potential bragging right cup winners cup/europa/champions L

[Wooders]

No british side has one all 3 apparently

We must stop "them" from doing it this season and aim for it ourselves

[PeterParker]

As a pround owner of a ticket for the final, seeing them here will make my stomach hurt. So i hope we will give them a hell of beating.

[Goaters 103]

Apparently we earned 2 more Uefa coeficient points last night taking us up to 61. If we have a run to the semis it helps us accumulate more points in our battle to be in pot 2 for next seasons CL draw. This year we were in pot 3 and ended up with a bugger of a draw, a pot 2 seeding would make the thing easier next year.

As a guide, The lowest ranked team in pot 2 this year had 68 pts. It will also help us that at least 1 of Arsenal or Chelsea will not qualify for next seasons CL.

I was only made aware of this last night so have a renewed interest in the Competition for us.

[usedtothespin]

Apparently we earned 2 more Uefa coeficient points last night taking us up to 61. If we have a run to the semis it helps us accumulate more points in our battle to be in pot 2 for next seasons CL draw. This year we were in pot 3 and ended up with a bugger of a draw, a pot 2 seeding would make the thing easier next year.

As a guide, The lowest ranked team in pot 2 this year had 68 pts. It will also help us that at least 1 of Arsenal or Chelsea will not qualify for next seasons CL.

I was only made aware of this last night so have a renewed interest in the Competition for us.

Important stuff, yes. But I think experience will do us more good than in which pot we are.

[BlueinBosnia]

This year we were in pot 3 and ended up with a bugger of a draw, a pot 2 seeding would make the thing easier next year.

Just like Villareal, who were in Pot 2, and had a breeze.

Although I agree with your sentiments, the system isn't that simple. UEFA Coefficient points are accumulated over 5 seasons, and therefore a team who are regular competitors at a lower level are often higher ranked than a 'newcomer' team. Napoli were lower-ranked than Maccabi Haifa (and almost 30 places lower than Bolton), simply due to their lack of European football in recent years.

Looking at Pots 2 and 3 for the draw at the start of the season, I didn't see much difference in quality between them. I think the main benefit is going into Pot 1, which, looking at the stats, we'll be unlikely to do for 4 or 5 seasons- you basically need to reach the last 16 of the Champs League or the final of the Europa League (or perform even better if your league has a low coefficient) consecutively for 5 years to get in there.

However, with the introduction of FFP, there'll be less 'upstarts' a la us, Napoli, Malaga, Levante et al to upset the status quo and predictability, and therefore Pot 2 will become increasingly beneficial over Pot 3 over time. Also, suspensions from European competition due to FFP could have a massive impact on a team for years; at the moment, a one year suspension from competitions for almost any team bar the top 4 would see them dropping down a pot for several years.

[john68]

Just on the point of the FFP, there have been rumblings that UeFA will have great difficulty enforcing the more extreme sanctions. I was reading a good article in the Lawyer magazine and there were some excellent arguments by some senior sports lawyers regarding the problems UeFA may have trying to ban a club like City.
I know it's a bit random and I should have flagged it up here at the time but if you search around a bit you may find it....and make more sense of it.

[BlueinBosnia]

Just on the point of the FFP, there have been rumblings that UeFA will have great difficulty enforcing the more extreme sanctions. I was reading a good article in the Lawyer magazine and there were some excellent arguments by some senior sports lawyers regarding the problems UeFA may have trying to ban a club like City.
I know it's a bit random and I should have flagged it up here at the time but if you search around a bit you may find it....and make more sense of it.

From what I understand, it would all boil down to who UEFA has obligations to as its members; the national FAs, or the clubs they represent. If they decide it isn't the clubs, then they would have no right to sanction the FAs of any clubs which decided to form a rival competition, while at the same time retaining their membership within their national league systems. Obviously, this is an avenue UEFA don't want to even approach...

[john68]

Not only that, It was considered that UeFA weren't up for major legal battle against a cash rich club. They also have to have an eye on sponsors, marketing and financial partners...and keeping them happy.
Banning a club with a major sponsor may not be a good move for them.
Will try and find that article and let you know Mate.

[ashton287]

As a pround owner of a ticket for the final, seeing them here will make my stomach hurt. So i hope we will give them a hell of beating.

If they get to the final sell it to one of the cockney cunts for a grand.

[Blue Since 76]

If they get to the final sell it to one of the cockney cunts for a grand.

Or split in into hundreds of bits and sell it to them piece by piece before they realise it's worthless.

[john68]

BiB...As promised...FOUND IT...but being an old fucler, I don't know how to link it....(bloody new fangled technology and stuff)

It makes interesteed reading and maybe even worthy of a thread of it own if you could link it up on here Andrew...(or anybody).

I found it by googling LAWYER MAGAZINE...which brought up the site.
Then put FOOTBALL in the search box.
The article is flagged up on page 3 about halfway down.
Click on it and voila....it appears....as if by magic....(stands back and is amazed).

Defoworth aread as it is a report of a meeting held in Mnchester in November, attended by almost 90 external advisors plus the in house council of some of the UK' largest football clubs.

[BlueinBosnia]

I found it by googling LAWYER MAGAZINE...which brought up the site.

Which site? Due to my work, my google searches prioritise heritage law relevant stuff, so I'll have a different set of results to you...

[john68]

www.thelawyer.com

Type FOOTBALL in the site search box.
Halfway down page 3 of a list of their previous articles is a blurb entitled "THE UEFA FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY REGULATIONS - IS THE PLAYING FIELD BEING LEVELLED.
Click on that and the full article appears.

Sorry if that seems long winded...it's the best I can do.

[BlueinBosnia]

Don't forget to mention me in your will ;)

From http://www.thelawyer.com/the-uefa-finan ... 60.article

At a meeting of the Kings Sport Network in Manchester on 17 November, an assembly of almost 90 external advisors alongside in house counsel from some of the UK’s largest Football Clubs indicated that despite worthy intentions, UEFA’s new ‘break even’ rules may not succeed.

We asked members of the Network whether they believed a more level financial playing field for clubs would be achieved in European competition by 2018 – the date set by European football’s governing body for the full roll-out of its new Financial Fair Play Regulations. While 75% believed that break-even was possible, only 25% considered it to be probable. Therein lies the concern.

Football clubs hoping to compete in lucrative European competition will have to navigate skilfully through the complexities of the Financial Fair Play Regulations which come into force from the beginning of the 2013-14 season.

With the principal aim of ensuring that clubs do not spend more than they earn, the FFPR have been introduced with a range of sanctions for a failure to meet the announced criteria ranging from financial penalty to license refusal or withdrawal. However, there is as yet a lack of clarity from UEFA on how strictly these sanctions will be imposed and this means clubs need to examine the rules carefully.

There is widespread support for UEFA President Michel Platini’s attempts at taking steps to level the playing field. For the first time the governing body has sought to grasp the nettle of expenditure running massively out of control. Very high spending clubs are generally believed to be distorting competition and inflating transfer fees to the detriment of competitors who operate without the support of billionaire benefactors.

But the extent to which UEFA will achieve its announced aims remains to be seen and the question everyone would like to know the answer to is whether it would be prepared to refuse to renew or otherwise withdraw the licence of a large club for failure to comply with its obligations under the Regulations?

Until now, UEFA has spoken of sanctions amounting to financial penalties or transfer fee adjustments and seems to be avoiding talk of exclusion or withdrawal. I doubt whether a large club would succumb to serious sanction without investigating and prosecuting every available line of challenge via commercial and competition law.

Since 2004, clubs have required a licence granted by UEFA to compete in the Champions and Europa Leagues (or the latter’s predecessor, the UEFA Cup). In 2009 UEFA ratified an additional component to the system which means not only that clubs will have to comply with the FFPR but will be monitored on an ongoing basis as to their continued compliance. The rules will come into force gradually from the 2013-14 season with a number of support mechanisms and buffers designed to assist during the introductory years. By 2018 when national European teams should be visiting Russia for the FIFA World Cup, the FFPR state that every licensed club should achieve a ’break-even’ financial position.

For clubs hoping to compete in major European competition, a careful consideration of the regulations should begin now. The UEFA Club Financial Control Panel will be monitoring accounts for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 to make its initial assessment of each club’s finances.

Understandably, but importantly, a number of exceptions have been written into the FFPR which could also provide clubs with breathing space, including the introduction of the notion of ‘acceptable deviation’ from the breakeven point. This is a buffer zone, set at €45m for the 2013-15 period, reducing to €30m in the following three years to 2018. Oddly, the regulations later stipulate that after that point the UEFA Executive Committee can fix further acceptable deviation.

So is UEFA really likely to flex its muscles in terms of license revocation or refusal, bearing in mind that the minimum value to a club of a Champions League place is in excess of €30m?

Arguably, these regulations have been designed to achieve a position of encouragement rather than propulsion towards an even playing field. Though financial/transfer adjustment penalties are not to be lightly dismissed as meaningful sanctions, they fall well short of the drama and significance of licence refusal. Nevertheless since 2005, UEFA has refused licences to 27 clubs who sportingly won the right to play in European competition. Perhaps it is the smaller, less famous clubs with a more modest reach and ambition who should take these regulations most seriously for it seems to be they who have, in the recent past, fallen foul of the Regulations. Food for thought before embarking on spending sprees or other adventures without a close eye being kept on the balance sheet.

Dr Nick Braslavsky QC is head of chambers at Kings Chambers based in Manchester and Leeds.

[john68]

As requested.

This is the last will and testicle of John68.
To Andrew (BlueinBosnia), I leave my gas, electric, council tax bills (all unpaid), several pairs of undercruds (used), a box of unwashed socks (used), my collection of personal souvenirs and memoirs; including used condoms (with name tags) and an A-Z of Manchester (showing the route, clearly marked, between the Mitchells Arms and the Townley)....oh....and some unlaundered bed sheets with a variety of colourful but unidentified stains.

Please don't tell Gillie as these had breviously all been promised to him.


............and.........erm...........thanks for linking that article......:-)

[bigblue]

I may be misinterpreting the FFP rules, but wouldn't restricting clubs to only spending what they receive in revenue just solidify the existing power base?

Say a club has been financially responsible over the past few years and saved a good amount of cash in reserve. They feel that buying a few players of good quality would allow them to qualify for Europe. So for one year they spend more than they make and dip into their cash reserves (or borrow the money/sell shares/find an investor), with the expectation that their investment will be returned in the next few years from increased success. Is this club not allow to do so? And in effect does this severely cap the growth rate for a given club based on their current size?

To me it sounds fucked and a way to stop new clubs from disrupting the small group of annual league winners. But what do I know, I'm just a pipe-smoking keyboard commentator

[john68]

And, you Sir, as has been discussed on here many times, have found the whole reason behind them being implimented.
The G14 created a huge financial gap between themselves and the rest, now they are shutting the door behind them...or at least they want to.

[BlueinBosnia]

I may be misinterpreting the FFP rules, but wouldn't restricting clubs to only spending what they receive in revenue just solidify the existing power base?

Say a club has been financially responsible over the past few years and saved a good amount of cash in reserve. They feel that buying a few players of good quality would allow them to qualify for Europe. So for one year they spend more than they make and dip into their cash reserves (or borrow the money/sell shares/find an investor), with the expectation that their investment will be returned in the next few years from increased success. Is this club not allow to do so? And in effect does this severely cap the growth rate for a given club based on their current size?

To me it sounds fucked and a way to stop new clubs from disrupting the small group of annual league winners. But what do I know, I'm just a pipe-smoking keyboard commentator

[bigblue]

And, you Sir, as has been discussed on here many times, have found the whole reason behind them being implimented.
The G14 created a huge financial gap between themselves and the rest, now they are shutting the door behind them...or at least they want to.

Ah I see I'm quite behind in my understanding. So much so that I'm being compared to pokemon

[john68]

TBF Mate, Most fans simply support their team by going to games, watching them on the box and buying a bit of merchandise to show their colours. Most never bother about the politics of any of it. As long as the next game is still on...who cares.

It is really only a few that spend their free time dicussing and debating the wider issues of football.