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

Will mention it again.
Newcastle and City need to get around a table and get the Saudi’s to Sponsor City via Aramco give us the biggest deal based on recent performance/record and ADUG gives them our current deal with Etihad.

no one will be sponsored by “related parties”. And if they winge and moan this has racism and jealousy written all over it and ripe for a civil court case as to why saudis can’t sponsor city and ADUG can’t sponsor Newcastle.

they won’t have any flipping leg to stand on.

Khaldoon can drop the mic and walk off the stage….
 
The PL can adopt whatever rules it likes, up to a point. Clearly any rules it does adopt have to comply with any legal, regulatory or other statutory requirements. So there's probably nothing to stop them expanding the definition of a related or associated party.

But it would be interesting to see the outcome if they decided that, say, Sheikh Mansour & Etihad, or City and Etihad, were deemed to be associated parties.
 
halfcenturyup said:
They will justify it on the basis that the comparable sponsorship is the Etihad deal, not any deal Aston Villa or Leeds have signed in the last five years.

........Would have been more sensible for the PL to just exclude any excess over FMV from the FFP calculations. Much less risky for them.
Click to expand...
I've missed this or I can't see it and automatically presumed any excess would be excluded for the FFP/Cost Control calculation only but not excluded all together. if I'm wrong I agree with you about the risk.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
If they go back five years then it is well within rights to question the validity of the money United accrued from the Chevrolet shirt sponsorship deal, as it emerged later that the person who signed off on it was sacked for the ridiculous inflatory nature of it.

I would like to hear United's justification for a team that hasn't won a domestic league title since 2013.
Click to expand...
Small u for united Tolmie please
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The PL can adopt whatever rules it likes, up to a point. Clearly any rules it does adopt have to comply with any legal, regulatory or other statutory requirements. So there's probably nothing to stop them expanding the definition of a related or associated party.

But it would be interesting to see the outcome if they decided that, say, Sheikh Mansour & Etihad, or City and Etihad, were deemed to be associated parties.
Click to expand...

Assessed on FMV surely? And presumably not a problem with the history behind the deal.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The PL can adopt whatever rules it likes, up to a point. Clearly any rules it does adopt have to comply with any legal, regulatory or other statutory requirements. So there's probably nothing to stop them expanding the definition of a related or associated party.

But it would be interesting to see the outcome if they decided that, say, Sheikh Mansour & Etihad, or City and Etihad, were deemed to be associated parties.
Click to expand...
It would be indeed considering CAS clearly stated them as separate entities.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Looks like the PL are working on it as we speak.
Click to expand...
It is shocking the way Newcastle are being treated. Like any other new business they require a major injection of cash in the short-term. It is the only way they will even be able to reach the top table. There should at least be a period of time, perhaps three to five years, when they are allowed to spend well above FFP rules. This should apply to all new owners of clubs.
These new proposals will stifle any club that wants to show a bit of ambition. LFC have already tried to prevent Everton's new stadium by de-railing the planning application at the council. Now they will do everything they can behind the scenes to prevent them investing. This is just corruption.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It is shocking the way Newcastle are being treated. Like any other new business they require a major injection of cash in the short-term. It is the only way they will even be able to reach the top table. There should at least be a period of time, perhaps three to five years, when they are allowed to spend well above FFP rules. This should apply to all new owners of clubs.
These new proposals will stifle any club that wants to show a bit of ambition. LFC have already tried to prevent Everton's new stadium by de-railing the planning application at the council. Now they will do everything they can behind the scenes to prevent them investing. This is just corruption.
Click to expand...
Thats the whole purpose of FFP, to protect the cartel
 
How about an independent retrospective review of American ownership of English football clubs, where they use the club as a cash cow? When will that happen? What about a retrospective review of Russian oligarchs owning English football clubs? What about corrupt owners of East London football clubs screwing taxpayers by the subsidising of the Olympic Stadium? Just a few examples of the blinkered. i am glad we can afford good lawyers
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It is shocking the way Newcastle are being treated. Like any other new business they require a major injection of cash in the short-term. It is the only way they will even be able to reach the top table. There should at least be a period of time, perhaps three to five years, when they are allowed to spend well above FFP rules. This should apply to all new owners of clubs.
These new proposals will stifle any club that wants to show a bit of ambition. LFC have already tried to prevent Everton's new stadium by de-railing the planning application at the council. Now they will do everything they can behind the scenes to prevent them investing. This is just corruption.
Click to expand...

New rules introduced by UEFA in c2015 for FFP allowed for a programme of initial capital investment and iirc without looking it up it was for a period of 4 years and based on the specific plan submitted. So completely different to what we had to encounter. Of course, we don't know yet the exact detail of the new FFP rules which will be introduced shortly but I'd bet it won't be as bad as this.

The UEFA version is less stringent than this PL version and ironically the main push for this was from the middle ranked PL clubs fearing losing their PL place to relegation or making a European place much more difficult. It's turkeys voting for xmas imo - restricting investment in the PL (player sales etc) and deflating the asset value of the clubs because less attractive to purchase
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
I hope you’re right about the legal challenge, but I still respectfully disagree about the intended target. City currently cost the cartel in the region of £100 million a year in CL revenue, plus associated domestic prize money and diminished advertising revenue. Newcastle cost them sweet FA, and with FFP already acting as a constraint on their ability to generate income through sponsorships, nor will Newcastle impact the cartel for years to come. Whilst this “legislation” may unquestionably be aimed at Newcastle as well, it’s primary target is without question in my opinion City, for the reasons stated
Click to expand...
Arab muslims that's a problem for Americans. Twats.
 
Citizen Green said:
It would be indeed considering CAS clearly stated them as separate entities.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between related under IAS 24 and associated by the PL Definition. CAS and UEFA originally worked on IAS definition. Later UEFA introduced a new associated category. The limits were 15% for related and 30% for associated.
 
I still find it amazing that they get away with it. If I take over a failing business there is nothing stopping me pumping in as much money as I like. Take Amazon for example, started from nothing made a loss for God knows how many years, loads of money pumped in and look at it now. I suppose that is what UEFA and PL are frightened of.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
I've missed this or I can't see it and automatically presumed any excess would be excluded for the FFP/Cost Control calculation only but not excluded all together. if I'm wrong I agree with you about the risk.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, they want sponsorship contracts to be amended to their FMV either before signed or after, and if after, any "excess" cash to be returned. The cheeky bastards.
 
KS55 said:
There is a difference between related under IAS 24 and associated by the PL Definition. CAS and UEFA originally worked on IAS definition. Later UEFA introduced a new associated category. The limits were 15% for related and 30% for associated.
Click to expand...
The below clause was introduced in 2015 after our argument with UEFA as part of the settlement in 2014.

IF our commercial revenue exceeds 30% of the clubs total revenues then our abu dhabi sponsorships (declared as non-related) would be treated as related and assessed for fair value. This hasn't caused us a problem because our total abu dhabi sposnorships have been under 30%. So it hasn't made any difference to us and subsequently there hasn't been a need to challenge the rule.

It would cause a problem for Newcastle as far as UEFA FFP is concerned because their total turnover is so much lower than ours. However, UEFA FFP isn't an immediate problem for them and, in any case, will be changed shortly with new rules.

There is no limit as such of 15% for related parties. It is simply based on fair value.



1640196438350.jpeg
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
The below clause was introduced in 2015 after our argument with UEFA as part of the settlement in 2014.

IF our commercial revenue exceeds 30% of the clubs total revenues then our abu dhabi sponsorships (declared as non-related) would be treated as related and assessed for fair value. This hasn't caused us a problem because our total abu dhabi sposnorships have been under 30%. So it hasn't made any difference to us and subsequently there hasn't been a need to challenge the rule.

It would cause a problem for Newcastle as far as UEFA FFP is concerned because their total turnover is so much lower than ours. However, UEFA FFP isn't an immediate problem for them and, in any case, will be changed shortly with new rules.

There is no limit as such of 15% for related parties. It is simply based on fair value.



View attachment 32486
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. My memory not so good, your post much more accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top