gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Fair play to you for coming on. My question is a much more simple one, but one which I would suggest begs a relatively detailed answer:ffplay said:
where do you see City in five years?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
This guy determined we will fail FFPR
- Thread starter Cobwebcat
- Start date
where do you see City in five years?
gordondaviesmoustache said:Fair play to you for coming on. My question is a much more simple one, but one which I would suggest begs a relatively detailed answer:ffplay said:I will come back to you tomorrow Prestwich Blue - got to go.
On RPTs, UEFA have their own carefully constructed definition of what makes a RPT. It's their competition and can surely have a wider definition of what makes an RPT? More tomorrow.
where do you see City in five years?
I think they should leave clubs well alone. if clubs want to spend money then should be allowed to so. they are private buisness after all.
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
I hold my hand up and at least have the balls to admit that I have very little knowledge of FFPR,but I made this comment some 6 hours ago when I was sober.Now pissed,but I still think my hic,wording holds more credence than a half baked fooking uneducated dildo,who claims to have more knowledge than even me :
I suspect that this "clown" had no idea as to how well versed a lot of City fans were on this subject.I don`t think we`ll be seeing much of him once our figures are published or until he finally realises that he can talk shit to the know nots,but to those who fall into the catogory of "know more",then he`s fucked.
I suspect that this "clown" had no idea as to how well versed a lot of City fans were on this subject.I don`t think we`ll be seeing much of him once our figures are published or until he finally realises that he can talk shit to the know nots,but to those who fall into the catogory of "know more",then he`s fucked.
Has anyone told him about the plans for the leisure destination of national and international significane, and the Etihad Campus yet?
Admitedly they're a few years away yet, but once complete and operational, they will generate 100's of millions of pounds a year in revenue, alongside the other normal revenue streams.
Admitedly they're a few years away yet, but once complete and operational, they will generate 100's of millions of pounds a year in revenue, alongside the other normal revenue streams.
Oohvonkyvonky
Well-Known Member
jrb said:Has anyone told him about the plans for the leisure destination of national and international significane, and the Etihad Campus yet?
Admitedly they're a few years away yet, but once complete and operational, they will generate 100's of millions of pounds a year in revenue, alongside the other normal revenue streams.
We're going to break it to him on another day JRB.
I think he has enough on his plate at the moment ;)
laserblue
Well-Known Member
Ed leaves himself wide open to criticism and even ridicule because he's a self-proclaimed expert on FFPR yet his knowledge and understanding of the subject are woefully flawed. This has been highlighted by BM posters (particularly PB and Aguero 93.20) who clearly have a better understanding of the subject than he does. His conclusions regarding City are based on a combination of incorrect information, flawed interpretation and unverified assumptions and are ultimately almost entirely conjecture anyway. Hence his frequent use of words like could/might/guess/probably, etc. when casting judgement on City. He clearly has no understanding of Related Party Transactions and clings on to his false belief that UEFA can intervene to decide what is or isn't an RPT. He also appears not to appreciate that the acid test of FFPR will be PSG. If UEFA can't or won't do anything about PSG (whose Qatari owners employ Platini's son) then FFPR is dead in the water anyway.
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
these two sentences in bold sum up everything I need to know about Edlaserblue said:Ed leaves himself wide open to criticism and even ridicule because he's a self-proclaimed expert on FFPR yet his knowledge and understanding of the subject are woefully flawed. This has been highlighted by BM posters (particularly PB and Aguero 93.20) who clearly have a better understanding of the subject than he does. His conclusions regarding City are based on a combination of incorrect information, flawed interpretation and unverified assumptions and are ultimately almost entirely conjecture anyway. Hence his frequent use of words like could/might/guess/probably, etc. when casting judgement on City. He clearly has no understanding of Related Party Transactions and clings on to his false belief that UEFA can intervene to decide what is or isn't an RPT. He also appears not to appreciate that the acid test of FFPR will be PSG. If UEFA can't or won't do anything about PSG (whose Qatari owners employ Platini's son) then FFPR is dead in the water anyway.
everything was based on supposition and very few facts
even the facts that are in the public domain he chose not to believe
that and he was at Sheffield Poly, hahahahahaha, financial expert my arse
In response to to Prestwich's RPT question:
Clearly there is some confusion I am a little surprised there is so much interest in RPTs. Essentially both Prestwich and I agree that zero adjustment is likely for the Etihad deal. He/she contents that it is impossible for UEFA to adjust the value, whereas I maintain that UEFA can adjust the transaction. Again probably best if we agree to differ but please read the following if interested in this topic.
It inspired me to write the following which you might find interesting and which I intend to post on my site:
Recently, I had a number of questions about Related Party Transactions from a Fan’s Forum – it seems to be a subject worthy of a more detailed explanation.
UEFA’s FFP rules essentially require clubs to Break Even. A key part of the rules cover injections of funds from the club’s owners (or bodies closely related to the club owners). UEFA are keen to avoid a scenario where an owner sponsors their club (or carries out some other commercial deal) at an artificially inflated price. Such a ‘Related Party Transaction’ (RPT) would artificially increase the income coming into the club and help them Break Even. Without any RPT rules, a wealthy owner could sponsor the cub for an unfeasibly large amount, or for example. Purchase special match tickets for millions of pounds. This concept of ‘Mates Rate’ transactions and their prevention is key to all FFP rules. However, there are two big issues; how to define and 'capture' RPT ; what to do about them once they have been identified.
When the new Premier League spending constraints rules were introduced (they apply from the current 2013//14 season) a rather straight-forward approach to RPTs was introduced. An RPT is simply anything classified as an RPT in the club accounts - if it isn't deemed to be an RPT by the club accountants and auditors, it isn't captured by the RPT rules. Although this might first appear to be a rather 'trusting' approach, in reality has the benefits of being both simple and secure. The UK accountancy and auditing standards are considered to be among the best in the world and the definition and handling of an RPT is contained within the Financial Reporting Standards which forms the accountancy 'rule-book'.
UEFA, however, has chosen a different approach to RPTs. UEFA has a span of 54 countries, big and small, some in the EU and some not. It felt it could not rely on a common pre-existing accounting approach, and undertook the probably painful task of writing their own, expansive RPT rules. The rationale for this 'go it alone' approach seems, at least in part, driven by a concern that not all countries could be relied upon to have the same exacting standards. The ECA Vice President Gandini gave an interview where he explained his concerns that Russian accountancy and auditing standards were essentially not up to the job and there was a potential for leniency.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/%E2%80%98ffp-was-introduced-following-english-success%E2%80%99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/late ... s%E2%80%99</a>
All clubs that apply for a licence to take part in UEFA competitions must comply with the UEFA FFP rules. It is therefore entirely possible that a transaction may not be classified as an RPT by the club accountants but still fall foul of the UEFA's uniquely worded RPT definition. Although club licensing has been delegated to the member associations, the independent CFCB (set up by UEFA) will be the ultimate arbitrators of FFP (including RPT) compliance.
UEFA's rules dictate that any RPT has to have a 'fair value' assigned to the transaction. In practice this is probably easier said than done. With potentially so much at stake, the arguments and counter-arguments could make life tricky for the CFCB.
The most notable potential RPTs have occurred at Man City and PSG. Much has been written about the Etihad and Quatar Tourist Authority deals and I won't cover old ground. However, both deals seem set to be reviewed (at least in part) by UEFA's panel and we are unlikely to find out the result of their investigations until end April/early May2014
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14490740" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14490740</a>
Clearly there is some confusion I am a little surprised there is so much interest in RPTs. Essentially both Prestwich and I agree that zero adjustment is likely for the Etihad deal. He/she contents that it is impossible for UEFA to adjust the value, whereas I maintain that UEFA can adjust the transaction. Again probably best if we agree to differ but please read the following if interested in this topic.
It inspired me to write the following which you might find interesting and which I intend to post on my site:
Recently, I had a number of questions about Related Party Transactions from a Fan’s Forum – it seems to be a subject worthy of a more detailed explanation.
UEFA’s FFP rules essentially require clubs to Break Even. A key part of the rules cover injections of funds from the club’s owners (or bodies closely related to the club owners). UEFA are keen to avoid a scenario where an owner sponsors their club (or carries out some other commercial deal) at an artificially inflated price. Such a ‘Related Party Transaction’ (RPT) would artificially increase the income coming into the club and help them Break Even. Without any RPT rules, a wealthy owner could sponsor the cub for an unfeasibly large amount, or for example. Purchase special match tickets for millions of pounds. This concept of ‘Mates Rate’ transactions and their prevention is key to all FFP rules. However, there are two big issues; how to define and 'capture' RPT ; what to do about them once they have been identified.
When the new Premier League spending constraints rules were introduced (they apply from the current 2013//14 season) a rather straight-forward approach to RPTs was introduced. An RPT is simply anything classified as an RPT in the club accounts - if it isn't deemed to be an RPT by the club accountants and auditors, it isn't captured by the RPT rules. Although this might first appear to be a rather 'trusting' approach, in reality has the benefits of being both simple and secure. The UK accountancy and auditing standards are considered to be among the best in the world and the definition and handling of an RPT is contained within the Financial Reporting Standards which forms the accountancy 'rule-book'.
UEFA, however, has chosen a different approach to RPTs. UEFA has a span of 54 countries, big and small, some in the EU and some not. It felt it could not rely on a common pre-existing accounting approach, and undertook the probably painful task of writing their own, expansive RPT rules. The rationale for this 'go it alone' approach seems, at least in part, driven by a concern that not all countries could be relied upon to have the same exacting standards. The ECA Vice President Gandini gave an interview where he explained his concerns that Russian accountancy and auditing standards were essentially not up to the job and there was a potential for leniency.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/%E2%80%98ffp-was-introduced-following-english-success%E2%80%99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/late ... s%E2%80%99</a>
All clubs that apply for a licence to take part in UEFA competitions must comply with the UEFA FFP rules. It is therefore entirely possible that a transaction may not be classified as an RPT by the club accountants but still fall foul of the UEFA's uniquely worded RPT definition. Although club licensing has been delegated to the member associations, the independent CFCB (set up by UEFA) will be the ultimate arbitrators of FFP (including RPT) compliance.
UEFA's rules dictate that any RPT has to have a 'fair value' assigned to the transaction. In practice this is probably easier said than done. With potentially so much at stake, the arguments and counter-arguments could make life tricky for the CFCB.
The most notable potential RPTs have occurred at Man City and PSG. Much has been written about the Etihad and Quatar Tourist Authority deals and I won't cover old ground. However, both deals seem set to be reviewed (at least in part) by UEFA's panel and we are unlikely to find out the result of their investigations until end April/early May2014
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14490740" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14490740</a>
Joga Bonito
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 2,585
laserblue said:Ed leaves himself wide open to criticism and even ridicule because he's a self-proclaimed expert on FFPR yet his knowledge and understanding of the subject are woefully flawed. This has been highlighted by BM posters (particularly PB and Aguero 93.20) who clearly have a better understanding of the subject than he does. His conclusions regarding City are based on a combination of incorrect information, flawed interpretation and unverified assumptions and are ultimately almost entirely conjecture anyway. Hence his frequent use of words like could/might/guess/probably, etc. when casting judgement on City. He clearly has no understanding of Related Party Transactions and clings on to his false belief that UEFA can intervene to decide what is or isn't an RPT. He also appears not to appreciate that the acid test of FFPR will be PSG. If UEFA can't or won't do anything about PSG (whose Qatari owners employ Platini's son) then FFPR is dead in the water anyway.
Yeah, what really frustrates me like others are his numerous claims of being the expert, when clearly that isn't the case. I don't mind if you want to open a website an educate people, but if you pose to be an expert and really don't have any answers then you're not helping anyone.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Ed, I'll repeat my question in case you missed it:
where do you see City in five years time?
where do you see City in five years time?