Under Their Skin.

[gillie]

Straws and Clutching come to mind.
alison kervin ‏@alikervin 18m
Rival teams could 'gang up' on Man City and challenge their right to play Champs League next season. @sportingintel
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport/foo ... -Play.html …

[Blackadder]

For those of us philosophically and morally opposed to clicking on a Fail On Sunday link, here it is...

Rivals ganging up to ban City: Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal may test Champions League ruling on Financial Fair Play
Small print in UEFA FFP rule could affect Manchester City's eligibility for the Champions League

Jose Mourinho accuses unnamed clubs of 'dodgy FFP'

'Major clubs' away of potential rights to appeal against those considered to have cheated their way to passing FFP test

By NICK HARRIS
PUBLISHED: 22:30, 1 February 2014 | UPDATED: 23:54, 1 February 2014

Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool could use UEFA small print to challenge Manchester City’s right to play in the Champions League next season.
The rules now effectively set up a scenario where rivals can claim City have cheated their way to passing UEFA’s ‘Financial Fair Play’ (FFP) test.
It is understood lawyers for a host of ‘major clubs’ are aware of these potential rights to make appeals — thanks to recently amended Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations — and are monitoring the situation closely.

On Saturday night Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho, who faces City on Monday in the game of the season so far, accused some unnamed clubs of ‘dodgy FFP’.
He said: ‘There are clubs that are following exactly the project of Financial Fair Play and there are other clubs doing it in a dodgy way. For me, that is very clear. I don’t say the clubs — that is not my job.’
When asked specifically about City, and a potential UEFA investigation, he added: ‘It’s for Mr Platini and other people to analyse it, it’s not for me… I’m waiting for that.’

FFP rules compel clubs to limit losses for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons combined to £37million, with a ban from European competitions the severest theoretical punishment. City last week announced losses for 2012-13 of £51.6m, meaning they have lost £149.5m over two years.
They can perhaps ‘exempt’ as much as £110m of those losses to meet FFP requirements. But they face accusations their losses are artificially low after earning cash from ‘intellectual property’ sales to related companies. UEFA sources have confirmed this will be investigated to see if it is ‘real’ income.
Amended small print in the 2014 UEFA FFP rulebook, just published, includes two key changes; one allowing clubs to ‘plea bargain’ punishments for overspending, and another that allows other clubs to challenge those plea bargains if they feel the outcomes negatively affect them.

[Douglas Higginbottom]

Nothing at all to do with the probability that the scum won't qualify for the Chumps league next season?

[Blackadder]

Nothing at all to do with the probability that the scum won't qualify for the Chumps league next season?

You sir, are nowt but an old cynic. But I like you.

[Lee_R]

Ah lets just go and win the fucking thing. Pellers can make a mockery of it!

[globalbollox]

For those of us philosophically and morally opposed to clicking on a Fail On Sunday link, here it is...

Rivals ganging up to ban City: Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal may test Champions League ruling on Financial Fair Play
Small print in UEFA FFP rule could affect Manchester City's eligibility for the Champions League

Jose Mourinho accuses unnamed clubs of 'dodgy FFP'

'Major clubs' away of potential rights to appeal against those considered to have cheated their way to passing FFP test

By NICK HARRIS
PUBLISHED: 22:30, 1 February 2014 | UPDATED: 23:54, 1 February 2014

Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool could use UEFA small print to challenge Manchester City’s right to play in the Champions League next season.
The rules now effectively set up a scenario where rivals can claim City have cheated their way to passing UEFA’s ‘Financial Fair Play’ (FFP) test.
It is understood lawyers for a host of ‘major clubs’ are aware of these potential rights to make appeals — thanks to recently amended Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations — and are monitoring the situation closely.

On Saturday night Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho, who faces City on Monday in the game of the season so far, accused some unnamed clubs of ‘dodgy FFP’.
He said: ‘There are clubs that are following exactly the project of Financial Fair Play and there are other clubs doing it in a dodgy way. For me, that is very clear. I don’t say the clubs — that is not my job.’
When asked specifically about City, and a potential UEFA investigation, he added: ‘It’s for Mr Platini and other people to analyse it, it’s not for me… I’m waiting for that.’

FFP rules compel clubs to limit losses for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons combined to £37million, with a ban from European competitions the severest theoretical punishment. City last week announced losses for 2012-13 of £51.6m, meaning they have lost £149.5m over two years.
They can perhaps ‘exempt’ as much as £110m of those losses to meet FFP requirements. But they face accusations their losses are artificially low after earning cash from ‘intellectual property’ sales to related companies. UEFA sources have confirmed this will be investigated to see if it is ‘real’ income.
[highlight]Amended small print in the 2014 UEFA FFP rulebook, just published, includes two key changes; one allowing clubs to ‘plea bargain’ punishments for overspending, and another that allows other clubs to challenge those plea bargains if they feel the outcomes negatively affect them.

[/highlight]

Would be nice to know who proposed these amendments.

Jose's just a mouthpiece for the oligarch who's obviously worried about finishing 5th

[gillie]

Well it now seems that FFP was brought in to stop City but how will PSG get away unscathed.Answer FFP will get buried by lawyers and we will be winning trophies for years to come.In summission Platini has fucked up big time listening to the old top 4 in England and the other G14 members.One result the Shiekh wins and the frog loses.

[Dameerto]

London journalists and their own attempt at 'mind games' - it's almost as if we have an important match coming up.

[Dameerto]

Also, take a look at the legal representation we have on the board now - and bear in mind that a while ago we hired two of the guys who put FFP together in the first place - I think we have all bases covered (to borrow a phrase)

[mcfc1632]

Whilst I get increasingly optimistic about our ability to pass FFPR - I still think that fans are largely too over-confident and underestimate the level to which 'FFPR' has been mobilised specifically to stymie CITY and a couple of other clubs.

Just look to the role of David Gill now at UEFA - he simply walks unchallenged into the job of being responsible for implementing FFPR and the issue of licenses to clubs to play in UEFA competitions.

The article below is lifted from a nakedly pro-scum source but I think demonstrates the level of mobilisation and continued risk:

"So David Gill has the power to implement the Financial Fair Play rules on behalf of UEFA. Is this a conflict of interest for an existing Manchester United board member?

David Gill has been appointed chair of UEFA's licensing committee. Gill's role is to monitor the implementation of UEFA's new Financial Fair Play rules. This, if it already hasn't, will trigger a European wide debate on how a current Manchester United board member can have such power, power that is a clear conflict of interest - especially if Gill performs the role as the game needs it to be.

Manchester United were, and still are, one of the clubs to advocate a limit on spending. United were supported by the majority of Premier League and continental clubs. One of the challenges for Gill in this role is that there is access to the accounts of domestic and European rivals.

Clubs like Chelsea and Manchester City will be concerned about Gill’s new position, however the fact remains that whoever is in this role will have to hit clubs hard that do not comply with the FFP rules if these rules are to work. Equally to suggest that there is any doubt over the fact that teams such as Chelsea, Manchester City, Paris St. Germain, Monaco and even Bayern Munich are not breaking these rules would be absurd. Barcelona and Real Madird are also on thin ice.

The FFP rules are designed to ensure that clubs grow organically, not via shortcuts financed by the absurdly rich that appear to have little knowledge of how to run a football club; case in point Roman Abromovich who has just appointed his tenth manager since 2004.

The reality is that the accusations of a conflict of interest will increase exponentially as Gill's effectiveness in his new role increases. In truth whether an active Board member or not, Gill's heart will remain with United, and even if Gill resigns from the Board he would still have contact. The fact is Manchester United are an extremely well run club that balances a large leveraged debt and success on the field with a commercial department that keeps the club within FFP rules.

This makes Gill the perfect candidate."

[mcfc1632]

Just been doing some more reading re the recent changes to FFPR that allow for a club 'directly affected' to challenge the punishment of a club deemed to have not complied - i.e. possibly preventing UEFA offering CITY some leniency.

Makes me think that we have a real need for the scum not to make 5th and for Arse to definitely be in Top 3. I do not know the Spurs and red and blue Scouse financial positions off the top of my head but it feel that the money they have spent in recent years might mean that they would not comply either (sale of Bale might of course change that - but I think that the money was reinvested - although amortization rules mean they could still be OK).

So I think that we need the scum outside the top 5 to prevent us being vulnerable to a challenge from them - the tribunal being overseen by agent Gill.

Makes me suspicious that these changes have just come in??

[Tesl]

This is all scaremongering, I don't see anything happening because of this.

That Gill is in charge demonstrates perfectly how corrupt the entire organisation is and shows what their true intentions are, but so far it looks like nobody is taking FFP seriously. We aren't the only club that keeps spending.

If United were to miss out this season and then try and get back via this route in I'd find that HILARIOUS. I don't think they will do though.

Even if they did, this City train can not be stopped, regardless of what financial rules they are putting in place now. We are already 6th for revenue and it continues to increase dramatically, this horse has already bolted.

[mcfc1632]

Certainly do not mean to be scaremongering - more looking to realistically assess the risk that we will face from the corruption/self-interest that you mention.

The scum executives (I am simply guessing, because they do not speak to me) need to get past this current blip and buy the time to bring in some quality players in the summer - players that may not be attracted by no CL. They also need to preserve CL to repair their share-holder value.

So I calculate a 2 (Gill getting this FFPR implementation role in the summer) and another 2 (Gill now bringing forward these new rules that would allow a directly affected team to seek expulsion) = the sort of 4 that would reflect your views on corruption and self-interest - just hope that I am concerned about nothing - but I am still concerned.

This is major business now - not just football - successful US business men are more renowned for preparation and being ruthless than a laissez-faire approach.

I have been one of those expressing concerns about the FFPR implications sine they started to be considered - events have only made my concerns more valid (IMO).

For every bit of comfort that we can take from the actions of a PSG or Monoco, there are many more examples of clubs acting to ensure compliance - including CITY & Chelsea in England and many others across Europe.

FWIW, my take on PSG and Monoco is that they missed the boat that we took so are spending like we did and putting in place revenue through sponsorships knowing that they are likely to take a FFPR hit for a year or 2 - by which time the losses will have gone from their balance sheets and they will be OK.

That thought also offers some comfort for CITY because if the twats do use the new rules to get us evicted then we will have a top squad under contract and within a year we will be FFPR compliant - so the impact would probably only be for 1 year.

[Tesl]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that YOU were scaremongering, I meant more from others putting this kind of news into the media.

They will probably get what they want to ensure another City can never appear and push Utd and others out the CL places, but its too late to stop our City. We are in, we are at the top, and they have to lump it.

[Slim]

Can we get a tag on these threads, something along the lines of "Pussies moaning and shitting themselves about FFP" so the rest of us can avoid clicking on it.

People who are smarter than you and I are working for City, they are making sure FFP doesn't touch us. We trust in them or don't, but either way this panicky tantrum bullshit is doing nothing other than alarming other posters.

[Ironpot]

The conversation between EUFA and the TV companies:-

TV companies " ...and you wish to ban City, PSG, Monaco etc because...?"

EUFA "...cos they spent too much money!"

TV companies " But they spent this money on becoming successful ... and EXCITING to watch ...!"

EUFA "Precisely ... it's not fair for the clubs that normally play in the Champions League"

TV Companies " But people want to watch exciting football ... that's how we generate the $1.3Bn we hand over to you - no excitement = no revenue! You guys become redundant!"

EUFA " I'm sure we can change the rules"

[Beefymcfc]

We've already got a partnership with BT Sport and BT Sport are taking over the rights to screen the CL.

Would that make any difference?

Personally, I've always said that FFP will be a dead duck if anybody starts to challenge it. the fact that a current club director has an input into who, or who shouldn't be sanctioned makes the whole escapade a farce and as the likes of PSG, who have been given 200 million a year directly by their owner to comply, says a lot about how these rules are applied.

Have PSG been sanctioned yet?

[South Stand Balti]

Chelsea have spent more than us over the last three seasons including this season. Their net spend is higher too. I have checked this out on the transferleague website. Sounds like all of this spouting from Maureen is just noise as usual.

[Ted Hughes]

'The FFP rules are designed to ensure that clubs grow organically, not via shortcuts financed by the absurdly rich'

And there we have it.

The reason for FFP was supposed to be in order to 'protect' clubs.

Which it is of course; it's designed to protect clubs like Manchester Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, AC Milan etc etc.

[bobadji]

Utd would have to finish 5th anyway for them to get in if we got kicked out surely? So it doesn't really matter