Football Leaks: UEFA Investigation into Manchester City

ozzy jr

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Arbitrarily stopping an owner from investing what they want to, without harm to the club, I just don't see how that can be justified.

Justified or not, it's what everyone signed up to. This is the crux of the matter.

.G.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Then put in global spending or wage caps to stop infinite spending. Cap squad sizes. There are other ways that the clubs could be reigned in when it comes to spending without stopping a club from moving to a position to compete.

Arbitrarily stopping an owner from investing what they want to, without harm to the club, I just don't see how that can be justified.

Owners are allowed spend what they like if they like. They just aren't allowed compete in UEFA competitions while they do it.

Nothing to stop a club spending massively to get into a position of strength and then apply to take part in UEFA competitions once they are self sustaining. Would take a few years of being self sustaining but it can be done if they so wished, ie after sustainable growth. Rich owners don't want to wait though.

UrbanFret

Interesting to see how bayern and real rebuild . Bayern in particular are absolute toss now. Don't be surprised if ffp is challenged by the clubs that created it. Particularly pleased for mouthpiece rumennigge.

IncognitoMan

Not Man City but PSG won't have their accounts re-examined up to June 2017. They appealed and won so anything before that is off the table for investigation.

So these investigations are off to a solid start. :rolleyes:

Interestingly though, the season they signed Neymar and Mbappe will be looked at.

Good luck explaining how PSG generated enough to sign players for €220m and €180m :pac:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47632779?ns_source=facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=sport&ns_campaign=bbc_sport

marklazarcovic

Already a farce, obviously a reason they don't want it investigated before then,and they get their way, pathetic.

TFBubendorfer

Ligue 1 club PSG were initially cleared of breaking FFP rules in June 2018, but Uefa reopened the case in September.

Cas said Uefa's application to reopen fell outside the 10-day deadline from the initial decision.

10-day deadline??? In that case I expect the case against Man City to collapse very soon as well.

GavRedKing

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Not Man City but PSG won't have their accounts re-examined up to June 2017. They appealed and won so anything before that is off the table for investigation.

So these investigations are off to a solid start. :rolleyes:

Interestingly though, the season they signed Neymar and Mbappe will be looked at.

Good luck explaining how PSG generated enough to sign players for €220m and €180m :pac:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47632779?ns_source=facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=sport&ns_campaign=bbc_sport

Assuming they're signed to 5 year contracts the cost of the transfer and the wages are spread over that length.

So it would be only 44m and 36m a year (on transfers) theyed need to account for 2 of those with regards to FFP, I've no idea what both are on wages wise but you'd imagine its probably another 500/600k a week combined.

theoneeyedman

GavRedKing wrote: »

Assuming they're signed to 5 year contracts the cost of the transfer and the wages are spread over that length.

So it would be only 44m and 36m a year (on transfers) theyed need to account for 2 of those with regards to FFP, I've no idea what both are on wages wise but you'd imagine its probably another 500/600k a week combined.

PSG are probably paying them 50k/annum,but coincidentally they signed a mega deal with a corner shop in Qatar for 50 million/annum.

RayCun

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

But if that's his line of thinking then he does undermine himself right at the start of the article when the elderly couple did the right thing by breaking a rule, and forced it to be changed by doing exactly that, deliberately breaking it.

His point is that if you think the rule is bad you should say so, and try to get it changed - by breaking it and inviting charges, or by lobbying.

But City said they'd follow the rules, broke them, and tried to cover it up.

UrbanFret

RayCun wrote: »

His point is that if you think the rule is bad you should say so, and try to get it changed - by breaking it and inviting charges, or by lobbying.

But City said they'd follow the rules, broke them, and tried to cover it up.

Must have missed the uefa inquiry and judgement.:rolleyes:

IncognitoMan

GavRedKing wrote: »

Assuming they're signed to 5 year contracts the cost of the transfer and the wages are spread over that length.

So it would be only 44m and 36m a year (on transfers) theyed need to account for 2 of those with regards to FFP, I've no idea what both are on wages wise but you'd imagine its probably another 500/600k a week combined.

Oh I know but still they can't justify those fees along with wages for Buffon, Thiago Silva, Dani Alves, Verratti, Di Maria, Cavani and add in Neymar and Mbappe.

Compare that to the players at their rivals and it doesn't add up.

Harry Palmr

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/sports/manchester-city-champions-league-uefa.html

An investigation into accusations that Premier League champion Manchester City misled European soccer’s financial regulators in pursuit of its success on the field is expected to recommend that the team be barred from the Champions League, European soccer’s richest competition and the trophy the club covets most.

English soccer authorities and officials at UEFA, European soccer’s governing body and the organizer of the Champions League, have for months been investigating Manchester City amid allegations of rule-breaking revealed in damaging leaks over much of the past year. Members of the investigatory chamber of UEFA’s financial control board, a group set up to analyze the accounts of clubs suspected of breaking strict cost-control regulations, met two weeks ago in Nyon, Switzerland, to finalize their conclusions.

If UEFA is unable to establish a case and enforce a punishment, it risks seeing its system of financial rules — in place since 2011, and designed to impose a measure of financial fairness within the European soccer economy — rendered meaningless. Several officials on the financial control bodies also have said privately that their reputations could be harmed if their work is seen to be toothless.

Trigger

Harry Palmr wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/sports/manchester-city-champions-league-uefa.html

They can just scribble out city and put United behind Manchester at the draw

ozzy jr

Ouch

Riesen_Meal

As if anything is going to happen them...

No way they won't be allowed in the CL...

Guy:Incognito

A 2 point deduction in the league, applied to this season, would be the most appropriate punishment imo.

ERG89

astradave wrote: »

They can just scribble out city and put United behind Manchester

I imagine that's what City did writing some of those accounts

Mr.H

ERG89 wrote:

I imagine that's what City did writing some of those accounts

But they apparently pay less in wages than all their rivals......... ffs did you see the amount of them on the pitch yesterday

Mr.H

As the article says, if uefa dont act they might as well come out and say ffp failed

Not like they actually compete in it anyway to be fair

Frankie Cortese

Be more appropriate for UEFA to investigate a great club like Bolton Wanderers. An awful day for football. How can the FA and other bodies not do anything to prevent clubs from entering these financial difficulties? They punish investment via FFP but do nothing to stop debts.

Stinks, the whole lot of it.

POKERKING

Nice timing this. Anything to discredit yesterdays achievement.

citytillidie

Frankie Cortese wrote: »

Be more appropriate for UEFA to investigate a great club like Bolton Wanderers. An awful day for football. How can the FA and other bodies not do anything to prevent clubs from entering these financial difficulties? They punish investment via FFP but do nothing to stop debts.

Stinks, the whole lot of it.

What can UEFA do to Bolton? Bolton are not playing in Europe. EFL have given them a -12 deduction for next season.

Frankie Cortese

citytillidie wrote: »

What can UEFA do to Bolton? Bolton are not playing in Europe. EFL have given them a -12 deduction for next season.

I don’t want UEFA to do nothing to them, except get them owners out of the club.

Weird how the focus is on owners who can afford it spending too much, rather than those owners bleeding a club dry and/or letting it die.

The priorities are all wrong.

If your motives are not aligned to the problem, you will never get the right solution. FFP is farcical while other clubs like this rot.

noodler

Frankie Cortese wrote: »

Be more appropriate for UEFA to investigate a great club like Bolton Wanderers. An awful day for football. How can the FA and other bodies not do anything to prevent clubs from entering these financial difficulties? They punish investment via FFP but do nothing to stop debts.

Stinks, the whole lot of it.

Weird conflating of circumstance.

Frankie Cortese

noodler wrote: »

Weird conflating of circumstance.

It’s very weird that you would think it’s weird.

It’s ironic that the FFP stories emerge today, the day Bolton go in to administration. One owner has invested in a club, another has destroyed a club. Which one is under investigation. Tells you everything.

Apparently FFP we were told was set up to HELP PREVENT the situation Bolton are in now, but instead of getting help, they’re getting points deductions, loaded into debt with bad owners bleeding them dry & the authorities are chasing a team who’s owners have pumped money into.

ozzy jr

If city and Bolton only spent money that they generated (legitimately), neither club would be facing any punishment.

Frankie Cortese

ozzy jr wrote: »

If city and Bolton only spent money that they generated (legitimately), neither club would be facing any punishment.

What an utter bull**** statement to make. If they only spent what they generated there would be no need for owners would there, because you wouldn’t technically own anything if a higher authority prevented you from investing.

It’s like purchasing a small pub and then trying to buy the property next door to extend it and make it bigger only to be told ‘you don’t serve enough pints per week in this pub to warrant a bigger one’

If City were to be expelled from UCL then the hit to their revenue would 20%, that itself causes more problems for the club passing FFP, they’d be guaranteed to fail it again in 12 months, it’s a flawed system and has been since the start.

ozzy jr

Frankie Cortese wrote: »

What an utter bull**** statement to make. If they only spent what they generated there would be no need for owners would there, because you wouldn’t technically own anything if a higher authority prevented you from investing.

It’s like purchasing a small pub and then trying to buy the property next door to extend it and make it bigger only to be told ‘you don’t serve enough pints per week in this pub to warrant a bigger one’

If City were to be expelled from UCL then the hit to their revenue would 20%, that itself causes more problems for the club passing FFP, they’d be guaranteed to fail it again in 12 months, it’s a flawed system and has been since the start.

No point having a go at me, city signed up to FFP.

Frankie Cortese

ozzy jr wrote: »

No point having a go at me, city signed up to FFP.

It’s more about Bolton I’m giving out about, but that doesn’t concern anyone here because Bolton are no threat, Bolton aren’t head and shoulders above every other team in England and people don’t want them punished because they can’t climb above them in the league.

Agent Coulson

Lots of deflecting going on in the thread.

ozzy jr

Frankie Cortese wrote: »

It’s more about Bolton I’m giving out about, but that doesn’t concern anyone here because Bolton are no threat, Bolton aren’t head and shoulders above every other team in England and people don’t want them punished because they can’t climb above them in the league.

Even though you didn't mention Bolton once in the post I quoted

Anyway, I'll leave you to it. I've read your posts on this subject before.

Frankie Cortese

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Lots of deflecting going on in the thread.

No deflecting, the thread was originally called ‘FFP Football leaks’ and got renamed because the OP asked for it because it was just City talk.

Fact of the matter is the Bolton story should be a much bigger story than the City one because FFP has failed them, and it’s sad that it isn’t.

It’s actually pathetic that because City are blowing English competitions away, people rather see UEFA go for them, than doing what they originally said they set FFP up to do in the first place and HELP not punish Bolton Wanderers.

antodeco

Deducting Bolton 12 points actually causes more hardship. I'm a shareholder in Bolton and I'm pissed off at how there was no prevention of Anderson bleeding the club dry. When Bassini came in to buy, there was no prevention, and he didn't even have any more. Targeting clubs with money and allowing clubs without money to fail will be the death of many clubs.

Frankie Cortese

ozzy jr wrote: »

Even though you didn't mention Bolton once in the post I quoted

Anyway, I'll leave you to it. I've read your posts on this subject before.

I mentioned them more than once in the post that you replied to.

Frankie Cortese

antodeco wrote: »

Deducting Bolton 12 points actually causes more hardship. I'm a shareholder in Bolton and I'm pissed off at how there was no prevention of Anderson bleeding the club dry. When Bassini came in to buy, there was no prevention, and he didn't even have any more. Targeting clubs with money and allowing clubs without money to fail will be the death of many clubs.

I agree with everything but they won’t care on this thread.

theoneeyedman

There should be a proper 'fair and proper person' test for owners of football clubs, there is too much community investment in these clubs by local communities over many, many years to allow any shysters to take them over, often with borrowed money. Then, there might be some control over the likes of the owners at Bolton, or the Oystons at Blackpool, or indeed over rulers of oil states who take part in forced labour camps, mass murder and war crimes who wish to use the game and clubs to rehabilitate their reputations.

That said I can't see a ban being upheld. City have said previously (while not denying the substantive content of the Der Spiegel leaks) that they would fight any potential ban or fines, through the courts and they have deep enough pockets to do it.

Mr.H

Frankie Cortese wrote:

Fact of the matter is the Bolton story should be a much bigger story than the City one because FFP has failed them, and it’s sad that it isn’t.

Bolton will be punished. So will city. City cheated and lied. They deserve to be punished. They may as well play with a 12th man, claim there is nothing in the rules to stop it and then threaten to take everyone to court if they complain.

Fact is it would be a far more even playing field if city did have a cheat code.

~Rebel~

Frankie Cortese wrote: »

I don’t want UEFA to do nothing to them, except get them owners out of the club.

Weird how the focus is on owners who can afford it spending too much, rather than those owners bleeding a club dry and/or letting it die.

The priorities are all wrong.

If your motives are not aligned to the problem, you will never get the right solution. FFP is farcical while other clubs like this rot.

I don't think UEFA have any authority over domestic leagues and competitions though, only the Champions League and Europa League.

It would have to be FA action to do anything with the Bolton situation.
(which they should... desperately needs to be a more rigorous testing and continuous retesting of the fit & proper ownership stuff).

IncognitoMan

theoneeyedman wrote: »

There should be a proper 'fair and proper person' test for owners of football clubs, there is too much community investment in these clubs by local communities over many, many years to allow any shysters to take them over, often with borrowed money. Then, there might be some control over the likes of the owners at Bolton, or the Oystons at Blackpool, or indeed over rulers of oil states who take part in forced labour camps, mass murder and war crimes who wish to use the game and clubs to rehabilitate their reputations.

There needs to be some rules in place because as you said they are huge parts of their local communities and beyond. They serve a bigger purpose than just a business.

It should be something along the lines of a single person cannot hold more than a small percentage of any football club. Basically make football clubs very unattractive to people who just want to leach off them but also remove the possibility for one person to have a change of mind and destroy a club.

Taking money out of the football club for personal use should be a big no. No ifs or buts. All money generated by the club goes back into the club or the local community.

What is happening with Bolton is terrible and should never have been allowed.

Same for the Glaziers at United robing a living from the Club and the City owners using the club as a western PR exercise.

citytillidie

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I don't think UEFA have any authority over domestic leagues and competitions though, only the Champions League and Europa League.

It would have to be FA action to do anything with the Bolton situation.
(which they should... desperately needs to be a more rigorous testing and continuous retesting of the fit & proper ownership stuff).

Think it would be the EFL not FA looking into Bolton

Trigger

citytillidie wrote: »

Think it would be the EFL not FA looking into Bolton

Yup, the fit and proper test is done by the EFL for those leagues and the PL does it's own.. the FA might in some cases have a look at the request of the bodies but that would be very rare, not entirely certain but they may have had a look at the Leeds case a couple of years ago

rob316

If all it does is keep a tighter leash on City that will do. Their reported commercial revenue is slightly less than United's, that isn't even possible without dodgy sponsorship deals.

A half arsed FFP is still better than none, could you imagine what City and PSG would do if they had free reign. Your not talking rich owners either you talking the kind of people who consider a million the equivalent of a tenner to you and me. Citys owners are worth $1 trillion ffs

Weepsie

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Same for the Glaziers at United robing a living from the Club and the City owners using the club as a western PR exercise.

The Glaziers belong at Crystal Palace or Glass-Gow Rangers


Couldn't resist, sorry

IncognitoMan

Weepsie wrote: »

The Glaziers belong at Crystal Palace or Glass-Gow Rangers


Couldn't resist, sorry

Sometimes auto correct is good, sometimes bad :pac:

Agent Coulson

If City's owners who are a genocidal dictatorship destroying the peoples of the Yemen can pass a fit and proper ownership test what hope do clubs like Bolton etc really have.


FIFA, UEFA and all governing bodies don't care about fit and proper if they are getting a slice of the money these corrupt owners bring with them.

sideswipe

‘City have been referred to Club Financial Control Body adjudicatory chamber by UEFA over a potential breach of FFP rules.’

Looks like UEFA are getting close to a decision on this. I wonder will they make the evidence collected available to the public?
I don’t quite understand what City are alleged to have been up to. I mean if I’m reading it correctly they are being investigated for breaches over a period for which they were already found guilty of wrongdoing and fined about €50m?

Pauliedragon

I'm not pretnding I have any legal backround but have the FFP rules ever been challenged? Surely if I want to put my money into my business that's my right. Restraint of trade?

TitianGerm

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I'm not pretnding I have any legal backround but have the FFP rules ever been challenged? Surely if I want to put my money into my business that's my right. Restraint of trade?

Why sign up to the rules if you don't plan to follow them?

Skylinehead

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I'm not pretnding I have any legal backround but have the FFP rules ever been challenged? Surely if I want to put my money into my business that's my right. Restraint of trade?

You can buy who you want, but if you want to participate in UEFA competitions you'll have to follow the rules.

Pauliedragon

Skylinehead wrote: »

You can buy who you want, but if you want to participate in UEFA competitions you'll have to follow the rules.

My point if the rules are illegal they are null and void surely? If an employer makes me sign a contract for €5hr an hour it's not valid as it's under minimum wage. I'm standing up for city I've been thinking this since FFP came in. I'm just asking if some club too it to court would they win not if city are right or wrong.