We are Man City, we do what we want...

Pogue Mahone

Closet Gooner.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
140,081
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Dunno if this article has already been posted in another thread. Don't really care either. Mega-threads can do one.

Basically. City are taking the p*ss out of UEFA. No great surprise. The real power in football was always going to reside with the clubs that have the most money and the track history of corruption and abuse of power in the global game meant you'd have to be incredibly naive not to expect this sort of thing. Still, it is kind of annoying.

Uefa ‘rewrites the rules’ to allow Manchester City to dodge FFP sanctions

The threat of legal action against Uefa has enabled Manchester City to field only one club-trained player in their Champions League squad which goes into action against Bayern Munich next week – three fewer than Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool – despite having failed the governing body’s Financial Fair Play rules.To the bemusement of other English clubs, who must include four players they have developed themselves in their European squads, the only club-trained player in City’s squad is Dedryck Boyata – a Belgian signed as a teenager and developed by the club.

City were initially ordered by Uefa to reduce their Champions League squad from 25 to 21 players, as punishment for breaching FFP rules. As those rules were introduced to encourage self-sufficiency, it was thought that would mean City complying with the same strictures as other clubs. That would mean 13 overseas players could be fielded, with four “club-trained” and four “association-trained” players like all the rest. The Independent understands that the player union Fifpro has been involved in the slackening of restrictions on City, possibly pressing Uefa to allow City fewer home-grown players by indicating that the governing body could be guilty of creating a restriction of movement for players with a more stringent regime. That could result in a complex legal action.

But Uefa then quietly agreed that City could reduce their non-overseas quota to five, to compensate them for reduced squad numbers. It was the publication of City’s squad list at the weekend which revealed that the governing body has allowed them to include only one developed at City’s own academy among that five. Four of the quota of five non-foreigners are from the easier to find “association-trained” category. They are Joe Hart, James Milner, Gaël Clichy and Frank Lampard.

“Uefa have effectively rewritten their home grown player rule,” said Daniel Geey, the football law specialist at the firm Field Fisher Waterhouse, who has advised clients and written extensively on FFP. “There is nothing in Uefa or FFP regulations about the home-grown rule changing.”

Fifpro could not be contacted, though Uefa did confirm that the watering down of the most damaging part of City’s FFP punishment followed consultation with “concerned stakeholders”. Other clubs are reluctant to speak out publicly, but there is a feeling within the game that Uefa has allowed City off the hook. Many inside football believe that Uefa should have reduced City’s domestic quota in proportion with the overall squad reduction: from eight out of 25 to six out of the reduced number of 21. “Five out of 21 was not a proportionate reduction,” Geey said.

Other clubs will also argue that they should have been told earlier that City and Paris Saint-Germain – who also have only one “club-trained” player in their Champions League squad – were not to be limited to only 13 foreign players. Rival clubs had 10 days to legally challenge the initial Uefa settlement with City. None did. It is safe to assume that Liverpool’s principal owner John W Henry, who bought the Anfield club on the basis that a rigorous FFP regime would create an even playing field, will take a dim view of this.

In a statement released to The Independent last night, Uefa said: “As additional information was needed regarding the implementation of this specific sanction in the settlement agreement, there was a subsequent consultation with concerned stakeholders which allowed Uefa to clarify the quantity of home-grown players required for the 2014-15 club competition season.”

City said on Wednesday night that they had complied fully with Uefa’s rules governing the composition of their squad.
 
Doesn't surprise me, modern football is like this. I don't even blame City, they're just trying playing the game. UEFA are a joke, but we've known this for a long time now.
 
It was always going to happen. The only thing financial fair play will result in is the big clubs paying a little more in accounting fees to make everything look as it should on paper.
 
Dunno if this article has already been posted in another thread. Don't really care either. Mega-threads can do one.

Basically. City are taking the p*ss out of UEFA. No great surprise. The real power in football was always going to reside with the clubs that have the most money and the track history of corruption and abuse of power in the global game meant you'd have to be incredibly naive not to expect this sort of thing. Still, it is kind of annoying.

Uefa ‘rewrites the rules’ to allow Manchester City to dodge FFP sanctions



Months ago when people were on about the fines being dished out and restrictions on players, I suggested that the threat of legal action and all the trouble that could cause would frighten UEFA into being more lenient than they should. Others were convinced that they'd be kicked out of the Champions League or face some other hugely inconvenient sanction.

Seems that UEFA dont have the bottle to police this kind of thing properly. They're reliant on the clubs and frankly, nodbody should underestimate the power of rolling out the lawyers and talking about injunctions and god knows what else.
 
Possibly Seb Blatter and his crew at FIFA? Lolzies...

Good luck then basically, makes it hard to blame teams like PSG, who, while doing it for their reasons, are the only ones with enough minerals to stand up and ignore them, they haven't been chucked out of anything yet, we haven't seen what happens when a big team really pushes them, I suppose this would be the first, and look, the team got what they want. I wonder if that would have been the case had it not been a mega rich oil club?
 
So they've basically allowed them to have less homegrown players because they're only allowed to register 21 player - is this about it? If so I don't see anything wrong with it.
 
Yep if you are allowed to get away with it then you can hardly criticise the club involved. Spineless from UEFA. What you can do though is pull up those City fans, long time arch enemies of the "cartel" and exponents of hilarious conspiracy theories of collusion to keep the football club elite in power (that's us by the way), who will no doubt pop up here to defend their clubs heroic attempts to overthrow it all. My how the worm has turned.
 
It's a piss take, but wasn't this know a few months back they got sanctioned? I remember reading that they cut cut their number of home grown players. Same with PSG.
 
So they've basically allowed them to have less homegrown players because they're only allowed to register 21 player - is this about it? If so I don't see anything wrong with it.

Nope. They cut their minimum homegrown requirement by a much greater proportion than they cut their total squad number. Meaning that, bizarrely, their reduced squad size actually made it easier for them to be compliant.
 
So they've basically allowed them to have less homegrown players because they're only allowed to register 21 player - is this about it? If so I don't see anything wrong with it.
Their squad has dropped by less than 1/5th, where as their homegrown has been cut almost in half, and their club grown to 1/4.

Still, was always bound to happen. FFP my backside, I guess is kinda limited them in the transfer window, a bit.
 
Nope. They cut their minimum homegrown requirement by a much greater proportion than they cut their total squad number. Meaning that, bizarrely, their reduced squad size actually made it easier for them to be compliant.

They should have cut it to 6 out of 21 instead of 5 out of 21 I guess. It was always going to happen though, question is whether it'd be down to 5 or 6, they probably went with 5 knowing City don't have them anyway.
 
Nobody should be shocked..its the same with the CL seedings change. Arab oil money goes far

The bottom line is that there are now enough clubs funded this way (and probably more to come) that UEFA will be mindful of problems any "hard line" could cause in damaging the CL brand. Without the best teams the CL isn't the best competition and I suspect the TV companies in (for example) France wont be happy if PSG and Monaco are turfed out for breaking FFP rules.

For me UEFA realise they have to box clever - these clubs hold a lot of power and can, to a degree, can call the tune for UEFA to dance to. As it is it seems like its a case of clubs saying "We'll comply to make you look strong, but dont be to strong on the punishments".
 
When the sanctions came out it was reported then that the homegrown quota was lowered, but they had the squad size reduced. This isn't anything new.
 
I don't really see a problem, essentially they could have put 4 academy players in their squad of 25 and made up the numbers. No? :confused:

Or were they only allowed to have a squad of 21 as punishment for something else?
 
Just got a PM from a City fan who is struggling with the reasoning behind this being unfair.

In case anyone else is in the same boat, here's the maths spelled out for you:

City must have a minimum of 5 non-overseas players in a squad of 21. This is 24% of their total squad.

Everybody else is required to have a minimum of 8 non-overseas players in a squad of 25. This is 32% of their total squad.

Out of those non-overseas players, City are only required to have a minimum of one academy trained player i.e. 20% of their non-overseas must be academy trained

Everybody else is required to have a minimum of four academy trained players i.e. 50% of their non-overseas quota must be academy trained.
 
To add to this, didn't City only actually registered 21 players last year in the Champions League anyway didn't they? But could have added 4 more locally trained players under the age of 21 - which they didn't have.

So this "sanction" changed nothing. The only thing is the 'initial' sanction meant they'd be limited further because to make up the 21 players they'd have to find these 4 locally trained players they didn't have - so it may have been an issue. But with this revelation it just shows it was completely pointless anyway.
 
Aren't the sanctions meant to get more harsh if they fail to meet the financial side of FFP? In that case it will still limit their spending and that's good for the league. They're not going to win the CL anyway so the squad players, limited squad size and homegrown players thing doesn't bother me.
 
Just got a PM from a City fan who is struggling with the reasoning behind this being unfair.

In case anyone else is in the same boat, here's the maths spelled out for you:

City must have a minimum of 5 non-overseas players in a squad of 21. This is 24% of their total squad.

Everybody else is required to have a minimum of 8 non-overseas players in a squad of 25. This is 32% of their total squad.

Out of those non-overseas players, City are only required to have a minimum of one academy trained player i.e. 20% of their non-overseas must be academy trained

Everybody else is required to have a minimum of four academy trained players i.e. 50% of their non-overseas quota must be academy trained.

That's not even the most damning. The rule with the biggest restriction is the academy trained player quota (vs the whole squad), presumably:

Everybody else is required to have a minimum of 4 academy trained player in a squad of 25. This is 16% of their total squad.
City must have 1 academy trained player in their squad of 21. This is 4.76% of their squad.
 
Can someone explain the legal issues here? Because right now this thread seems to be just bloviating and self-pity.

It's all in the article in the OP...

The Independent understands that the player union Fifpro has been involved in the slackening of restrictions on City, possibly pressing Uefa to allow City fewer home-grown players by indicating that the governing body could be guilty of creating a restriction of movement for players with a more stringent regime. That could result in a complex legal action.

Restriction of movement being an EU concept which enshrines the rights of EU citizens to work in whichever EU state they choose.
 
It's all in the article in the OP...



Restriction of movement being an EU concept which enshrines the rights of EU citizens to work in whichever EU state they choose.

Yeah what I was getting at is that if legal threats can change UEFA policies, perhaps there is something to the Manchester City position beyond "typical oil money" grumbling.
 
It's a rule that has already been applied to all clubs equally. Your opinion on it is irrelevant.

At least it used to be applied to all clubs equally, until City started sabre-rattling and demanding exceptions lest they unleash their stupendously expensive legal team on UEFA.

All of which is irritating to fans of clubs other than Manchester City.
 
It's a rule that has already been applied to all clubs equally. Your opinion on it is irrelevant.

At least it used to be applied to all clubs equally, until City started sabre-rattling and demanding exceptions lest they unleash their stupendously expensive legal team on UEFA.

All of which is irritating to fans of clubs other than Manchester City.

Everyone who has an opinion on here is irrelevant. What's the point of saying that?

If the law backs them up, why shouldn't they press their case? For the record, Wenger criticized the home grown rule years ago.
 
Everyone who has an opinion on here is irrelevant. What's the point of saying that?

Because you're basically using "well, the law is an ass" argument. Which is ridiculous. It is what it is and all that anyone can expect is that all clubs are treated equally.

If the law backs them up, why shouldn't they press their case? For the record, Wenger criticized the home grown rule years ago.

Like I said, we've no idea if it does or not. As is often the case in situations like this, it hasn't ended up being tested in a court of law because one party backed down. At this stage we don't know whether this was because there was merit to City's position or whether UEFA didn't fancy getting locked in a legal battle with someone who has the stupendous wealth of a gulf state behind them. In any case, if City's legal team thought that these new regulations were likely to contradict EU legislation, they should have pointed this out before they signed up to them.
 
Because you're basically using "well, the law is an ass" argument. Which is ridiculous. It is what it is and all that anyone can expect is that all clubs are treated equally.



Like I said, we've no idea if it does or not. As is often the case in situations like this, it hasn't ended up being tested in a court of law because one party backed down. At this stage we don't know whether this was because there was merit to City's position or whether UEFA didn't fancy getting locked in a legal battle with someone who has the stupendous wealth of a gulf state behind them. In any case, if City's legal team thought that these new regulations were likely to contradict EU legislation, they should have pointed this out before they signed up to them.


You're using the same argument I am. Only you are using it to defend UEFA's rules and I'm using it to defend the EU's laws.

Maybe they did point it out. Maybe they didn't have standing to make their case at the time. Maybe they didn't realize it.

Regardless, it is possible for contracts to be agreed upon that one party later challenges as illegal. It happens all the time and this isn't the outrageous action by Manchester City you seem to want it to be.
 
Because you're basically using "well, the law is an ass" argument. Which is ridiculous. It is what it is and all that anyone can expect is that all clubs are treated equally.



Like I said, we've no idea if it does or not. As is often the case in situations like this, it hasn't ended up being tested in a court of law because one party backed down. At this stage we don't know whether this was because there was merit to City's position or whether UEFA didn't fancy getting locked in a legal battle with someone who has the stupendous wealth of a gulf state behind them. In any case, if City's legal team thought that these new regulations were likely to contradict EU legislation, they should have pointed this out before they signed up to them.

Its not really up to any club to point out to any governing body whether they think the rules are legally acceptable. If UEFA Want to bring rules in and make big noises about how they're going to enforce them and dish out big punishments they should be preapred to follow through on that, regardless of the consequences.

The reality is that people only instruct the lawyers to look into loopholes when they're on the hook. Im sure most teams would love to comply and probably intend to try and do so in the long run.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this to be fair - UEFA dont fancy taking on a rich club with limitless money and access to the best legal representatives money can buy which could at the very least start a long running legal battle.

UEFA look like mugs here. Its no good making big noises if you're all talk.
 
Seems like a bit of an over reaction here - the main FFP sanctions on City (and PSG) have been fully enforced. i.e. a large fine, limit on transfer spend and squad size

The stuff about homegrown/overseas quotas are relatively minor details, although does seem a bit of a feck up on UEFAs part - in general I was actually suprised at how harsh the initial sanctions were and thought City might challenge them further but seemly they have accepted it.

it is still early days but FFP is clearly making some difference already
 
I want the 4 English clubs to go as far as they can in the CL this year, to help our charge into the top 4, so don't really care about this. No English club will win the CL this year anyway - Chelsea perhaps the only one with an outside chance.
 
Maybe the thread title should be changed to "We are Man City, like all other massive corporations we have lots of high priced lawyers and sometimes we instruct them to look for loopholes that benefit us and also PSG does this too". Or does that not have the same ring to it?
 
Plastic. Soulless, shithouse of a club meets a corrupt, soulless joke of a governing body, no surprise really.

The funny thing is that the bitters for years have been telling us that we're plastic and corrupt, they have become what they hated and the hypocrisy runs deep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adzzz