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

[mancity2012_eamo]

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.

I'd say the answer to your question is that the reality is most football fans, that don't support City, do not accept that City generate their own revenue and doing something like you suggest the commentators should do, might alter that perception.

 

[asahartford1]

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?

Did you mean inane, or insane ?

 

[M12Blue]

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.

No different to our situation really, sheikh Mansour is not uae, but is portrayed as such

 

[M12Blue]

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

Yep

 

[laserblue]

I'd say the answer to your question is that the reality is most football fans, that don't support City, do not accept that City generate their own revenue and doing something like you suggest the commentators should do, might alter that perception.

I agree. How many times have we heard or read fans of other clubs respond to City's financial results that it's impossible to generate that level of money in such short time, the sponsorships are fake, the books have been cooked, the sheikh buys up all the tickets not bought by our miniscule fan base, etc., etc.

 

[pirate]

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.

wolves failed and escaped punishment because they were promoted

 

[cookster]

Don't really know why he's being treated with much credibility. He's hardly Brian Glanville.

Blue tick, twitter royalty ;)

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

A couple of massive bids are going in next week for players, that should please us.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

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?

Can I add to the ramblings by adding that I was under the impression that the Etihad sponsorship was deemed fair value anyway regardless of whether it was related party or not.
And that we agreed on the other two sponsors, to give up certain practices.
All were fair value, I thought.
Am I wrong?

 

[Nibler13]

I have to admit FFP is good for owners though.
Not the ambitious kind of owners like PSG and City ones but the Glazers, Kroenke of this world. Their clubs passively make money thanks to their history and stature and they can just get the cash without having to invest a dime.
PSG and City are nightmare for them because they have to explain why they are not investing in the market when they are making so much money.

Exactly this...I live in the US and all the major sports here have a "salary cap" of some sort (not exactly the same thing as the FFP regs as it is only concerned with player's salaries) and it's always couched as a way to keep competitive balance. But really it's just a way for owners to suppress wages since it prevents owners who would otherwise be willing to invest big money in their team and pay top players more from doing so by limiting the amount they can pay. It's so bad leagues like the NBA put in a salary floor to stop some owners from pretty much putting out the cheapest squad they could put together.