COMMENT: So let's get this straight. Financial Fair Play (FFP) is "here to stay", hey Michel? But just not as we know it? Give us a break, Platini.
Who is the UEFA president trying to kid? No matter which way he spins it, the shackles are off. Club owners will again be able to run up massive losses in transfer spending - so long as the money they commit is deemed a 'gift' and not a loan.
Don't get us wrong. This is a great development. A hammer blow for FFP and all it's anti-competitive, anti-sporting reams of regulation. But the timing is, let's say, curious...
Now, only the very cynical would suggest that with AS Monaco this year hit with a fine of up to €13 million, following on from Paris St Germain's near €50 million sanction 12 months ago, Platini would be concerned that France's biggest clubs were being held back by FFP.
Could it be that PSG and ASM were having to overspend due France's over the top tax laws, hey Michel? They're not exactly selling truckloads of PSG and ASM shirts in Singapore. If they were stuck spending what they made, how else could they compete in Europe?
And only the very cynical would dare suggest Silvio Berlusconi's need to sell AC Milan had influenced the decision to wind FFP back.
The Milan owner, seeing local revenue from gate and television fall dramatically, has been forced to seek foreign investment - potentially a foreign owner - to rescue the seven-time Champions League winners. Platini, when championing FFP, would drop Berlusconi's name regularly as a key supporter. But that was before Italian football's dramatic financial slide.
Now, Berlusconi needs FFP to be relaxed - if not scrapped altogether - if he is to find potential buyers. The revenue just isn't there and with FFP - in its current form - why would any investor want to get involved when their ambitions are held back by Serie A's current financial state?
Then there's the Premier League and their £5.14 billion TV deal. Now only the very cynical would believe that Mr Platini would actually begrudge English clubs such bonanza.
After all, 'zee Engleesh' are only doing what FFP was, apparently, designed to drive: for clubs to increase their revenue and be financially stable.
It's only a by-product that the record TV deal allows English clubs competing in UEFA competition far greater scope to spend than their continental rivals. English clubs again dominating Europe? Surely this isn't something Platini would actively work against?
Chelsea have never breached FFP laws. Not once. But there was Platini, on French radio this week, name-checking Chelsea when defending the decision to water down FFP.
"The French press say it is not right that [Chelsea owner Roman] Abramovich can buy many players and in France they cannot buy them," he said.
Why would the UEFA president involve Chelsea in his defence? Why not Bayern Munich? Real Madrid?
They nabbed Manchester City last season - to the tune of £49 million. But UEFA couldn't get Liverpool this term. Hull City, yes, but not Liverpool.
From mid-table in the Championship two years ago, Hull reached the FA Cup final last season and qualified for the Europa League. The fans were in dreamland. Little Hull now in Europe. Brilliant.
But how did the gatekeepers at UEFA react? By fining them €200,000 for spending more than they earned. Pathetic.
Which really sums up FFP altogether. It's about stifling competition and protecting the status quo. Dulling the dreams of fans and punishing ambition. It runs against some of the great values in sport.
Or is that just being too cynical?
More:
P2) FFP collapse: How Premier League fairness and the Bosman killed it off
P3) FFP collapse: Five Premier League clubs which now could be sold
