The mancityfans.net football forum

Predictably, now City have been restricted in spending, Chelsea have maxed out their advantage & are now at a future disadvantage, they have gone full circle on FFP.

http://www.football365.com/chelsea/9588 ... -is-unfair

Mourinho: 'FFP not fair'

Chelsea boss Jose Mourinho believes that Financial Fair Play is a 'contradiction' that protects Europe's historical clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona and Manchester United.

Clubs like Chelsea and Manchester City are not as commercially successful so have to curb their spending to meet FFP rules; the Blues sold David Luiz, Romelu Lukaku and Demba Ba this summer to pay for the key signings of Cesc Fabregas and Diego Costa.

Meanwhile, Manchester United had a summer net spend of over £100m without breaching any FFP rules as they have a much higher turnover than City or Chelsea.

Mourinho told Eurosport-Yahoo: "I think Financial Fair Play is a contradiction because, when football decided to go for Financial Fair Play it was exactly to put teams in equal conditions to compete.

"But what happened really with the Financial Fair Play is a big protection to the historical, old, big clubs, which have a financial structure, a commercial structure, everything in place based on historical success for years and years and years.

"And the 'new' clubs - I call them 'new' clubs, those with new investment - they cannot put themselves quickly at the same level. Clubs with new owners cannot immediately attack the control and the domination of these big clubs.

"Chelsea is not an old, historical, huge club - but it's also not a club with a new owner. It's a club with the same owner for more than 10 years. A club with a very important history, with great stability too.

"And at this moment I think we are just below them. I can say we are a very good club with the ambition to be a great club."

Seeing as Platini named Abramovic as one of the people who requested it, & Chelsea voted for its introduction in the Premier League, this should add some weight to Dupont's case that FFP is failling in its stated intention.

Either way, it just proves beyond doubt, what a bunch of self serving cunts these people are.

No shit Jose.

We did tell you this on here 2 years ago.

Correct me from wrong but weren't WBA the only other PL team to see through FFP for what it was and vote against it?

I think Swansea and Villa voted against it too and there were a couple of abstains as far as I can remember.

Fulham voted against it - then when it came in Al Fayed sold up.

Reading held the decisive vote and abstained.
Which begs the question " why should just the premier league clubs of that time decide on such a question?"
It will effect the likes of Wolves, Forest, Leeds, the two Sheffields, Derby, Bolton etc etc.
Another reason it is plain wrong

Of course what he said is correct, but hardly anything new. And will it change? No chance.

sheblue wrote:Of course what he said is correct, but hardly anything new. And will it change? No chance.

It wont change UEFA, but now their darling Jose has said it, it might change the attitude of some reporters to FFP.

"And the 'new' clubs - I call them 'new' clubs, those with new investment....Chelsea is not an old, historical, huge club."

Had Benitez said this, Chelsea fans would have burned him in effigy.

Goaters 103 wrote:No shit Jose.

We did tell you this on here 2 years ago.

Correct me from wrong but weren't WBA the only other PL team to see through FFP for what it was and vote against it?

Maybe he didn't read the forum that week. Or the week we were first saying it back when Hughes was still manager and it became clear that we needed to speed the investment process up to mitigate its threat?

Not sure United will be unaffected to be honest. Obviously they aren't in Europe so no books this year, but their revenue is seriously plummeting. If they finish 5th there will be some very serious decisions to be made there.

And Gill will scrap FFP!

Mourinho has looked up the motorway and seen our stadium growing, all singing all dancing academy coming online, maybe a large retail/commercial/leisure destination and thinking fuck ive tried to shake them off but they are still there.

Goaters 103 wrote:No shit Jose.

We did tell you this on here 2 years ago.

Correct me from wrong but weren't WBA the only other PL team to see through FFP for what it was and vote against it?

As stated above it was neck and neck. Now the idiocies are more plain for all to see I suspect a vote now would go against it.

john@staustell wrote:

Goaters 103 wrote:No shit Jose.

We did tell you this on here 2 years ago.

Correct me from wrong but weren't WBA the only other PL team to see through FFP for what it was and vote against it?

As stated above it was neck and neck. Now the idiocies are more plain for all to see I suspect a vote now would go against it.

Are there any mechanisms in place which would allow this decision to be reviewed and a new vote taken on it ??

It would be interesting if there were.

Chelsea and Arsenal have also seen us drive up the revenue league and overtake them and we are on course for overtaking the rest of we keep on our projected course.

1. Real Madrid –
Total Revenue : €518.9m (£444.7m)
2014 Matchday …………………………………………………………….€119m (£102m)
Broadcasting …………………………………………………………….€183.3m (£161.4m)
Commercial …………………………………………………………….€211.6m (£181.3m)

2. Barcelona FC –
Total Revenue : €482.6m (£413.6m)
2014 Matchday …………………………………………………………….€117.6m (£100.8m)
Broadcasting …………………………………………………………….€188.2m (£161.3m)
Commercial …………………………………………………………….€176.8m (£151.5m)

3. Bayern Munich –
Total Revenue : €431.2m (£369.6m)
2014 Matchday …………………………………………………………….€87.1m (£74.7m)
Broadcasting …………………………………………………………….€107m (£91.7m)
Commercial …………………………………………………………….€237.1m (£203.2m)

4. Manchester United –
Total Revenue : €423.8m (£363.2m)
2014 Matchday …………………………………………………………….€127.3m (£109.1m)
Broadcasting …………………………………………………………….€118.6m (£101.6m)
Commercial …………………………………………………………….€177.9m (£152.5m)

5. Paris Saint-Germain –
Total Revenue : €398.8m (£341.8m)
2014 Matchday …………………………………………………………….€53.2m (£45.6m)
Broadcasting …………………………………………………………….€90.9m (£77.9m)
Commercial …………………………………………………………….€254.7m (£218.3m)

6. Manchester City – Richest Football Club
Total Revenue : €316.2m (£271m)
2014Matchday …………………………………………………………….€46.2m (£39.6m)
Broadcasting …………………………………………………………….€103.1m (£88.4m)
Commercial …………………………………………………………….€166.9m (£143m)

7. Chelsea – Richest Football Club
Total Revenue : €303.4m (£260m)
2014 Matchday …………………………………………………………….€82.5m (£70.7m)
Broadcasting …………………………………………………………….€123m (£105.4m)
Commercial …………………………………………………………….€97.9m (£83.9m)

8. Arsenal –
Total Revenue : €284.3m (£243.6m)
2014 Matchday …………………………………………………………….€108.3m (£92.8m)
Broadcasting …………………………………………………………….€103.2m (£88.4m)
Commercial …………………………………………………………….€72.8m (£62.4m)

9. Juventus –
Total Revenue : €272.4m (£233.5m)
2014 Matchday …………………………………………………………….€38m (£32.6m)
Broadcasting …………………………………………………………….€166m (£142.3m)
Commercial …………………………………………………………….€68.4m (£58.6m)

10. AC Milan –
Total Revenue : €263.5m (£225.8m)
2014 Matchday …………………………………………………………….€26.4m (£22.6m)
Broadcasting …………………………………………………………….€140.0m (£120.8m)
Commercial …………………………………………………………….€96.2m (£82.4m)


http://sporteology.com/richest-football ... ey-league/

£62m a season commercial income for Arsenal and they've been a Champion's League club for how many years in a row now? Absolutely criminal when you look at their ticket prices. Their fans ought to be furious about it because they are the ones subsidising the incompetence regularly on a match day (at least the away fans are only ripped off once a season when they go to the Emirates).

That table would be different now.

They were all hoping UEFA would pull the plug on our sponsorship deals. Their little bent committie who decides on which people can sponsor City, was essential for this plan to work, but City were never going to accept that. It would be totally illegal. FFP is one thing, but deciding who can sponsor the club is another. That would have killed us & it was never going to happen without the biggest, nastiest, fight in the history of sport. Now Chelsea realise they have gained only short term & stand to lose big long term.

What they've effectively done as a group, is handicapped City's spending for two seasons whilst the sanctions were on the line & signed a couple of players each we may have otherwise signed, but they have rescued & empowered Utd. And had Liverpool won the title, they would be climbing into the frame too, with the increased profile.

It has given each club a big one season advantage over City (which is a big thing in business terms obviously), but only Chelsea could do anything about it this season & they reconed without the size of the rags' new deals.

Now Chelsea, (& I wonder if Arsenal are now smelling the coffee) are realising that while City will persevere & continue to move away from them long term, they are now in danger of coming 2nd to Utd in the transfer market, regularly, especially if the rags get in the Champions League.

The extra funds at scumland will allow the Glazers to pay off the debt & spend in the transfer market, so long as Chelsea & City are handicapped. Right now, they control the price of transfers & wages. They can outbid City or Chelsea & pay more for wages. If they get in the Champions League, they are potentially first in the queue for players.

I'll be very surprised if City's sponsorship deals etc in the next few years don't redress that balance & we eventually move away. But Chelsea & Arsenal have played right into the hands of the rags.They are helping the Glazer's business plan work.

Just looking at recent figures, Utd have 88 mil in the first quarter. As they are now, they can pay off the debt comfortably even with a ridiculous wage bill etc.

From 1st Aug, they get upto 75 mil per year from Adidas.

So to properly fuck them up again I recon we need another couple of big sponsorhip deals, then we should agressively target the bastards & try to destroy them imo.

The biggest challenge the rags have this year is the they MUST ensure they qualify for the CL. Fail do to that and their much vaunted (best scenario) sponsorship deals decrease.

I agree Ted, getting our main sponsors banned was a major plank of their attack on our finances. It was clearly stated by Gill in the speech he made in Manchester to the team of FFP scrutineers just prior to the accounts being submitted. We know that Mate. They failed to do that and got us on a very contentious technicality.

Do we really believe that they were that naive and short sighted?

The Etihad deal was declared as a non related party sponsorship and accepted as such by international accounting standards. That was a few years back now so why would the accountants at the likes of Chelsea or Arsenal believe that UEFA could have the authority to declare it a related party sponsorship?

If they did they are fucking morons of the highest order.

By the way, are we sure Roman and Jose are on the same wavelength here? Or is Jose just having a moan to the media because Roman is telling him the purse strings have to be tightened?

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Do we really believe that they were that naive and short sighted?

The Etihad deal was declared as a non related party sponsorship and accepted as such by international accounting standards. That was a few years back now so why would the accountants at the likes of Chelsea or Arsenal believe that UEFA could have the authority to declare it a related party sponsorship?

If they did they are fucking morons of the highest order.

By the way, are we sure Roman and Jose are on the same wavelength here? Or is Jose just having a moan to the media because Roman is telling him the purse strings have to be tightened?

They had already jumped on the FFP bandwaggon before we did the Etihad deal. Remember all the crying when we did it & all the fans around the country explaining how it would get thrown out by UEFA ? People on here were even saying UEFA would intervene if we were backed by Abu Dhabi sponsors, previous to that deal happening.

From 2011:

'City must now convince Uefa that the amounts involved do not contravene the incoming financial fair play regulations and, specifically, the condition that stipulates sponsors with close links to club owners pay a fair price.

Etihad are owned by the Abu Dhabi government and the airline's association with the City owner, Sheikh Mansour, a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family, will almost certainly prompt Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel, under the chairmanship of the former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, to investigate.

A Uefa spokesman said: "We are aware of the situation and our experts will make assessments of fair value of any sponsorship deals using benchmarks."

Under the terms of financial fair play, clubs have to show they can break even in the medium term if they are to take part in European competitions and, for City, that represents a significant issue given that their last financial figures reported a £121m loss and the next accounts, to be published in September, are expected to be worse.

The club have, however, made extensive inquiries of their own, consulting with Uefa in the process, to ensure the Etihad deal fits in with the rules and cannot be construed, in essence, as a different twist to 'mates' rates'.'

I recon as part of that 'consultation' the City's position on the matter will have been made clear.

Also, don't forget that FFP itself is actually illegal by normal standards. The only way they are getting away with it, is that it's being treated as a special case. Many clubs may have thought UEFA would just take City on with the sponsors, in the same way.

As for Abramovic, he probably hoped that handicapping City would allow Chelsea to leave us behind as a business & save him money by not having to fork out so much competing with us (which is true right now). I doubt he expected Adidas to give Utd 75 mil pa.

He may also think that it was only going to last a year or two before the courts threw it out. They may all think that. In which case, he gets a 2 season advantage while we struggle under sanctions.