City to be made an example of

[Alfie]

Am i'm the only one worried about the financial fair play "investigation"?

I feel like it's no chance of a fair trial. Like UEFA must, to regain it's credability - among journalist and such - deem City as a offender of this new rule.

[Slim]

Platini doesn't know how hard to lay down the law either and claimed that banning from European competitions would only happen after flagrant and repeated ignoring of the rules.

No-one will be banned from this for years and as it's City who spearheaded the delegation supporting FFP, not sure we have much to worry about.

[Wooders]

I would say there will be the odd daft thing, a fine here or there but they won't enforce it simply because of the danger of appeals holding the competition up

look at the problems they are having with this years uefa and that really is because of a huge rule break (team with transfer ban, transferred players and then played them citing they had done nothing wrong, uefa pulled them and re-instated celtic, but now the team is going to appeal, in which time they argue the competition cannot be played, which in theory in can't)

[ruralblue]

I think we have nothing to fear at all. Am more than sure the Sheik and his team have every legal corner covered and everything will be transparent. They don't make the kind of money they do then slip up with something like this.

[avoidconfusion]

Not worried one bit after reading that article on SwissRamble on the Etihad deal.

[Wonderwall]

we broke new ground with the stadium naming rights as the money was split into so many different area they need an army of people to wade through the bits and pieces and all to come to a conclusion that we are fine. Also well done to the rags for opening the door for more FFP loopholes with "A training kit sponsor" coming when we next need funds.

[Blue Since 76]

they will 'make an example' of a team you've never heard of from a country you didn't know existed. One who's overspent by about £3. City would drag them through so many courts, they'd have to cancel the competition for about 3 seasons and they know it. Plus we'd drag all the other top clubs into it, questioning their 'income'. Plus, whether Pratini likes it or not, English clubs are a big club, unlike the ones from Uzbekistan

[Hazy2]

Platini has no real power, that will remain with the clubs. Or he is left with 20 clubs lead by Barca and Madrid saying adios.

[Lev Bronstein]

I would have thought that the FFP rules break European Competition Law. Can anyone tell me if UEFA have wrangled some sort of exception from the European Commission or whoever?

[Ted Hughes]

I would have thought that the FFP rules break European Competition Law. Can anyone tell me if UEFA have wrangled some sort of exception from the European Commission or whoever?

Unofficially they think they have but I doubt it's written in stone. Be interesting to see what would happen if a few phone calls are made to foreign ministers of certain countries where certain middle eastern countries have billions of Euros (or pounds for that matter) invested, asking them whether they are 'for' or 'against' them being allowed to invest money & whether they should think twice about doing so inthe future.

[Lev Bronstein]

I would have thought that the FFP rules break European Competition Law. Can anyone tell me if UEFA have wrangled some sort of exception from the European Commission or whoever?

Unofficially they think they have but I doubt it's written in stone. Be interesting to see what would happen if a few phone calls are made to foreign ministers of certain countries where certain middle eastern countries have billions of Euros (or pounds for that matter) invested, asking them whether they are 'for' or 'against' them being allowed to invest money & whether they should think twice about doing so inthe future.

I didn't think there was anything official. My thought is that if ADUG had bought a car factory intead of a football club there would've been none of this sort of thing.

[Ted Hughes]

I would have thought that the FFP rules break European Competition Law. Can anyone tell me if UEFA have wrangled some sort of exception from the European Commission or whoever?

Unofficially they think they have but I doubt it's written in stone. Be interesting to see what would happen if a few phone calls are made to foreign ministers of certain countries where certain middle eastern countries have billions of Euros (or pounds for that matter) invested, asking them whether they are 'for' or 'against' them being allowed to invest money & whether they should think twice about doing so inthe future.

I didn't think there was anything official. My thought is that if ADUG had bought a car factory intead of a football club there would've been none of this sort of thing.

As far as I know there's nothing official but I don't follow the inner workings of the EU (thank God). I think it will get very very messy if Platini tries to treat us as a special case & imo it will result in someone else being in charge.

[Blue Since 76]

I would have thought that the FFP rules break European Competition Law. Can anyone tell me if UEFA have wrangled some sort of exception from the European Commission or whoever?

Unofficially they think they have but I doubt it's written in stone. Be interesting to see what would happen if a few phone calls are made to foreign ministers of certain countries where certain middle eastern countries have billions of Euros (or pounds for that matter) invested, asking them whether they are 'for' or 'against' them being allowed to invest money & whether they should think twice about doing so inthe future.

If his investments in City become worthless, the only option may be to put $10 on a barrel of oil till he gets his money back. Or maybe dump all those Barclay's share at a knock down price. You've also got Qatar investing in PSG, who must also be under scrutiny.

As an aside, one of the Michael Moore films about Sept 11th mentioned that the Saudi Arabian govt owned about 11% of the shares in the USA. Any reason they have not been given any grief about handling of demonstrators? Platini could be way out of his depth if he carried out his initial threats.

[Dameerto]

If you look at Premier League transfer spending per summer window for the top clubs there was a big lull recently after the FFP rules were launched, where they paused to fully digest the implications. It's no coincidence that all the likely candidates have chosen to spend again during this window. We have nothing to worry about at all, not with our spending and not with our sponsorship.

[13021J]

I don't buy all this "we'll scare them because we have all this oil", it's about getting into the elite section of European clubs, once we are there we are untouchable like Madrid, Barca and the Serie A clubs. UEFA wouldn't dare take any action with regards to their finances because they would form a breakaway before you could blink.

A good season in the CL will really set us into the elite and then we would hold a better hand than Mr Platini.

[blues2win]

There's no exemption from EU law official or unofficial; there can't be. If push comes to shove it's a matter for the European Court of Justice. If Platini dares to take on the club in a significant way we'll take him to the Court and win. The whole FFP scheme is a blatant restraint of trade. It got through because the existing elite want protection from uppity new entrants, because we thought we'd get in under the wire and because most of those outside the tent don't aspire to get in because it would cost far more than they can afford, given their resource base.

If you really wanted genuine Financial Fair Play ( as opposed to the present unfair farce) you'd have to force the big clubs to share out the Champions League money. Then of course the much talked about super club breakaway would happen and UEFA would be shown up as a busted flush.

[mcfc1632]

I would have thought that the FFP rules break European Competition Law. Can anyone tell me if UEFA have wrangled some sort of exception from the European Commission or whoever?

Groan - not this again after all that has been written....

No offence meant to you but I thought that it was clear to all by now that european regulations are not pertinent in this area - there will be no ''European court case'

[Ted Hughes]

I would have thought that the FFP rules break European Competition Law. Can anyone tell me if UEFA have wrangled some sort of exception from the European Commission or whoever?

Groan - not this again after all that has been written....

No offence meant to you but I thought that it was clear to all by now that european regulations are not pertinent in this area - there will be no ''European court case'

I don't understand how anyone can say this until they see exactly what case City's lawyers would bring up. If you're suggesting there are no European laws concerned with business restrictions whatsoever then I'd suggest you're wrong & if you're right, then City would take the case to the relevent court in the country where UEFA are based. A landlady has just had the PL/Sky for breakfast over restrictions on showing broadcasts from foreign sports channels in her pub for instance. Everyone thought that was exempt from such rulings.

[mcfc1632]

I would have thought that the FFP rules break European Competition Law. Can anyone tell me if UEFA have wrangled some sort of exception from the European Commission or whoever?

Groan - not this again after all that has been written....

No offence meant to you but I thought that it was clear to all by now that european regulations are not pertinent in this area - there will be no ''European court case'

I don't understand how anyone can say this until they see exactly what case City's lawyers would bring up. If you're suggesting there are no European laws concerned with business restrictions whatsoever then I'd suggest you're wrong & if you're right, then City would take the case to the relevent court in the country where UEFA are based. A landlady has just had the PL/Sky for breakfast over restrictions on showing broadcasts from foreign sports channels in her pub for instance. Everyone thought that was exempt from such rulings.

Ted – I do not want to get into a big debate on this but I will try to explain what I was hoping was generally understood.

There have been so many debates and threads on this and CITY fans (in the main) just seem determined to take great (and largely unwarranted) comfort in the fact that .....it is the Sheik... he will have top legal reps.... etc. I understand this – but it is a comfort blanket that is not largely fact based.

I see the reality as being that the CITY management team know that they have to comply with the regulations rather than assume that they can disregard them – in fact is this not obvious from all that has been done recently with our Ethiad deal etc – designed to inject / grow our revenue streams but structured in a way that clearly compares favourly with established benchmarks.

This is why I am personally gutted with the loss of Cook at this time. It is probable (IMO) that we need a few years of revenue increasing at a rate of 25-40% year on year for us to be ‘clear and gone’ – and this was the importance of Cook’s role – and why PR gaffes like the Uwe issue are not as important as some make out. He will have many initiatives on the go that will need to be picked up by new players.

But back to my view - I have done much commercial / procurement type work under European regs. Contracts with values that run into the £billions sometimes so I have a pretty good appreciation of the regs. But my comments are not just based on my experience - I have worked closely with legal professionals specialising in European law and when I have asked them (over a beer) about this subject they concur with my view....

This is a competition operating under regulations / rules etc:

1/ that have been set out in by the governing body in good time and following due consultation.
2/ in which the participants having willingly signed up to confirm their agreement to operate under the competition rules etc.
3/ and therefore for which there is simply nothing that would interest the European courts.

The position would be entirely different of course if these regulations were impacting our ability to take certain sponsorships etc - they are not – there is not some limitation here that will be placed upon our revenue. Great care has been taken by Uefa to design and introduce these rules to meet the risk of any challenge. They have had to after all satisfy the demands of the old elite that wish to stop more ‘sugar daddy’ scenarios that could take their place. From a personal view only I feel that CITY has been the test case against which the rules have been designed and tested.

When you consider all this ‘...the Sheik has the best professionals etc....’ stuff – well you should consider also that UeFA has access to top people as well and have been doing their preparation for years – they have been careful to avoid a clumsy implementation that could see any European law implications.

Whilst I hate the driving force of the FFP (which I see to be the self-serving interests of the old guard clubs) – people should take note of the preparation of UeFA – as only 1 example (FFS) it is none other than the ex Prime Minister of Belgium – Jean-Luc Dehaene who will head up Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel – do you think that he does not have access to experts in European law?? Do you not think that there has been much preparation of scenarios that have tested case law extensively??

Putting aside all the ‘opinions’ – the important thing is that the club have clearly decided to conform and not contest. All we are seeing for example with the Ethiad deal is bringing this into effect and the great news is that it will end up working in our favour

IF

We get our revenue on track and maintain it.....

AND

Get our on-field performance on track and maintain it....

I think that we will be the ‘last club through the door’ – I would be gutted if I was a fan of a PL club that might just be about to receive some similar sponsorship – and I would be concerned if I was a fan of Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea.

If we do get through the door we will stay there and our academy will be the best in the world meaning that we will have a continuous supply of top talent and not have to spend the big bucks – others will not have that capability – but there are only 4 places and with the scum and ourselves taking 2 – someone has to lose out.

We just need to get through the door through revenue growth over the next few years – then we use the rules to cement our position.

[Rag_hater]

I would have thought that the FFP rules break European Competition Law. Can anyone tell me if UEFA have wrangled some sort of exception from the European Commission or whoever?

Groan - not this again after all that has been written....

No offence meant to you but I thought that it was clear to all by now that european regulations are not pertinent in this area - there will be no ''European court case'

I don't understand how anyone can say this until they see exactly what case City's lawyers would bring up. If you're suggesting there are no European laws concerned with business restrictions whatsoever then I'd suggest you're wrong & if you're right, then City would take the case to the relevent court in the country where UEFA are based. A landlady has just had the PL/Sky for breakfast over restrictions on showing broadcasts from foreign sports channels in her pub for instance. Everyone thought that was exempt from such rulings.

Ted – I do not want to get into a big debate on this but I will try to explain what I was hoping was generally understood.

There have been so many debates and threads on this and CITY fans (in the main) just seem determined to take great (and largely unwarranted) comfort in the fact that .....it is the Sheik... he will have top legal reps.... etc. I understand this – but it is a comfort blanket that is not largely fact based.

I see the reality as being that the CITY management team know that they have to comply with the regulations rather than assume that they can disregard them – in fact is this not obvious from all that has been done recently with our Ethiad deal etc – designed to inject / grow our revenue streams but structured in a way that clearly compares favourly with established benchmarks.

This is why I am personally gutted with the loss of Cook at this time. It is probable (IMO) that we need a few years of revenue increasing at a rate of 25-40% year on year for us to be ‘clear and gone’ – and this was the importance of Cook’s role – and why PR gaffes like the Uwe issue are not as important as some make out. He will have many initiatives on the go that will need to be picked up by new players.

But back to my view - I have done much commercial / procurement type work under European regs. Contracts with values that run into the £billions sometimes so I have a pretty good appreciation of the regs. But my comments are not just based on my experience - I have worked closely with legal professionals specialising in European law and when I have asked them (over a beer) about this subject they concur with my view....

This is a competition operating under regulations / rules etc:

1/ that have been set out in by the governing body in good time and following due consultation.
2/ in which the participants having willingly signed up to confirm their agreement to operate under the competition rules etc.
3/ and therefore for which there is simply nothing that would interest the European courts.

The position would be entirely different of course if these regulations were impacting our ability to take certain sponsorships etc - they are not – there is not some limitation here that will be placed upon our revenue. Great care has been taken by Uefa to design and introduce these rules to meet the risk of any challenge. They have had to after all satisfy the demands of the old elite that wish to stop more ‘sugar daddy’ scenarios that could take their place. From a personal view only I feel that CITY has been the test case against which the rules have been designed and tested.

When you consider all this ‘...the Sheik has the best professionals etc....’ stuff – well you should consider also that UeFA has access to top people as well and have been doing their preparation for years – they have been careful to avoid a clumsy implementation that could see any European law implications.

Whilst I hate the driving force of the FFP (which I see to be the self-serving interests of the old guard clubs) – people should take note of the preparation of UeFA – as only 1 example (FFS) it is none other than the ex Prime Minister of Belgium – Jean-Luc Dehaene who will head up Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel – do you think that he does not have access to experts in European law?? Do you not think that there has been much preparation of scenarios that have tested case law extensively??

Putting aside all the ‘opinions’ – the important thing is that the club have clearly decided to conform and not contest. All we are seeing for example with the Ethiad deal is bringing this into effect and the great news is that it will end up working in our favour

IF

We get our revenue on track and maintain it.....

AND

Get our on-field performance on track and maintain it....

I think that we will be the ‘last club through the door’ – I would be gutted if I was a fan of a PL club that might just be about to receive some similar sponsorship – and I would be concerned if I was a fan of Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea.

If we do get through the door we will stay there and our academy will be the best in the world meaning that we will have a continuous supply of top talent and not have to spend the big bucks – others will not have that capability – but there are only 4 places and with the scum and ourselves taking 2 – someone has to lose out.

We just need to get through the door through revenue growth over the next few years – then we use the rules to cement our position.

If I wanted to waste my money and could talk a solicitor(money)into taking the case I could take you to court for not liking the way you pick your nose regardless of any rules I had said I would adhere to(I could take you to court over the way you have made me adhere to the rules).So this argument your putting forward that we have to play by Uefa rules because they stipulate the criteria that we must adhere to to play in their comp I think can be argued against in court.
I don't think the Sheikh would have gone ahead with the stadium naming rights(no matter who you are 400 mill is a lot)unless he was sure it was legal and had every chance of being allowed.