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

[maccadon]

Blind faith and optimism I do not do. I do love our chairman but this club is swimming against the tide with regards to FFP. Just when you think you have succeeded they pull the rug out from under us once again.

I now have vision of someone swimming on a rug.

 

[Cobwebcat]

I disagree.

I think the argument still stands that it's designed to keep the status quo (as was) ergo to keep new clubs out.
The problem is that the UEFA are finding it difficult to set out a set of rules that stops the likes of us without hurting some of the other big boys (like the two Milan clubs).

They're having to 'adapt' the rules on the fly (under the guise of 'fine tuning' or 'relaxing' then).

If it wasn't the Milan clubs wanting investment, but (say) Parma, or Hamburg etc, they'd not be interested in relaxing the rules, but because it's a couple of big boys in trouble the seemingly principled UEFA stance goes right out the window.

Depending on how you measure it, FFP's only really been active for a couple of years, and already UEFA seem to be claiming all the glory for improved club finances (ignoring the huge improvements in sponsorship and tv deals which have been the real saviour).

I don't actually believe UEFA are against Manchester City per se, simply that the corridors of power are littered with representatives of the old G14 clubs, and their influence on UEFA is so strong that UEFA is effectively doing their bidding. It's those old G14 clubs who don't want newcomers (whoever they may be).

Yes but by changing the rules they have also opened the door to another City appearing which is initially what they were trying to stop.

They are struggling. Next they will have to name the clubs allowed to invest and those not!

 

[andyhinch]

Yes but by changing the rules they have also opened the door to another City appearing which is initially what they were trying to stop.

They are struggling. Next they will have to name the clubs allowed to invest and those not!

Or just a ban on clubs using oil revenue ?

 

[BlueAnorak]

But we don't though...because we have passed...

Rocket Science is easy.
Substance V + Substance X = BANG (Z) -or-
Substance V + Kinetic/Heat Energy (Y) = BANG (Z) -or-
Substance V + Substance X + Kinetic/Heat Energy (Y) = BANG (Z)

Rocket Engineering is the difficult thing making sure the BANG (Z) heat energy is only generated when you want it to be and turned into Kinetic energy (K) applied to a body (P) over time (T).

 

[DiscoSteve]

and getting that Kinertic energy (K) pointing in the right direction too

 

[waspish]

So if true that we won't know for 2/3 weeks for the official ok from UEFA about FFP?! I think it's a piss take meaning we can't really spend big till then! constraints for mcfc again

 

[Pam]

I imagine we'll tell them to fuck right off this time and see them in court if needs be.

 

[Cobwebcat]

So funny. They're tying themselves in knots. Given that we wouldn't need to ask for any special funds this makes no difference to us but its interesting that UEFA have changed their minds again it seems. Dupont is all over this....

Manchester City’s exclusion from new financial fair play rules has been called 'discriminatory' by the lawyer who is taking on UEFA in court.

And Jean-Louis Dupont – who has already won the first battle against the governing body – has vowed to include the treatment of the Blues, in his fight.

UEFA has announced a relaxation of the rules, which limit a club’s spending, and which saw City and Paris St Germain punished last season.

But they made it plain any club that has already fallen foul of the controversial rules will NOT be eligible for the new format, which allows clubs greater spending power.

The new rules introduce a voluntary agreement, which would consist of a spending splurge being allowed by UEFA, as long as a club makes guarantees it would be a one-off.

After initially briefing the media that the new rules only apply to new owners of clubs, Uefa have now said they will also apply to anyone who feels the need to spend to revamp the club.

Mr Dupont has already persuaded a Brussels court to freeze FFP’s latest reduction in spending, arguing that it is against European law.

That court has agreed that UEFA has a case to answer and has referred the matter to the higher European Court of Justice.


The lawyer, who won the ground-breaking Bosman case to give players more contract freedom, says the rules discriminate against some clubs.


Mr Dupont is representing Manchester City Supporters Club, Paris St Germain fans and an Italian agent in the matter.

He said: “...we are particularly puzzled about the fact that, according to UEFA, some clubs - those already sanctioned or under agreement procedure - will not immediately benefit from the adopted amendments.

“At first sight, this is absolutely discriminatory. Our clients reserve the right to inject this issue into the proceedings.”

But Mr Dupont also said that UEFA’s adoption of new, relaxed rules were undoubted proof that the original rules, which were used to clobber City with a fine, squad restriction and caps on transfer spending and wages, were 'illegal'.

He said: “UEFA says that with these amendments, FFP is evolving from a ‘period of austerity to a sustainable growth period.’

“In more direct terms, UEFA is simply moving from an entirely illegal rule to a rule that becomes a little bit less illegal. Indeed, in competition law, any excessive restriction of the freedom of enterprise is by definition illegal.

“With these amendments yesterday, UEFA is therefore fully confessing that the previous version of the rule was excessive and therefore illegal under competition law.”

 

[Pam]

So we have to ask UEFA for permission to spend our own money. Oh what a tangled web Twatini and the cartel have weaved for themselves. Cretins.

 

[Cobwebcat]

So we have to ask UEFA for permission to spend our own money. Oh what a tangled web Twatini and the cartel have weaved for themselves. Cretins.

I read it as anyone who has been previously been fined cannot spend more than the normal amounts FFP permits for all teams. However anyone else can apply to spend more...for a bit!

We don't need to apply but if we wanted to we couldn't..same for PSG hence Dupont saying its discrimination. UEFA are their own worst enemy. Even Fanchester must see they've no chance of winning this case even without the multitude of new cock ups.

I can barely see UEFA their hole is so deep now...keep digging.

 

[lancs blue]

It's almost as if UEFA and the G-14 clubs were believing " the sheikh will get bored" nonsense when they implemented FFP1, I'm sure they didn't anticipate the side effect that FFP1 would accelerate our drive towards self-sustainability, which now looks like arriving a few years ahead of ADUG's original plans. The more I look at FFP2 the more it seems like a last desperate throw of the dice.

 

[avoidconfusion]

I sincerely hope we won't give a shit about this FFP bullshit anymore, spend what we want to spend on the players we want to get and ideally tell Platini to stick a Baguette up his arse (in case he hasn't got one in there already).

 

[Graceyboy]

Its going to be funny watching the owners/chairmen of the Evertons, Aston villas, etc coming up with new excuses why they wont put their hand in their pockets to make them competitive. The rats that voted for rat poison just got fucked poisened. laughing my cock off now

 

[Pam]

They think it would be less embarrassing for them if they let the whole thing wither on the vine with the minimum of drama, maybe? Because that is surely the least worst scenario from the morons at UEFA's jaundiced viewpoint. They are such utter fucking morons. Really, these are people of limited competence and foresight to say the least of it.

 

[Pam]

I sincerely hope we won't give a shit about this FFP bullshit anymore, spend what we want to spend on the players we want to get and ideally tell Platini to stick a Baguette up his arse (in case he hasn't got one in there already).

Well said! Fuck 'em. They are amateurs and undeserving of any respect.

 

[Graceyboy]

Dear Mr Platini

I would like to apply to invest in a football club and this is my plan

Im going to borrow all the money needed to buy the shares from banks and other companies I own to start this club off in massive debt, then im going to spend so much money im going to break the transfer record a good few times. Im also going to sell some shirts and some toothpaste with our name on it.
As this is going on, im also going to take money out (that isnt mine) to pay for the loans and some foreign bank in the west indies, oh and give some to my kids too.
During this time I wil remain loyal to tickling your scrotum.

PS
If anyone else in our league starts to win things then we will be fucked and wont be popular anymore and won't be able to pay our debts. (is that OK?)

PLease accept this business model a a true viable business plan to allow us to squander oodles of (someone elses) cash on luke shaw

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This is a chapter of innuendos , veiled accusations and lots of ifs buts and maybes.
But the big giveaway is his final paragraph - he , like so many others , is still clinging forlornly to the notion that someday the sheik will get bored and walk away.
All that pseudo "investigative journalism" style ,and the pretence at being a well researched article, and he ends up looking like what he is - a jealous , biased buffoon.

Quite simply, anyone who thinks someone could ever get bored of owning a leading football club doesn't really love the game, in the sense that real supporters do. They are merely dilettantes. I could never imagine getting bored of owning a football club. It has to be the best job in the world.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

M. Dupont and Stuart Brennan have shown the bare faced nerve and brass necked stupidity of UEFA's latest lurch along the pathe to financial regulation of European club football. The last vestiges of any tenuous claim to "fair" play were gleefully tossed into the dustbin by a simpering, smarmy French ignoramus and a greasy Italian knucklehead as they announced the "relaxation" of the regulations - what Manchester City and PSG have been hammered for, what last year was ruining football and calling down the thunderbolts of that old Bavarian soak in Munich is now perfectly acceptable for Berlusconi and his "investor"in Milan. But not for anyone else, because any new owner, or old one, must have his investment plans agreed by the failed investment banker and financial nullities entrusted with such matters by the dwarfs of Noyon. And they have as much chance of being allowed to rival the "established elite" as Khaldoon does of being invited to chair the FFP committee. We know have a situation in which the investment policies of every football club in Europe are to be decided not by those who own the club and pay the bills but by a group of bureaucrats who have no responsibility for any European club at all and who risk not one centime of their own. The ECJ will love that! Maybe M. Platini will enlighten us as to where such measures have any legal basis at all. He will find that M. Dupont has by far the best of the argument on this one.

Along with any pretence of fairness any pretence of equality and uniformity has been thrown out. The same rules do not apply to all. Milan can do this year what City could not last. Some owners may be allowed to invest: City and PSG may not. City agreed a deal with UEFA, but for the second time UEFA changed the rules. If City's instinct just over twelve months ago was to fight UEFA through every avenue open to it that must surely be its instinct if UEFA gets in the way of its plans now.

That is the question: just what effect, if any, will these measures have on City? M. Dupont will win his case, and Platini knows this. UEFA are, as M. Dupont says, playing for time, spinning out the case and then any claim for damages from his clients so that maximum damage is done and the victory is rendered hollow as was Bosman's. The issue is how much damage he can do to City in the meantime. If City decide they have to ignore the regulations and end up expelled from the CL they will have no choice but to seek injunctions and take UEFA to court. For City time would be the major factor: UEFA would pay a heavy price financially for losing. If, on the other hand, City's income enables them to buy the players they want... We are back to sponsorship deals and partnerships for the CFA and new money from TV. And this is the most illogical element of these crazy regulations. Having sung the Rumenigge anthem that the more successful clubs who develop acceptable revenue streams can spend more we are now told that it you are unsuccessful, if your income from TV is low, if no-one wants to atch you on the TV then you can spend more, with UEFA's permission. Come in Milan, are you reading us!

So M. Platini has shown us exactly why for so long he was the protege of that pillar of financial fair play, M. Sepp Blatter. UEFA does not behave like a governing body of the world's most popular sport, but just like a group of corrupt megalomaniacs in hoc to a few privileged clubs. But the day of judgement cannot be postponed indefinitely.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

New rules up:

2 A licensee that demonstrates it has relevant income and relevant expenses (as defined in Article 58) below EUR 5 million in respect of each of the two reporting periods ending in the two years before commencement of the UEFA club competitions is exempt from the break-even requirement. Such an exemption decision is taken by the UEFA Club Financial Control Body and is final.

Other factors within the meaning of Article 68 to be considered by the UEFA Club Financial Control Body include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) The quantum and trend of the break-even result The larger the quantum of a break-even deficit relative to a licensee’s relevant income, in a reporting period or in aggregate for a monitoring period, the less favourably it will be viewed. An improving trend in the annual break-even results will be viewed more favourably than a worsening trend.

b) Projected aggregated break-even result As part of its assessment, the UEFA Club Financial Control Body may review the projected aggregated break-even result for reporting periods T-1, T and T+1. A projected aggregated break-even result that is within the acceptable deviation for reporting periods T-1, T and T+1 will be viewed favourably. Additionally, the UEFA Club Financial Control Body may also review the licensee’s long-term business plan (including future break-even information up to reporting period T+4) in order to better assess the strategy of the club. As part of its assessment, the UEFA Club Financial Control Body may consider the budgeting accuracy, i.e. licensee’s break-even result for a reporting period may be compared to the projected break-even information as previously submitted.

--

ANNEX XII: Voluntary agreements for break-even requirement Principles

1. A club may apply to the UEFA Club Financial Control Body investigatory chamber to enter into a voluntary agreement with the aim of complying with the break-even requirement.

2. A club is eligible to apply to enter into a voluntary agreement if it:
i) has been granted a valid licence to enter the UEFA club competitions by its national licensor but has not qualified for a UEFA club competition in the season that precedes the entry into force of the voluntary agreement;

or ii) has qualified for a UEFA club competition and fulfils the break-even requirement in the monitoring period that precedes the entry into force of the voluntary agreement; or
iii) has been subject to a significant change in ownership and/or control within the 12 months preceding the application deadline.

3. The club must not have been party to a voluntary agreement (as defined in this annex) or subject to a disciplinary measure or settlement agreement (as foreseen in the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body) within the last three reporting periods.

4. A voluntary agreement can cover up to four reporting periods.

5. A voluntary agreement includes a structured set of obligations which are individually tailored to the situation of the club, break-even targets defined as annual and aggregate break-even results for each reporting period covered by the agreement, and any other obligations as agreed with the UEFA Club Financial Control Body investigatory chamber. Process 1. The application deadline is the 31 December preceding the licence season in which the voluntary agreement would come into force. 2. When applying for a voluntary agreement the club must: a) submit a long-term business plan, consisting of a balance sheet, a profit and loss account and a cash flow statement which must be based on reasonable and conservative assumptions, in the form communicated by the UEFA administration, including future break-even information up to reporting period T+4; b) demonstrate its ability to continue as a going concern until at least the end of the period covered by the voluntary agreement; 95 c) submit an irrevocable commitment(s) by an equity participant(s) and/or related party(ies) to make contributions for an amount at least equal to the aggregate future break-even deficits for all the reporting periods covered by the voluntary agreement. This irrevocable commitment must be evidenced by way of a legally binding agreement between the licensee and the equity participant and/or related party and, if required by the UEFA Club Financial Control Body investigatory chamber, it must also be secured by means of either: i) payments into an escrow account, or ii) a guarantee from another company in the legal group structure outside the reporting perimeter; or iii) such other form of security as the UEFA Club Financial Control Body investigatory chamber considers satisfactory; d) demonstrate its ability to meet the targets and obligations agreed with the UEFA Club Financial Control Body investigatory chamber. 3. The UEFA Club Financial Control Body investigatory chamber reviews each application and is free to conclude the corresponding voluntary agreement or not. 4. The UEFA Club Financial Control Body investigatory chamber monitors the proper and timely implementation of voluntary agreements. 5. Clubs bound by a voluntary agreement: a) undertake to provide the UEFA administration with information on a timely basis evidencing their compliance with all obligations included in the voluntary agreement; b) may be subjected to disciplinary measures by the UEFA Club Financial Control Body investigatory or adjudicatory chamber as foreseen in the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body if they fail to comply with the terms of their voluntary agreement.

So they've gone for it as expected, expect war.

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/26/28/41/2262841_DOWNLOAD.pdf

 

[Silva_Spell]

3 = 'Fuck you, City'