Topic: Financial Fair Play - developments in here

[CraigDS]

Considering that most of our commercial deals are with non-British companies, I would be very surprised if they are tied to the pound.

Well, Sky make most of their money from selling the Premier League TV rights internationally, so I doubt that their contracts to sell the TV rights are tied to the pound. As for the payments they make to the Premier League and it's clubs, it is easily solvable. For example, the NBA solves the problem by giving the clubs/franchises a percentage of the TV rights, not a fixed amount.

That's not how the TV rights are sold.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

That's not how the TV rights are sold.

You mean the Premier League TV rights are not sold internationally?

[Nessy76]

You really don't know how any of this works. Our major sponsor is a British bank. Our kit manufacturer is American. I guarantee neither pays us in Euros. We are a British company with bank accounts held in sterling that reports to the UK inland revenue.

This kind of commie shit might wash in the states but it's never going to work here. There's no desire for it in the game, and the practical difficulties are massive.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

You really don't know how any of this works. Our major sponsor is a British bank. Our kit manufacturer is American. I guarantee neither pays us in Euros. We are a British company with bank accounts held in sterling that reports to the UK inland revenue.

I have never said that we are being paid in Euros. I have said that it is unlikely our commercial contracts are tied to the pound. Our sponsor is a British-based bank, but they do most of their business outside the UK. Like you have said, out kit sponsors are from the US.

This kind of commie shit might wash in the states but it's never going to work here. There's no desire for it in the game, and the practical difficulties are massive.

I won't even bother commenting on that one, being a LFC supporter and a left wing activist for the best part of my life ...

[Nessy76]

I have never said that we are being paid in Euros. I have said that it is unlikely our commercial contracts are tied to the pound. Our sponsor is a British-based bank, but they do most of their business outside the UK. Like you have said, out kit sponsors are from the US.

So why do you imagine them paying us in Euros?

I won't even bother commenting on that one, being a LFC supporter and a left wing activist for the best part of my life ...

Just a joke comrade, no offence.

[CraigDS]

You mean the Premier League TV rights are not sold internationally?

I mean Sky don't sell their rights internationally like you said.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

So why do you imagine them paying us in Euros?

Once again, I have never said that we are being paid in Euros. Anyway ...

A negotiator who conducts an international negotiation has 4 choices to make regarding foreign currency when concluding an international joint venture. 1) They can both share the risk. 2) The foreign partner assumes the risk. 3) Your side assumes the risk. 4) One or both parties stipulate in the contract that the currency denomination is an area open to renegotiation, allowing for a certain percentage of rate fluctuation to occur.

http://www.negotiations.com/case/foreign-currency/

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

I mean Sky don't sell their rights internationally like you said.

In that case, even better for the clubs.

[CraigDS]

In that case, even better for the clubs.

Yes, but it shows how little you actually know about how these things work.

This thread isn't about this anyway, go and start another one about a EU salary cap if you want.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

Yes, but it shows how little you actually know about how these things work.

I have never said that I am an expert on the issue of the TV rights deals.

Are you, because I would like to ask you some questions on the issue?

This thread isn't about this anyway, go and start another one about a EU salary cap if you want.

The salary cap is one of the models how other professional sports have solved the problem of the Financial Fair Play. Of course, if you think that the current UEFA's FFP rules are functioning perfectly, I can understand why you are opposed to any other financial models.

[Nessy76]

Once again, I have never said that we are being paid in Euros.

No, you just expect us to pay our players in them, when our income and accounts are in sterling.

What player's agent is going to get his 20% for a deal that means the player's earnings will fluctuate wildly from week to week?

It's unworkable, and no-one in the game wants it.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

No, you just expect us to pay our players in them, when our income and accounts are in sterling.

What player's agent is going to get his 20% for a deal that means the player's earnings will fluctuate wildly from week to week?

It's unworkable, and no-one in the game wants it.

When I think about it, you are correct.

Lets just stick with the current model, and moan about it when Man City and Chelsea abuse it, winning some titles in the process.

[CraigDS]

The salary cap is one of the models how other professional sports have solved the problem of the Financial Fair Play. Of course, if you think that the current UEFA's FFP rules are functioning perfectly, I can understand why you are opposed to any other financial models.

Read what I said.

This thread is about developments with regards to FFP.

Chatting shit about a hair brained idea isn't a development with regards to FFP.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

Read what I said.

This thread is about developments with regards to FFP.

Chatting shit about a hair brained idea isn't a development with regards to FFP.

Read what I have said.

FFP rules are not working.

Why? Is there a solution?

[CraigDS]

Read what I have said.

FFP rules are not working.

Why? Is there a solution?

You've no idea if it's working yet as you've yet to see the first round of punishments dished out. I suspect they'll be a load of shite, but until then it's a presumption.

Still, as I've said, discussing salary cap as a 'solution' isn't for this thread.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

How are big-spending Manchester City set to pass Uefa's Financial Fair Play rules?

IAN HERBERT
Friday 31 January 2014
   
It certainly seems likely that the sums will add up. That much was clear when City revealed annual turnover up by almost £40m at £271m for 2012-13 on Wednesday, reducing losses to around the £50m mark, which – with Uefa allowing pre-2010 wages to be subtracted – was always considered enough to see them through. But it is equally clear that they will come under intense scrutiny from the European governing body for the two financial arrangements which helped them to that figure – one of which is unprecedented, the other eye-catching. Uefa will be interested. Its Club Financial Control Body is understood to have made the identification of "artificial" revenue streams a fundamental aim.

Experts agree that the Premier League leaders' £24.5m sale of player image rights to an external company – one of those two significant arrangements – has never been attempted by a football club before. Manchester United and Chelsea, two clubs big enough to consider such a strategy, both view image rights as an important part of their core business. City will not reveal the name of the company that has bought their image rights – and neither did they do so in their accounts – but the club has dismissed the notion, put to it by The Independent, that the buyers might be a subsidiary of the club.

It will be for City to demonstrate to Uefa that the image rights – which elite clubs generally negotiate a large slice of for themselves, with a percentage retained by the player and separated from his salary for tax reasons – are worth the £24.5m sum. There is certainly an irony about the club selling off those rights to another company, since their pitch to Kaka, when the then chief executive Garry Cook ambitiously but ultimately disastrously tried to sign him from Milan in January 2009, was that Cook's image rights expertise working with basketball's Michael Jordan at Nike would result in the Brazilian becoming a very wealthy man at the Etihad.

Even more closely scrutinised by Uefa will be the £22.45m City has revealed they effectively paid themselves by selling their intellectual property to "related parties". Who these are was not disclosed in the 2012-13 annual report either, but New York City FC – City's new Major League Soccer franchise – as well as Melbourne Heart franchise in Australia and Manchester City Ladies FC have been cited.

Since the Melbourne franchise was only announced last month, it means that City will have to demonstrate to Uefa that the New York and women's teams have received the multimillion-pound benefits of being affiliate City clubs. City have not detailed what the £22.45m figure has been paid to them for, though it is understood to be player scouting and commercial services. Since the establishment of City's scouting system cost a mere £4m, the value of commercial know-how and leads will need to be significant.

The £46.95m which these two arrangements help to generate are by no means the only aspect of City's revenue growth. The club has been commercially imaginative, securing several new partners last year. City's impressive London offices – at the 10 Brock Street building on Regent's Place – are testament to their ambition.

But the 2012-13 report does reveal other payments between parts of the club –City effectively paying themselves for their own services. There is a sale of "intangible assets" totalling £11.5m involving a subsidiary of the club, City Football Marketing, and another such sale totalling £10.87m involving a third subsidiary, City Football Services. Both of those subsidiaries have had their names changed and registered offices moved from the Etihad to London in the past 12 months. City Football Marketing's registered office changed only this month.

The significance of these subsidiary businesses is revealed by the fact that City's six main board members – Khaldoon al-Mubarak, Mohamed al-Mazrouei, Simon Pearce, Martin Edelman, John Macbeath and Alberto Galassi – sit on the boards of both.

It seems inconceivable that City will not have thought through and analysed the kind of scrutiny that the Club Financial Control Body will submit their accounts to. The expertise City have amassed includes Financial Fair Play specialists – Alex Byars and Martyn Hawkins joined from the Deloitte sports business, which helped Uefa set up the FFP legislation. But a pass or a fail by Uefa will provoke the same controversy which has accompanied City throughout their rapid journey to the top.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/how-are-bigspending-manchester-city-set-to-pass-uefas-financial-fair-play-rules-9097609.html

Yet, the latest reports suggest that Man City's financial dealings are in accordance with the FFP rules ...

[Zeb]

The luxury tax idea is one which has been proposed to UEFA, especially as they still pay lip service to the idea of seeking a way to ensure competitive balance within FFP, but it runs into a host of issues with how football has developed over the years. The academic papers I've read about FFP have been pretty much unanimous that FFP is flawed and that a luxury tax and spreading the money (whether tv or even CL) more widely is a better way to do this if you want to allow more competition between clubs within the same league. Against that, what FFP should (theoretically) do is force wage bill: turnover ratios down by something like 10 or 15% and it also acts as a de facto salary cap.

If you dick about with the fag packet maths a bit, you'll see that the losers with FFP in the Premier League are clubs like City and West Ham, who are reliant for spending at their current levels on large cash injections (relatively so in West Ham's case and the new stadium and a few consecutive seasons in the Premier League may change things) but that whilst the 'traditional' big clubs benefit so do clubs lower down the table who already operate within their own budgets and who are already following plans to grow slowly over time. How far do you want to see the game changed? If you want a competitive league, then there's evidence that getting into the CL places shouldn't overly reward a club financially and that Europe wide the game has to take a large step back from £300k a week wages to the point where clubs have much less variability in what they can afford to spend. G1 Jockey's point really.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

The luxury tax idea is one which has been proposed to UEFA, especially as they still pay lip service to the idea of seeking a way to ensure competitive balance within FFP, but it runs into a host of issues with how football has developed over the years. The academic papers I've read about FFP have been pretty much unanimous that FFP is flawed and that a luxury tax and spreading the money (whether tv or even CL) more widely is a better way to do this if you want to allow more competition between clubs within the same league. Against that, what FFP should (theoretically) do is force wage bill: turnover ratios down by something like 10 or 15% and it also acts as a de facto salary cap.

The "salary cap" & "luxury tax" model could have an even more positive effect on the game of football if certain clauses are attached to them. Like I have suggested before, if the wages of the players developed through clubs' academies are not included into the salary cap, it would stimulate the big the clubs to invest more in youth development and give more chance to their youth players.

[Zeb]

The "salary cap" & "luxury tax" model could have an even more positive effect on the game of football if certain clauses are attached to them. Like I have suggested before, if the wages of the players developed through clubs' academies are not included into the salary cap, it would stimulate the big the clubs to invest more in youth development and give more chance to their youth players.

But that would also hammer the transfer market and distort competition because eg Spurs' pool of talent to bring through will always be bigger than eg Everton's. And if you raise the age level to further into the teens, then you've achieved nothing but push up the prices for the talent in each age group further. Not seeing the 'easy' answers if you know what I mean mate? I take what the supporters of clubs like City are saying, but I can also see why FFP as it is was the only realistic way to get something into place. To my mind, there are real issues within the game and no fixes which aren't going to penalise some club or other. We're racing Fiat Puntos against Lamborghinis and when someone turns up with a fighter jet to take part it's a bit late to worry about competitive balance.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

But that would also hammer the transfer market and distort competition because eg Spurs' pool of talent to bring through will always be bigger than eg Everton's. And if you raise the age level to further into the teens, then you've achieved nothing but push up the prices for the talent in each age group further. Not seeing the 'easy' answers if you know what I mean mate?

The current rules define a "club trained player" as a player who has spent 3 years at the club, between the age of 15-21. Personally, I think that is a decent definition. Of course, there aren't quick fixes, but if the rules and regulations are being used to guide clubs into a certain direction (in this case, giving more chances to their young players), ultimately we could see an improvement.

I take what the supporters of clubs like City are saying, but I can also see why FFP as it is was the only realistic way to get something into place. To my mind, there are real issues within the game and no fixes which aren't going to penalise some club or other. We're racing Fiat Puntos against Lamborghinis and when someone turns up with a fighter jet to take part it's a bit late to worry about competitive balance.

Introduction of the current FFP rules should only be a beginning of the process of leveling the playing field. As the recent developments have shown us, the FFP rules are seriously flawed, and clubs like Man City or Chelsea are finding a way of buy-passing them. Because of that, the rules should be upgraded, and in mu humble opinion, some sort of a "salary cap/luxury tax" model, adapted to address the specifics of the game of football, would be a step in the right direction.

[Red Genius]

The current rules define a "club trained player" as a player who has spent 3 years at the club, between the age of 15-21. Personally, I think that is a decent definition. Of course, there aren't quick fixes, but if the rules and regulations are being used to guide clubs into a certain direction (in this case, giving more chances to their young players), ultimately we could see an improvement.

If i've followed this conversation correctly, wouldn't that do two things, inflate the value of younger players outpricing them from other clubs, and those with the financial resources would simply 'pool' the young talent in the hope of pulling one or two first team players.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

If i've followed this conversation correctly, wouldn't that do two things, inflate the value of younger players outpricing them from other clubs, and those with the financial resources would simply 'pool' the young talent in the hope of pulling one or two first team players.

The big clubs are already doing that, but clubs like Man City and Chelsea are hardly giving any of these young players a chance to impress in the first team. If you limit their spending on wages, they will be forced to give young players a proper chance.

[skipper757]

How would a salary cap work when there are some many leagues in Europe? American examples are pointless in a lot of ways because it's only 1 league.

Setting the same cap for different leagues in Europe could still allow some teams to dominate their domestic leagues. A different cap based on league stature would surely irk the smaller leagues (if the limit was 1,200,000 a week in the Prem but 600,000 a week in France, the French would be unhappy and it could hurt their clubs' competitiveness in Europe as none of their clubs would be able to compete financially with clubs from leagues with higher caps).  It could also stop leagues from mobilizing up or down as their cap helps lock them in.

[rickardinho1]

How would a salary cap work when there are some many leagues in Europe? American examples are pointless in a lot of ways because it's only 1 league.

Setting the same cap for different leagues in Europe could still allow some teams to dominate their domestic leagues. A different cap based on league stature would surely irk the smaller leagues (if the limit was 1,200,000 a week in the Prem but 600,000 a week in France, the French would be unhappy and it could hurt their clubs' competitiveness in Europe as none of their clubs would be able to compete financially with clubs from leagues with higher caps).  It could also stop leagues from mobilizing up or down as their cap helps lock them in.

You've also got issues like taxes. You can cap the salaries across leagues, but different countries have different tax laws so players would inevitably earn more NET in certain countries on the same basic salary. Monaco playing in the French league is an interesting example... With tax in france set at 75% for those earning over €1m, but ridiculously low in Monaco theres already an unfair advantage in that league due to tax differences that they're already exploiting to lure top players like Falcao and Moutinho there.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

How would a salary cap work when there are some many leagues in Europe? American examples are pointless in a lot of ways because it's only 1 league.

Setting the same cap for different leagues in Europe could still allow some teams to dominate their domestic leagues. A different cap based on league stature would surely irk the smaller leagues (if the limit was 1,200,000 a week in the Prem but 600,000 a week in France, the French would be unhappy and it could hurt their clubs' competitiveness in Europe as none of their clubs would be able to compete financially with clubs from leagues with higher caps).  It could also stop leagues from mobilizing up or down as their cap helps lock them in.

You've also got issues like taxes. You can cap the salaries across leagues, but different countries have different tax laws so players would inevitably earn more NET in certain countries on the same basic salary. Monaco playing in the French league is an interesting example... With tax in france set at 75% for those earning over €1m, but ridiculously low in Monaco theres already an unfair advantage in that league due to tax differences that they're already exploiting to lure top players like Falcao and Moutinho there.

Of course there are lots of technical issues that need to be resolved in order to introduce a salary cap. However, that is an issue for the accountants and the lawyers. Do you think that the Collective Bargaining Agreements in the American professional sports are made over night? Sometimes it takes years to find the right formula that would satisfy all parties involved. The bottom line is that always a solution can be found where all parties can be equally dissatisfied. That is always the best solution.

[Redman0151]

Of course there are lots of technical issues that need to be resolved in order to introduce a salary cap. However, that is an issue for the accountants and the lawyers. Do you think that the Collective Bargaining Agreements in the American professional sports are made over night? Sometimes it takes years to find the right formula that would satisfy all parties involved. The bottom line is that always a solution can be found where all parties can be equally dissatisfied. That is always the best solution.

What about if it was a salary cap ended up being  the final push for people to start leaving UEFA/FIFA?

Some oil sheikhs set up their own super league, no salary cap, then a few years down the line the best players flock to the middle east to play in this league where they can earn more

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

What about if it was a salary cap ended up being  the final push for people to start leaving UEFA/FIFA?

Some oil sheikhs set up their own super league, no salary cap, then a few years down the line the best players flock to the middle east to play in this league where they can earn more

To be honest, I won't be missing too much the likes of Man City, Chelsea, PSG and Monaco in the Champions League, as long as the likes of LFC, Bayern Munich, Barca and Juventus are participating in it.

[Redman0151]

To be honest, I won't be missing too much the likes of Man City, Chelsea, PSG and Monaco in the Champions League, as long as the likes of LFC, Bayern Munich, Barca and Juventus are participating in it.

Maybe, but FIFA/UEFA would and i'm sure that's something which would come into their reasoning when trying to man handle a load of billionaires into playing their game

[Zeb]

What about if it was a salary cap ended up being  the final push for people to start leaving UEFA/FIFA?

Some oil sheikhs set up their own super league, no salary cap, then a few years down the line the best players flock to the middle east to play in this league where they can earn more

Or it pushes the clubs in Europe into the super league idea again only just when UEFA has a tenuous whiphand on them via the Champions League...

It's mucky whatever is done. FFP does give a hidden salary cap all the same, and some analysis reckons that ultimately it'll knock wage bills down quite considerably in the Premier League. Will be interesting to see whether the Premier League begin to tighten their own version of a salary cap over time.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

Maybe, but FIFA/UEFA would and i'm sure that's something which would come into their reasoning when trying to man handle a load of billionaires into playing their game

So, UEFA would need to choose between the oil barons and the traditional clubs like LFC, Bayern Munich, Barca and Juventus ... Who do you think generates the majority of UEFA's revenues?

[robgreen91]

What strikes me is the massive gulf between the top 6 teams and the rest of the league, and the fact that FFP won't allow smaller clubs to compete with the top clubs in the short-term, which as Daniel Geey outlined is one of the drawbacks of FFP. Clubs like Everton are doing an incredible job of competing at the top with such a tiny budget in comparison to the top teams.

Why should they? Teams like Arsenal, Utd and us are global institutions built on years of success. That is why they are able to afford these players, what you are saying is that teams should overspend on what they can afford in order to compete, which is what has happened to so many clubs and is the reason so many are in crippling debt!

Southampton stand out to me as well, their wage bill is one of the smallest in the league and so I struggle to see how they're going to be able to hold on to their best players when big offers come in. Even if they want to hold onto their players and have the financial ability to do so from their new owners, FFP will dictate that they can't increase the size of their wage bill by more than a small amount each year, which is going to become a massive problem for them given their starting wage budget, and the amount of money players like Shaw and Lallana are going to be able to command from richer clubs who are already paying big wages and so would have an easier time fitting those wages into their wage structure.

Sot'on are never going to be able to afford to pay Luke Shaw 100k p/w like some teams can unless they perform well for years and become and institution like those teams i mentioned earlier, that is just the cold hard facts.

the only way for small teams to protect themselves is by offering there young players long term contracts (6-7 years) and when the big boys come calling stand their ground or demand a very high fee.

[Twelfth Man]

Financial fair play in action. 

[Zeb]

Financial fair play in action. 

[Fanxxxxtastic]

Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain face financial fair play fate
• Uefa's FFP investigation covers 76 European clubs
• PSG thought to be at most risk of being sanctioned

Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain are among the European clubs who will learn this week whether they are deemed to be in serious breach of Uefa's financial fair play rules.

The Club Financial Control Body's (CFCB) investigatory chamber, headed by the former Belgium prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, is to meet on Tuesday and Wednesday to consider the cases of 76 clubs. Those considered to have committed serious breaches of Uefa's break-even rules will be referred to the CFCB's adjudicatory panel for a final verdict, with Uefa to announce details of all sanctions around 5 May. The sanctions could include being barred from European competition.

Manchester City, who have lost £149m in the past two seasons, and PSG are both understood to be among the 76 clubs under investigation. The CFCB panel will have four options open to them: to dismiss the case; to agree a settlement with the club effectively putting them on probation; to issue a reprimand and fine of up to €100,000; or in serious cases to refer the club to the adjudicatory chamber. The clubs should therefore know their position, and how much they have to fear, by the end of the week.

PSG are believed to be most at risk – the Qatari-owned club effectively wiped out its annual losses of €130m by announcing a back-dated sponsorship deal with the Qatar Tourism Authority. As it is a deal with a related party, however, the French club will have to convince Uefa the deal is a fair market value.

The French newspaper L'Equipe reported last month that Uefa officials found the Paris club's officials "a bit haughty" in the discussions over FFP, but that Manchester City had been more convincing. The PSG president Nasser al-Khelaifi insisted in January the sponsorship deal was not creative accounting.

He said: "Our contract with Qatar Tourism Authority is not some accounting trick. It's the same contract we have with Emirates. There's no reason for Uefa to disagree. Everything is legal. Our lawyers are very competent."

Clubs can lose up to €45m (£37m) over the last two years under Uefa's rules. City made losses of £97.9m in 2012 and £51.6m last year, but can write off sums spent on facilities, youth development and a number of other items.

Other top English clubs have little to fear, with the likes of Arsenal and Manchester United being in the black in both years. Chelsea made a £49.4m loss last year but made a £1.4million profit in 2012 so will comply. Liverpool and other clubs such as Monaco, who are not playing in Europe this season, will not have to pass the FFP rules until next autumn, with any sanctions applicable in 2015.

Liverpool last month announced losses of £49.8m up to the end of May 2013, and a further £40.5m over the previous 10 months. Uefa confirmed it would announce any decisions at the start of next month.

A statement said: "Uefa does not provide any details about clubs' ongoing investigations as part of the monitoring process, nor will it comment on correspondence between the CFCB and clubs. Uefa will only communicate once decisions have been taken by the CFCB investigatory chamber, which we anticipate will happen at the beginning of May."

Clubs can appeal against any decision to the court of arbitration for sport

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/apr/14/manchester-city-psg-ffp-uefa-set-learn-fate?CMP=twt_gu

[Terry_Tibbs]

[snip]Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain are among the European clubs who will learn this week whether they are deemed to be in serious breach of Uefa's financial fair play rules.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/apr/14/manchester-city-psg-ffp-uefa-set-learn-fate?CMP=twt_gu[/snip]

Fine or transfer ban?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/news/10766475/Manchester-City-to-be-made-to-pay-a-high-price-for-spending-spree-under-Uefa-Financial-Fair-Play-rules.html

It'll be a fine won't it.

[indlfc]

Fine for over spending? Great isn't it?

[Zeb]

Acaustiq explained why this would happen almost a year ago.

[Baz Smythe]

The only fair punishment would be is to estimate the amount of money they would have earned if they didn't use friends and family to sponsor them and transfer embargo them until they make up for it.

Not gonna happen but I think the fairest overall punishment. And I wouldn't mind us signing Matuidi and Zabaleta.

[west_london_red]

The only fair punishment would be is to estimate the amount of money they would have earned if they didn't use friends and family to sponsor them and transfer embargo them until they make up for it.

Not gonna happen but I think the fairest overall punishment. And I wouldn't mind us signing Matuidi and Zabaleta.

The harsher the punishment the better for us obviously but the first step in solving any problem is to accept that it exists. Whatever the punishment (I think a transfer ban is the best we can hope for) sends out the message at least that things cannot continue as they are.

[Zeb]

The transfer ban being talked about is likely a misunderstanding or mis-statement by the journos. The actual punishment/s possible are UEFA refusing to allow a club to register new players for European competition or reducing the number of players able to be registered for European competition. PSG are already sounding off that they'll take UEFA through the courts, and there's also the possibility that a club such as Arsenal or Everton could take City through UEFA's own appeals procedure if their punishment is seen to be overly lenient.