blueparrot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 33,407
Not everyone has a cfg to offer shares in. Anyway I have no idea just whats been suggested, as a payment ffp can’t touch.
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.
It's Quiet thread 14 - 'do one' edition
- Thread starter tolmie's hairdoo
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
not my fault!
Well-Known Member
You are suggesting we pay him in kind to get round FFP. That is a "scam" "dodge" or whatever you want to call it and an invitation to get into another battle. If these dodges got round FFP legitimately everyone would do them.
Not everyone has a football group that allow them to do it, not everyone thinks of these things. It’s not a scam it’s exploiting a loophole the same way people use off shore accounts. There’s always a way, it just needs the right people to work those loopholes out. It’s a grey area granted, but don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
You can but it will be taxed heavily then or now. It is a payment related to his employment so taxed to income tax at the higher rate plus very high national insurance. So if City are paying the tax on his behalf it is expensive.
Would it be CFG paying it, rather than City though ?
He might now be willing to pay taxes. But net net that is a drop of 50% of salary and makes England hugely disadvantageous vs ItalyHistorically speaking the Messi's haven't been super into the idea of paying any taxes.
not my fault!
Well-Known Member
People forget, the two guys who actually wrote the FFP book, work for City! They were employed very quickly after our first run in with UEFA. A quick Goggle will confirm it. So you’d like to think we have the right people in place to know exactly what we can/can’t do.
Christ, are we really going to do this nonsense again. We will not beat UEFA next time. FFP gives UEFA plenty of power to sanction the club. It will not make the same mistakes next time. We are playing with fire.Not everyone has a football group that allow them to do it, not everyone thinks of these things. It’s not a scam it’s exploiting a loophole the same way people use off shore accounts. There’s always a way, it just needs the right people to work those loopholes out. It’s a grey area granted, but don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Yes, like last time [rolls eyes]People forget, the two guys who actually wrote the FFP book, work for a City! They were employed very quickly after our first run in with UEFA. A quick Goggle will confirm it. So you’d like to think we have the right people in place to know exactly what we can/can’t do.
Its not that simple - CFG are a UK entity and if he moves to the US, do you really think the IRS are not sharp as hell on this stuff. Moreover, UEFA bound to look through artificial or questionable structures and cause us trouble. Bound to.I mean after playing for city and employed by CFG sorry
Bottom line: if City can't afford Messi in a way that give little to no risk on FFP in 202x (without these various tricks, sleight of hand etc) we shouldn't be going near it. The idea that UEFA, Tebas/La Liga, the rest will sit back and not look for anyway to prosecute a breach is fanciful.
Rammy Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2008
- Messages
- 32,074
Can we move off from the “how will we pay him” posts, it’s fucking dull having to read guesses and responses.
We won’t sign him unless we are rock solid sure we can pay him correctly within ffp limits. Simple.
We won’t sign him unless we are rock solid sure we can pay him correctly within ffp limits. Simple.
Can’t see them wanting to ban Messi from the Champions League.Christ, are we really going to do this nonsense again. We will not beat UEFA next time. FFP gives UEFA plenty of power to sanction the club. It will not make the same mistakes next time. We are playing with fire.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
Mundo is the worst source out there,taking a very old quote and printing like it is newwow bits of negative reports cropping up all - even the MUEN are at it!
You would think that. Manchester based paper would be behind the potential move but seeminlgy not to the extend that every day there are articles stating why we shoudlnt go for him, te negative impact he would have on the team, how much he would cost (repeatedly mentioned in EVERY report) and now dredging up old quotes from Pep to fit their narrative..
Pond scum!
View attachment 1688
Except the point is it is pretty much impossible to rock solid sure unless a) he's taking a 50% paycut and we aren't paying a fee or b) we are "creating" c.€200m of player sale profits. The point on Castles podcast that I responded to suggested using shares could never be "rock solid" because it has never been tried before.Can we move off from the “how will we pay him” posts, it’s fucking dull having to read guesses and responses.
We won’t sign him unless we are rock solid sure we can pay him correctly within ffp limits. Simple.
So your simple analysis is probably wishful thinking. And that is why some of us are interested. In fact, given there is no debate as to whether he's actually going to improve us or be fun to watch, how we can actually afford him whilst protecting the next 10 years of success is some people's key interest in the days before we sign him. It is mine and it should be the board's...I'm sure it is.
They won't need to - they can take action in 3 years time.Can’t see them wanting to ban Messi from the Champions League.
Paulmcfc2703
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 9,248
The regulations for FFP are in place to monitor the profitability and to ensure clubs are sustainable. In other words FFP focuses on the profit and loss account of clubs.Bottom line: if City can't afford Messi in a way that give little to no risk on FFP in 202x (without these various tricks, sleight of hand etc) we shouldn't be going near it. The idea that UEFA, Tebas/La Liga, the rest will sit back and not look for anyway to prosecute a breach is fanciful.
Shares affect the balance sheet and have nothing to do with the P&L.
UEFA or anybody when monitoring FFP cannot turn around to us and say let's look at everything else. If they started looking at balance sheets then Barca, United etc would be completely fucked.
The selling of shares to employees is quite a normal business transaction. The only difference is in football once again is that our owners are ahead of the curve.
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
I agree with project, it feels like we’d just be asking for trouble if we tried to find creative ways to pay him.
I want Messi as much as the next person but don’t want another couple of years of the same shit again.
If it's against the rules that's true yes.
But if it's creative but perfectly legal re ffp then it's not a problem.
The regulations for FFP are in place to monitor the profitability and to ensure clubs are sustainable. In other words FFP focuses on the profit and loss account of clubs.
Shares affect the balance sheet and have nothing to do with the P&L.
UEFA or anybody when monitoring FFP cannot turn around to us and say let's look at everything else. If they started looking at balance sheets then Barca, United etc would be completely fucked.
The selling of shares to employees is quite a normal business transaction. The only difference is in football once again is that our owners are ahead of the curve.
This is nonsense. If City are talking about making a payment in shares connected with his employment a) it is a P&L item and b) FFP has anti avoidance measures that will adjust the P&L for such transactions.
The last para is also nonsense.
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
They won't need to - they can take action in 3 years time.
How does it work if Messi gets shares in the CFG which is outside UEFA ?
There is no such thing as "perfectly legal" under ffp. We have seen ffp gives great scope to UEFA to allow, adjust, disallow, revalue etc. They won't fall through the traps next time.If it's against the rules that's true yes.
But if it's creative but perfectly legal re ffp then it's not a problem.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.