Platini: No Ban For Failing FFP This Time Around

[Ted Hughes]

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).

UEFA are always getting their pants pulled down in public.

It will be portrayed in the media as City being troublemakers, by people who have something to gain by shitting on us, & by their cronies in the media. To everyone else, we have a very good case & they are saying so.

Why should we be penalised & fined for doing nothing wrong ? Why should the poeple who signed off our books be wrong, & a those who work for UEFA be correct ? Who has decided that ?

If we feel that we can't win in court, then we will no doubt accept it, but otherwise why should we ? We are not breaking any rules.

If the stories are true, then UEFA are artificially creating a different set of criteria for running our business, to those faced by anyone else, including PSG. If the stories aren't true, it may be a technicality that we want sorting out before we agree to a lesser penalty.

If it's true that PSG have accepted (is this confirmed anywhere ?) then they have accepted a one off fine & an allowance of 80 odd million quid per year ffp usable sponsorship money from the Qatar deal. That's possibly all they were hoping for in the first place & they have no need to argue.

[blues2win]

So far we're talking about arguments between one set of accountants and another. I'm not clear whether the next round involves a full re evaluation of the arguments or simply another look at the punishment which is what the Press seems to assume. The Court of Arbitration for Sport will certainly involve revisiting the case. Two other questions remain. First can the Club make sure in one way or another that the CL draw cannot take place until the CAS has given its verdict. The second is whether the Club will mount a full blooded legal challenge against FFP per se on the grounds that it doesn't trust the fairness of the UEFA decision making process any more.

[Ted Hughes]

So far we're talking about arguments between one set of accountants and another. I'm not clear whether the next round involves a full re evaluation of the arguments or simply another look at the punishment which is what the Press seems to assume. The Court of Arbitration for Sport will certainly involve revisiting the case. Two other questions remain. First can the Club make sure in one way or another that the CL draw cannot take place until the CAS has given its verdict. The second is whether the Club will mount a full blooded legal challenge against FFP per se on the grounds that it doesn't trust the fairness of the UEFA decision making process any more.

We can go to the European Court of Justice if we prove we have a strong enough case. But it wouldn't be an argument against ffp, it would be an argument against how it is implemented. Dupont may already be covering that though, so unless we have another different angle to contest I'm not sure exactly how that works.

If there is an ongoing legal situation I'm not sure they would be keen to suspend us until it is resolved.

Our argument is probably a technical one & you would expect a suitable settlement without us having to take it that far.

[Ted Hughes]

I imagine what has happened is that Wenger, Gill etc have moved the goalposts since we were given the guidelines for ffp, & the guys from Deloittes are there as witnesses to that fact.

[Socrates]

So far we're talking about arguments between one set of accountants and another. I'm not clear whether the next round involves a full re evaluation of the arguments or simply another look at the punishment which is what the Press seems to assume. The Court of Arbitration for Sport will certainly involve revisiting the case. Two other questions remain. First can the Club make sure in one way or another that the CL draw cannot take place until the CAS has given its verdict. The second is whether the Club will mount a full blooded legal challenge against FFP per se on the grounds that it doesn't trust the fairness of the UEFA decision making process any more.

We can go to the European Court of Justice if we prove we have a strong enough case. But it wouldn't be an argument against ffp, it would be an argument against how it is implemented. Dupont may already be covering that though, so unless we have another different angle to contest I'm not sure exactly how that works.

If there is an ongoing legal situation I'm not sure they would be keen to suspend us until it is resolved.

Our argument is probably a technical one & you would expect a suitable settlement without us having to take it that far.

Re the ECJ there is no way ffp will fail on restriction of trade rules as it does not impact on the freedom of individuals to ply their trade country to country - it doesn't apply as broadly as some on here suppose - BUT City are almost certainly considering challenging on the protection statutes. There is a possibility of proving FFP to be the action of a cartel to restrict access to a market. That is a viable challenge and is in our interests to do it if ffp sanctions will restrict our operations as badly as it appears.

[Mrs M is a City Fan]

I imagine what has happened is that Wenger, Gill etc have moved the goalposts since we were given the guidelines for ffp, & the guys from Deloittes are there as witnesses to that fact.

The thing is, none of the "Big 4" accountancy firms would be offering any opinions as to the compliance (or otherwise) as to any club with the terms of FFP. We would not do so as the risk of being litigated against by a penalised club (or clubs who thought others should have been penalised and were not or were not penalised enough) is too great and potentially too difficult to quantify. UEFA would not pay any of these types of advisors enough in terms of fees to compensate them for the risk they would be exposed to. What they likely did do is help UEFA draft the guidelines and how to implement the tests. I'm certain however that UEFAs own accountants and lawyers will have been doing the analysis....and therein lies the opportunity for City, assisted by better advisors, to blow their case apart in the context of any moving of goalposts, interpretation of the guidelines and also a better, deeper knowledge of the deals involved and how they should most appropriately be interpreted in the context of the FFP rules.

[Ted Hughes]

So far we're talking about arguments between one set of accountants and another. I'm not clear whether the next round involves a full re evaluation of the arguments or simply another look at the punishment which is what the Press seems to assume. The Court of Arbitration for Sport will certainly involve revisiting the case. Two other questions remain. First can the Club make sure in one way or another that the CL draw cannot take place until the CAS has given its verdict. The second is whether the Club will mount a full blooded legal challenge against FFP per se on the grounds that it doesn't trust the fairness of the UEFA decision making process any more.

We can go to the European Court of Justice if we prove we have a strong enough case. But it wouldn't be an argument against ffp, it would be an argument against how it is implemented. Dupont may already be covering that though, so unless we have another different angle to contest I'm not sure exactly how that works.

If there is an ongoing legal situation I'm not sure they would be keen to suspend us until it is resolved.

Our argument is probably a technical one & you would expect a suitable settlement without us having to take it that far.

Re the ECJ there is no way ffp will fail on restriction of trade rules as it does not impact on the freedom of individuals to ply their trade country to country - it doesn't apply as broadly as some on here suppose - BUT City are almost certainly considering challenging on the protection statutes. There is a possibility of proving FFP to be the action of a cartel to restrict access to a market. That is a viable challenge and is in our interests to do it if ffp sanctions will restrict our operations as badly as it appears.

One of Dupont's challenges is to the trade restictions as it affects players etc.

The general opinion I've read seems to be that he is right, & that it is a restriction of trade between member states, in fact that the general opinion seems to be that he is right on just about everything he is challenging, but it's whether or not UEFA get by on technicalities etc.

I have not read one legal opinion which says they probably will get a ruling in their favour on any of the challenges, only that it's possible they could. Nobody from the legal profession, whose opinion I have read, has given an opinion on how this will go though. They genuinely don't seem to know. But all feel he has a decent case. Dupont himself thinks he's absolutely going to win.

I'm not sure if he was pushing the 'cartel' angle, I know I've seen it mentioned, as there are specific areas regarding 'sporting competition' etc which he says is being distorted by ffp in its current form, so it could be that he is already challenging that.

I have no idea personally how it works if we have a very similar challenge.

[Socrates]

So far we're talking about arguments between one set of accountants and another. I'm not clear whether the next round involves a full re evaluation of the arguments or simply another look at the punishment which is what the Press seems to assume. The Court of Arbitration for Sport will certainly involve revisiting the case. Two other questions remain. First can the Club make sure in one way or another that the CL draw cannot take place until the CAS has given its verdict. The second is whether the Club will mount a full blooded legal challenge against FFP per se on the grounds that it doesn't trust the fairness of the UEFA decision making process any more.

We can go to the European Court of Justice if we prove we have a strong enough case. But it wouldn't be an argument against ffp, it would be an argument against how it is implemented. Dupont may already be covering that though, so unless we have another different angle to contest I'm not sure exactly how that works.

If there is an ongoing legal situation I'm not sure they would be keen to suspend us until it is resolved.

Our argument is probably a technical one & you would expect a suitable settlement without us having to take it that far.

Re the ECJ there is no way ffp will fail on restriction of trade rules as it does not impact on the freedom of individuals to ply their trade country to country - it doesn't apply as broadly as some on here suppose - BUT City are almost certainly considering challenging on the protection statutes. There is a possibility of proving FFP to be the action of a cartel to restrict access to a market. That is a viable challenge and is in our interests to do it if ffp sanctions will restrict our operations as badly as it appears.

One of Dupont's challenges is to the trade restictions as it affects players etc.

The general opinion I've read seems to be that he is right, & that it is a restriction of trade between member states, in fact that the general opinion seems to be that he is right on just about everything he is challenging, but it's whether or not UEFA get by on technicalities etc.

I have not read one legal opinion which says they probably will get a ruling in their favour on any of the challenges, only that it's possible they could. Nobody from the legal profession, whose opinion I have read, has given an opinion on how this will go though. They genuinely don't seem to know. But all feel he has a decent case. Dupont himself thinks he's absolutely going to win.

I'm not sure if he was pushing the 'cartel' angle, I know I've seen it mentioned, as there are specific areas regarding 'sporting competition' etc which he says is being distorted by ffp in its current form, so it could be that he is already challenging that.

I have no idea personally how it works if we have a very similar challenge.

The Dupont thing looks very speculative. Argument that it will cost agents money isn't very persuasive! The cartel angle is totally different - is harder to prove as has to be shown to have happened in fact rather than be a theoretical restriction. It is a different statute altogether from the restriction of trade Dupont is challenging.

[Ted Hughes]

So far we're talking about arguments between one set of accountants and another. I'm not clear whether the next round involves a full re evaluation of the arguments or simply another look at the punishment which is what the Press seems to assume. The Court of Arbitration for Sport will certainly involve revisiting the case. Two other questions remain. First can the Club make sure in one way or another that the CL draw cannot take place until the CAS has given its verdict. The second is whether the Club will mount a full blooded legal challenge against FFP per se on the grounds that it doesn't trust the fairness of the UEFA decision making process any more.

We can go to the European Court of Justice if we prove we have a strong enough case. But it wouldn't be an argument against ffp, it would be an argument against how it is implemented. Dupont may already be covering that though, so unless we have another different angle to contest I'm not sure exactly how that works.

If there is an ongoing legal situation I'm not sure they would be keen to suspend us until it is resolved.

Our argument is probably a technical one & you would expect a suitable settlement without us having to take it that far.

Re the ECJ there is no way ffp will fail on restriction of trade rules as it does not impact on the freedom of individuals to ply their trade country to country - it doesn't apply as broadly as some on here suppose - BUT City are almost certainly considering challenging on the protection statutes. There is a possibility of proving FFP to be the action of a cartel to restrict access to a market. That is a viable challenge and is in our interests to do it if ffp sanctions will restrict our operations as badly as it appears.

One of Dupont's challenges is to the trade restictions as it affects players etc.

The general opinion I've read seems to be that he is right, & that it is a restriction of trade between member states, in fact that the general opinion seems to be that he is right on just about everything he is challenging, but it's whether or not UEFA get by on technicalities etc.

I have not read one legal opinion which says they probably will get a ruling in their favour on any of the challenges, only that it's possible they could. Nobody from the legal profession, whose opinion I have read, has given an opinion on how this will go though. They genuinely don't seem to know. But all feel he has a decent case. Dupont himself thinks he's absolutely going to win.

I'm not sure if he was pushing the 'cartel' angle, I know I've seen it mentioned, as there are specific areas regarding 'sporting competition' etc which he says is being distorted by ffp in its current form, so it could be that he is already challenging that.

I have no idea personally how it works if we have a very similar challenge.

The Dupont thing looks very speculative. Argument that it will cost agents money isn't very persuasive! The cartel angle is totally different - is harder to prove as has to be shown to have happened in fact rather than be a theoretical restriction. It is a different statute altogether from the restriction of trade Dupont is challenging.

From outside, you wouldn't have thought that it was a good idea to give players even more power to move between clubs & basically tear up their contracts in some cases, but it went though.

He isn't arguing against ffp though, he is arguing that it's unnecessarily restrictive & will harm people without it needing to.

He is claiming that it is going to stop some transfers from happening, which would otherwise have gone through. That's restricting trade, restricting the movement of the players & their possibility of improving their conditions & restricting the ability of football agents to do their job.

I doubt anyone can argue the case which says that isn't going to happen.

His argument is questioning if there is any need for it to happen in order to have 'financial fair play' or whether the restrictions on spending by people who have the money, is actually counter productive to creating 'fair competition' & will instead maintain the top clubs being at the top & deter future investment from new owners thus affecting trade etc. (obvious cartel implications).

I don't think anyone who is outside the influence of the G14, would look at the ffp situation & think that it's actually better for competition in sport, to artificially keep big businesses at the top.

We all KNOW there is a better, fairer way to legislate ffp. The only question is whether the court sees it that way too.

[Dameerto]

I imagine what has happened is that Wenger, Gill etc have moved the goalposts since we were given the guidelines for ffp, & the guys from Deloittes are there as witnesses to that fact.

I always had a sneaky feeling they were hired as potential expert witnesses as much as for their general input into FFP.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

So far we're talking about arguments between one set of accountants and another. I'm not clear whether the next round involves a full re evaluation of the arguments or simply another look at the punishment which is what the Press seems to assume. The Court of Arbitration for Sport will certainly involve revisiting the case. Two other questions remain. First can the Club make sure in one way or another that the CL draw cannot take place until the CAS has given its verdict. The second is whether the Club will mount a full blooded legal challenge against FFP per se on the grounds that it doesn't trust the fairness of the UEFA decision making process any more.

We can go to the European Court of Justice if we prove we have a strong enough case. But it wouldn't be an argument against ffp, it would be an argument against how it is implemented. Dupont may already be covering that though, so unless we have another different angle to contest I'm not sure exactly how that works.

If there is an ongoing legal situation I'm not sure they would be keen to suspend us until it is resolved.

Our argument is probably a technical one & you would expect a suitable settlement without us having to take it that far.

Re the ECJ there is no way ffp will fail on restriction of trade rules as it does not impact on the freedom of individuals to ply their trade country to country - it doesn't apply as broadly as some on here suppose - BUT City are almost certainly considering challenging on the protection statutes. There is a possibility of proving FFP to be the action of a cartel to restrict access to a market. That is a viable challenge and is in our interests to do it if ffp sanctions will restrict our operations as badly as it appears.

One of Dupont's challenges is to the trade restictions as it affects players etc.

The general opinion I've read seems to be that he is right, & that it is a restriction of trade between member states, in fact that the general opinion seems to be that he is right on just about everything he is challenging, but it's whether or not UEFA get by on technicalities etc.

I have not read one legal opinion which says they probably will get a ruling in their favour on any of the challenges, only that it's possible they could. Nobody from the legal profession, whose opinion I have read, has given an opinion on how this will go though. They genuinely don't seem to know. But all feel he has a decent case. Dupont himself thinks he's absolutely going to win.

I'm not sure if he was pushing the 'cartel' angle, I know I've seen it mentioned, as there are specific areas regarding 'sporting competition' etc which he says is being distorted by ffp in its current form, so it could be that he is already challenging that.

I have no idea personally how it works if we have a very similar challenge.

I've had the "pleasure" of working with lawyers in some real estate and building cases over the years and they absolutely categorically NEVER say anything definitive about any case. They NEVER give the kind of opinion ordinary man is looking for. Ie board member would ask "what chances do we have winning this case" and answer is WITHOUT AN EXCEPTION something like "it's complicated... I do think we have a case here but I'm not willing to guess anything etc etc". They are unlike any other profession. Like if people ask me "how much would building this cost" I would readily answer "something like 20 million but that's just educated guess". You will NEVER get educated guess out of a lawyer.

[phips]

so i guess tomorrow is when we finally decide to accept or fight...gonna be interesting.

[Benjay]

At least we deal with the FFP issue as champions....

[DoomMerchant]

At least we deal with the FFP issue as champions....

Which honestly should give us some perceived advantage in the debate.

Champions of England. Zero debt.

What's the fucking actual problem here again?

#fiction

[Risby]

I thought our accounts were readily available and have been looked at on a yearly basis.
Surely conversations would have taken place in terms of 'if you don't meet this criteria, this will happen'.
Are the consequences of failing to meet FFP made up or were they genuinely written up with everyone knowing the punishments? It sounds a bit shit to me and people are trying to slow us down.

[bayblue]

I thought our accounts were readily available and have been looked at on a yearly basis. Surely conversations would have taken place in terms of 'if you don't meet this criteria, this will happen'. Are the consequences of failing to meet FFP made up or were they genuinely written up with everyone knowing the punishments? It sounds a bit shit to me and people are trying to slow us down.

Welcome to the worlds of accounting and the law!!
Nothing is black and white because if it was there would be no room for these people to make the money they do.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

I thought our accounts were readily available and have been looked at on a yearly basis. Surely conversations would have taken place in terms of 'if you don't meet this criteria, this will happen'. Are the consequences of failing to meet FFP made up or were they genuinely written up with everyone knowing the punishments? It sounds a bit shit to me and people are trying to slow us down.

Welcome to the worlds of accounting and the law!!
Nothing is black and white because if it was there would be no room for these people to make the money they do.

I once read that the definition of an accountant was someone who watched the battle from the safety of the hillside and, when the fighting was over, came down to count the dead and bayonet the wounded.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

I thought our accounts were readily available and have been looked at on a yearly basis. Surely conversations would have taken place in terms of 'if you don't meet this criteria, this will happen'. Are the consequences of failing to meet FFP made up or were they genuinely written up with everyone knowing the punishments? It sounds a bit shit to me and people are trying to slow us down.

Welcome to the worlds of accounting and the law!!
Nothing is black and white because if it was there would be no room for these people to make the money they do.

I once read that the definition of an accountant was someone who watched the battle from the safety of the hillside and, when the fighting was over, came down to count the dead and bayonet the wounded.

That's seriously funny.

[Socrates]

I once read that the definition of an accountant was someone who watched the battle from the safety of the hillside and, when the fighting was over, came down to count the dead and bayonet the wounded.

Lol. Well someone has to?

[Ted Hughes]

Martin Samuel on Wenger. Quality.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... razil.html


And while we're at it

Considering he thinks it is right for Manchester City to be expelled from the Champions League, sometimes it is amusing to consider what Arsene Wenger feels is fair in football. Rewarding failure, for instance. Very fair. Arsenal, his club, have not been anywhere near the Premier League trophy for 10 years now, yet are consistently seeded in Pot 1 of the Champions League draw, and have been since 2000-01.

UEFA’s co-efficient system, which takes historical form into account and therefore protects the biggest and richest clubs from one ordinary season — or in Arsenal’s case, nine — will come to Wenger’s rescue again this summer. Despite having to go through another qualification play-off, providing Arsenal progress, Wenger already knows his team are among the highest seeds for 2014-15, no matter the fourth-place finish.

Manchester City, the actual champions in two of the previous three seasons, will be in Pot 2, if lucky. Borussia Dortmund won the Bundesliga in 2011-12 and were placed in Pot 4. ‘Nobody has ever won the Champions League from Pot 4,’ explained Dortmund chief executive officer Hans-Joachim Watzke. Still no word from Wenger on this, so it’s probably fair.

Sky-high ticket prices; also fair. This season Arsenal had the highest priced season ticket in the league (£1,955) and the top priced cheapest season ticket, too, at £985. As Arsenal play Hull City on Saturday looking for their first trophy since 2005, some might think this poor value for money. Not Wenger. No word condemns Arsenal for squeezing their public, despite the advantage of a 60,000 capacity stadium.

‘The only way we can pay the wages and compete without any external help is through the ticket prices,’ he said in January 2013. ‘It is our main income so, of course, the prices are high. It is down to every individual to decide. If you want to go to a concert tomorrow, you look at the price of a ticket and if it is too high, you say yes or no.’

This is the upmarket version of like it or lump it, really. Super fair. Manchester City, meanwhile, on the back of two titles, the FA Cup and the League Cup in the last four seasons, have the cheapest prices in the Premier League, and are even the right side of three clubs in the Conference.

Wealth distribution: another area of fairness that does not set Wenger’s antennae twitching. In 2012-13, for getting eliminated at the Champions League knockout stage by the first good team they played, Arsenal pocketed £26.1million and Manchester United £29.6m.

UEFA also pass a solidarity payment to the Premier League to distribute among the other 16 clubs. Last year it was £1.3m split 16 ways — or £81,250 each. Sounds fair. Certainly, there is no complaint from Wenger.

‘If you say to me tomorrow that the 20 Premier League clubs get £100m each, I’m OK, I’ll take the gamble,’ he said last week, with the air of a man who knows his real odds are £26.1m versus £81,250. The clubs in the Champions League command 79 per cent of the competition revenue, and Michel Platini, the UEFA president, says wealth redistribution is a matter for those clubs. Are Arsenal going to start giving away their fortune to create fairer domestic competitions? Is Wenger lobbying his friend Platini to engineer this great leap forward? Guess again.

So, for all his much-vaunted fairness, Wenger’s take on matters that affect his club is about as impartial as Jose Mourinho’s opinion of what makes a good referee. Wenger’s sense of justice is, bottom line, whatever works for him and Arsenal. Fair’s fair.