FFP

[Somniloquism]

Given they also cheated their way to European trophies what is UEFA’s view on appropriate sanctions?

They were fined £8mil by UEFA.

[LeeB]

The thing is, the Premier League are the clubs. I find it incredible that the other 19 clubs think the fine is adequate punishment.

It’s likely more that the other billionaires don’t want any limitations to what they can spend and vote against rules that might deny them that opportunity in the future.

I think it might be the other way around.  The Billionaires like the limitations.  The value of their club continues upwards but they can point at "the rules" when the fans demand more signings. 

Ellis would have been in his element.

[garyellis]

Given they also cheated their way to European trophies what is UEFA’s view on appropriate sanctions?

They were fined £8mil by UEFA.

I am really struggling to put that into the context of what we and Chelsea recently got fined for. It seems incredible that a competent set of lawyers can’t drive a horse and cart through the whole process.

[Dante Lavelli]

I'm pretty certain the PL will come down like a tone of bricks on any club climbing the ladder by dodgy means.  It would be their opportunity to show authority without damaging the brand. 

The "too big to fail" Big 6 are insulated because the PL cannot risk losing the TV revenue or allowing another league to catch up.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Spot on, my advice to Nas and Wes moving forwards is "F*ck the rules" and simply pay for endless legal challenges whilst they invest seriously in their own asset i.e. AVFC - if we get serious investment in what Unai is doing we will be a permanent fixture of the cabal come the end of the decade.

Doesn't that plan immediately fall apart when UEFA shrug their shoulders and say "fine, we'll give your spot in next seasons Champions League to the team that hasn't deliberately and openly broken the rules"?

Isn't another case of the UEFA five year rule whereby they can't take any legal action on a case that goes back more than five years? Man City got away with their crimes on that rule.

[Somniloquism]

Man City got away with it because they selected two of the three people on the "impartial CAS appeals panel" who overturned the orginal decisisions.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Man City got away with it because they selected two of the three people on the "impartial CAS appeals panel" who overturned the orginal decisisions.

I never knew they'd rigged the panel though not surprised and the 5 year rule also played its part.

'UEFA takes note of the decision taken by the Court of Arbitration for Sport to reduce the sanction imposed on Manchester City FC by UEFA’s independent Club Financial Control Body for alleged breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play regulations.

UEFA notes that the CAS panel found that there was insufficient conclusive evidence to uphold all of the CFCB’s conclusions in this specific case and that many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5 year time period foreseen in the UEFA regulations.'

[LeonW]

Reposting this again as i am convinced of this:

Villa have tried to play ball and comply with these rules despite the fact that they are clearly designed to stop us progressing and are not equally enforced. I am now genuinely of the view that we should just do what we want and just fight it out in court for years. Even if we lose in court after years, in the meantime we’ll have improved the squad, increased commercial revenue and probably won trophies. Whatever penalty we get won’t amount to a fraction of such benefits gained.

[Dave]

Well, to repost again then:

Doesn't that plan immediately fall apart when UEFA shrug their shoulders and say "fine, we'll give your spot in next seasons Champions League to the team that hasn't deliberately and openly broken the rules"?

[LeonW]

Well, to repost again then:

Doesn't that plan immediately fall apart when UEFA shrug their shoulders and say "fine, we'll give your spot in next seasons Champions League to the team that hasn't deliberately and openly broken the rules"?

Like Chelsea?

[LeeS]

Reposting this again as i am convinced of this:

Villa have tried to play ball and comply with these rules despite the fact that they are clearly designed to stop us progressing and are not equally enforced. I am now genuinely of the view that we should just do what we want and just fight it out in court for years. Even if we lose in court after years, in the meantime we’ll have improved the squad, increased commercial revenue and probably won trophies. Whatever penalty we get won’t amount to a fraction of such benefits gained.

I actually like sitting up on the moral high ground. Even with no trophies.

[Dave]

Well, to repost again then:

Doesn't that plan immediately fall apart when UEFA shrug their shoulders and say "fine, we'll give your spot in next seasons Champions League to the team that hasn't deliberately and openly broken the rules"?

Like Chelsea?

No, not like Chelsea.

Put your hypothetical plan into action last summer, we go and spend £200m. UEFA now say "but we told you that you needed to have a net positive transfer spend. You've taken the piss, so just like we said, you're not adding any of those new players to your European squad. And because you're taking the piss, it's not just for a year, it's for the full three years that we threatened. Now go away and get your house in order".

Which shiny new players are now interested in joining us?

[LeonW]

Well, to repost again then:

Doesn't that plan immediately fall apart when UEFA shrug their shoulders and say "fine, we'll give your spot in next seasons Champions League to the team that hasn't deliberately and openly broken the rules"?

Like Chelsea?

No, not like Chelsea.

Put your hypothetical plan into action last summer, we go and spend £200m. UEFA now say "but we told you that you needed to have a net positive transfer spend. You've taken the piss, so just like we said, you're not adding any of those new players to your European squad. And because you're taking the piss, it's not just for a year, it's for the full three years that we threatened. Now go away and get your house in order".

Which shiny new players are now interested in joining us?

How did UEFA’s compliance work when banning Manchester City?

[LeonW]

Reposting this again as i am convinced of this:

Villa have tried to play ball and comply with these rules despite the fact that they are clearly designed to stop us progressing and are not equally enforced. I am now genuinely of the view that we should just do what we want and just fight it out in court for years. Even if we lose in court after years, in the meantime we’ll have improved the squad, increased commercial revenue and probably won trophies. Whatever penalty we get won’t amount to a fraction of such benefits gained.

I actually like sitting up on the moral high ground. Even with no trophies.

I’m an ethical person but this is just going too far now.

[Dave]

Well, to repost again then:

Doesn't that plan immediately fall apart when UEFA shrug their shoulders and say "fine, we'll give your spot in next seasons Champions League to the team that hasn't deliberately and openly broken the rules"?

Like Chelsea?

No, not like Chelsea.

Put your hypothetical plan into action last summer, we go and spend £200m. UEFA now say "but we told you that you needed to have a net positive transfer spend. You've taken the piss, so just like we said, you're not adding any of those new players to your European squad. And because you're taking the piss, it's not just for a year, it's for the full three years that we threatened. Now go away and get your house in order".

Which shiny new players are now interested in joining us?

How did UEFA’s compliance work when banning Manchester City?

I don't follow - at what point do you think UEFA should have banned Man City and on what grounds?