City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[Chris B]

Baffled by the vote in the premier league about related part there are loads of clubs sponsored by owners then the reporting is all about city and Newcastle

Yep, Leicester is the clearest example. Their owner and the owner of sponsor King Power are one in the same - but they apparently voted for this proposal! City of course don’t have any related parties acting as sponsors. As PIF have already been found to be separate from the Saudi state I’m not sure what deals this will block for Newcastle either.

Going back in history this was seen as the classic way of a wealthy man supporting his local team. Jack Walker/Walker Steel at Blackburn was the most notable example but I’m sure there were often links between owner and sponsors, and why wouldn’t there be? There can be an argument for fair play type rules but it is hard to see why related party sponsorships would be an automatic part of that.

 

[Chris B]

Yep, Leicester is the clearest example. Their owner and the owner of sponsor King Power are one in the same - but they apparently voted for this proposal! City of course don’t have any related parties acting as sponsors. As PIF have already been found to be separate from the Saudi state I’m not sure what deals this will block for Newcastle either.

Going back in history this was seen as the classic way of a wealthy man supporting his local team. Jack Walker/Walker Steel at Blackburn was the most notable example but I’m sure there were often links between owner and sponsors, and why wouldn’t there be? There can be an argument for fair play type rules but it is hard to see why related party sponsorships would be an automatic part of that.

Hmm, just realised that PIF now also own a lot of Saudi investments too (including Aramco since 2016, NEOM, etc.), I was thinking it was overseas stuff only.

 

[Bandofblues]

It's because they can't form any rational argument that Newcastle being sponsored for £80m a year is not 'fair value' but the red tops being sponsored the same amount is.

It's because they can't outright ban Saudi sponsorship because the rest of them are already dipping in that trough.

So instead they are trying to ban owner/related party investment whilst completely ignoring all the existing owner / related party investment.

It is bent, corrupt, unfair, stinks to high heaven.


Oh and you can guarantee it would not be an issue if the Saudi's had taken over Utd instead.


Welcome to the club Newcastle, get used to it.

 

[grunge]

Does anyone have a link to the original FFP breech statement from UEFA in 2014? I cant find it.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Here you go:

https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/0258-0e2dedb2acec-2bcb7225d41a-1000/manchester_city_fc_-_settlement_agreement_-_may_2014.pdf

 

[grunge]

Here you go:

https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/0258-0e2dedb2acec-2bcb7225d41a-1000/manchester_city_fc_-_settlement_agreement_-_may_2014.pdf

Thanks. I think there is another one tho that went into finer details. may have been 20+ pages long if I recall.

 

[Centurions]

Perhaps I've missed it but has that Real Geordie idiot had a melt down on camera yet, or has he miraculously changed his thinking?

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Baffled by the vote in the premier league about related part there are loads of clubs sponsored by owners then the reporting is all about city and Newcastle

At the moment they've voted to forbid them for a month while they consider a permanent ban. I suspect they're hoping to ban all future related party deals, but they may not include any retrospective element. I can't see Newcastle standing for any of this and I think those responsible for running PL are alarmed at the turn of events.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Pretty sure the initial intentions of FFP was to deal with debt but Platini got told by the G-14 or whatever they were then that it had to change.

The 'istry clubs here and abroad threatened legal action against UEFA because debt has been recognised as a major means of raising capital for investment and they threatened that any move to force clubs to deal with debt would also provoke a break away. They are right on the question of the role of debt but they have never been taken to tasl on their staggering hypocrisy, that owner investment and debt were used by ALL the history clubs to build their infrastructure AND playing staff, but this means was to be denied to every other club. Platini was persuaded solely by the force of their argument ...

 

[niall'sdiscoshorts]

I hope that every Saudi sponsorship that every club has bar Newcastle and City gets terminated, bit like Fergie pulled the plug on players that had been loaned out had been recalled because his son got the bullet.

 

[KS55]

At the moment they've voted to forbid them for a month while they consider a permanent ban. I suspect they're hoping to ban all future related party deals, but they may not include any retrospective element. I can't see Newcastle standing for any of this and I think those responsible for running PL are alarmed at the turn of events.

If they are hoping to ban all future related party deals, they will have a massive (!) headache in trying to define "related." Even UEFA struggled with their own rule, not sure what was related and what wasn't. See our own 2014 case. Under UEFA rules, related deals are ok, provided they are fair market value. Even after the so called experts have pronounced, UEFA will decide on a political basis. So Qatar's tourist board world wide branding sponsorship of PSG was assessed by independent experts at, iirc, about £9m. PSG's own valuation was, iirc, about £80m, but Leterme allowed it at £100m. Absolutely nothing, of course. to do with the massive tv deal from Bein.
This inflation allowed PSG to escape sanction. When the judge in charge of the Judicial Chamber found out, he appealed to CAS to reopen the case, but they denied jurisdiction. UEFA v UEFA!!!

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Thanks. I think there is another one tho that went into finer details. may have been 20+ pages long if I recall.

Not as far as I'm aware. You might be thinking of CAS1 when the announcement was made and a judgement followed later. Similarly with CAS2 last year when we had the initial press release with the result followed a couple of weeks later with the full details in a 95 page document.

Then there is this extract from @projectriver in his piece https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/

1. On 16 May 2014, MCFC entered into a Settlement Agreement with UEFA in respect of a FFP investigation in the reporting periods and covering the three sporting seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. (“the 2014 Settlement Agreement”).

1. For the duration of the 2014 Settlement Agreement, City were subject to on-going restrictions which were agreed by the club. UEFA stated[1]: “The compliance with the Settlement Agreement will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules. In this connection, Manchester City also undertakes to provide the CFCB with a Progress Report evidencing its compliance with all relevant conditions agreed on a six monthly basis. In case Manchester City fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, the UEFA CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the Adjudicatory Chamber, as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) of the Procedural Rules.”

1. The 2014 Settlement Agreement itself is not publicly available but a number are (albeit in redacted form) including the Dinamo Zagreb[2] Inter[3], Porto, Maccabi Tel Aviv and Marseille[4] Neither PSG’s nor City’s 2014 Settlement Agreement was ever made public even in redacted form. All the agreements available include the following clauses:

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

At the moment they've voted to forbid them for a month while they consider a permanent ban. I suspect they're hoping to ban all future related party deals, but they may not include any retrospective element. I can't see Newcastle standing for any of this and I think those responsible for running PL are alarmed at the turn of events.

They won't ban future related party deals. They are just going into a holding pattern pending introducing new rules.

V good explanation about the implications from lawyer Daniel Geey in todays Athletic podcast here. Well worth a listen.

The Athletic FC Podcast

Sport Podcast · Updated daily · The Athletic's flagship football podcast, hosted by Ayo Akinwolere and featuring the likes of David Ornstein, Phil Hay, Adam Crafton and Matt Slater will take you inside the biggest stories in footbal…

podcasts.apple.com

 

[M18CTID]

I hope that every Saudi sponsorship that every club has bar Newcastle and City gets terminated, bit like Fergie pulled the plug on players that had been loaned out had been recalled because his son got the bullet.

This is an interesting point. It would be piss funny if the Saudis pulled all their sponsorship deals with United as a result of this vote. And who could blame them if they did? Seriously, a lot of these clubs are run by people who really do have the brains of a rocking horse.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

This is an interesting point. It would be piss funny if the Saudis pulled all their sponsorship deals with United as a result of this vote. And who could blame them if they did? Seriously, a lot of these clubs are run by people who really do have the brains of a rocking horse.

That is an insult to rocking horses .

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

If they are hoping to ban all future related party deals, they will have a massive (!) headache in trying to define "related." Even UEFA struggled with their own rule, not sure what was related and what wasn't. See our own 2014 case. Under UEFA rules, related deals are ok, provided they are fair market value. Even after the so called experts have pronounced, UEFA will decide on a political basis. So Qatar's tourist board world wide branding sponsorship of PSG was assessed by independent experts at, iirc, about £9m. PSG's own valuation was, iirc, about £80m, but Leterme allowed it at £100m. Absolutely nothing, of course. to do with the massive tv deal from Bein.
This inflation allowed PSG to escape sanction. When the judge in charge of the Judicial Chamber found out, he appealed to CAS to reopen the case, but they denied jurisdiction. UEFA v UEFA!!!

I don't think UEFA struggled as such with the related party rules - they were acting on the advice of PWC. But City told them to fuck off based on our certainty our sponsorship deals satisfied IAS24 rules (and FFP rules) and weren't related. This let to settlement and UEFA backed-off but introduced a rule change for sponsorship in 2015:

City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

Well it all seems to have calmed down in here. Thanks everyone for helping me through this. If I can summarise: This has been going on for 4 years and we have never co-operated. It was pushed by Liverpool and United, with other clubs on the bandwagon now. There are a handful of actual offences...

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

The interesting thing (discusssed in the pod I linked above) is UEFA are supposed to be relaxing FFP rules with the introduction of a new regime including a luxury tax. More than likely Newcastle will like this.

However, UEFA FFP not an immediate concern for Newcastle. New Premier League rules will be of course and how they balance it all out will be fun...

We will be alright whatever they do IMO and I say this knowing the usual suspects always want to clip our wings or destroy.

 

[halfcenturyup]

They won't ban future related party deals. They are just going into a holding pattern pending introducing new rules.

V good explanation about the implications from lawyer Daniel Geey in todays Athletic podcast here. Well worth a listen.

The Athletic FC Podcast

Sport Podcast · Updated daily · The Athletic's flagship football podcast, hosted by Ayo Akinwolere and featuring the likes of David Ornstein, Phil Hay, Adam Crafton and Matt Slater will take you inside the biggest stories in footbal…

podcasts.apple.com

A good listen, not sure we learned much, though. I suppose after the last ten years we are more up-to-speed on these issues than most fanbases.

The bit about Lee Charnley was bizarre.
And be wary of a lawyer who is so sloppy with his words that he can say a sponsorship could be worth 10 times less.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The interesting thing (discusssed in the pod I linked above) is UEFA are supposed to be relaxing FFP rules with the introduction of a new regime including a luxury tax. More than likely Newcastle will like this.

However, UEFA FFP not an immediate concern for Newcastle. New Premier League rules will be of course and how they balance it all out will be fun...

As I understand it, the new UEFA rules will be built around wages as a % of revenues, no? I am sure the luxury tax will be applied to the "historic" clubs to allow them to invest, but I am also sure they will find a way to impose large fines and bans on the clubs funded by wealthy owners.

And the PL will surely follow their lead.

Plus ça change ...

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

While on the subject of owners spending or not spending their own money on their clubs, has that theatre of dreams had its roof fixed yet?

 

[KS55]

I don't think UEFA struggled as such with the related party rules - they were acting on the advice of PWC. But City told them to fuck off based on our certainty our sponsorship deals satisfied IAS24 rules (and FFP rules) and weren't related. This let to settlement and UEFA backed-off but introduced a rule change for sponsorship in 2015:

City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

Well it all seems to have calmed down in here. Thanks everyone for helping me through this. If I can summarise: This has been going on for 4 years and we have never co-operated. It was pushed by Liverpool and United, with other clubs on the bandwagon now. There are a handful of actual offences...

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

The interesting thing (discusssed in the pod I linked above) is UEFA are supposed to be relaxing FFP rules with the introduction of a new regime including a luxury tax. More than likely Newcastle will like this.

However, UEFA FFP not an immediate concern for Newcastle. New Premier League rules will be of course and how they balance it all out will be fun...

We will be alright whatever they do IMO and I say this knowing the usual suspects always want to clip our wings or destroy.

Thanks for that.