Sport financial expert on SSN ref FFP

[john68]

Blue 2,
Thank you for posting that article Mate, there were some interesting points raised....BUT, and this is not a criticism of you Pal but of the article, of which you were simply the messenger.

...."Manchester City to challenge UeFA's financial fair play rules in the European Court of Justice. That is a definite statement of something that City "ARE GOING TO DO".
A couple of lines down, "....Luxembourg courtroom "COULD" be the most.....
A little further down "Some analysts "BELIEVE" City "MAY" head to the Court of Justice....
Next line...Kieran McGuire "BELIEVES" the club "WOULD" have a point.

The rest of it is merely supposition, conjecture and speculation based on the already public facts and the opinion of Mr McGuire. Mr McGuire may well be right but there is absolutely no evidence that City are going to the Courts of Justice in Luxembourg

[Florida Blue]

Who are you guys and what have you done to the board?

This is clearly the most intelligent and articulate thread I have EVER read in the 5 years I have been here (including non-escalating disagreement) -- and probably why I have nothing to add other than more optomism than in the past. Well done. Hmmm maybe being champs has made us level headed?

[ronk]

Who are you guys and what have you done to the board?

This is clearly the most intelligent and articulate thread I have EVER read in the 5 years I have been here (including non-escalating disagreement) -- and probably why I have nothing to add other than more optomism than in the past. Well done. Hmmm maybe being champs has made us level headed?

You just fucked up the thread, thanks.

[mcfc1632]

A theme I see on here and elsewhere is CITY fans posting what (from my POV) they would "wish to see the outcome to be" and "what they think is only fair" couched in a pervading view of "....well the Sheik will have the best people and there is no way that UeFA can win....."

These views seem to be expounded every time someone tries to explain the facts / experience of the relevant European regulations and what would appear to be the ‘driving motives’ of the FFPR – to protect the old guard clubs and in particular stop situations like CITY (and elsewhere) that would allow big investors to muscle their way to the top table.

Our PL win will only sharpen that focus as it brings stark evidence that this CITY approach can be successful – the old guard clubs will start to marshal and group - they will feel the need to take assertive action - lets face it they are threatened.

The day after our victory saw baconface and Gill make reference to how the FFPR needs to be looked at – KHR and Hoeness at Bayern have been very vocal. Real Madrid also have been quite blunt.

You can bet that these people will be right into the ear of Twatini and now he speaks:

"UEFA president Michel Platini has told clubs to be careful about what they spend under new rules and is concerned about what could happen to Manchester City if their owners leave the club.
Financial Fair Play rules are being introduced to make sure European football is played on a more level playing field and by 2013/14 clubs will be required to break even on their balance sheets.
For the first couple of years a €45m (£36m) deficit will be considered an 'acceptable deviation' but clubs will then start getting punished for spending more than they earn.
Manchester City have invested heavily in their squad since Sheikh Mansour's Abu Dhabi United Group took over and this season they became Premier League champions.
Platini insists that money does not guarantee success, however, and has fired a warning about the future.
"We have to protect the clubs, because until they pay Manchester City will be happy but if they (the owners) leave Manchester City what is going to happen with this club?" Platini said in an interview with Fox Soccer America and broadcast on Sky Sports News.


Notice how he mentions Manchester CITY again and again - no other club!!! No PSG - No Malaga etc - Manchester CITY are the absolute focus of these regulations

These regulations are aimed mainly at us and they have been very carefully planned. In full recognition of the relevant European regulations they have been introduced in such a way that they do not infringe and there would not only likely to be a successful challenge - there is unlikely to be a challenge at all - because an unsuccessful one one cause major / further frictions

We have to achieve 2 things very quickly:


1/ Yet further major increases in revenue - 3 more years of 25% year on year growth

2/ On-field success with the current squad with only 'relatively modest' increases

We have to comply - not ignore to the point where we become part of the accepted elite (probably taking Chelsea's place) and the old guard take comfort in the fact that it cannot happen again

[Swales4ever]

I'm travelling, so not fit for research, but insofar my resources are concerned I can't provide a prositive feed to Sir John's request of insights from websites specializing in documentation and legal research.

However, here is a sub-perspective of the issue, from which it could draw on to appeal before the European court. not the most solid point, imo, but You know, Al Capone was jailed for tax fraud... :-)
The compatibility of a salary cap with EU competition law [Article 81 of the EC Treaty (similar to Section 1 of the Sherman Act)] is unclear. In fact, it was listed as one of the “main pending and undecided issues” in Annex I to the White Paper on Sport: sport and EU competition rules.
http://ec.europa.eu/sport/white-paper/swd-annex-i-sport-and-eu-competition-rules_en.htm#top

[Ted Hughes]

Actually, that quote from Platini is vastly different to his usual diatribe & possibly suppports the argument some of us are making.

How can he worry about us being in a mess 'if the owners leave' if he himself is responsible for it by stopping them from giving us the safeguards required ? Never before has he talked about City in those terms.

This appears to be a different position from Platini.

[Im_Spartacus]

Actually, that quote from Platini is vastly different to his usual diatribe & possibly suppports the argument some of us are making.

How can he worry about us being in a mess 'if the owners leave' if he himself is responsible for it by stopping them from giving us the safeguards required ? Never before has he talked about City in those terms.

This appears to be a different position from Platini.

But how can he be saying "what if they leave." when he is no doubt aware of the huge plans that are being made.

Im struggling to equate that comment from Platini to anything other than a simplistic rag type straw clutching exercise. As i have pointed out many times, for citys owners to now leave it would require one or two things.

1. It would require a buyer
2. It would require a buyer with extremely deep pockets, who was able to afford to bankroll the clubs losses in the medium term, otherwise they would not be taking over a going concern, eg, they would not in fact be taking over anything of value.
3. That owner could not bankroll the club with debt, because no bank would lend against our business model, they would be unlikely to ever see their money again

So i am shocked to hear platini say this if true, because it sounds very much like a soundbite that an uninformed fan would come out with, rather than the architect of the rules.

[mcfc1632]

Actually, that quote from Platini is vastly different to his usual diatribe & possibly suppports the argument some of us are making.

How can he worry about us being in a mess 'if the owners leave' if he himself is responsible for it by stopping them from giving us the safeguards required ? Never before has he talked about City in those terms.

This appears to be a different position from Platini.

Ted - sorry mate and with respect (IMO) you are falling for the obvious false argument.

He cannot simply say things like:

I am determined to protect the elite clubs ...................

Look at last time they threatened me - I had to create a back-door European league and in doing that disband the cup competition

I have committed to KHR, Gill etc that I will get this sorted.....

Of course he has to present this as a 'for the good of football' initiative - when if it was he would address the massive debts of the old guard.

So he says what people can take as plausible - but Manchest City is the focus of attack - and we are not through the door yet

[john68]

Have just read back through the thread and a couple of points arise.

Socs....Your point regarding UeFA, its right to set qualifying rules and the history of precedence in doing so. Nobody is challenging UeFA's right to set the rules and terms of qualification but any precedent set would only be in regard to that right and not to the quality of those rules. In the particular issue of FFP, they have every right to set them but that does not mean those rules are unchallengeable. The challenge would be specific to the content of the rules and not UeFA's right to set them.

Someone mentioned a pilot that City had taken part in. Does anyone have any further information on this pilot please?
Though I don't know, what this pilot actually was, even if City had taken part in it, it does not necessarily mean that City agreed with all aspects of it, nor any conclusions drawn from it.

[Ted Hughes]

Actually, that quote from Platini is vastly different to his usual diatribe & possibly suppports the argument some of us are making.

How can he worry about us being in a mess 'if the owners leave' if he himself is responsible for it by stopping them from giving us the safeguards required ? Never before has he talked about City in those terms.

This appears to be a different position from Platini.

Ted - sorry mate and with respect (IMO) you are falling for the obvious false argument.

He cannot simply say things like:

I am determined to protect the elite clubs ...................

Look at last time they threatened me - I had to create a back-door European league and in doing that disband the cup competition

I have committed to KHR, Gill etc that I will get this sorted.....

Of course he has to present this as a 'for the good of football' initiative - when if it was he would address the massive debts of the old guard.

So he says what people can take as plausible - but Manchest City is the focus of attack - and we are not through the door yet

He has been saying pretty much all of those things all along in every interview I've ever read. It's all been about 'finacial doping' etc .

This is the first time I can remember when he's actually talked about protecting City from debt.

Imo this could be the first step to a change of stance as he realises his plans are unworkable in their present form.

Edit: People keep talking about the FFP and how we have to comply with it & how we can't challenge it but still, in spite of the documents, nobody knows A: what the exact rules are & B: what the penalties are.

My point all along has been that we will APPEAR to be trying to comply; there is no point in seeking confrontation.

I believe that will be enough & Platini is positioning himself for that outcome. The Sheikh will prove that debt isn't going to be a problem & Platini will go "Ok well done".

If however they try to restrict our income by imposing unfair regulations , I believe we will fucking slaughter them.

[Swales4ever]

Actually, that quote from Platini is vastly different to his usual diatribe & possibly suppports the argument some of us are making.

How can he worry about us being in a mess 'if the owners leave' if he himself is responsible for it by stopping them from giving us the safeguards required ? Never before has he talked about City in those terms.

This appears to be a different position from Platini.

Ted - sorry mate and with respect (IMO) you are falling for the obvious false argument.

He cannot simply say things like:

I am determined to protect the elite clubs ...................

Look at last time they threatened me - I had to create a back-door European league and in doing that disband the cup competition

I have committed to KHR, Gill etc that I will get this sorted.....

Of course he has to present this as a 'for the good of football' initiative - when if it was he would address the massive debts of the old guard.

So he says what people can take as plausible - [highlight]but Manchest City is the focus of attack - and we are not through the door yet[/highlight]

He has been saying pretty much all of those things all along in every interview I've ever read. It's all been about 'finacial doping' etc .

This is the first time I can remember when he's actually talked about protecting City from debt.

Imo this could be the first step to a change of stance as he realises his plans are unworkable in their present form.

Edit: People keep talking about the FFP and how we have to comply with it & how we can't challenge it but still, in spite of the documents, nobody knows A: what the exact rules are & B: what the penalties are.

My point all along has been that we will APPEAR to be trying to comply; [highlight]there is no point in seeking confrontation.[/highlight]
I believe that will be enough & Platini is positioning himself for that outcome. The Sheikh will prove that debt isn't going to be a problem & Platini will go "Ok well done".

If however they try to restrict our income by imposing unfair regulations , I believe we will fucking slaughter them.

Sir John, You speak wise words as usual: I do agree, totally, about the "not seeking for" bit.
Still, if a confirm was ever needed the Twatini speech is that one, and the legal challenge is an option to be kept warm in the drawer. I not deem to say it should or must (be used) but in order to make City accepted amongst those cheating self-proclamed aristocrats, we must show to be confident and fit to take any option.

[mcfc1632]

Have just read back through the thread and a couple of points arise.

Socs....Your point regarding UeFA, its right to set qualifying rules and the history of precedence in doing so. Nobody is challenging UeFA's right to set the rules and terms of qualification but any precedent set would only be in regard to that right and not to the quality of those rules. In the particular issue of FFP, they have every right to set them but that does not mean those rules are unchallengeable. The challenge would be specific to the content of the rules and not UeFA's right to set them.

Someone mentioned a pilot that City had taken part in. Does anyone have any further information on this pilot please?
Though I don't know, what this pilot actually was, even if City had taken part in it, it does not necessarily mean that City agreed with all aspects of it, nor any conclusions drawn from it.

John - and also to Ted who makes a similar point.

I really think that the desire for CITY to be unaffected by FFPR is making people miss some obvious points.

I have run major procurements / competitions under European regulations - !00s £millions, even multi-£billion level ones. The secret is to be well aware of what can trigger a challenge and to be sure that you can evidence that you have been fair and open to all parties etc.

Safety lies in the careful planning for the introduction / implementation and management of the 'process'. From a professional viewpoint I have to commend the way the UeFA have gone about this - they have IMO largely addressed all the issues that could lead to a successful challenge - clarity - transparency - consultation and trialling.

We (as citizens) just think that - "well this is unfair - it cannot be", but as someone that has had to be in court on several occasions and prepared for it on many more occasions - I suggest that the main points that would interest a judge are:

1/ Is there clear evidence that a law / regulation has been broken With FFP this will not be so clear cut.

This leads to:

2/ A need for a judgment to be made based on case history / precedents / evidence etc. So, in the case of FFP a judge would likely consider things like:

a/ That the competition is long established and takes place under the governance of a ‘long established’ governing body, so much case history exists.

b/ Changes, some of them fundamental, to the operating of the competition have been introduced several times over many years – following consultation and agreement with parties involved – to date without substantive challenge. So there is clear history of how changes are introduced into an 'invitation' based competition - clubs are not 'forced' to take part.

c/ Key is the fact that the planned FFPR changes follow a long period of review and consultation with clubs being clearly offered the opportunity and process to provide input. The implementation of the proposed changes has been approved in line with a widely published schedule that contains no surprises

d/ That the club (hypothetically CITY) making the challenge has had every opportunity within the process to provide feedback or challenge and not only has this club chosen not to do this, it has on several occasions clearly stated its support for the regulations.

e/ The level of support for the process by the club now challenging includes participation in an early pilot, again during which it has only endorsed the FFP objectives and restated its acceptance of the proposed regulations.

In managing the implementation of FFPR, UeFA have chosen not only people very very well versed with European law and personally known to the European courts – the head of FFP implementation and operation is none other than the ex-president of Belgium, but they have been working very very closely with the EU throughout – as just two examples see:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... EHBAJdBRAw

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/stakeholders/e ... 72144.html

So for me, we need to make this work and key to that will be gaining (even grudging) acceptance by the old elite clubs that we have joined the party before the door closed. Here there is a good example – Chelsea. They were not part of the old guard but have become established – to the point that saw Twatini run the FFP proposals by Abramovich personally before they were announced. He was in favour because he was entrenched in CL qualification and does not want CITY type growth. I actually think that Chelsea might fall from grace due to their lack of success on the pitch and (at least as importantly) their lack of revenue growth. I think that we will take Chelsea's place.

It will be unfair on other clubs that are left behind but FFPR WILL be made to work by UeFA because failure to do so could well see the emergence of the break-away league that the old guard are talking about again – and we do not want that having just got near a place at the top table.

I would love to be wrong but I simply do not see the basis of a successful challenge. Thank fuck for Khaldoon for his business nous and Bobby for his on-field success. which will hopefully mean that there will be no need for a challenge. Also thank fuck for the stance taken by Scudamore in resisting similar regulations for the PL.

[john68]

MCFC1632,
Thanks for the link to the EuFA site, at last I have a chance to bore myself silly and actually read the document linked from it, rather than comment on reports of it.
There are several questions I would like to discuss but having just come in from work, my brain is hurting,so I'll wait til I have read and slept.

Thanks.

[Ted Hughes]

I don't pretend to be an expert in these matters but I don't agree that UEFA have answered the points raised, at all.

And the key point to my position has always been that City will try to circumnavigate this by 'sponsorship', not by confrontation.

This is one of the key areas imo.

The system set out for dealing with that is sketchy at best & seems to be at the behest of some panel who decide one kind of sponsorship is ok and another is not. That is the area where I see the shit hitting the fan if UEFA challenge us, as I recon City will be able to show literally thousands of instances of peopple at football clubs, in European competition, with family, business or other connections to companies which partly or wholly sponsor said club.

If they are to take City to task, I recon they'll have to do the same with thousands of people & several governments, otherwise they are singling us out as a special case.

I do not believe that UEFA can stich us up with impunity & I don't think they believe it either.

[Beefymcfc]

Platini's recent comments on protecting us from ourselves seem very weak. He says about owners walking away but fails to mention that this could happen to any club at anytime. He's using us to highlight a problem, a problem that isn't actually attributable to City as he knows that if he mentions the Rags, Chelsea, PSG etc then it would get their backs up.

"We have to protect the clubs, because until they pay Manchester City will be happy but if they (the owners) leave Manchester City what is going to happen with this club?"

Just break that statement down. 'We have to protect clubs', why do they, they've never done it before, they weren't interested in Portsmouth or Crystal Palace. They weren't interested, and still aren't, with how much debt the likes of Real, United, Chelsea, ............ have been saddled with, only now do they feel the need to protect them.

'...because until they pay', what the fuck does that actually mean? Seems he is implying that we will pay for what we are achieving, or over-achieving is what he is saying. But why say this, he knows our owner has turned his spending into equity rather than what Abramovich has done with Chelsea and held the club to account?

And last but not least '...but if they leave......what is going to happen with this club?'. Well, you've seen the plan, you've seen the model, what is there left to say? He already knows that our custodians want a self-substaining club in the future, that is why they are investing now. He also knows that their money isn't being stripped from football, unlike at United, but actually giving football a shot in the arm so why bring us into the equation.

Platini specifically targeted our club to highlight a problem in football but we, in reality, are not that problem. Where we become the problem is when we start overtaking his big-hitters, pushing them further back in the pecking order. Their whole exisence is based on catering for the once called G14, now the ECA with Rumplestiltskin at the top of the pile (I'm sure he has no interest in this at all!).

Platini is scaremongering because he is worried, worried that the might of UEFA may be challengedd by the might of a full nation. Contrary to Platini's opinion, UEFA/FIFA don't own football, they just try to. It's the fans who pay to see these games and when they start banning (the only thing they can do) clubs and people realise they aren't actually getting to see what they are paying for, great players, great teams etc, then where will that leave them?

I know where, the newly named Champions League, the 'Non-Champions League' that will be missing the best teams and the best players. Good luck Mr Platini, Jones and Smalling are just what your sponsors want to see!

[john68]

MCFC1632,

Like TED, I am no legal expert but like Ted, I also have my doubts that this is a cut and dried deal. I understand that having brought the European Commission onside, they also have powerful allies but maybe it's the old trade unionist in me that says nothing is set in stone and nothing is unchallengeable.

I don't doubt that UeFA have the right to set terms and conditions for entrance, nor do I doubt that almost all those terms and conditions are fully accepted by competing associations and clubs, so I see no area of challenge in that. But, these are new terms and I am not convinced they are UeFA watertight.
Consultation may have been undertaken, even at every step of the way but there is room to question the quality of that consultation and the fact that consultation does not necessarily mean acceptance of the conclusion. I have personal experience of this with Manchester City Council. Governments, Councils and governing bodies have well used the strategy of first reaching their conclusions and making their decisions, then going through a period of consultation and despite any consultation, making the decision they had previously decided on.
The manner in which both UeFA and the European Commission publicise the FFP is wholly one sided. That the new rules offer a fair and level playing field is a huge area to challenge. It patently does NOT offer a level playing field to many clubs, especially clubs such as ours, who have apirations and the means to achieve them. We are not alone in this, thepossibility of the door shutting also affects any club with the same aspirations and resources.
Sustainability and sustainable debt is dealt with by the means clubs have to earn sufficient income to serve that debt. Who has ruled that debt cannot be sustained by our model and the model of other clubs like us? Who is has ruled and decided that our financial model and the model of a number of new money clubs means our debt is unsustainable. We have the ability to pay.

[Ted Hughes]

I think he's chosen those words deliberately, as I said earlier. He's suggesting that all he's worried about is 'protecting' clubs, wheras in the past, all he has talked about is how it's unfair that City can sign all the best players & pay big wages.

This stance leaves us and others a loophole: prove you are willing to commit to the future of the club & you are ok (which is what FFP was supposed to be about in the first place, not helping AC Milan & Man Utd stay at the top).

The fact that it looks like PSG are going to continue spending unabated is probably a factor too. If Platini loses the support of the French, where will he be ?

[Beefymcfc]

Strangely, City seem very confident about all this FFP stuff, why isn't Platini?

[Ted Hughes]

Strangely, City seem very confident about all this FFP stuff, why isn't Platini?

Not just City, everyone seems to have plans to spend apart from those who have tax/Eurozone problems coming in.

[john68]

MCFC1632,

I have separated this post from the other because it deals with another issue which I think is a bigger one and one that is more permanent a threat and could be more injurious to City in the longer term. Not legal but political.
I have thought for a long time that these two issues have becoming mixed, blurred and confused together, but need to be discussed and debated separately.
For almost 30 years, a small group of clubs, led by an even smaller group have sought to create a model of football competition which id financially beneficial to them, sometimes to the detriment of others. They have bullied, coerced and threatened the ruling body in order to reach their aims. They disbanded their G14 lobby group, replacing it with the ECA, a body that they dominate and control, a body that is far more politically powerful, even on the World stage. They have forced UeFA to change the structure and the financial rules of competition in Europe, with the threat of withdrawing should UeFA not comply. Having succeeded in that, they are now intent on guarding their rear to safeguard their gains.
The FFP is only the tool that are presently using and should they fail, they will undoubtedly come back and try another tack. The FFP is only the tool, the more permanent threat remains a political one and will not go away.

It is for that last reason that I think City and other clubs have sought to comply with the FFP. We may be strong on the field but remain very weak and powerless within the politics of European football. We have few friends, if any. I can understand City not wanting to rock that political boat and become even more isolated within the power corridors of football. I think City MUST work towards compliance for pragmatic, political reasons and any legal challenge would only be a last resort that could have major repercussions against us.