UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[Marvin]

Why is it that the context of MCFC finances is never publicised by commentators?

i.e. even without Arab investment we will have revenues of c. £500m next season and be hugely profitable. We are labelled an oil club, but in reality as most football fans will now accept, City generate cash surpluses. In that background it seems bizarre to punish an ownership who have done what FFP was supposedly designed to do: square expenses and revenues.

BBC / ITV etc need a simple bar graphic of gap between revenue and expenses in 2010 and now, and then lets talk about FFP.

 

[M12Blue]

Rumour going around that Sheffield United, Aston Villa and Derby (possibly Derby but might be wrong) will all fail FFP like Birmingham did, but they are delaying providing the EFL with accounts until the end of the season. Not sure how it would work if one got promoted seems as Birmingham were deducted points.

Hadn’t heard that. But seemingly Sheffield United received 3 mill from family of bin laden. Came out in court. Suppose it helps win manager of the year

 

[Chi-town blues]

He will answer questions on this.

Incidentally, it might have escaped the attention. Our statement already outlines we expect to be found guilty now before it goes to CAS.

We are calling Uefa's bluff and threatening them in equal measure.

I also believe we have previously raised our issues with some of the individuals involved in this whole sorry mess.

People will be financially ruined when the final punch is thrown :)

Like *^*

 

[M12Blue]

Why is it that the context of MCFC finances is never publicised by commentators?

i.e. even without Arab investment we will have revenues of c. £500m next season and be hugely profitable. We are labelled an oil club, but in reality as most football fans will now accept, City generate cash surpluses. In that background it seems bizarre to punish an ownership who have done what FFP was supposedly designed to do: square expenses and revenues.

BBC / ITV etc need a simple bar graphic of gap between revenue and expenses in 2010 and now, and then lets talk about FFP.

The simple bar graphic boy is on holiday, bugger

 

[Marvin]

Explain financial doping .

Take out the Arab sponsorships which total < £100m pa, City still make huge revenues.

City were financially doped if you like after the takeover but another description would be owner investment in the fabric of the club to build it up. That's wrong is it?

Now it would be if it was against the rules as decided by football....but UEFA changed the rules midway through the assessment process hence the scramble for monies. That context was never once explained by the financial media.

The Liverpool fans and assorted haters genuinely think we are cheats, we are not.

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

Hadn’t heard that. But seemingly Sheffield United received 3 mill from family of bin laden. Came out in court. Suppose it helps win manager of the year

didn't something like that happen to QPR a few years ago they got found guilty after winning promotion and punishment was applied after they went down

 

[laserblue]

Hadn’t heard that. But seemingly Sheffield United received 3 mill from family of bin laden. Came out in court. Suppose it helps win manager of the year

The bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia is huge and one part of it owns a huge multinational conglomerate construction company. Osama was most definitely the odd one out in his very large extended family.

I'd venture to suggest that the vast majority of observers would be more focused on the bin Laden angle than the £3 million.

 

[Henkeman]

Why is it that the context of MCFC finances is never publicised by commentators?

i.e. even without Arab investment we will have revenues of c. £500m next season and be hugely profitable. We are labelled an oil club, but in reality as most football fans will now accept, City generate cash surpluses. In that background it seems bizarre to punish an ownership who have done what FFP was supposedly designed to do: square expenses and revenues.

BBC / ITV etc need a simple bar graphic of gap between revenue and expenses in 2010 and now, and then lets talk about FFP.

In order to change the way it's viewed, City would probably have to announce big fat profits in the tens of millions and that their corporation tax bill is sizeable - it's pretty much impossible to argue against it being real.

Of course, fans would rightly be up in arms about ticket prices - but might be worth it as a one off.

 

[mrbelfry]

Some inane rambling thoughts

1) Der Speigal reports that Mansour has been funnelling money into City via Etihad sponsorships
2) This deal had previously been seen as a non related party so there was no restriction on how much Etihad could sponsor us
3) With the suggestion that the Sheik has funnelled money in it potentially becomes a related party? If so then rate the sponsorship at fair value and we fail FFP by an additional amount that is the difference between the amount we claimed less the new calculated fair value rate. We failed FFP anyway and we don't seem to be disputing that beyond the taking a pinch comment years ago.
4) if the issue of related parties isn't the problem then the problem is we hid those payments from UEFA? Other 'creative' bits of accounting were spotted and from memory we agreed to not increase some sponsorships and not allowed to centralise some salaries to the CFG (if my memory is correct)

Now I presume City know what we are being investigated for - have UEFA officially said or is it just 'leaks' ?

If we are being investigated based on the der Spiegel allegations then have they seen the data dump or are they basing the investigation on what was reported in the papers? If they've seen the data dump then how are they sure they have seen all the relevant files AND/OR a complete collection of data that was stolen? If they have seen a complete collection of data that was stolen how can they be sure they have seen all the documents that exist? There could be a bunch of files and emails that they haven't seen simply because they weren't stolen.

If they have not had access to the data dump then are they simply basing their investigation on what was reported? What criteria are they then using to determine facts other than it says it in the paper?

If they ask City "hey guys is this true?" and then City say "nah bro we good" on what basis are they continuing their investigation? Have they established the legitimacy of the stolen emails and if they are legitimate the context in which they exist? Presumably they've asked for explantation which City have provided. They've intimated they have more questions but then in the meantime passed the case on to another chamber.

And all this isn't for breaking rules we've already been found guilty of breaking and been punished for BUT for allegedly hiding some payments from ADUG to Etihad which is evidenced by the phrase "his highness" in a stolen and out of context email. Payments which didn't cause us to escape punishment for rules we broke? Payments which if we had made would have potentially caused those sponsorship deals to be classed as related parties and subject to fair value tests which would have only still meant we failed FFP?

But if this is the case then haven't we committed an actual criminal offence? By not disclosing a related party transaction? Or is the payment immaterial because Mansour is not a related party to Etihad?

 

[remember arthur mann]

Similarity is uncanny !