DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 19059--------------------------------------------------
Fair Play?
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: July 14, 2020, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Since the stolen emails were published by Der Spiegel my team,
Manchester City, have been dragged through the mud by the
majority of the media. Having looked closely at the evidence
that is in the public domain I believe that this was the
intention of UEFA, pressurised by the so called and supposedly
disbanded "G14" group of European Footballing "elite" clubs and
their associates in influential places in UEFA. This was
unravelled by yesterday's CAS ruling. Surely UEFA knew they
were acting "ultra vires" in persecuting an issue that was time
barred (and also, in my view, unfounded)?
Unusually the Daily Mail, in the form of Martin Samuels (a West
Ham supporter I understand), has an article that shows the case
from a City perspective:
HTML https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8518971/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Man-City-lost-appeal-against-European-ban-CRUSHED.html
One of the specks of gold I uncovered whilst trawling through
20,000 plus posts on BlueMoon was that Guardiola had taken a
sabbatical year in New York to learn chess with Gary Kasperov -
that explains a lot.
I hope that the CAS ruling represents a breach in the G14
cartel's exclusivity dyke that will allow wider competition in
all leagues. Newcastle, Wolves, Sheffield United and perhaps
Spurs fans and maybe some others should be smiling at the
possibilities. If Ceferin has the political will and skill then
Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Bayern Munich, Real
Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus fans in particular might just be
getting a little bit worried.
#Post#: 19062--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fair Play?
DIR By: ajb95
Date: July 14, 2020, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not City were found guilty, it is up to our media to
expose/reveal the misdemeanours that are going on in all aspects
of life, society etc. If they didn’t what would be the point.
What the ruling also said was City’s lack of co-operation
hindered the investigation. This would suggest that City had
“something to hide”.
Numerous clubs across Europe, particularly in ENgland are
struggling to survive due to the selfish elitism of high level
professional teams. Whether you agree with FFP or not, the
fuelled have been brought in to establish sustainability of the
beautiful game, most of whom don’t have an oil rich prince to
bail out of any financial traps. UEFA I think is trying to level
the playing field too much but something needs to be done for
the good of all football otherwise within 10 years the elite
names of Europe and the world will leave and form a globalised
super league football tournament.
I think it’s the end of FFP in its current form, and it proves
that wealth leads to power which will trump all forms of
authority!
#Post#: 19082--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fair Play?
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: July 14, 2020, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Whether or not City were found guilty, it is up to our media
to expose/reveal the misdemeanours that are going on in all
aspects of life, society etc. If they didn’t what would be the
point.
--- End Quote ---
Indeed, but there is a difference between that and a witch hunt.
So for example, Liverpool staff hacked Manchester City's
scouting files - and paid £1M hush money - where is the
equivalent media outcry?
HTML https://www.thisisanfield.com/2019/09/liverpool-paid-man-city-1m-after-allegedly-hacking-scouting-system-in-2013/
They apparently could discount £35M on planning not to move to
a new stadium in Stanley Park and this allowed them to avoid FFP
penalties:
HTML https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/liverpool-fc-owners-set-disappointed-9282200
--- Quote ---
> What the ruling also said was City’s lack of co-operation
hindered the investigation. This would suggest that City had
“something to hide”.
--- End Quote ---
Here's how I understand it. In 2013 City failed the FFP test.
However, there was a UEFA "toolkit" which allowed clubs to
offset their debts, part of this related to salaries of players
brought in in 2010 and before. In preparing their accounts City
liaised with UEFA staff concerning this allowance which as the
"toolkit" stood would have brought City's losses to a level
which would have avoided penalties. Shortly after City's
accounts were filed UEFA changed the basis of the "toolkit" so
that City fell into the penalised category. City negotiated a
settlement with UEFA which included a fine and a reduction in
their European squad size along with UEFA carrying out extra
scrutiny of their accounts for three years. City did not agree
that they had done anything wrong, and in my view should have
appealed that UEFA decision there and then. However, for
commercial reasons (i.e. their business plan could accommodate
the settlement) and to show goodwill City complied. After three
years the matter was closed. When UEFA returned to the matter
it was outside their own rules and contrary to the settlement
that had been agreed. UEFA also leaked information given to
them by City and effectively announced the verdict and penalty
before the investigation had been completed. City went to CAS
who said that they couldn't rule on the matter until the UEFA
processes had been completed but commented that City's concerns
were "not without merit". That is when City stopped cooperating
although they did supply a 200 page dossier of information.
Apart from the lack of cooperation CAS have found nothing to
substantiate UEFA's complaints. During the process Ceferin
twice attended City European games and it is strongly suggested
that he tried to negotiate a deal that City would accept
responsibility in return for not receiving a ban - City refused.
So dealing with an organisation operating outside its own
rules, didn't honour its own agreements, leaking information and
prejudged the issue City, hardly surprisingly, refused to
cooperate fully. They had tried the nice guy approach had their
fingers burnt and were now playing hardball.
--- Quote ---
> Numerous clubs across Europe, particularly in ENgland are
struggling to survive due to the selfish elitism of high level
professional teams. Whether you agree with FFP or not, the
fuelled have been brought in to establish sustainability of the
beautiful game, most of whom don’t have an oil rich prince to
bail out of any financial traps. UEFA I think is trying to level
the playing field too much but something needs to be done for
the good of all football otherwise within 10 years the elite
names of Europe and the world will leave and form a globalised
super league football tournament.
--- End Quote ---
A bit ironic in two ways. City have been paying over the odds
for players (though still being more circumspect than some of
our nearby neighbours - Sanchez & Fred spring to mind). This has
fed funding into other clubs. I'm not sure that City can take
much responsibility for the financial demise of Bury, Wigan,
Bolton or Macclesfield - indeed they did help Bury out with
training facilities for a while - this was reckoned to have
potentially saved Bury around £350,000. City have also
developed the neighbourhood of West Gorton which was pretty run
down when I lived in Reddish, and on my last visit there the
area seemed quite vibrant.
Secondly it is the very threat of the "G14" clubs to form a
European Super League that caused the FFP conditions to become a
barrier to investment in smaller clubs to maintain the cartel,
and which would probably be contrary to European Competition
law.
HTML https://law.emory.edu/eilr/content/volume-29/issue-4/comments/uefa-fairplay-european-union-antitrust.html
On a lighter note I heard on the radio that the United Arab
Emirates are to launch a rocket to Mars - were it to the Moon
I'd be sure they were planning to paint it blue!
#Post#: 19086--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fair Play?
DIR By: ajb95
Date: July 14, 2020, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Microscopist link ---
>
> [quote]Whether or not City were found guilty, it is up to our
media to expose/reveal the misdemeanours that are going on in
all aspects of life, society etc. If they didn’t what would be
the point.
--- End Quote ---
Indeed, but there is a difference between that and a witch hunt.
So for example, Liverpool staff hacked Manchester City's
scouting files - and paid £1M hush money - where is the
equivalent media outcry?
HTML https://www.thisisanfield.com/2019/09/liverpool-paid-man-city-1m-after-allegedly-hacking-scouting-system-in-2013/
They apparently could discount £35M on planning not to move to
a new stadium in Stanley Park and this allowed them to avoid FFP
penalties:
HTML https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/liverpool-fc-owners-set-disappointed-9282200
--- Quote ---
> What the ruling also said was City’s lack of co-operation
hindered the investigation. This would suggest that City had
“something to hide”.
--- End Quote ---
Here's how I understand it. In 2013 City failed the FFP test.
However, there was a UEFA "toolkit" which allowed clubs to
offset their debts, part of this related to salaries of players
brought in in 2010 and before. In preparing their accounts City
liaised with UEFA staff concerning this allowance which as the
"toolkit" stood would have brought City's losses to a level
which would have avoided penalties. Shortly after City's
accounts were filed UEFA changed the basis of the "toolkit" so
that City fell into the penalised category. City negotiated a
settlement with UEFA which included a fine and a reduction in
their European squad size along with UEFA carrying out extra
scrutiny of their accounts for three years. City did not agree
that they had done anything wrong, and in my view should have
appealed that UEFA decision there and then. However, for
commercial reasons (i.e. their business plan could accommodate
the settlement) and to show goodwill City complied. After three
years the matter was closed. When UEFA returned to the matter
it was outside their own rules and contrary to the settlement
that had been agreed. UEFA also leaked information given to
them by City and effectively announced the verdict and penalty
before the investigation had been completed. City went to CAS
who said that they couldn't rule on the matter until the UEFA
processes had been completed but commented that City's concerns
were "not without merit". That is when City stopped cooperating
although they did supply a 200 page dossier of information.
Apart from the lack of cooperation CAS have found nothing to
substantiate UEFA's complaints. During the process Ceferin
twice attended City European games and it is strongly suggested
that he tried to negotiate a deal that City would accept
responsibility in return for not receiving a ban - City refused.
So dealing with an organisation operating outside its own
rules, didn't honour its own agreements, leaking information and
prejudged the issue City, hardly surprisingly, refused to
cooperate fully. They had tried the nice guy approach had their
fingers burnt and were now playing hardball.
--- Quote ---
> Numerous clubs across Europe, particularly in ENgland are
struggling to survive due to the selfish elitism of high level
professional teams. Whether you agree with FFP or not, the
fuelled have been brought in to establish sustainability of the
beautiful game, most of whom don’t have an oil rich prince to
bail out of any financial traps. UEFA I think is trying to level
the playing field too much but something needs to be done for
the good of all football otherwise within 10 years the elite
names of Europe and the world will leave and form a globalised
super league football tournament.
--- End Quote ---
A bit ironic in two ways. City have been paying over the odds
for players (though still being more circumspect than some of
our nearby neighbours - Sanchez & Fred spring to mind). This has
fed funding into other clubs. I'm not sure that City can take
much responsibility for the financial demise of Bury, Wigan,
Bolton or Macclesfield - indeed they did help Bury out with
training facilities for a while - this was reckoned to have
potentially saved Bury around £350,000. City have also
developed the neighbourhood of West Gorton which was pretty run
down when I lived in Reddish, and on my last visit there the
area seemed quite vibrant.
Secondly it is the very threat of the "G14" clubs to form a
European Super League that caused the FFP conditions to become a
barrier to investment in smaller clubs to maintain the cartel,
and which would probably be contrary to European Competition
law.
HTML https://law.emory.edu/eilr/content/volume-29/issue-4/comments/uefa-fairplay-european-union-antitrust.html
On a lighter note I heard on the radio that the United Arab
Emirates are to launch a rocket to Mars - were it to the Moon
I'd be sure they were planning to paint it blue!
[/quote]
I agree that UEFA made a lot of mistakes and whilst I think it
was wrong City didn't co-operate, I do agree what UEFA did made
that virtually impossible. What I don't understand is if City
are "not guilty" why CAS have imposed a fine of £10 million
euros?? If the defendant is guilty, fining them seems to make no
logical sense.
#Post#: 19087--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fair Play?
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: July 14, 2020, 12:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I agree that UEFA made a lot of mistakes and whilst I think it
was wrong City didn't co-operate, I do agree what UEFA did made
that virtually impossible. What I don't understand is if City
are "not guilty" why CAS have imposed a fine of £10 million
euros?? If the defendant is guilty, fining them seems to make no
logical sense.
--- End Quote ---
If you want my opinion this is a political decision - remember
UEFA chose one of the Judges from a list (and changed their
choice from the earlier hearing). It gives UEFA a bit of a fig
leaf to save face with. There are also in my view a few "weasel
words" that serve the same purpose.
Since UEFA were acting "ultra vires" I do wonder whether will
seek to claim damages, perhaps to the tune of 10M Euros, and
perhaps privately. If it were me I would certainly try! I
actually think that UEFA will regard this as the best possible
outcome for them - had the judgement been harsher on City I'm
pretty sure that City would have pursued the legality of FPP
right up to the European Court of Justice and tied UEFA up with
it for years. The owner had certainly indicated that they would
be prepared to spend the £30M on lawyers and tie UEFA up in the
courts for 10 years. CAS of course couldn't comment on the
overall legality of FFP they could only consider whether the
correct procedures had been used and whether the evidence
warranted the verdict in terms of FFP as it is prescribed, so I
don't think there would have been an appeal from City of the CAS
decision as such. however it had gone. But a whole new ball game
would have started.
I think CAS judged it right politically although in reality I
think the non-cooperation verdict was harsh.
I actually hope that it gives the more "independently minded"
UEFA folk enough licence to alter FFP to make it fit for purpose
- and perhaps curb transfer fees, agents' fees and player wages
whilst allowing more clubs to compete at the higher levels. I
have a bit of a split personality here, whilst I naturally want
City to win every time they play I also don't want them to
dominate in the way that Celtic do in the Scottish Premiership
and I'd be (sort of) happy if we won one trophy a year so long
as there were around ten clubs a year with a reasonable hope of
winning the league. After all I was brought up in the days when
Dave Ewing with his "They shall not pass" philosophy was wheeled
out at the end of each season when we tried to avoid relegation,
and those days will likely come again, though sadly not with
Dave Ewing!
#Post#: 19099--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fair Play?
DIR By: ajb95
Date: July 14, 2020, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A well put comment Microscopist
#Post#: 19101--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fair Play?
DIR By: flipmode
Date: July 14, 2020, 9:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When the UEFA Committee includes the following people, the smell
that permeates from Nyon makes you wonder:
Andrea Agnelli (Chairman of Juventus, on UEFA Executive
Committee)
David Gill (Non Executive Chairman of Manchester United and UEFA
Treasurer)
Nasser Al Khalefi (CEO of Paris St Germain, member of the UEFA
Executive Board)
Jacobo Beltran (UEFA Financial Control Body and member of the
Madrid Council who funnel money into Real Madrid)
Rick Parry (UEFA Investigatory panel of Club FFP and former CEO
of Liverpool FC)
#Post#: 19106--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fair Play?
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: July 15, 2020, 4:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Simon Drake
General Counsel / Director of Legal & Business Affairs at UEFA
…..
UEFA 2006-
ITV 2001-2006
▪ Head of Legal & Business Affairs, Sport
▪ ITV board representative
Manchester United Football Club TV channel
Liverpool Football Club
Arsenal Broadband Limited
Arsenal Football Club media business
▪ Director
Liverpool FC.TV Limited
HTML https://ch.linkedin.com/in/simon-drake-25804b11
Can't think how he might have got the job at UEFA.
#Post#: 19146--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fair Play?
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: July 16, 2020, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8526789/Peace-talks-held-UEFA-president-Aleksander-Ceferin-Man-City-chairman-Khaldoon-Al-Mubarak.html
I'm pleased to read that our owner has initiated talks with
Ceferin. I have sensed (although with a few alarm bells
ringing) that he wants to reform both FFP and UEFA to reduce the
influence of "the elite clubs" and if City can help him do that
all to the good. The alternative for City would be to try and
follow the way of PSG and Chelsea and effectively become part of
the cartel and help pull up the drawbridge behind us. City have
never been an "establishment" club and had similar tussles with
the authorities over a hundred years ago - but then there was no
CAS.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1