FIFPro can only offer an opinion, they don't have any authority.
Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions
- Thread starter PlayerOne
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I'd be surprised if they haven't already seen some for introducing it already, Abramovich was involved after all.
It wasn't ever 50m (I assume you're talking in pounds). It was 60m EUR (which are around 50m pounds) but 40m EUR will be returned if the clubs break even. If not then they will lose those money too. 20m EUR is the total punishment if they can break even (City probably, PSG no).
Also, the player reduction quota still stands. FIFpro of course they are going to moan, that's their job after all.
Kinda confused by that?
Unless I'm having a brain fade and reading it wrong.
You say it was never 50 mil pounds, but it's 60 mil euro, which is around 50 mil pounds.
So it was 50 mil pounds then?
Yes, but the majority of them (40m Eur, around 32m pounds) will be returned to the clubs if they break even. For that some reports say 60m, some others say 20m. In essence the punishment was and it is 20m EUR. If they still will break FFP rules for the next year then they lose another 40m EUR.
Nothing has changed from the original punishment.
Nothing was never coming out this in the first place.
If UEFA do scale back the punishments I hope the other clubs appeal/threaten action. Woodward made it clear in the investors conference call last week that he was fully behind the actions UEFA were (then presumed to be) taking. Any significant reeling back from that position could lead to discontentment among the other nations. I'm not just referring to us but also Chelsea who have made big strides to get their house in financial order. How would they feel if all City and PSG had to do was appeal/challenge down the punishments to being largely insignificant.
Yet it appears City will break-even in a shorter time period than it took Abramovic to break-even with Chelsea? And of course Woodward was fully behind the actions, it benefits his club.
If you discount bogus sales of intellectual property UEFA correctly discounted, City lose £100m a year. In fact if you only count money the club genuinely receives and discount dodgy dealings, number crunching and robbing your left hand to pay their right, City probably make closer to £150m losses per year
Well last year we made a £51.6m loss. Only £22m of the intellectual property sales was to related parties so it isn't a £100m loss. What are these dodgy dealings? You can cry all you what about the Etihad deal but it isn't a related party transaction. Simple as. Why shouldn't City be allowed to make a loss anyway? The owner of the business can cover it himself. He intends to make the business self-sustainable in the near future. FFP was introduced because of pressure placed on UEFA by the elite clubs such as United, Chelsea and Bayern because it benefits them, not football. FFP will do nothing to prevent an instance such as what happened at Portsmouth or Rangers.
The same reason a striker can't pick the ball up with his hand and volley it into the net. It's against the rules.
And the Etihad deal may not be related as far as UEFA rules have gone but you're living in a fantasy world if you think your club could've got that deal under a different owner.
I never made the point that it wasn't against the rules.
Of course the Etihad deal was due to our owners. But it's pointless moaning about it if under the legal definition it isn't a related party transaction.
You keep talking about an appeal from other clubs, but who are you expecting to do this - it doesn't really make sense. An appealing club will have to argue that they have been directly impacted by the club that is being punished. Clubs who did not get in Europe last season were not (e.g. Everton & Spurs) because they didn't even enter the competition that the rules govern (while City spending did ensure that they finished above Everton & Spurs in the league, that's an issue for the Premier League FFP, and not UEFA FFP). Clubs that we didn't meet in the competition were not because their progress in the competition wasn't affected by us at any stage. And finally, Bayern topped the group, and Barcelona knocked us out, so neither sides progress was impacted by City, which leaves you with CSKA Moscow and Viktoria Plzen.
Let's ignore all that though, and even if say United appealed and managed to convince UEFA that they were directly impacted by City in the competition last year - what kind of reaction are you expecting? all of the punishments to be made exponentially worse will each appeal? I just don't see it personally, it would just open up further lengthy discussions with the clubs involved for next to no change in final settlement. You seem to be coming from the angle that Barcelona, Bayern, Madrid, United, Atletico, Dortmund, Arsenal, Chelsea and all others will band together and appeal to apply pressure on UEFA - I'd argue few of those clubs outside of England even care about City's spending, and even fewer wants to start making a name for themselves appealing each sanction.
You asked why can't they do it. It was a simple question and I have you the simple answer.
There's no point bragging about how quickly City 'break even' in comparison to Chelsea when they did it in completely different ways. The rules have been bent in order to appear to break even.
Any club that played by the rules have been affected if they did so believing severe punishments were being dished out for not doing so. I'm not saying it's likely to happen but clubs could easily argue they have been affected.
I see your point, but would saying 'we'd have broken the rules if we knew this was the punishment' really represent a direct impact - if everybody you played was within the rules then nobody has gained an unfair advantage against you, nor you them. UEFA can only govern the competition, and your own performance in that competition has only been impacted by Manchester City if you happen to come up against them. Maybe they'd go for that angle, the lack of transparency makes everything guess work, but I doubt that's an angle that a club would take, or one that UEFA would be pleased to take on board.
The fact FFP is to prevent clubs making a loss should have made it quite clear the question was a moral one and not a literal one.
City are confident they will break-even excluding the intellectual property sales for the upcoming season. If the rules were successfully bent then we wouldn't have failed FFP. But UEFA have objected to some aspects of our finances and will be ensuring the same doesn't happen again and even considering that the club expects to unambiguously break-even next season.
City's projection of breaking even includes a deal they couldn't have got in a million years from another company. It isn't an example of how much quicker City have reached that goal than Chelsea did.
Etihad deal is £30 or £40m a year. That includes shirt, stadium and funding for the training ground. Juventus get £35m a year from their shirt sponsor alone and we are a more marketable brand than Juventus right now. The deal is reasonable and it's worth nothing related party or not UEFA could have adjusted the value of the deal and decided not to do so, presumably because it is actually fairly reasonable.
You admitted yourself they wouldn't get it anywhere else. Juventus get €35m over three seasons. So less than £10m a year. Don't know where you're getting that ludicrous valuation from. I'm also intrigued how Man City are going to turnover an extra £70m+ next year.
Don't have to turnover an extra 70m. We are reducing our costs that will go some way to helping. Last year's accounts involved the fees for sacking Mancini and his coaching staff which was paid in a lump sum. Barry, Lescott, Richards, Sinclair, Pantilimon all likely to leave in the Summer. Increased revenue for winning the league, increased TV revenues as well. The club will be able to sort out the 70m deficit legitimately.
Sorry if I don't take your word for that when you just make shit up. No way are City breaking even legitimately. TV revenues aren't increasing from last season.
That's not true by the way.
City had £58,143,890 through TV payments, and that has increased to £96,578,329, so just over a £38.4m increase from 12/13 to 13/14.
2012/13 Breakdown:
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/PL-document-TV-12-13.jpg
2013/2014 Breakdown:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnmZqCNIEAAPPoe.png
Lol.
You realise they've gone up massively, right? Cardiff got more for finishing last at the end of the season than we did for finishing first the year before.
Are they increasing from 13/14 to 14/15? When do your last accounts cover to?
I mean from this season that just finished and next. Greatly depends on when City's accounts cover I suppose. If they only go up to the end of the 12/13 season then the extra £50m in transfers they've spent will eat into that boost somewhat.
Last edited:
The accounts published this season relate to the statements for last season (it's the same for all clubs).
So when UEFA say we have to operate with less than a 20m loss for this season (13/14), they'll be the accounts that come out next January.
Yes, I wonder how you accomplished that. Who were those brilliant business minds that achieved such a feat and how come only City were so lucky to employ them? I'd love to know, how a club that had won feck all in forty years and was largely unknown outside of the country, managed to spend a fortune and is about to break even only a few years later?
The truth is, even if you were winning trebles every year while featuring all the world's most marketable stars, you'd still be long way from being self-sufficient, let alone turning a profit.
I don't mind City spending money, if the sheik feels like doing it, it's his money after all. But I resent City fans trying to sell everyone their version of reality. In real world, all your legitimate income wouldn't even cover your wage bill.
PSG aren't taking it very seriously at all in statements [or actions] so far, it seems - they'll take the focus off City in no time.
Philippe Auclair @PhilippeAuclair 42m
2/2...especially this remark by the ruler of Qatar: 'our answer [to UEFA] is David Luiz'. #FFP
Philippe Auclair @PhilippeAuclair 42m
2/2...especially this remark by the ruler of Qatar: 'our answer [to UEFA] is David Luiz'. #FFP
Putting all their eggs in the Dupont basket. It's certainly ballsy (foolish).
Doesn't the champions league money vastly increase next year?
To be fair to PSG's owner, he does come out with some brilliant stuff.
It's not really that foolish. If it fails what reason do they have to give a shit? Massive fine, expulsion from Europe? Even the most draconian measures taken against these clubs won't matter one iota to the owners. They'll still be multi-billionaires with perhaps hundreds of other business interests and investments. In the long run what do any of these owners give a toss about the football clubs they own? It's peripheral enjoyment and nothing more.
This is the top, middle and bottom of it.
I would imagine it's more down to the fact he's just happy to take the pinch of punishment, and will probably establish more creative ways to create revenue anyway - given they've already agreed to a settlement that includes not surpassing a £25m loss in the season just passed, you can assume that they are on track to meet that criteria somehow - otherwise it would be pointless to agree on it. Maybe not and they don't care even still. Reactions so far certainly suggest that City are going to be more considering of the rules than PSG - there is time yet though.
The case will be interesting, while the news that the case has been rejected from the EC has broken and is true, the full response to the complainant suggests different - in essence they are rejecting the case because they feel that Brussels court can sufficiently handle the case, rather than judging the case to be insignificant. You can see their full response below in the spoiler, which indicates Sprint 2015 will be when we find out. I'd quite enjoy seeing PSG become everybody's biggest gripe, for a change.
Following reports from an unidentified source that the European Commission has decided to reject the complaint filed by Mr. Daniel STRIAN I against the UEFA rule imposing "the requirement of financial stability" (known as Financial Fair Play), Mr. STRIANI can confirm he has received a letter from the Commission's DG Competition in which it reports that it envisages rejecting the complaint. In essence, the response contains two reasons supporting this potential rejection:
First, the Commission has expressed doubts as to the legitimate interest of Mr. STRIANI since the impact to him is indirect (the UEFA rule is aimed primarily at clubs, and penalizes agents indirectly). Mr. STRIANI strongly disagrees with this analysis from the European Commission and shall have until June 16 to make submissions in this regard, which will provide a detailed response. Second, the European Commission intends to support its decision by means of another reason which has not been fully explained nor released to the press by the unidentified source. For the purpose of completeness, the letter Mr. STRIANI has received from the European Commission states the second reason as follows:
Re. :Complaint of Mr. Daniel STRIANI against the « FFP » UEFA regulation
« As you will appreciate, the Commission is unfortunately unable to pursue every alleged infringement of EU competition law that is brought to its attention. The Commission has limited resources and must therefore set priorities, in accordance with the principles set out at points 41 to 45 of the Notice on the handling of complaints. When deciding which cases to pursue, the Commission takes various factors into account and there is no fixed set of criteria.
For example, the Commission may take into account whether national courts are well-placed to examine the allegations made in a complaint. The Commission is entitled to decide not to pursue certain cases where national courts can protect the rights of a complainant in a satisfactory manner" (...). "The Brussels Court appears to be well-placed to handle the matters raised in your complaint:
On 20 June 2013 you lodged an application (citation) before the Brussels Court requesting it to establish that UEFA has infringed the same Treaty provisions as those set out in your complaint, and to award you damages for these infringements. In your application, you develop arguments virtually identical to those set out in the complaint. The Brussels Court requested, and on 12 February 2014 received, UEFA's observations on your application (citation). You provided your observations (conclusions) on UEFA's observations on 18 April 2014. An oral hearing is scheduled for 26 and 27 February 2015.
For the reasons set out below, the Brussels Court appears to be well-placed to handle the matters raised in your complaint as your rights will be protected by that court in a satisfactory manner.
First, as shown by its request to UEFA to submit observations on your application, and UEFA's response to that request of 12 February 2014, the Brussels Court is in a position to gather the factual information necessary to determine whether the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement, constitutes an infringement of Article 101 and 102 TFEU.
Second, the Brussels Court is able to examine whether the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement: (i) restricts competition within the meaning of Article 101 (1) TFEU; (ii) benefits from an exemption under Article 101 (3) TFEU; and (iii) infringes Article 102 TFEU. The Brussels court can a/so apply the nullity sanction provided for in Article 101(2) TFEU and award damages for breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
Third, the Brussels Court can make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 TFEU concerning the compatibility of the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement, with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. You already made a request to this effect in your application of 20 June 2013, a request which you repeated in your observations of 18 April 2014.
Fourth, the Brussels Court can take effective action because of the sui generis system established by UEFA for the purpose of participation in pan-European club competitions. The FFP uniformly applies across the EU to all clubs that participate, or want to participate, in UEFA club competitions. If the Brussels Court were to consider the break-even requirement to be contrary to Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, such a ruling - even if limited to the facts of the case before the Brussels Court - is likely to have an impact on the operation of that requirement across the EU.
Fifth, if the Brussels Court were to consider the break-even requirement to be contrary to Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, you would not need to bring further actions before national courts in other Member States. This is because if the Brussels Court applied the nullity sanction provided for in Article 101(2) TFEU, the break-even requirement would also cease to produce effects in other Member States".
Mr. STRIANI therefore notes that, according to the European Commission, the Court of Brussels is well placed to decide the question of the EU legality of the UEFA rule, in particular since - according to the Commission - the national court may itself address the preliminary questions raised by Mr. STRIANI at the European Union Court of Justice and also because the Brussels Tribunal may nullify the UEFA rule, which would lead to is ceasing to exist all across the European Union. The Brussels Court is expected to rule in spring 2015.
Finally, for further background reading of the incompatibility of the UEFA rule with European competition law, please look at the recent article by Professor Nicolas Petit, entitled 'Financial Fair Play' or Rent-Seeking 'Oligopoleague'?: A Preliminary Analysis of the UEFA's Break Even Requirement Under the EU Competition Rules'. This item is available at the following:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2438399
First, the Commission has expressed doubts as to the legitimate interest of Mr. STRIANI since the impact to him is indirect (the UEFA rule is aimed primarily at clubs, and penalizes agents indirectly). Mr. STRIANI strongly disagrees with this analysis from the European Commission and shall have until June 16 to make submissions in this regard, which will provide a detailed response. Second, the European Commission intends to support its decision by means of another reason which has not been fully explained nor released to the press by the unidentified source. For the purpose of completeness, the letter Mr. STRIANI has received from the European Commission states the second reason as follows:
Re. :Complaint of Mr. Daniel STRIANI against the « FFP » UEFA regulation
« As you will appreciate, the Commission is unfortunately unable to pursue every alleged infringement of EU competition law that is brought to its attention. The Commission has limited resources and must therefore set priorities, in accordance with the principles set out at points 41 to 45 of the Notice on the handling of complaints. When deciding which cases to pursue, the Commission takes various factors into account and there is no fixed set of criteria.
For example, the Commission may take into account whether national courts are well-placed to examine the allegations made in a complaint. The Commission is entitled to decide not to pursue certain cases where national courts can protect the rights of a complainant in a satisfactory manner" (...). "The Brussels Court appears to be well-placed to handle the matters raised in your complaint:
On 20 June 2013 you lodged an application (citation) before the Brussels Court requesting it to establish that UEFA has infringed the same Treaty provisions as those set out in your complaint, and to award you damages for these infringements. In your application, you develop arguments virtually identical to those set out in the complaint. The Brussels Court requested, and on 12 February 2014 received, UEFA's observations on your application (citation). You provided your observations (conclusions) on UEFA's observations on 18 April 2014. An oral hearing is scheduled for 26 and 27 February 2015.
For the reasons set out below, the Brussels Court appears to be well-placed to handle the matters raised in your complaint as your rights will be protected by that court in a satisfactory manner.
First, as shown by its request to UEFA to submit observations on your application, and UEFA's response to that request of 12 February 2014, the Brussels Court is in a position to gather the factual information necessary to determine whether the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement, constitutes an infringement of Article 101 and 102 TFEU.
Second, the Brussels Court is able to examine whether the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement: (i) restricts competition within the meaning of Article 101 (1) TFEU; (ii) benefits from an exemption under Article 101 (3) TFEU; and (iii) infringes Article 102 TFEU. The Brussels court can a/so apply the nullity sanction provided for in Article 101(2) TFEU and award damages for breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
Third, the Brussels Court can make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 TFEU concerning the compatibility of the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement, with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. You already made a request to this effect in your application of 20 June 2013, a request which you repeated in your observations of 18 April 2014.
Fourth, the Brussels Court can take effective action because of the sui generis system established by UEFA for the purpose of participation in pan-European club competitions. The FFP uniformly applies across the EU to all clubs that participate, or want to participate, in UEFA club competitions. If the Brussels Court were to consider the break-even requirement to be contrary to Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, such a ruling - even if limited to the facts of the case before the Brussels Court - is likely to have an impact on the operation of that requirement across the EU.
Fifth, if the Brussels Court were to consider the break-even requirement to be contrary to Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, you would not need to bring further actions before national courts in other Member States. This is because if the Brussels Court applied the nullity sanction provided for in Article 101(2) TFEU, the break-even requirement would also cease to produce effects in other Member States".
Mr. STRIANI therefore notes that, according to the European Commission, the Court of Brussels is well placed to decide the question of the EU legality of the UEFA rule, in particular since - according to the Commission - the national court may itself address the preliminary questions raised by Mr. STRIANI at the European Union Court of Justice and also because the Brussels Tribunal may nullify the UEFA rule, which would lead to is ceasing to exist all across the European Union. The Brussels Court is expected to rule in spring 2015.
Finally, for further background reading of the incompatibility of the UEFA rule with European competition law, please look at the recent article by Professor Nicolas Petit, entitled 'Financial Fair Play' or Rent-Seeking 'Oligopoleague'?: A Preliminary Analysis of the UEFA's Break Even Requirement Under the EU Competition Rules'. This item is available at the following:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2438399
I couldn't tell you but their 'punishment' is withholding prize money so it may not come to their rescue either.
I just don't see the need to declare war on UEFA. They could simply go about things the way City are doing; focus on your "unprecedented investments in both youth development and the local community," and make it sound like breaking even was always your plan anyway, while you sign multiple sponsorship deals with UAE-based companies, and filter sovereign wealth into your club in bite-sized UEFA-compliant chunks. You still get to spend all the money you like on players, but if Dupont's case fails, you wont have drawn a massive target on your back.
Instead PSG have proceeded with a ludicrous £167m Qatar Tourism Authority deal (made even more laughable by the fact it's backdated), and issued provocative statements designed to stick two fingers up at UEFA and their rules. Unnecessary and foolish in my view.