Feed
Already playing ? Get these essential add ons to enhance the game Want updated squads for FM19? We have the worlds biggest FM2019 Data Update. 6 minutes ago
aurelien.aurand commented on: SS Official Kits Thread
15 minutes ago
A new version of our data update was released with 507104 changes from 918 contributors.
17 minutes ago
A new version of our data update was released with 306958 changes from 983 contributors.
17 minutes ago
A new version of our data update was released with 45485 changes from 220 contributors.
24 minutes ago
aurelien.aurand commented on: SS Official Kits Thread
25 minutes ago
aurelien.aurand commented on: SS Official Kits Thread
25 minutes ago
aurelien.aurand commented on: SS Official Kits Thread
25 minutes ago
aurelien.aurand commented on: SS Official Kits Thread
26 minutes ago
aurelien.aurand commented on: SS Official Kits Thread
26 minutes ago
aurelien.aurand commented on: SS Official Kits Thread
27 minutes ago
aurelien.aurand commented on: SS Official Kits Thread
27 minutes ago
aurelien.aurand commented on: SS Official Kits Thread
28 minutes ago
aurelien.aurand commented on: SS Official Kits Thread
48 minutes ago
SolidLiquid commented on: Sweden - Superetten SS'2019 New! (16/05/19) - Not SSKCC yet!
1 hour ago
A new version of our data update was released with 507188 changes from 918 contributors.
1 hour ago
A new version of our data update was released with 306983 changes from 983 contributors.
1 hour ago
A new version of our data update was released with 45240 changes from 220 contributors.
1 hour ago
rmb87 commented on: SS Fantasy Kits ONLY Thread (NO REAL KITS)
1 hour ago
mons commented on: FM2019 Real Names and German National Team Fix File for FM19 v3.0 [released 01/03/2019]
1 hour ago
VP. commented on: VP's Arsenal Career - A New Direction
1 hour ago
VP. commented on: The Armoury
2 hours ago
A new version of our data update was released with 507156 changes from 918 contributors.
2 hours ago
crutch1987 commented on: FM2019 Real Names and German National Team Fix File for FM19 v3.0 [released 01/03/2019]
2 hours ago
A new version of our data update was released with 306951 changes from 983 contributors.
2 hours ago
A new version of our data update was released with 45192 changes from 220 contributors.
2 hours ago
Footygamer added a video: Building A Nation - S7-E5 Youth Intake: Once In A Generation Talent! | Football Manager 2019
3 hours ago
neogameur54 commented on: FM19 Adboard Patch - V1.1 Out Now
3 hours ago
A new version of our data update was released with 507030 changes from 918 contributors.
3 hours ago
A new version of our data update was released with 306810 changes from 983 contributors.
3 hours ago
A new version of our data update was released with 44867 changes from 220 contributors.
Discussion
Pretty pathetic to be honest.

As much as I dislike Sydney, I can see the issue.

As the article says, Sydney are already known as the "Sky Blues" and their kit represents that also. You then also have Melbourne Victory wearing a dark blue kit as well. To have Melbourne Heart change their own kit to a blue variation and effectively lose the identity they've established thus far in the league would be somewhat disheartening for fans. It's no real different from Hull fans being against renaming their side or Cardiff having their kit changed from blue to red.

Sydney FC.

I have sympathy with Melbourne Heart fans over changes to their colours but a club in an entirely different city altogether? No, that's just them being whiny.

As much as I dislike Sydney, I can see the issue.

As the article says, Sydney are already known as the "Sky Blues" and their kit represents that also. You then also have Melbourne Victory wearing a dark blue kit as well. To have Melbourne Heart change their own kit to a blue variation and effectively lose the identity they've established thus far in the league would be somewhat disheartening for fans. It's no real different from Hull fans being against renaming their side or Cardiff having their kit changed from blue to red.

No, this is different to that, this is one club moaning because another might be playing in the same colour as them. There's definitely a comparison between Melbourne Heart fans and Cardiff and Hull fans, and they have a far more legitimate reason to complain, but not with Sydney FC's complaint. That's something entirely different and far more petulant, I might be mistaken but as I understand it Sydney FC don't have an exclusive right to the use of Sky Blue in the A-League, City/Heart are applying to change their colours, not to steal Sydney's identity, and if Sydney's identity is literally just the colour of their kits then that's not really City/Heart's issue.I don't really see how they have any grounds for complaint.


That story kind of falls flat when the supposed UEFA transfer embargo isn't one of the sanctions included in FFP.
City haven't "broken FFP rules". The article doesn't say this at all.
City have done exactly what they planned to do all along. City will initially "fail" FFP. Then they will use the June '10 wage exclusions amongst others to "pass" FFP. Nobody should be surprised about this, it's what they planned to do. You cannot use that wage exclusion or some other exclusions unless you initially "fail" FFP.
Unfortunately this means that the papers get to write the "CITY FAIL FFP" headline they've been creaming themselves over for 4 years.
We will technically fail when they do their initial calculations. Then use UEFA's exclusions to pass with no sanctions.
If you want a primer on next month's headlines, the one they'll all be furiously wanking over then will be "UEFA CONFIRM INVESTIGATION OF RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION BY CITY". People will sort of wink-nudge that this is the Etihad deal and it isn't. City will be investigated for a RPT as they legally declared a RPT in their accounts and it means UEFA have to look into it by their own rules. The Etihad deal was not reported and by the UEFA definition (which is essentially the worldwide definition), is not a related party transaction so won't see any adjustments made.
The press are going to be horrific for the next two months and I'll have to explain this four hundred million times.
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
No, this is different to that, this is one club moaning because another might be playing in the same colour as them. There's definitely a comparison between Melbourne Heart fans and Cardiff and Hull fans, and they have a far more legitimate reason to complain, but not with Sydney FC's complaint. That's something entirely different and far more petulant, I might be mistaken but as I understand it Sydney FC don't have an exclusive right to the use of Sky Blue in the A-League, City/Heart are applying to change their colours, not to steal Sydney's identity, and if Sydney's identity is literally just the colour of their kits then that's not really City/Heart's issue.I don't really see how they have any grounds for complaint.

Well these new owners want to rebrand Melbourne Heart also, which is conflicting with one of the state league sides who already hold the name that Heart would be renamed as. I can still see Sydney's issue with that fact that they're basically referred to as "The Sky Blues", due to the clubs colours. Sydney have every right to be somewhat annoyed at what could unfold and cause issues with two sides effectively being dubbed the same, if not similar names, all within the same league. It's stupid.

That said, I'm not really bothered either way since I follow neither side and they are both direct rivals with the Victory.
Well these new owners want to rebrand Melbourne Heart also, which is conflicting with one of the state league sides who already hold the name that Heart would be renamed as. I can still see Sydney's issue with that fact that they're basically referred to as "The Sky Blues", due to the clubs colours. Sydney have every right to be somewhat annoyed at what could unfold and cause issues with two sides effectively being dubbed the same, if not similar names, all within the same league. It's stupid.

I have some sympathy for that other team too, they could lose their name and I'm certainly not in favour of City just trampling all over a smaller club. That said as I understand it they failed to trademark that name and legally at least, I'd have thought that kind of keeps it up for grabs.

I can see why Sydney FC would be annoyed/worried but only in the same way that I as a City fan would be annoyed or worried if a rival team did something that might threaten us - i.e. sign a very good player - I don't see how that concern really translates into a legitimate complaint to the league.
Cos the league owns the copyright's/trademarks/whatever for every club in the league.
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
Cos the league owns the copyright's/trademarks/whatever for every club in the league.

I know but Sydney FC don't have an exclusive right to the use of sky blue on their kit. The A-League are already going to decide if they allow Melbourne Heart to change colours anyway without Sydney sticking their oar in and making a complaint.
Silva is fit for tomorrow \o/

And Nastasic officially isn't injured anymore
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3358/4638481902_0665b36ff4_z.jpg


Edin Dzeko is mint
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
Aye, fair play to him, he's been shit at times this season but he's really stepped up recently.
His workrate was shite today (highlighted when Aguero went off), but he scored 2 crucial goals which is what he's there for
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
Nothing official yet, but:

Dident realise losing CL player places was one of the punishments
http://i.imgur.com/REDwvyC.jpg
Are the home grown quotas scaled or are they still in place?

Losing 4 non home grown spots would be a pretty harsh punishment to be fair.
Apparently they still have to have the 8 homegrown players and the £50m fine over 3 seasons isn't considered deductible under FFP.

That's actually an extraordinarily harsh punishment.
City are fighting with it.

PSG getting a wage cap (can't spend anymore than they currently are), and only allowed buy 1 player for no more than £60m, which seems absurd to me.

Limit is lowered to £30m instead of £45m for next 3 years, so I'd believe the fine doesn't count towards that

«This comment has been edited»
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
City are fighting with it.

PSG getting a wage cap (can't spend anymore than they currently are), and only allowed buy 1 player for no more than £60m, which seems absurd to me.

Limit is lowered to £30m instead of £45m for next 3 years, so I'd believe the fine doesn't count towards that


Isn't this the 'settlement' period where clubs are sitting down with Uefa trying to hammer out a deal both parties agree? After which it goes to an independent body who can issue more severe punishments? Which means discrepancies like PSG's for example compared to yours are based on different deals done with UEFA.

«This comment has been edited»
Isn't this the 'settlement' period where clubs are sitting down with Uefa trying to hammer out a deal both parties agree? After which it goes to an independent body who can issue more severe punishments? Which means discrepancies like PSG's for example compared to yours are based on different deals done with UEFA.


Yep, PSG agreed to their settlement, City are not. They want to go to that independent body thingy, but whatever they say is non-negotiable, so could go either way
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
Yep, PSG agreed to their settlement, City are not. They want to go to that independent body thingy, but whatever they say is non-negotiable, so could go either way


Yes, with the ultimate recourse of an appeal to CAS.

I can't see how this is going to end well for City, Uefa have done a good job here it seems. They've got EU support for the legality of this, and CAS' promise to deal with cases before the season starts indicates that they've been involved in the dialogue from the start.
Hope UEFA finally grow a pair of balls and stick to their punishment, but that probably won't happen.
Its the best sanction, reducing CL squads is the most effective way to ensure teams follow the rules. Don't really agree with the no rise in CL wage bill, I think that could definitely be contested in the courts. City appointed the same guys who set out FFP to try and get around it, so if anyone can find a loophole or a way around sanctions it will be City.
Pretty sure this was still City's plan all along though. They planned to fail the first instance because it was set out that if they did, the club can write off contracts from June 2010, which are like Adebayor, Barry, Lescott, Tevez etc and then we'd comply
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
Pretty sure this was still City's plan all along though. They planned to fail the first instance because it was set out that if they did, the club can write off contracts from June 2010, which are like Adebayor, Barry, Lescott, Tevez etc and then we'd comply


I don't know about that, but yes, it was obviously the plan.

City failed FFP because they chose to fail FFP, if they had wanted to comply with it they could have done so.

Whether it was a sensible decision remains to be seen.
I don't know about that, but yes, it was obviously the plan.

City failed FFP because they chose to fail FFP, if they had wanted to comply with it they could have done so.

Whether it was a sensible decision remains to be seen.


That's true, but I think City's thinking was get the "base" cost out of the way while they can. Players, stadium, academy etc, whilst knowing that they have that June'10 write-off to fall back on. As well as now having New York and Melbourne as added revenue streams going into the main era of FFP
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
That's true, but I think City's thinking was get the "base" cost out of the way while they can. Players, stadium, academy etc, whilst knowing that they have that June'10 write-off to fall back on. As well as now having New York and Melbourne as added revenue streams going into the main era of FFP


I was under the impression that the NY and Melbourne clubs were more exercises in marketing than FFP compliance (although obviously a bigger presence would lead to the latter).

At any rate, it looks like City's biggest problem is the Eithad sponsorship deal which, tbf, stank. PSG's similar deal has been halved in valuation according to L'Equipe and a similar treatment of your one would presumably be pretty fatal to attempts at passing FFP, alongside the short shrift other creative account might be given.

I suggest its probably a difficult discussion to have with none of the facts in front of us, though, and with a few journos now saying that the fine wouldn't count against future FFP then the punishment becomes a bit less harsh.

«This comment has been edited»
I'd be treating all this with a hefty dose of salt to be honest. Seems a little bit too straightforward that City and PSG are supposedly receiving exactly the same punishment/settlement.


At any rate, it looks like City's biggest problem is the Eithad sponsorship deal which, tbf, stank. PSG's similar deal has been halved in valuation according to L'Equipe and a similar treatment of your one would presumably be pretty fatal to attempts at passing FFP, alongside the short shrift other creative account might be given.

There's nothing wrong with the Etihad deal, from what I've seen it's the IP sales and the losses that are the issue.

Its the best sanction, reducing CL squads is the most effective way to ensure teams follow the rules. Don't really agree with the no rise in CL wage bill, I think that could definitely be contested in the courts. City appointed the same guys who set out FFP to try and get around it, so if anyone can find a loophole or a way around sanctions it will be City.

I'm very much not in favour of FFP but I was pleasantly surprised by the reduction of CL squads as a punishment. It demonstrates an intelligence that I don't normally associate with UEFA (or football's governing bodies in general).

Also, on the Etihad deal, for the last time there's nothing wrong with it according to the rules, no matter how much people say it looks dodgy. Etihad Airways aren't a related party under the FFP definitions (which happen to be copied from the International Accounting Standards) and even if it was it wouldn't really matter because the idea that ~£40m p/a deal to sponsor the kits, stadium, training ground/campus is excessive is absurd in the current climate. United had a £20m p/a deal just for their training ground ffs.
Almost every single news site reporting this is mentioning City falling foul of the rules because of the closeness of the owner to the sponsor. What you're saying simply doesn't tally with that.
Almost every single news site reporting this is mentioning City falling foul of the rules because of the closeness of the owner to the sponsor. What you're saying simply doesn't tally with that.

Good for them. They've been saying that since it was announced with very little evidence to back it up, they haven't even managed to reach a consensus on exactly how much the deal is worth.
Good for them. They've been saying that since it was announced with very little evidence to back it up, they haven't even managed to reach a consensus on exactly how much the deal is worth.


But you, of course, know exactly.
Login to post a comment

Login Register