Get your head out of the sand.

[Blue Since 76]

Wouldn't hamper Barca in any way, they don't have a single controlling owner at all!
We can price sponsorships in any way we want. But UEFA don't have to count them when it comes to their audits if they don't want! They could simply limit sponsorships to 25% or 30% of the total "qualifying income" that expenditure must not exceed.

Precisely the point about Barca - they are owned by the fans. So either income from the 'owner' is allowed, or it's not. He can't write the rules so that they are specifically anti-City

So sponsorships are only part of the income, the rest has to come from TV (where ours is roughly the same as the top 4), prize money, where we're down in any one season due to lack of champions league, and ticket sales. So basically, the clubs which rip their fans off the most will be the only ones allowed to play in his competition? I think his plans are going nowhere.

[zuricity]

Well i didn't intend to spark the silly debate about UEFA. It seems there are rules, but then those rules can be broken.

Quite frankly , when I see the way Salomon Bros can mess around with trades on Wall street, then UEFA and Platini can just sit down and be quiet.

I'll believe it when I see it and I don't think it will happen with this balancing books tosh , and Platinis dumb ideas. Madrid pulled the carpet from underneath him in the summer.

As for the Jewish princess. They really only come from Brooklyn and not Whitefield.

Still a tasty bit of bagel though.

Although i prefer cinnamon raisin myself and not some onion flavoured bagel. Sliced or not.

[Socrates]

Wouldn't hamper Barca in any way, they don't have a single controlling owner at all!
We can price sponsorships in any way we want. But UEFA don't have to count them when it comes to their audits if they don't want! They could simply limit sponsorships to 25% or 30% of the total "qualifying income" that expenditure must not exceed.

Precisely the point about Barca - they are owned by the fans. So either income from the 'owner' is allowed, or it's not. He can't write the rules so that they are specifically anti-City

So sponsorships are only part of the income, the rest has to come from TV (where ours is roughly the same as the top 4), prize money, where we're down in any one season due to lack of champions league, and ticket sales. So basically, the clubs which rip their fans off the most will be the only ones allowed to play in his competition? I think his plans are going nowhere.

An individual Barca fan has a very small share not a controlling interest so while he or she is "an owner" of the club he or she isn't "the owner" which is usually defined as being in control of a private company by owning 50.01% or a PLC by owning 30%. These proposals are clearly aimed at clubs with a clearly defined controlling owner. Will not have the remotest impact on Barca, the rules will not be specifically anti-City, just anti-"any club like City."

His plans that are "going nowhere" already have substantial backing, patricularly that of the European Club Association, which replaced the G-14 and represents an even bigger and more powerful cartel. I don't think the fact that you don't like them is going to stop them!

[Rag_hater]

I should imagine the Sheikhs lawyers could take UEFA ,FIFA or whosoever was to try and implement such restrictive laws to the court of human rights and get it overruled citing everyones right to equal treatment and the rights of workers.

[Socrates]

I should imagine the Sheikhs lawyers could take UEFA ,FIFA or whosoever was to try and implement such restrictive laws to the court of human rights and get it overruled citing everyones right to equal treatment and the rights of workers.

No, it wouldn't apply. There is nothing in the Human Rights Convention that says you have a right to play in UEFA competitions...

[ashton287]

does anyone no what our actual income/expenditure is????? would champions league football next year not make up the diffrence??

i dont no anything about the legal stuff in football but it sounds like F$%*ING bullshit that this is happening now when were poised to get into the champions league or atleast make a decent challenge so he's just saying no you cant play beacuse...erm ang on a sec while i make up a new rule

BET HE'S GOT A LITTLE DICK ANYWAY

[Blue Since 76]

Wouldn't hamper Barca in any way, they don't have a single controlling owner at all!
We can price sponsorships in any way we want. But UEFA don't have to count them when it comes to their audits if they don't want! They could simply limit sponsorships to 25% or 30% of the total "qualifying income" that expenditure must not exceed.

Precisely the point about Barca - they are owned by the fans. So either income from the 'owner' is allowed, or it's not. He can't write the rules so that they are specifically anti-City

So sponsorships are only part of the income, the rest has to come from TV (where ours is roughly the same as the top 4), prize money, where we're down in any one season due to lack of champions league, and ticket sales. So basically, the clubs which rip their fans off the most will be the only ones allowed to play in his competition? I think his plans are going nowhere.

An individual Barca fan has a very small share not a controlling interest so while he or she is "an owner" of the club he or she isn't "the owner" which is usually defined as being in control of a private company by owning 50.01% or a PLC by owning 30%. These proposals are clearly aimed at clubs with a clearly defined controlling owner. Will not have the remotest impact on Barca, the rules will not be specifically anti-City, just anti-"any club like City."

His plans that are "going nowhere" already have substantial backing, patricularly that of the European Club Association, which replaced the G-14 and represents an even bigger and more powerful cartel. I don't think the fact that you don't like them is going to stop them!

The backing of the status quo then. Outside of them, would anyone agree with the proposal? Basically an exclusive european league, with no promotion or relegation. If need be, let them have it and set up a new UEFA.

[bluej]

Wouldn't hamper Barca in any way, they don't have a single controlling owner at all!
We can price sponsorships in any way we want. But UEFA don't have to count them when it comes to their audits if they don't want! They could simply limit sponsorships to 25% or 30% of the total "qualifying income" that expenditure must not exceed.

Precisely the point about Barca - they are owned by the fans. So either income from the 'owner' is allowed, or it's not. He can't write the rules so that they are specifically anti-City

So sponsorships are only part of the income, the rest has to come from TV (where ours is roughly the same as the top 4), prize money, where we're down in any one season due to lack of champions league, and ticket sales. So basically, the clubs which rip their fans off the most will be the only ones allowed to play in his competition? I think his plans are going nowhere.

An individual Barca fan has a very small share not a controlling interest so while he or she is "an owner" of the club he or she isn't "the owner" which is usually defined as being in control of a private company by owning 50.01% or a PLC by owning 30%. These proposals are clearly aimed at clubs with a clearly defined controlling owner. Will not have the remotest impact on Barca, the rules will not be specifically anti-City, just anti-"any club like City."

His plans that are "going nowhere" already have substantial backing, patricularly that of the European Club Association, which replaced the G-14 and represents an even bigger and more powerful cartel. I don't think the fact that you don't like them is going to stop them!

The backing of the status quo then. Outside of them, would anyone agree with the proposal? Basically an exclusive european league, with no promotion or relegation. If need be, let them have it and set up a new UEFA.

And without getting ahead of ourselves, if we were to win the league say in a couple of years surely keeping the league champions from England out of the so called "Champions League" would be beyond farcical?

I'm not saying they can't do it by any length, but there must be a point where everyone outside of the established teams would think 'what is the point of trying to qualify'

I suppose they hold all the cards in terms of getting tv money and sponsorship etc though, as they would have the required pulling power. It's a tricky one, and i suspect there will be only one way to find out!

[Slim]

I have a couple of thoughts.

1. Any sort of financial restriction in place that find us at fault will find at least one of the G14 at fault as well. It would have to be very specifically worded to nail us and not nail someone else by default.

2. Surely they can't allow income from the champions league to be included in balance sheets, that would breach fair trade practices and find at least two english clubs apart from us on the wrong side of the fence.

[Robinho_Is_GOD]

I don't think that will happen 4 years is a long time and our clubs lawyers will take them through the courts it will cost them to much to fight us and it would look daft if the champions of England [if of course we won it] could not play in the C L

[Rag_hater]

I should imagine the Sheikhs lawyers could take UEFA ,FIFA or whosoever was to try and implement such restrictive laws to the court of human rights and get it overruled citing everyones right to equal treatment and the rights of workers.

No, it wouldn't apply. There is nothing in the Human Rights Convention that says you have a right to play in UEFA competitions...

UEFA may not be mentioned in the charter non the less it still applies.
And what Platini is proposing is illeagal.
Article 6 or 8 refers to how it is everyones right to be treated equally and therefore the ex G14 clubs cannot have advantages exclusivley to them.

[Socrates]

We are talking about corporate entities not individuals, it really, really doesn't apply Rag H. It would be like a company applying for a human right to be given a contract by another company!!! Not a prayer. And as UEFA's competitions are invitational, it certainly isn't illegal.