City to be made an example of

[blues2win]

UEFA made much of the fact that the Commission supported the new rules but in fact their 'support' was hedged round with caveats which completely devalued their 'support'. This is what the Commission said in a Communication:

'' The Commission welcome the adoption of measures aimed at enhancing financial fair play in European football whilst recognising that such measures have to respect Internal Market and Competition rules''.

The Commission do not have any power to set aside community law for one sector or another. At the end of the day if UEFA seriously threaten a major European club they'll get taken to court. It will be for the European Court of Justice to decide the matter.

For my part I cannot see how it is legal to regulate the level of investment of an owner in his/ her own business. UEFA argue that no one has to participate in UEFA competitions but inability to compete in such competitions is of such huge financial significance to clubs that exclusion from UEFA's european competition monopoly would be devastating. It is therefore disingenuous to make this argument.

City and other clubs acceptance of these rules is conditional on reasonable enforcement of them by UEFA. If UEFA try to 'make an example' of anyone they are asking for a legal challenge, especially from a club with such deep pockets as City. UEFA would risk their own future in the process.'

[mcfc1632]

RH - you said:

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.[/quote]

The last bit of your post is the point I am making - the Sheik has gone ahead with the sponsorship - sorry I mean Ethiad - and it has been done in a manner that structures the deal to show compliance - they are not operating in a manner that shows anything other than they recognise the need to comply

The earlier part (of course only IMO) - is simply wrong - apart from the fact that nobody (including the Sheik) would act to waste money and nobody would (or should) be daft enough to bring a court action that has no/little chance of success. If you did speak to a solictor it is likely that the 1st thing he would do is advise you not to progress a case that you had no prospect of winning and then the 2nd thing that he would do is charge you for his advice.

[mcfc1632]

UEFA made much of the fact that the Commission supported the new rules but in fact their 'support' was hedged round with caveats which completely devalued their 'support'. This is what the Commission said in a Communication:

'' The Commission welcome the adoption of measures aimed at enhancing financial fair play in European football whilst recognising that such measures have to respect Internal Market and Competition rules''.

Yep - that seems a sensible / non-commital thing to say - why would they say anything else? and the implementation of the FFP rules are being planned in a manner to ensure that they respect Internal Market and Competition rules - hence the careful setting out / approprriate consultation and getting all participants to sign up / accept - so there is no issue

The Commission do not have any power to set aside community law for one sector or another. At the end of the day if UEFA seriously threaten a major European club they'll get taken to court. It will be for the European Court of Justice to decide the matter.

That will not arise - there is no issue here - there is not any setting aside of 'community law' - so it is just more of this common mis-understanding about EU regulations and law - there has been much of this ever since the Bosman case - totally different issue that was a clear breach of EU law

For my part I cannot see how it is legal to regulate the level of investment of an owner in his/ her own business. UEFA argue that no one has to participate in UEFA competitions but inability to compete in such competitions is of such huge financial significance to clubs that exclusion from UEFA's european competition monopoly would be devastating. It is therefore disingenuous to make this argument.

This is at the heart of the common mis-understanding - there is not even remotely any suggestion that there will be any "....regulate the level of investment of an owner..." - the intention has no limitation on the investment of an owner to the company/business/club - it has no curtailing of the revenue from a sponsor to a company/business/club. The only impact is in the amount of the 100% of the declared revenue/sponsorhip which would go to the company/business/club that they would recognise in relation to their competition - wholly in accordance with rules set out / consulted upon and formally pre-agreed between the commission and said company/business/club. You may wish to 'feel' that it is 'unfair' or a 'disingenuous' argument - but it is also a more accurate reflection of EU law than that you suggest.

Key point is simple and so often missed : THESE RULES DO NOT STOP THE COMPANY/BUSINESS/CLUB FROM RECEIVING 100% OF ANY REVENUE - THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE THAT COULD BE CHALLENGED IN THE EU COURTS - they only estasblish the pre-determined and pre-agreed (and accordingly contractually binding) parameters and rules for the running of an event.

City and other clubs acceptance of these rules is conditional on reasonable enforcement of them by UEFA. If UEFA try to 'make an example' of anyone they are asking for a legal challenge, especially from a club with such deep pockets as City. UEFA would risk their own future in the process.'

Exactly - hence there has been careful planning of the implementation - consultation has been extensive and agreement from participating clubs has been secured. "....reasonable enforcement..." yes - this is being set out in detail and CITY will have signed-up to demonstrate their support of them in advance.

I am a CITY fan and the FFP feels personal to me but we have to play our cards right and establish sufficient friends in high UeFA influencing places - e.g. key clubs and commission members - this is not done by 'going to war'. I think that we will be the last club allowed into the elite - unless we blow it. A war now - with our standing being weak and with no (factual) legal position risks our future not UeFA's. I could see scenarios where the old guard gang up against us - - I cannot see one at this point where they are motivated to go against UeFA to support us.

This is in danger of geting into a saga - not really necessary as the CITY management view (IMO) is clearly demonstrating that they also recognise the need to comply rather than contest - but I have made a couple of comments under your points above.....

[Blue Since 76]

City is trying to comply, so we are making UEFA's life easier. If we'd stuck 2 fingers up, there would be a problem as they'd have to act and end up getting dragged into a long and expensive legal dispute. They may win, but it would affect the competition, could force all sorts of figures to be disclosed and, ultimately, only the lawyers would really win.

They may 'look' into the stadium deal, but they will conclude it was fair.

Some club you've never heard of will get thrown out of the Europa because they put their goulash up more than the market rate. UEFA has shown its teeth, everyone has saved face. We are now part of the european elite and the FFP rules protect us as well. Still think they're totally unfair, but at least we got in before they shut the door. For everton, spurs etc, that dream has gone, probably forever

[blues2win]

Look mate you're entitled to your view about this as everyone else is on this site but if UEFA tries to 'make an example of my club' ( the title of the thread in case you'd forgotten) over these bloody rules I expect them to fight back and I have no doubt they will. You and your drinking mates do not a have a total monopoly of legal wisdom on this subject.

I have total faith in the Club's management using every conceivable clever device to ensure that our ambition to become a major european force is not frustrated by Platini's attempt to stop us ( he's on record wishing he could prevent clubs being owned by foreigners). If Platini's got any sense he'll avoid confrontation. if he doesn't it will be war and I know which side I'm on.

I know you'll want the last word so be my guest.

[Lev Bronstein]

Sorry I asked

[Ted Hughes]

Sorry I asked

Haha.

mcfc1632, I understand where you are coming from BUT the fact that the club are making statements about complying with this is, IMO, part of the game, not proof that we can't fight it if neccessary. We have to SAY we're complying or we're taking the piss & asking for them, no, daring them to shit on us; we don't want that. We don't want challenge for no reason.

We're complying by signing, Silva, Toure, Kolarov, Milner, Balotelli, Dzeko, Clichy, Savic, Aguero & Nasri. Ten players who will all be included on the books. How the fuck can we cover that in one year ? We've got no chance. We are expecting that it won't be a problem because that's what we've been led to believe. How do you know that we can't fight their restrictions when UEFA themselves have openly admitted that they don't know for sure what those restrictions are exactly or what the penalties will be ? They've got guidelines, then they're going to wing it. Do you honestly believe we're going to swallow that, if they suddenly decide we're banned from Europe on some improvised rule they wing in ? No chance. The shit will hit the fan to some tune. It's all bullshit.

[Slim]

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?

The long and short of it is the Champions League/Europa League are "invitationals", there will be no court case because the football clubs have no rights to be a part of it, no matter their performances on the domestic front.

[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?

The long and short of it is the Champions League/Europa League are "invitationals", there will be no court case because the football clubs have no rights to be a part of it, no matter their performances on the domestic front.

Slim - wish I had just been as concise as that - mistake I made was trying to explain to fellow CITY fans the 'reaity' based on what appears to be the legal facts rather than hope based on bullishness. Oh well - everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just thought that people would like to have theirs developed through better information rather than hopeful guesswork.

The important thing is that the Ethiad deal (IMO) will result in 100% of the revenue going to the club and 100% of the revenue being recognised by UeFA under FFP as it has been well constructed to map onto existing benchmarks. Only IMO of course but this is evidence that CITY management, with all their access to legal expertise, seem to share the opinion over the need to conform. Of course - as Ted says - we could fight our corner if UeFA make a mistake on implementation that creates a challengable position - but this is not really likely (again IMO).

But Ted, as you have also said: "...............Silva, Toure, Kolarov, Milner, Balotelli, Dzeko, Clichy, Savic, Aguero & Nasri. Ten players who will all be included on the books. How the fuck can we cover that in one year ? We've got no chance. We are expecting that it won't be a problem because that's what we've been led to believe. How do you know that we can't fight their restrictions when UEFA themselves have openly admitted that they don't know for sure what those restrictions are exactly or what the penalties will be ? ..."

The answer here is simple and to our advantage - they are going to carefully / softly implement the policies to prevent vulnerability to challenge - that is why there are such 'principles' as ...so long as a club can show that they are on the road to conformance....".

That is why we are taking the big investment hit in the up front years and we will (by the end of the monitoring period) then be able to show we are 'on track' with ever reducing losses. This is why maintained qualification fl CL is so important - the shit would hit the fan if we had to go and splurge out again on so many players. The good news for CITY is that we are likely now to be able to maintain our CL position and its associated revenue stream with a 'top up' purchase every year rather than again need a 'new team'. And it is to be hoped our academy will by then start to deliver.

But should Everton, Villa etc get a benefactor such as the Sheik - well it is likely too late for them - this was always about protecting the old guard clubs, cementing UeFA's control and mitigating any renewed threat of a breakaway league.

BTW re 'invitationals' - people seem to understand the introduction of new rules and controls over invitations by governing bodies in other sports - golf and tennis majors for example - just seems a blinsdpot when it comes to our own sport - oh well.

[irblinx]

What the team of legal experts will have done is make sure that they understand exactly how to reach compliance, the soft implementation gives probably two seasons of grace where we have to be demonstrating that we moving towards break even with a realistic plan.

I think it is highly likely that the proposed Etihad campus developments will play a big part in that, part funded by the development fund, profits go to the club? The Scum's training kit deal helps us justify the Etihad deal and I'm sure that there is more to come on that front over the next 12 months as we cement ourselves in the big 2!

[mcfc1632]

Agreed - this is why I mentioned earlier that (IMO) we are likely to be the last through the door to become one of the established elite.

To achieve this you need a benefactor who is not in it for profit - most of the new 'businessmen' owners would not sanction the type of spending that the Sheik has done - there is only investment not profit.

I was glad to see the scum sponsorship on training kit - that is another benchmark against which we could set £20m a year - probably with an established Ethiad 'partner' (as they have spnsored our training / academy campus).

[john@staustell]

To be fair it's very rare that UEFA mention City, unless in reply to some scummy, muck-raking journalist. All the City hysteria is led by the press.

I think we are accelerating our progress so much that we will be well on the way to massive revenues within 3 years, taking the wind out of the sails of the 'new bitters'.

I'm not gutted about Cook leaving, because it must have been something of a coincidence that he fitted in with the Sheik's requirements at all, and they must have considered moving him on more than once. IE he wasn't their man, but he was in place and he could do a decent job. Now we will see who they really want to put in that job to fulfill the world domination project! Hopefully without the gaffes!

[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?

The long and short of it is the Champions League/Europa League are "invitationals", there will be no court case because the football clubs have no rights to be a part of it, no matter their performances on the domestic front.

Uefa have rules that they have to adhere to create these competitions.At the moment these rules state that the Prem can submit the top 4 teams in its league into the comp(I'm sure you know but it's part of the point I am trying to make).As long IMO we keep being in the top 4 they have to invite us.Its their rule.