Platini: No Ban For Failing FFP This Time Around

[DoomMerchant]

We will sell all out top stars to NYCFC and loan them back for pennies.

#compliance

The MLS doesn't work that way. The contracts are with the league and their financial solvency is basically institutionalized with caps and limits. Its been a fantastic model for finally gaining a sporting foothold in america despite whatever you think of the football.

[Hazy2]

Pellers only uses 15 or so of the 25 so maybe we knew this was coming.

[Ted Hughes]

Slightly off topic but relevant, Soriano has got City down as turning over £402 million after the 13/14 season. That's only 4 mil off Bayern.

So unless they can manage to fuck us over re sponsorship (no chance imo), this will not even register as a problem in the near future. At the rate we have expanded so far, we would be catching Utd in a year or two (or 3).

Campus hasn't even been built yet.

[john68]

One aspect of this that seems to have been ignored is how City have behaved throughout all of this.

Despite comments on here about whether The FFPRs are legal/illegal, effective/non-effective, and opinions about what City can/can't do about possible sanctions, it is quite clear that from statements by Khaldoon/Cook.Soriano etc, that City ACCEPTED the terms and conditions of the FFPRs from the outset.
It is also clear that the club has worked with UeFA/ECA and so were AT ALL TIMES,FULLY AWARE of the position we were in as the FFPRs evolved.
It therefore can be concluded that City knowingly pursued a policy, over those years that they KNEW would lead them to FAIL the conditions set...and by exactly how much. We know that City have employed individuals from Deloitte's that played a part in the design of the FFPRs and so had in house expertise on tap. Conclusion: City are in the position we are in because we deliberately put ourselves in that position and were fully aware of the risks and sanctions likely to be imposed.......BUT WHY?

The FFPRs were NOT designed by UeFA/Platini. They were designed by the G14 to ensure the share out of financial trough they had created was not diluted by clubs like City or any other club with new money. By and large, the new FFPRs will effectively ensure they are successful in achieving that aim, over the long term......Except with clubs like City. City know that and have acted accordingly.

City have chosen to lose a battle in order to win the war. Any sanction imposed can only be temporary and City have sidestepped that by having a long term plan. It was necessary to get into the CL and access the income channels and global publicity it gave us. We fell a year behind schedule but achieved our aim. We have invested heavily in the future with the Academy and grown our commercial/global status amazingly, which falls outside attack from the G14.

We had to fail the FFPRs in the short term in order to achieve that. Job done. We knew that, we took the risk and were prepared for the short term sanction. The G14 may have been successful in stopping the rise of other clubs who follow, but we are effectively through the gate. The only option for the G14 now is to either form a breakaway Super League to which we're not invited or accept us as equals and budge up at the trough.

The only danger left is that Arsenal, Everton, the rags or Spurs may appeal. That isas yet an unknown.

[john68]

TED,
your point is not off topic mate...it is in fact the whole point.

The temporary and deliberate failure was necessary to allow us to earn the money to get into the position where we commercially complied with the conditions.

Job Sorted. (bar the unknown of the appeals process)

[Cocacolajojo1]

One aspect of this that seems to have been ignored is how City have behaved throughout all of this.

Despite comments on here about whether The FFPRs are legal/illegal, effective/non-effective, and opinions about what City can/can't do about possible sanctions, it is quite clear that from statements by Khaldoon/Cook.Soriano etc, that City ACCEPTED the terms and conditions of the FFPRs from the outset.
It is also clear that the club has worked with UeFA/ECA and so were AT ALL TIMES,FULLY AWARE of the position we were in as the FFPRs evolved.
It therefore can be concluded that City knowingly pursued a policy, over those years that they KNEW would lead them to FAIL the conditions set...and by exactly how much. We know that City have employed individuals from Deloitte's that played a part in the design of the FFPRs and so had in house expertise on tap. Conclusion: City are in the position we are in because we deliberately put ourselves in that position and were fully aware of the risks and sanctions likely to be imposed.......BUT WHY?

The FFPRs were NOT designed by UeFA/Platini. They were designed by the G14 to ensure the share out of financial trough they had created was not diluted by clubs like City or any other club with new money. By and large, the new FFPRs will effectively ensure they are successful in achieving that aim, over the long term......Except with clubs like City. City know that and have acted accordingly.

City have chosen to lose a battle in order to win the war. Any sanction imposed can only be temporary and City have sidestepped that by having a long term plan. It was necessary to get into the CL and access the income channels and global publicity it gave us. We fell a year behind schedule but achieved our aim. We have invested heavily in the future with the Academy and grown our commercial/global status amazingly, which falls outside attack from the G14.

We had to fail the FFPRs in the short term in order to achieve that. Job done. We knew that, we took the risk and were prepared for the short term sanction. The G14 may have been successful in stopping the rise of other clubs who follow, but we are effectively through the gate. The only option for the G14 now is to either form a breakaway Super League to which we're not invited or accept us as equals and budge up at the trough.

The only danger left is that Arsenal, Everton, the rags or Spurs may appeal. That isas yet an unknown.

Makes sense that.

[BlueinBosnia]

With regard to this 'settlement', I assume it is financial. Does anyone know where the money will go?

[nottsblue]

With regard to this 'settlement', I assume it is financial. Does anyone know where the money will go?

Other than to finance Uefa's jollies and line their pockets you mean?

You'd like to think some charitable organisation they have links with. Probably the rags then...

[Hutch's Shoulder]

Pellers only uses 15 or so of the 25 so maybe we knew this was coming.

Hopefully they will stipulate we can't play Rodwell and Richards.

[ruralblue]

One aspect of this that seems to have been ignored is how City have behaved throughout all of this.

Despite comments on here about whether The FFPRs are legal/illegal, effective/non-effective, and opinions about what City can/can't do about possible sanctions, it is quite clear that from statements by Khaldoon/Cook.Soriano etc, that City ACCEPTED the terms and conditions of the FFPRs from the outset.
It is also clear that the club has worked with UeFA/ECA and so were AT ALL TIMES,FULLY AWARE of the position we were in as the FFPRs evolved.
It therefore can be concluded that City knowingly pursued a policy, over those years that they KNEW would lead them to FAIL the conditions set...and by exactly how much. We know that City have employed individuals from Deloitte's that played a part in the design of the FFPRs and so had in house expertise on tap. Conclusion: City are in the position we are in because we deliberately put ourselves in that position and were fully aware of the risks and sanctions likely to be imposed.......BUT WHY?

The FFPRs were NOT designed by UeFA/Platini. They were designed by the G14 to ensure the share out of financial trough they had created was not diluted by clubs like City or any other club with new money. By and large, the new FFPRs will effectively ensure they are successful in achieving that aim, over the long term......Except with clubs like City. City know that and have acted accordingly.

City have chosen to lose a battle in order to win the war. Any sanction imposed can only be temporary and City have sidestepped that by having a long term plan. It was necessary to get into the CL and access the income channels and global publicity it gave us. We fell a year behind schedule but achieved our aim. We have invested heavily in the future with the Academy and grown our commercial/global status amazingly, which falls outside attack from the G14.

We had to fail the FFPRs in the short term in order to achieve that. Job done. We knew that, we took the risk and were prepared for the short term sanction. The G14 may have been successful in stopping the rise of other clubs who follow, but we are effectively through the gate. The only option for the G14 now is to either form a breakaway Super League to which we're not invited or accept us as equals and budge up at the trough.

The only danger left is that Arsenal, Everton, the rags or Spurs may appeal. That isas yet an unknown.

Only understood 'the' and 'trough' but I iz well Yorkshire innit!

On the other hand am absolutely chuffed to see you back and posting my friend :-)

[dick dastardley]

Shouldn't Chelsea be in the shit? They've bought quite a few and pay big wages???

[City64]

Simple solution to this bollocks is to take the bent organisation that calls itself UEFA to court . Sorted !

[Bianchi on Ice]

Simple solution to this bollocks is to take the bent organisation that calls itself UEFA to court . Sorted !

I would suggest hiring Max Clifford to do the PR stuff but he's a bit tied up at the minute

[phips]

Shouldn't Chelsea be in the shit? They've bought quite a few and pay big wages???

sold a few for big $$, like Mata and De Bruyne

[john68]

Thanks for the kind words Jimbo...appreciated mate.

Jus fer thee, soe's yer get mi drift like. Wi spent munnie soe's wi cud gerrup wi't top clubs an earn a bob a too. Wi allus knew Yoofa wud kick ar arses but if wi got munnie in fust, wi'd bi quids in as like as not.
Once wi got there, if Yoofa nobbut jus gi us a gentle kick, wi'd onli bi fooked fer a year mebbe like as not., burafter that wi'd bi as appy as a yarshermun wi'ya sheep an a pair o wellies.

Hope that makes it clear for you Jimbo.

[Socrates]

Bastard, I have On Ilkley Moor Bah Tat going round my brain in a loop now :o

[Socrates]

Pellers only uses 15 or so of the 25 so maybe we knew this was coming.

Hopefully they will stipulate we can't play Rodwell and Richards.

They won't say WHO we cannot play, they would foul of EU law if they did. They will limit numbers and/or enforce a total salary cap for the CL squad forcing us to choose which players we leave out.

[ruralblue]

Thanks for the kind words Jimbo...appreciated mate.

Jus fer thee, soe's yer get mi drift like. Wi spent munnie soe's wi cud gerrup wi't top clubs an earn a bob a too. Wi allus knew Yoofa wud kick ar arses but if wi got munnie in fust, wi'd bi quids in as like as not.
Once wi got there, if Yoofa nobbut jus gi us a gentle kick, wi'd onli bi fooked fer a year mebbe like as not., burafter that wi'd bi as appy as a yarshermun wi'ya sheep an a pair o wellies.

Hope that makes it clear for you Jimbo.

Ah! A git thee. Nowt t fret for then. :-)

[zuricity]

They won't say WHO we cannot play, they would foul of EU law if they did. They will limit numbers and/or enforce a total salary cap for the CL squad forcing us to choose which players we leave out.

Don't be daft. If we get Messi in the summer UEFA will ban him from playing in the champions league.

Because they are a rule unto themselves.

[Ted Hughes]

TED,
your point is not off topic mate...it is in fact the whole point.

The temporary and deliberate failure was necessary to allow us to earn the money to get into the position where we commercially complied with the conditions.

Job Sorted. (bar the unknown of the appeals process)

Fuckinell he's back !!

Nice to have you back matey.

My thoughts regarding this have always been that we would 'get round' it by sponsorship. I have always thought that the problem, if there is to be one, will come if Platini invokes his mysterious panel to try & tell us we are not allowed to use our sponsorship money as we see fit or that it is in some way a 'related party'.

If international standards do not see anything wrong with our deals then I don't believe we will accept Platini & a bunch of people with dodgy motives, telling us they have invented their own standard by which they can interfere with the running of our business.

I just don't see how they can have the authority or expertise to decide they are correct, compared to the rest of the world, who see nothing wrong in it. Basically they would be penalising us, because people such as the owners of Liverpool & Utd have asked them to, not because we are doing anything wrong.

I don't think we should accept any sanctions they give us in any case though, because there is a challenge taking place which, according to plenty of sports lawyers etc, has a decent chance of succeeding. UEFA are talking very confidently about the outcome of this but if you read around the net, well I can't find one single 'expert' who predicts UEFA winning the case. Basically they don't know.

The view appears to be that Striani and Dupont have a decent chance of winning the case, because they make fair & reasonable argument that the rules go unnecessarily far, to acheive their objective & are affecting people's livelihood, & trade between member states, when there is no need to. It's not a challenge to ffp at all, it's a challenge to the bit about people being able to invest money in clubs, which they also argue is counter productive to the actual objective & helps the established clubs stop competition.

Surely If we reserve the right to take action regarding sanctions in light of this challenge, UEFA could find themselves in a very dodgy position should we bomb out of the Champs League with a restricted squad , then find that their sanctions were actually illegal ? Might make them suspend the penalty in lieu of future good behaviour ?

Or perhaps they have already agreed to a suspended sanction, thus avoiding the whole thing ?