Page 1 of 1
Citeh
Posted: May 6th, 2014, 10:30 pm
by TK
Manchester City are facing a double UEFA punishment for breaching financial fair play rules.
The Etihad Stadium club are likely to have their squad for next season’s Champions League limited to 21 players instead of the usual 25, and they are also set to be fined €60million (£49million).
City are appealing the UEFA ruling.
The reduction in the size of the Champions League squad to 21 would potentially hit the club hardest, and City would also have to ensure there are still eight locally-trained players in that A squad.
It is understood that the sanctions are very similar to those being handed out to Paris Saint Germain - the two clubs are among nine European sides being dealt with by UEFA's club financial control board (CFCB) for FFP breaches.
City have until the end of the week to reach an agreement with UEFA over the sanctions, but it is understood they are the club furthest away from reaching any final settlement.
If no agreement is reached City face the prospect of the case being handed to a panel for a non-negotiable decision.
Neither City nor UEFA would comment but it is understood the Manchester club have been negotiating forcefully for a significant reduction in the sanctions, but have been struggling to make progress.
The risk, however, is if they are unable to agree a deal with UEFA then they could face even stiffer sanctions from the CFCB's adjudicatory panel.
Who are the other clubs facing penalties
Where does the money go
'If no agreement is reached City face the prospect of the case being handed to a panel for a non-negotiable decision' - enuff said
Reminds me of other 'issues' in 'the game'.............
Citeh
Posted: May 7th, 2014, 8:08 am
by Dodge
Timing of this bullshit somewhat stinks TK . Word is in Manchester is that City,s super rich fantastic owners will see UEFA and it's corrupt organisation in court !
Citeh
Posted: May 7th, 2014, 8:54 am
by Guest
rules is rules. there not new rules, they have been in place 2 years. you have to abide by those rules same as every other club in the world has. they do not make exceptions for arab playboys with loads of money, with there " richer than yow" attitude. the rules are in place to stop boom and bust clubs like citeh built on quick sand with no viable way of continuing as a club should there owner loose interest. to loose 45 million per year is bad enough and EUFA are correct in ensuring that all clubs have a future beyong the whims of some sheik . or Russian oil baron. all citeh have created in the past 3 years is a bin full of good club players , vastly overpaid and underused. that dodger cannot be allowed to continue and only a citeh/chelski fan with rose tinted spectacles could fail to see that .
Citeh
Posted: May 7th, 2014, 9:14 am
by Dodge
United £600 million in dept !!!! Jealous herbs ??
Citeh
Posted: May 7th, 2014, 10:28 am
by Dodge
United £600 million in dept !!!! Jealous herbs ??
Oops forgot ....... and no European football ! Talk about a football club stuck in quicksand !!! Your club is in serious sh!t mate , falling like a stone no matter what PR the bigwig suits send out day after day to put bums on seats . You ain't UEFAs golden boys like Barca , Madrid and Bayern anymore mate
Nothing been said about the investment the city owners have ploughed into the deprived area of east lands ( miles plating and Bradford ) building stateof the art colleges and schools with state of the art sport facilities for the kids and teenagers of the area giving them hope and belief and vision . Just another attempt to give City a bad press from certain areas of the media as per usual . The crappity smack story isn't even official its been dug out from crappity smack France somewhere ...... The home of bent Woman's wetter Platini !
Citeh
Posted: May 7th, 2014, 9:03 pm
by bill yards
What's 49 million quid anyway?
Two or three reserves
Citeh
Posted: May 8th, 2014, 7:43 am
by Guest
Citeh
Posted: May 8th, 2014, 12:14 pm
by Dodge
Citeh
Posted: May 10th, 2014, 9:12 am
by Dodge
Manchester City are facing a double UEFA punishment for breaching financial fair play rules.
The Etihad Stadium club are likely to have their squad for next season’s Champions League limited to 21 players instead of the usual 25, and they are also set to be fined €60million (£49million).
City are appealing the UEFA ruling.
The reduction in the size of the Champions League squad to 21 would potentially hit the club hardest, and City would also have to ensure there are still eight locally-trained players in that A squad.
It is understood that the sanctions are very similar to those being handed out to Paris Saint Germain - the two clubs are among nine European sides being dealt with by UEFA's club financial control board (CFCB) for FFP breaches.
City have until the end of the week to reach an agreement with UEFA over the sanctions, but it is understood they are the club furthest away from reaching any final settlement.
If no agreement is reached City face the prospect of the case being handed to a panel for a non-negotiable decision.
Neither City nor UEFA would comment but it is understood the Manchester club have been negotiating forcefully for a significant reduction in the sanctions, but have been struggling to make progress.
The risk, however, is if they are unable to agree a deal with UEFA then they could face even stiffer sanctions from the CFCB's adjudicatory panel.
Who are the other clubs facing penalties
Where does the money go
'If no agreement is reached City face the prospect of the case being handed to a panel for a non-negotiable decision' - enuff said
Reminds me of other 'issues' in 'the game'.............
Told ya !
........
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-f...-fair-play
Manchester City FC is considering challenging a record breaking 60 million euro fine for alledged breaching of UEFA,s Financial Fair Play ( FFP ) rules by using EU competition law to prevent CARTELS and ABUSE of market dominance .
Citeh
Posted: May 10th, 2014, 6:51 pm
by TK
Found it Dodge
'Manchester City Football Club is considering challenging a record-breaking €60 million fine for breaching UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules by using EU competition law to prevent cartels and abuse of market dominance.
Despite Competition Commissioner Joaquín Almunia’s declared support for FFP, the European Commission’s antitrust department will examine any complaint made on its merits, EurActiv has learnt.
UEFA is European football’s governing body and runs the lucrative Champions League competition. Under FFP, clubs in UEFA competitions were allowed to make losses of about €45 million between 2011-13. City lost about €182 but argue that, when various exceptions are taken into account they narrowly hit the target.
Abu Dhabi-owned City was one of nine football clubs including Qatari-owned Paris St Germain to be charged with breaching the regulations. As well as a fine, City face having their Champions League squad cut from 25 players to 21.
Any complaint by City, set a deadline by UEFA of today (9 May) to accept a reduced fine or face stronger penalties, is likely be under EU treaty rules governing abuse of dominant market position and price-fixing, rather than state aid rules.
Article 101 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU states that a unilateral action can be anti-competitive. This rule covers decisions by associations, which would arguably include UEFA’s decision to fine City. By fining City, UEFA are giving a competitive advantage to other businesses (other football clubs), lawyers could argue.
Article 102 deals with abuse of dominant market position. City would have to establish what market, likely European football, is being dominated. Because the Champions League is so lucrative for participating clubs, there is a risk those clubs become entrenched as their financial advantage is so strong. It is only through large injections of cash that clubs like City and PSG can break the stranglehold of the established elite.
City could claim that the fine and squad cut constitutes a barrier to entry of the market but the European football market is so large it may be difficult to prove it is dominated by an elite.
Another ground for complaint is that FFP “directly or indirectly imposes unfair purchase,” that it illegally prevents City from trading as it wishes.
The concept of consumer prejudice also comes under article 102. City could argue that impairing its performance in the Champions League restrict competition with other clubs. That could lead to the established elite raising ticket prices, for example. The commission often looks favourably on consumer arguments, legal experts said.
The complaint is likely to include a number of differing aspects in a bid to convince the commission the case warrants further investigation.
Almunia’s support for FFP
Almunia’s support for FFP is based on the idea that good financial governance would prevent a breach of EU state aid rules. Those rules are designed to prevent competition in the marketplace being distorted by injections of public money.Seven Spanish clubs including Real Madrid and Barcelona and Almunia’s beloved Athletic Bilbao, were charged with breaches of state aid rules in December last year.
Almunia will be leaving his post in November when a new European Commission is appointed. His replacement may have a different view on FFP to the Spanish Socialist. The process kick-started by a complaint will likely continue beyond Almunia’s reign, especially if EU officials decide an investigation is warranted.
If the investigation goes City’s way they would be able to take that decision to a national court, and argue for recompense. Although UEFA is based in Nyon, Switzerland; the Swiss are governed by the same competition laws as EU member states. If UEFA appeals the commission decision, as would be expected, the case could take more than four years to resolve in the European Court of Justice.
PSG yesterday agreed to settle for a €25 million fine, rather than fight the UEFA charge any longer. City’s €42m-a-year sponsorship deal with Etihad and PSG’s €200m-a-year contract with the Qatar Tourism Authority were both deemed not to be a valid means for them to balance their books under FFP break-even rules
City, almost certain to claim their second English Premier League title in three years on Sunday, are understood to be furious at being bracketed with the French club. It’s been reported City argue their intention was always to comply with FFP, unlike PSG.
If the club doesn’t reach a deal, it will be referred to European football’s Club Financial Control Body, which would assess afresh whether the club failed to comply with FFP rules in their 2011-13 accounts and, if so, would likely impose an even sterner penalty.
If City do make a complaint, it will be the second made to the commission against FFP. Jean-Louis Dupont, the lawyer who successfully challenged football contract laws in the famous Bosman case made a complaint last year. Among his arguments is that FFP reduces revenue for football agents such as his client Belgian Daniel Striani.'
James Crisp
Citeh
Posted: May 12th, 2014, 10:04 am
by Guest
Citeh
Posted: May 12th, 2014, 12:39 pm
by Dodge
Brilliant article by Martin Samuel in today,s Daily Mail on FFP and UEFA
says it all really
Ps. Agree re the dippers herbie ...... Orrible thick cunts !
Citeh
Posted: May 12th, 2014, 6:43 pm
by big_cup
Citeh
Posted: May 12th, 2014, 7:08 pm
by Dodge
Citeh
Posted: May 12th, 2014, 8:05 pm
by big_cup
Citeh
Posted: May 16th, 2014, 7:56 am
by Dodge
Manchester City are facing a double UEFA punishment for breaching financial fair play rules.
The Etihad Stadium club are likely to have their squad for next season’s Champions League limited to 21 players instead of the usual 25, and they are also set to be fined €60million (£49million).
City are appealing the UEFA ruling.
The reduction in the size of the Champions League squad to 21 would potentially hit the club hardest, and City would also have to ensure there are still eight locally-trained players in that A squad.
It is understood that the sanctions are very similar to those being handed out to Paris Saint Germain - the two clubs are among nine European sides being dealt with by UEFA's club financial control board (CFCB) for FFP breaches.
City have until the end of the week to reach an agreement with UEFA over the sanctions, but it is understood they are the club furthest away from reaching any final settlement.
If no agreement is reached City face the prospect of the case being handed to a panel for a non-negotiable decision.
Neither City nor UEFA would comment but it is understood the Manchester club have been negotiating forcefully for a significant reduction in the sanctions, but have been struggling to make progress.
The risk, however, is if they are unable to agree a deal with UEFA then they could face even stiffer sanctions from the CFCB's adjudicatory panel.
Who are the other clubs facing penalties
Where does the money go
'If no agreement is reached City face the prospect of the case being handed to a panel for a non-negotiable decision' - enuff said
Reminds me of other 'issues' in 'the game'.............
The UEFA guy "investigating" MCFC over this ridiculous issue was found dead last night
Citeh
Posted: May 16th, 2014, 9:33 am
by joffmiester
