Financial Fair Play

[The only place to be 11,313]

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:01, Rmpr said:

So what? They didnt do anything illegal!

What exactly are there to make an example of? Oh yeah, if you have lots of money you will piss off a lot of people and then get punished by it...

Actually they're in contravention of a set of rules that other clubs have established and agreed to follow. But no, it's not a crime.

[Rmpr 8,977]

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:05, The only place to be said:

Actually they're in contravention of a set of rules that other clubs have established and agreed to follow. But no, it's not a crime.

A set of stupid rules that are tecnically invalid in the court of law...City and PSG (or anyothet club) can easilly overturn any decision made by UEFA if they go to court!

Also, it is pathetic to try to punish someone for spending more that the others just because they have the resources to do so.

[The only place to be 11,313]

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:07, Rmpr said:

A set of stupid rules that are tecnically invalid in the court of law...City and PSG (or anyothet club) can easilly overturn any decision made by UEFA if they go to court!

Also, it is pathetic to try to punish someone for spending more that the others just because they have the resources to do so.

Technically they haven't been tested in a court of law ergo the validity is uncertain in that sense.

It may well be pathetic to you, but these are the rules that UEFA set out in order to protect clubs. Personally I think that's bollocks but it's their rules. Ultimately it benefits us, but the simple fact is that we've curtailed our spending in order to meet these criteria so other teams shouldn't therefore be able to get away with not following them.

[Spike 12,049]

I like these rules. They even out the playing field and hopefully will stop the disgustingly high modern transfer fees.

[Jype 6,398]

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:01, Rmpr said:

So what? They didnt do anything illegal!

What exactly are there to make an example of? Oh yeah, if you have lots of money you will piss off a lot of people and then get punished by it...

Just like us with the Courtois case and the eventually non-existent clause, it's UEFA's game and they have every right to make the rules each team just has to find a way to live with. If both City and PSG have agreed to their rules and still try to do some shady business to get an advantage over their competitors who have decided to obey UEFA it's only fair they get called out for it and face sanctions.

Whilst I agree the FFP is not an ideal scenario to begin and it definitely kills the chance of any smaller club to ever make the step up to the major leagues, it's still the reality these days and both of the clubs now getting punished over it have for years known about the possibility of facing action for failure to comply but they still decided to try their luck and do fuck all so they've really just brought it on themselves.

[Mr_President 404]

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:07, Rmpr said:

A set of stupid rules that are tecnically invalid in the court of law...City and PSG (or anyothet club) can easilly overturn any decision made by UEFA if they go to court!

Also, it is pathetic to try to punish someone for spending more that the others just because they have the resources to do so.

No one knows if they are invalid in a court of law because there has been no litigation in this space yet.

The rules were agreed upon and adopted by UEFA and apply to all clubs wishing to compete in UEFA competitions. UEFA competitions are private and I believe operate on an 'invite only' basis (despite the qualification process) - City do not have a statutory right to be there. If UEFA have a set of rules, i.e. FFP, and any club is in breach of them, then I think you'll find it is perfectly reasonable for them to punish clubs that contravene the rules.

This is not about punishing other clubs for having more resources than others. Technically, Manchester City (the company/club) do not have more resources than many top clubs, their owner does. There is a big difference. What City have done is inflate the value of their sponsorships to ludicrous levels in a bid to comply with FFP; UEFA has seen through this.

Is it really pathetic? The effect of Chelsea, City, PSG and Monaco's spending the transfer market, players' wages and, consequently, ticket prices/tv prices is a small issue in your mind? The game will be much better off if FFP can be implemented properly and, as some cynics might suggest, UEFA don't simply use it as a cash-cow.

[Rmpr 8,977]

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:13, The only place to be said:

Technically they haven't been tested in a court of law ergo the validity is uncertain in that sense.

It may well be pathetic to you, but these are the rules that UEFA set out in order to protect clubs. Personally I think that's bollocks but it's their rules. Ultimately it benefits us, but the simple fact is that we've curtailed our spending in order to meet these criteria so other teams shouldn't therefore be able to get away with not following them.

City's lawyers are the best in the world and if they so fiercely rejected the deal is because they feel strong about winning it on court or at least make UEFA heavily lower the penalty. I remember back when this FFP was announced, several outlets reported the dificulties and legal variants it could face and now this is already showing up. Imo (of an engineering who knows nothing about law), UEFA's punishment will only get crushed by City and PSG's legal pleas!

UEFA protecting the clubs? PLEASE! This is just Arsenal, RM, Barcelona, Bayern, etc, scared of having to compete with the likes of City, PSG, Chelsea and other possible sugar daddies! Their executives have never been (and never will) worried about the financial state of clubs throughout Europe. They just dont want a club with a small fanbase to have players like Yaya and Zlatan. They want the likes of Real and Bayern to have them!

Yes, it benefits us, but I prefer to win it on the pitch than to resort to hypocritical excuses. I doubt you were complaining when we were spending an exorbitant amount of money (not just on players, but on marketing and infra-structure, etc) in order for us to achieve a new level. So why cant City be allowed do the same? A company needs to invest first in order to grow and FFP blocks it. It goes against the very principle of the economic model we live in. It's ridiculous!

Ok, I see where you are coming from. But do you honestly think we are really limiting our resources to meet FFP? Oh come on, dont play this naive game with me. Chelsea is in a stage where it can pretend to comply with FFP because we already have a strong and significant income and it's good PR. However, the reality is we dont even care about FFP. We spent 80mi in the last two summer windows and will likely spend that again this comming transfer window. We havent pull out of any deal because of FFP yet and probably never will!

[dee25 1,044]

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:10, The Mak said:

They will appeal and we'll find out if they're serious about FFP or not. I suspect they'll cave. Even still, a 2-3 year transfer ban is much more devastating to City than £50m over 3 years (which probably won't even added to their deficit). It's a nice summer bonus for Platini anyway...

I think Uefa is just trying to force City to accept the reduced sanctions they had previously offered them, which City were already contesting. The last thing Uefa want is an appeal and a long drawn out legal battle. It compromises the legitimacy of FFP and will lead to bigger problems. I suspect they've leaked these sanctions to the press to look like they're coming on strong. They want City to accept the one they offered them before.

Either way, I'm pretty sure the sanctions that City will be penalized with will definitely be on reduced terms.

[The only place to be 11,313]

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:32, Rmpr said:

UEFA protecting the clubs? PLEASE! This is just Arsenal, RM, Barcelona, Bayern, etc, scared of having to compete with the likes of City, PSG, Chelsea and other possible sugar daddies! Their executives have never been (and never will) worried about the financial state of clubs throughout Europe. They just dont want a club with a small fanbase to have players like Yaya and Zlatan. They want the likes of Real and Bayern to have them!

You realise that FFP is not only supported by us, it actually benefits us as well.

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:32, Rmpr said:

Yes, it benefits us, but I prefer to win it on the pitch than to resort to hypocritical excuses. I doubt you were complaining when we were spending an exorbitant amount of money (not just on players, but on marketing and infra-structure, etc) in order for us to achieve a new level. So why cant City be allowed do the same? A company needs to invest first in order to grow and FFP blocks it. It goes against the very principle of the economic model we live in. It's ridiculous!

Firstly, infrastructure costs (stadiums, training areas etc.) still don't count towards FFP.

City can't be allowed to do the same because the rules have changed. It's not fair, which is kinda why we supported them in the first place. The fact is that we, along with other clubs, have since changed our practices in order to meet these new criteria so why shouldn't City as well? It might not be fair, but that's life.

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:32, Rmpr said:

Ok, I see where you are coming from. But do you honestly think we are really limiting our resources to meet FFP? Oh come on, dont play this naive game with me. Chelsea is in a stage where it can pretend to comply with FFP because we already have a strong and significant income and it's good PR. However, the reality is we dont even care about FFP. We spent 80mi in the last two summer windows and will likely spend that again this comming transfer window. We havent pull out of any deal because of FFP yet and probably never will!

Have you even bothered to look at our finances over the last few years? Of course we've reduced spending in accordance with the first monitoring periods of FFP.

[Jase 43,479]

Inclined to agree with the notion above. This almost feels like a way for UEFA to pick up more $$$$$$$$..

[LAM09 6,879]

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:50, BluesMaster said:

Inclined to agree with the notion above. This almost feels like a way for UEFA to pick up more $$$$$$$$..

I totally agree. What is £50m to Man City?!

Looks like the 'being banned from European competitions' line, is a load of tripe. No surprise knowing UEFA.

[Jase 43,479]

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:53, LAM09 said:

I totally agree. What is £50m to Man City?!

Looks like the 'being banned from European competitions' line, is a load of tripe. No surprise knowing UEFA.

Until actually UEFA does something 'right' in regards to what FFP is about and has been talked about, like banning clubs from European competition, doubt anyone would really take it seriously especially when leniency are being shown.

[LAM09 6,879]

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:56, BluesMaster said:

Until actually UEFA does something 'right' in regards to what FFP is about and has been talked about, like banning clubs from European competition, doubt anyone would really take it seriously especially when leniency are being shown.

Exactly. They need to make a statement against a big club. Malaga were banned last year for financial problems, but they are a small club. UEFA are scared to punish one of the powerhouses, and until they do; FFP will be a waste of time!

[Fernando 6,537]

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:59, LAM09 said:

Exactly. They need to make a statement against a big club. Malaga were banned last year for financial problems, but they are a small club. UEFA are scared to punish one of the powerhouses, and until they do; FFP will be a waste of time!

Have to look past the 50 million fine and look at the other punishment involve.

Cause the truth is that for a rich team 50 million is a little set back, but they can live.

The other punishment of squad reduction, wage cap, and homegrown is of more significant.

We should be focusing on this side.

[The Mak 4,459]

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:56, BluesMaster said:

Until actually UEFA does something 'right' in regards to what FFP is about and has been talked about, like banning clubs from European competition, doubt anyone would really take it seriously especially when leniency are being shown.

I can't remember where I heard this, but apparently in America in either the NFL and/or MLB they have similar sanctions and the money from a club's (massive) fine is distributed evenly between the other teams in the league who did not break sanctions...maybe an American brethren can confirm this, but call me crazy, it seems like a much more reasonable solution compared to fines going straight in Platini's pockets...try telling him that!

[LAM09 6,879]

  On 06/05/2014 at 13:24, Fernando said:

Have to look past the 50 million fine and look at the other punishment involve.

Cause the truth is that for a rich team 50 million is a little set back, but they can live.

The other punishment of squad reduction, wage cap, and homegrown is of more significant.

We should be focusing on this side.

I understand what you are saying mate, but UEFA said clubs found guilty would be suspended from European Competitions. That clearly isn't the case, looking at City.

[Fernando 6,537]

  On 06/05/2014 at 13:43, LAM09 said:

I understand what you are saying mate, but UEFA said clubs found guilty would be suspended from European Competitions. That clearly isn't the case, looking at City.

And they also said that would be the last measured.

They said that it will be progressive punishment for those continuously breaking the rules.

[LAM09 6,879]

  On 06/05/2014 at 13:44, Fernando said:

And they also said that would be the last measured.

They said that it will be progressive punishment for those continuously breaking the rules.

I still find that pointless. If they want to make a statement about FFP, ban clubs. That is the only way clubs will stay in line. A fine isn't a big deal for major clubs.