Usmanov

[catcherintherye]

The ban on dodgy Russian nationals may be part of the reason (like he's make Roman?)

I think there is a very clear reason why he stays in the background, and the general scepticism towards Russian nationals is probably quite an important reason in that.

 

[TommyDavo]

I want this to be true but let’s be honest. 4 years on and we’re not spending Chelsea or Man City money. mosh is a generous owner and able to call in favours. Mega money is not happening

True this mate, I mean no way will we spend the best part of £140M on a keeper and a centre half to try to buy the league.

 

[MickA]

I agree mate , think using the Liverpool waters as some reason for there involvement is a red herring . Liverpool waters hasn’t been a huge success and that’s at the actual city centre end which is now 7 years old and has only just progressed past Waterloo dock at the moment .

There are plenty of city centre developments being stagnated and the tobacco warehouse hasn’t actually pulled up any trees sales wise and though in another 25 years it may be completed it’s not exactly Canary Wharf or central London with huge money to be made . If the demand was there then it would be flying up now .

I personally think it’s a vanity project after not gaining control of arsenal but still can’t see why his name isn’t officially put forward as he’s been a shareholder , is known in uk and I’d well imagine fits the proper fit and person test .

For LW to be a proper success the city needs a lot more job investment and good jobs at that. I simply cannot see that happening anytime soon as we're not London or Dublin, we rely on arts and tourism which isn't enough.

I think it's a reasonable ask how much we pressed, if at all, for the far better Central Docks site. After all if AU is involved surely we could be appplying pressure.

 

[Pudsey]

Good point and well made.

I've said all along that Peel saw us as the only game in town desperate enough to take the plot nobody else would touch with a barge pole.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I think there is a very clear reason why he stays in the background, and the general scepticism towards Russian nationals is probably quite an important reason in that.

Whilst he stays in the background there’s no FFP financial doping accusations that can stick in relation to USM, as Moshiri is merely a small stakeholder and has no controlling interest in that business.

Quite what unseen tie up there is in relation to the holding company for EFC I doubt we’ll ever find out.

 

[Tubey]

I agree mate , think using the Liverpool waters as some reason for there involvement is a red herring . Liverpool waters hasn’t been a huge success and that’s at the actual city centre end which is now 7 years old and has only just progressed past Waterloo dock at the moment .

There are plenty of city centre developments being stagnated and the tobacco warehouse hasn’t actually pulled up any trees sales wise and though in another 25 years it may be completed it’s not exactly Canary Wharf or central London with huge money to be made . If the demand was there then it would be flying up now .

I personally think it’s a vanity project after not gaining control of arsenal but still can’t see why his name isn’t officially put forward as he’s been a shareholder , is known in uk and I’d well imagine fits the proper fit and person test .

Because he can't own the club and sponsor things at the same time I think.

Helps pour more money into the club in the interim by having USM sponsor tractors for £20m or whatever.

 

[Neiler]

Interesting:

Man City showed Uefa 'blatant disregard'

Man City showed a "blatant disregard" to co-operate during Uefa's investigation into whether they broke FFP rules, says Cas.

www.bbc.com

 

[catcherintherye]

Interesting:

Man City showed Uefa 'blatant disregard'

Man City showed a "blatant disregard" to co-operate during Uefa's investigation into whether they broke FFP rules, says Cas.

www.bbc.com

What do you read into that? Beyond "blatant disregard" is not able to hold up in an impartial court?

 

[Neiler]

What do you read into that? Beyond "blatant disregard" is not able to hold up in an impartial court?

I think you had the right of it all along mate, massive loss for Uefa, huge reputatonal damage of FFP and it’s application, evidence is damning for Uefa who seemed to take a prejudicial approach to this because it was City. Huge hit to their reputation and application of the rule.

Another take home for me is how bad FFP is applied and analysed by Uefa, they mention the Der Spiegel article triggering the investigation, Why? Surely if the process was robust they wouldn’t need third party tip offs.

Don’t get me wrong, in reality I think City are guilty as hell, but the fact that they took on Uefa and left them with a bloodier nose, means FFP is on life support, as is Uefas reputation to implement without bias and fair process. The precedent has been set now.

Overall, it’s a fudge, a finger wagging at both Uefa and City, saying both are at fault, but really Uefa are the losers, City will absorb the fine participating in the CL.

I also note with interest the PL clubs who made applications with Cas, to do City. Really mad stuff, there will be skin and hair flying, as we’ve seem with Peps recent comments about Arsenal, very unlike him, i can see a few dust ups coming of the field.

 

[catcherintherye]

I think you had the right of it all along mate, massive loss for Uefa, huge repetitional damage of FFP and it’s application, evidence is damning for Uefa who seemed to take a prejudicial approach to this because it was City. Huge hit to their reputation and application of the rule.

Another take home for me is how bad FFP is applied and investigated, they mention the Der Spiegel article triggering the investigation, Why? Surely if the process was robust they wouldn’t need third party tip offs.

Don’t get me wrong, in reality I think City are guilty as hell, but the fact that they took on Uefa and left them with a bloodier nose, means FFP is on life support, as is Uefas reputation to implement without bias and fair process. The president has been set now.

Overall, it’s a fudge, a finger wagging at both Uefa and City, saying both are at fault, but really Uefa are the losers, City will absorb the fine participating in the CL.

I also note with interest the PL clubs who made applications with Cas, to do City. Really mad stuff, there will be skin and hair flying, as we’ve seem with Peps recent comments about Arsenal, very unlike him, i can see a few dust ups coming of the field.

Cheers mate. I agree with most of that too. Usmanov/Moshiri would really have to go some to match what City did. I always felt they almost went out of their way to break the rules, just to facilitate the argument. I mean,as long as we keep things at the evel they are at now, there will be no difficulties.

The Der Speigal thing is correct too. I am amazed more isn't made of that. Legal courts don't particularly like the idea you charge someone on the basis of what a newspaper uncovers years later.

I'm sure we will get the usual suspects in the media desperately trying to spin it that City lost really, and it was all just about time (it wasn't) but I don't get that at all from these reports.

 

[gwladysnight]

What do you read into that? Beyond "blatant disregard" is not able to hold up in an impartial court?

Firstly if you read the CAS report it was a split decision. Secondly CAS did not say that UEFA's case was implausible. The reason it was not upheld was on a technicality. CAS considered that a number of allegations were time barred.

UEFA's interpretation was that by charging City within 5 years then the decision was legitimate. City argued that the whole case should have been dealt with within 5 years. The likelihood is that the case would have been settled within 5 years except City stalled at every opportunity.

Their stalling and as UEFA called it a blatant disregard lead to a £10m fine. So quite clearly the blatant disregard did hold up in court. They were found guilty of obstructing the governing body. That is their second breach of FFP regulations.

 

[gwladysnight]

I think you had the right of it all along mate, massive loss for Uefa, huge reputatonal damage of FFP and it’s application, evidence is damning for Uefa who seemed to take a prejudicial approach to this because it was City. Huge hit to their reputation and application of the rule.

Another take home for me is how bad FFP is applied and analysed by Uefa, they mention the Der Spiegel article triggering the investigation, Why? Surely if the process was robust they wouldn’t need third party tip offs.

Don’t get me wrong, in reality I think City are guilty as hell, but the fact that they took on Uefa and left them with a bloodier nose, means FFP is on life support, as is Uefas reputation to implement without bias and fair process. The precedent has been set now.

Overall, it’s a fudge, a finger wagging at both Uefa and City, saying both are at fault, but really Uefa are the losers, City will absorb the fine participating in the CL.

I also note with interest the PL clubs who made applications with Cas, to do City. Really mad stuff, there will be skin and hair flying, as we’ve seem with Peps recent comments about Arsenal, very unlike him, i can see a few dust ups coming of the field.

UEFA lost on a technicality. They lost because CAS considered large parts of their evidence was time barred. They will just tighten up the rules.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Good point and well made.

I've said all along that Peel saw us as the only game in town desperate enough to take the plot nobody else would touch with a barge pole.

I wouldn't go that far, they never envisioned getting towards that end until the central docks were developed so we are talking 25 odd years down the line. By us moving in though it helps them two fold, one it blocks up the 'unattractive' part and two, us being there will help drive apartment sales and businesses to set up close by, so they can start working on the surrounding area sooner.

 

[Neiler]

Cheers mate. I agree with most of that too. Usmanov/Moshiri would really have to go some to match what City did. I always felt they almost went out of their way to break the rules, just to facilitate the argument. I mean,as long as we keep things at the evel they are at now, there will be no difficulties.

The Der Speigal thing is correct too. I am amazed more isn't made of that. Legal courts don't particularly like the idea you charge someone on the basis of what a newspaper uncovers years later.

I'm sure we will get the usual suspects in the media desperately trying to spin it that City lost really, and it was all just about time (it wasn't) but I don't get that at all from these reports.

I think this is significant mate. Not only has the system proven to be ineffective and Uefa unable to adjudicate over its own rules competently. Uefa have been shown to be unable to admininister it, apply it, investigate it and sanction within in it. Their reputation has taken hit and showed to have a bias prejudicial attitude to City as a club or a club of that profile. With all of that in mind, you’d fancy your chances of bending the rules now, but also I think Uefa will think twice about taking a case again. I think it’s very interesting they have kicked 19/20 FFP can down the road, I won’t be surprised if it’s massively changed if still here by the next reckoning. I think the next version will do more to accommodate “new money” if I’m honest, but Uefa will have their noses in the trough.

What does it mean for us? I think the PL are less likely to look at our creative sponsorship deals now, I noted what Cas said about the ”burden of proof” being on the accuser. I don’t see Uefa or the PL going to the lengths or having the skills or remit to adequately investigate - so it proved with City. The boundry has been broken and governing bodies will be more and more reluctant.

FFP doesn’t really impact us, it’s the PL cost controls, which are very similar. For me FFP is now in a vacuum and subsequently I see the PL rules in the same position. The whole thing now will unravel some what, with a more open version, officially relaunched shortly I’d wager, one to more accommodate new money and owner investment.

 

[gwladysnight]

I think this is significant mate. Not only has the system proven to be ineffective and Uefa unable to adjudicate over its own rules competently. Uefa have been shown to be unable to admininister it, apply it, investigate it and sanction within in it. Their reputation has taken hit and showed to have a bias prejudicial attitude to City as a club or a club of that profile. With all of that in mind, you’d fancy your chances of bending the rules now, but also I think Uefa will think twice about taking a case again. I think it’s very interesting they have kicked 19/20 FFP can down the road, I won’t be surprised if it’s massively changed if still here by my reckoning, I think the next version will do more to accommodate “new money” if I’m honest, but they will have their noses in the trough.

Except City were found guilty for the second time of breaching FFP regulations. They avoided a ban because of a technicality over interpretation regarding the end point for FFP investigations becoming time barred. The bigger picture is that they create the rules, so they can easily extend the investigation period in future.

The other thing is that City's deals were multi year deals. UEFA can easily pick a year that isn't time barred.

What does it mean for us? I think the PL are less likely to luck at our creative sponsorship deals now, I noted what Cas said about the ”burden of proof” being on the accuser. I don’t see Uefa or the PL going to the lengths or having the skills or remit to adequately investigate - so it proved with City. The boundry has been broken and governing bodies will be more and more reluctant.

FFP doesn’t really impact us, it’s the PL cost controls, which are very similar. For me FFP is now in a vacuum and subsequently I see the PL rules in the sand position. The whole thing now will unravel some what, with a more open version, officially relaunched shortly I’d wager, one for fair to new money.

Given the Coronavirus pandemic and the subsequent financial losses the case for FFP has only been strengthened.

FFP does impact us because it is based on a 3 year rolling period. So if we qualify then the previous 3 seasons matter.