Platini: No Ban For Failing FFP This Time Around

[Dameerto]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Melbourne and New York getting some new sponsorship deals over the next year. Maybe the Women's team too.

[lets all have a disco]

Every ten minutes.



Ring ring ring ring



Hello Arsene my old buddy,whats that about City?

[mcfc1632]

I have been a worrier about FFPR since its introduction and have throughout its development taken the effort to track how its implementation is being prepared - so have been in the small minority that have been saying that CITY will almost certainly be 'hit' - at the same time being desperate to be wrong.

All of a sudden it is getting attention - which just shows what a good job the fuckers have done in keeping it below the radar - and they have got their crony PL chairman to usher it into the PL - just to secure their own positions/income - and in turn keep the Championships teams from aspiring to the PL.

Most CITY fans have just taken comfort at quite a shallow (as in not deep - not an insult) level - along the lines that "..our sheik will fuck 'em off..." - yet CITY have been clearly driving to conformance for the last 3 years - why? if they did not think it was necessary?

So I reserve the right to worry a bit more and not totally chill.

That said - as I posted a few months ago - I expect the pain to be for one season only - for all the reasons pointed out above - so we will be OK. This does not change the fact that it is a despicable 'cartel protecting' initiative that will keep every other club downtrodden by the old elite - which now includes Chelsea (because they did it first) and (most likely) us (because we just got on-board before the gangplank was withdrawn)

[Wooders]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Melbourne and New York getting some new sponsorship deals over the next year. Maybe the Women's team too.

That relationship is under scrutiny apparently

[Dameerto]

From the selling of intellectual property.

[Socrates]

I have been a worrier about FFPR since its introduction and have throughout its development taken the effort to track how its implementation is being prepared - so have been in the small minority that have been saying that CITY will almost certainly be 'hit' - at the same time being desperate to be wrong.

All of a sudden it is getting attention - which just shows what a good job the fuckers have done in keeping it below the radar - and they have got their crony PL chairman to usher it into the PL - just to secure their own positions/income - and in turn keep the Championships teams from aspiring to the PL.

Most CITY fans have just taken comfort at quite a shallow (as in not deep - not an insult) level - along the lines that "..our sheik will fuck 'em off..." - yet CITY have been clearly driving to conformance for the last 3 years - why? if they did not think it was necessary?

So I reserve the right to worry a bit more and not totally chill.

That said - as I posted a few months ago - I expect the pain to be for one season only - for all the reasons pointed out above - so we will be OK. This does not change the fact that it is a despicable 'cartel protecting' initiative that will keep every other club downtrodden by the old elite - which now includes Chelsea (because they did it first) and (most likely) us (because we just got on-board before the gangplank was withdrawn)

To be fair, the person being told to chill was going a bit overboard. The truth is, as you indicate, somewhere inbetween. This will slow our progress but not halt it.

[mcfc1632]

The aspect that is worrying me most at the moment is that if (and I know that it is all rumours at present) the Etihad deal is downgraded for FFPR purposes and we 'accept' the fine etc - then this means that this revenue stream is downgraded for years to come.

I was expecting, given deals like the scums with Chevrolet and DHL for it to be significantly increased in a couple of years as a 'renegotiation' - becomes hard to do that if you have previously accepted that it was too high - so there might be some impact for a few years

[carl_feedthegoat]

The aspect that is worrying me most at the moment is that if (and I know that it is all rumours at present) the Etihad deal is downgraded for FFPR purposes and we 'accept' the fine etc - then this means that this revenue stream is downgraded for years to come.

I was expecting, given deals like the scums with Chevrolet and DHL for it to be significantly increased in a couple of years as a 'renegotiation' - becomes hard to do that if you have previously accepted that it was too high - so there might be some impact for a few years

This is why Man City have not accepted the penalty as of now - these type of issues need to be adjusted so that it does not come back to bite us on the arse...its all about the wording on the penalty sheet that's the issue..not so much the fine.....IMO.

[Blue Since 76]

The aspect that is worrying me most at the moment is that if (and I know that it is all rumours at present) the Etihad deal is downgraded for FFPR purposes and we 'accept' the fine etc - then this means that this revenue stream is downgraded for years to come.

I was expecting, given deals like the scums with Chevrolet and DHL for it to be significantly increased in a couple of years as a 'renegotiation' - becomes hard to do that if you have previously accepted that it was too high - so there might be some impact for a few years

The DHL one in particular make it difficult to see why our deal is over valued. If you also look at Etihad's profits over the time of the sponsorship, it would look like good value for them too.

The problem here is the press reported it as £400m. If you say £40m a season, it's better, but then break it down. Liverpool get £20m a season for their shirt, despite not even being in Europe, Arsenal similar., Chelsea £18m. So half of our deal is covered by what others get for their shirt.

Naming rights is tricky as Arsenal only get £3m a season, but that deal was front loaded to allow them to build it. There seems little reason why a ground and training complex (including public areas) shouldn't be worth at least £10m a season. Then there's the training tops.

You could maybe argue £40m was too much for the first couple of years, is about right now and will be too little in the last few years, but that will always happen with a long term deal.

[Socrates]

The aspect that is worrying me most at the moment is that if (and I know that it is all rumours at present) the Etihad deal is downgraded for FFPR purposes and we 'accept' the fine etc - then this means that this revenue stream is downgraded for years to come.

I was expecting, given deals like the scums with Chevrolet and DHL for it to be significantly increased in a couple of years as a 'renegotiation' - becomes hard to do that if you have previously accepted that it was too high - so there might be some impact for a few years

This is why Man City have not accepted the penalty as of now - these type of issues need to be adjusted so that it does not come back to bite us on the arse...its all about the wording on the penalty sheet that's the issue..not so much the fine.....IMO.

Yes I agree. I think also the unfairness that you can't discount pre-ffp contracts unless they account for 100% of the deficit is something they may wish to formally challenge as being inequitable. Only missing FFP by a couple of million but it being counted as £82m on a technicality is something very challengeable in my view.

[mr_nool]

How can the Ethiad deal be deemed to be too high, considering that many of our competitors have similar or even more lucrative deals?

I realise that the ownership issue could be questioned, but surely that should be relevant if our deal was much better than those our opponents have with "neutral" or unconnected sponsors.

[carl_feedthegoat]

The aspect that is worrying me most at the moment is that if (and I know that it is all rumours at present) the Etihad deal is downgraded for FFPR purposes and we 'accept' the fine etc - then this means that this revenue stream is downgraded for years to come.

I was expecting, given deals like the scums with Chevrolet and DHL for it to be significantly increased in a couple of years as a 'renegotiation' - becomes hard to do that if you have previously accepted that it was too high - so there might be some impact for a few years

This is why Man City have not accepted the penalty as of now - these type of issues need to be adjusted so that it does not come back to bite us on the arse...its all about the wording on the penalty sheet that's the issue..not so much the fine.....IMO.

Yes I agree. I think also the unfairness that you can't discount pre-ffp contracts unless they account for 100% of the deficit is something they may wish to formally challenge as being inequitable. Only missing FFP by a couple of million but it being counted as £82m on a technicality is something very challengeable in my view.

I think the negotiations between our hierarchy and UEFA will hinder on dual agreement whereby we don't challenge them through the courts and they climb down somewhat on the penalty's being banded about. I also would think that for our owners it will be of the utmost importance that our club are seen to have done everything in our power to abide by the FFP rules and our name is clean in the public eye......this will be a major point of relevance imo....otherwise I feel that we will have no choice but to go through other legal means.

[Socrates]

The aspect that is worrying me most at the moment is that if (and I know that it is all rumours at present) the Etihad deal is downgraded for FFPR purposes and we 'accept' the fine etc - then this means that this revenue stream is downgraded for years to come.

I was expecting, given deals like the scums with Chevrolet and DHL for it to be significantly increased in a couple of years as a 'renegotiation' - becomes hard to do that if you have previously accepted that it was too high - so there might be some impact for a few years

This is why Man City have not accepted the penalty as of now - these type of issues need to be adjusted so that it does not come back to bite us on the arse...its all about the wording on the penalty sheet that's the issue..not so much the fine.....IMO.

Yes I agree. I think also the unfairness that you can't discount pre-ffp contracts unless they account for 100% of the deficit is something they may wish to formally challenge as being inequitable. Only missing FFP by a couple of million but it being counted as £82m on a technicality is something very challengeable in my view.

I think the negotiations between our hierarchy and UEFA will hinder on dual agreement whereby we don't challenge them through the courts and they climb down somewhat on the penalty's being banded about. I also would think that for our owners it will be of the utmost importance that our club are seen to have done everything in our power to abide by the FFP rules and our name is clean in the public eye......this will be a major point of relevance imo....otherwise I feel that we will have no choice but to go through other legal means.

Yep, the club will only challenge it if they leave us with no choice. If they are determined to hammer us because of a technicality hat is nonsense then I think there will be no choice but to try. That sort of narrow challenge wouldn't actually undermine FFP as a whole, going forward, just the unfairness of implementation.

[Blue Since 76]

Yes I agree. I think also the unfairness that you can't discount pre-ffp contracts unless they account for 100% of the deficit is something they may wish to formally challenge as being inequitable. Only missing FFP by a couple of million but it being counted as £82m on a technicality is something very challengeable in my view.

If we've only missed it by a few million, a fine of £50m would seem ridiculous, so the level we've missed it by certainly matters.

As Carl says, I think the public declaration will be more important than the size of the fine. If the message is that we're a well run club, going in the right direction and expected to be fully compliant soon, we'd pay whatever. If the message is that we're oil rich scum who are trying to ruin football, I suspect they'd challenge it even if there was no fine.

[JamieMCFC]

How can the Ethiad deal be deemed to be too high, considering that many of our competitors have similar or even more lucrative deals?

I realise that the ownership issue could be questioned, but surely that should be relevant if our deal was much better than those our opponents have with "neutral" or unconnected sponsors.

Most of our competitors have larger fan bases than us. So of course than are going to have deals that are bigger than ours. A company marketing to the rags are going to have more potential customer's than a company marketing to us. A lot of these deals has more to do they what goes on the pitch.

[Ted Hughes]

We don't know that the Etihad deal has been downgraded. It's a rumour.

It's also rumoured that the PSG deal has been downgraded to 100 mil.

I can't see how both those things are true. If they were true, if anything, our deal is less 'related' than theirs, so there would be a pretty obvious case of favouritism involved & I would have thought evidence of criminal activity. If the market value of their deal is 100 mil, how can ours be less than 40, in any way of thinking ? We play in the Premier League, bigger exposure, so our deal should be worth more than theirs.

The most likely scenario seems to be, as mentioned, that they have done us for losing too much money 2 seasons ago, the penalty being that we can't write off the wages from that era.

If indeed they have downgraded PSG to 100 mil & that is the market value, then once all this shit is sorted, we can upgrade ours to about 120 mil, at the very least.

[Ted Hughes]

How can the Ethiad deal be deemed to be too high, considering that many of our competitors have similar or even more lucrative deals?

I realise that the ownership issue could be questioned, but surely that should be relevant if our deal was much better than those our opponents have with "neutral" or unconnected sponsors.

Most of our competitors have larger fan bases than us. So of course than are going to have deals that are bigger than ours. A company marketing to the rags are going to have more potential customer's than a company marketing to us. A lot of these deals has more to do they what goes on the pitch.

We play in the Premier League. Tonight the biggest club in the world play for the Spanish title. Wonder how the viewing figures compare to our game v QPR.

[JamieMCFC]

How can the Ethiad deal be deemed to be too high, considering that many of our competitors have similar or even more lucrative deals?

I realise that the ownership issue could be questioned, but surely that should be relevant if our deal was much better than those our opponents have with "neutral" or unconnected sponsors.

Most of our competitors have larger fan bases than us. So of course than are going to have deals that are bigger than ours. A company marketing to the rags are going to have more potential customer's than a company marketing to us. A lot of these deals has more to do they what goes on the pitch.

We play in the Premier League. Tonight the biggest club in the world play for the Spanish title. Wonder how the viewing figures compare to our game v QPR.

TV viewers is only one part of the equation when these deals are being negotiated.

[mcfc1632]

How can the Ethiad deal be deemed to be too high, considering that many of our competitors have similar or even more lucrative deals?

I realise that the ownership issue could be questioned, but surely that should be relevant if our deal was much better than those our opponents have with "neutral" or unconnected sponsors.

It could have been 'seen' as too high perhaps at the time - the comparisons were Arsenal etc. and other teams like red Scouse had a larger fan base etc and we could not claim to have a 'global appeal' that would support such a high annual value.

So I can get by head around the 1st couple of years. But since then we have been PL champions - come 2nd and been involved in the closest title race for decades - and likely to win it. Accordingly our global recognition/appeal has gone through the roof - the QPR game alone must have had massive audience generation. So given that since the deal was done the scum have done their deals - red scouse have had a big lift etc - this actually means that our deal is now undervalued.

This is why I feel that we could justify a significant uplift through a renegotiation now with Etihad.

And why we should be careful to create a precedent that we have accepted the deal is over-valued - without clarity that this was nly for the 1st couple of years

[Risby]

Thought this would be the best place to put this rather than start a new thread.
A very good read and a surprise to see someone standing up for us.


The champions-elect we all forgot this season amid Liverpool's fairytale charge back into title contention represent the best of football, writes Oliver Holt
Manchester City and their fans are entitled to feel aggrieved.
Tonight, Blues can take a giant step closer to winning one of the most thrilling title races of recent years in English football.
If they thrash Aston Villa at the Etihad, City could become the only team to join the Chelsea of 2009-10 in scoring 100 goals in a Premier League season.
It would be more proof that they have played some ­wonderfully swashbuckling ­football on their way to the top.
And yet, City are the ­champions-elect we all forgot.
They are the side that got lost as we followed the compelling ­narrative of Liverpool’s underdog attempt to win their first title for 24 years.
City are the team with a boss who kept quiet while Jose ­Mourinho took all the attention with his talking and posturing.
City are the team who kept on amassing points while so many of us were captivated by the ­spectacle of the thousands lining Anfield Road before every home game, trying to will Liverpool to the title.
They are the club with the narrative of their own, the club that established itself ­incontrovertibly as the leading team in Manchester as United fell from grace.
And even now ­Liverpool and Chelsea have faded from the picture, still the ­headlines are not about City’s ­excellence.
Instead, it’s about the estimated £49million fine UEFA are set to attempt to impose on them for breaching Financial Fair Play ­regulations.
Something is wrong with FFP if it punishes a regime that is pouring millions into the ­regeneration of a deprived area of East Manchester.
Nobody is suggesting that Sheikh Mansour and his cohorts are driven by altruism but ­whatever their motives, it is hard not to admire much of what is happening at City.
Their youth set-up is so ­impressive, former United players are sending their kids to train there. They are pouring funds into a women’s team in the WSL, too. Their campus is a centre of ­excellence, a model of the way forward.
That is the problem with FFP - it enshrines the principle that might is right, big equals good. It seeks to perpetuate the hegemony of the clubs with the most supporters and the most revenue. There is no fantasy about it.
City’s story represents the dream of every downtrodden club, every poor relation - that one day it can be propelled to the top.
It has happened in front of us at Manchester City, and all UEFA want to do is punish them for it.
They distrust the rise of smaller clubs. It threatens their vested interests.
The irony is City stand on the brink of an achievement that deserves to be celebrated more than anything else they have done. They have gone head-to-head with a Liverpool side that appeared to have an unstoppable momentum and they seem to have outlasted them.
This is not the often-pragmatic side marshalled by Roberto Mancini. This is a team of ­wonderfully skilful players Manuel Pellegrini has moulded into a breathtaking attacking unit.
Some of their football towards the turn of the year was sublime.
They were at their unstoppable best when they could pair Sergio Aguero, whose season has been disrupted by injury, and Alvaro Negredo in attack.
In November and December, they stuck seven past Norwich, six past Tottenham, four past Fulham and six past Arsenal.
This is a team overflowing with flair, with the likes of David Silva, Samir Nasri, Jesus Navas.
This is a team that has the might and grace of Yaya Toure at its heart.
If City hold their nerve and win their second title in three years at the Etihad on Sunday, forget the petty objections of the joyless bureaucrats at UEFA.

Because it will be a triumph for a team that represents the best of football.

What do you think?