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

This must all be having a negative effect on players we have wanted to sign. None of our targets are openly stating they want to come to us. Perhaps Euafa are banging the drum within the corridors of the top European clubs and we are a risk to the top players. The rules change for the elite and now for PSG. These twunts are every bit as bent as FIFA.
 
dont give that rag the clicks..............................

Man City transfer news: Blues' spending to go ahead despite FFP uncertainty
The main requirement was that the Blues would not report a deficit higher than £16m in 2014-15.

They actually racked up a deficit of £23m, but as £16m of that was Uefa’s fine, they were confident it met the requirement.


I thought the last set of accounts released, and thus those referred to, were 2013-14
 
CI1mx19VEAARiGu.png


To Mr Aguero93:20
[2.] Means City, PSG or any club can't apply for a voluntary agreement if the ownership hasn't changed in the last 12 months.
[3.] Means you can't change an existing voluntary agreement OR enter a new voluntary agreement if you are currently subject to a settlement (as City and PSG were, but City no longer are and as UEFA said in May PSG still were).

Of course they may have changed the rules on related parties to one based upon a "UEFA View" of a related party which if L'Equipe is correct would actually be am astonishing bending of the rules.
 
Last edited:
We are just gonna get screwed by UEFA over and over ... time to sing the City Buddy Song:

When you hear the sound of Platini, don't you get too scared.
Just grab your City Buddy, and say these magic words:
F*** you, UEFAAAAAH! ... You can suck our Balls.
You cant get us, UEFAAAAAH!, because youre just Platini's farts (trump).
 
CI1mx19VEAARiGu.png


To Mr Aguero93:20
[2.] Means City, PSG or any club can't apply for a voluntary agreement if the ownership hasn't changed in the last 12 months.
[3.] Means you can't change an existing voluntary agreement OR enter a new voluntary agreement if you are currently subject to a settlement (as City and PSG were, but City no longer are and as UEFA said in May PSG still were.

OK, now where does it state that anyone under FFP1 Sanctions would remain under said sanctions?

I didn't ask about voluntary agreements to bypass the break even test.
 
City, PSG and umpteen other clubs are subject to FFP settlements.

City's Settlement said:
Decision of the Chief Investigator of the CFCB Investigatory Chamber: Settlement Agreement with Manchester City Football Club Limited
Following an investigation under the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (“CLFFPR”) a settlement agreement was concluded between the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (“CFCB”) Chief Investigator and Manchester City Football Club Limited ("Manchester City") on the basis of Article 14 (1)(b) and Article 15 of the Procedural Rules governing the CFCB.
The settlement was concluded on 16 May 2014 and covers the three sporting seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. For the duration of the settlement, Manchester City will be subject to on-going restrictions which have been agreed by the club and which are described further below.
A central purpose of the settlement is to ensure that Manchester City becomes break-even compliant within the meaning of the CLFFPR in a short space of time.
 In this regard, Manchester City undertakes to report a maximum break-even deficit of EUR 20 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2014 and a maximum break-even deficit of EUR 10 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2015. In this context certain commercial partnerships were subject to examination. In order to avoid dispute and for the avoidance of doubt, Manchester City has agreed that for the period of the settlement it will not seek to improve the financial terms of two second tier commercial partnerships.
 Furthermore Manchester City agrees that revenues from the sale of assets within their group structure will not be included in future break-even calculations.
 Manchester City accepts that employee benefit expenses cannot be increased during the next two financial periods (2015 & 2016). If Manchester City meets the annual break-even requirements outlined above, this spending limit will be removed for the 2016 financial period.
 Manchester City accepts that for the duration of the settlement it will be subject to a limitation on the number of players that it may include on the “A” list for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. Specifically, for season 2014/15 Manchester City may only register a potential maximum of 21 players on the “A” list, instead of the potential maximum of 25 as foreseen in the relevant competition regulations. If MC manages to comply with the annual break-even
target the club shall be released from the restriction as regards the registration of players in UEFA club competitions for the 2015/16 season.
 Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Manchester City further accepts a calculated limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by this agreement.
 Manchester City agrees to pay a total amount of EUR 60 Mio. which will be withheld from any revenues it earns from participating in UEFA competitions commencing in season 2013/14. Of this EUR 60 Mio. an amount of EUR 40 Mio. will be withheld conditionally and will be returned to Manchester City if the club fulfills the operational and financial measures agreed with the UEFA CFCB.
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.
 
That's still not what I asked for @BlueAnorak , you stated on page 525 and I quote

"That said the new rules Annex point 3 (previous post N pages back) says any club under sanction is still under sanction."

So I asked you to show me where. You still haven't.
 
PSG's Settlement said:
Decision of the Chief Investigator of the CFCB Investigatory Chamber: Settlement Agreement with Paris Saint-Germain Football Club
Following an investigation under the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (“CLFFPR”) a settlement agreement was concluded between the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (“CFCB”) Chief Investigator and Paris Saint-Germain Football Club ("PSG") on the basis of Article 14 (1)(b) and Article 15 of the Procedural Rules governing the CFCB.
The settlement was concluded on 16 May 2014 and covers the three sporting seasons 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17. For the duration of the settlement, PSG will be subject to on-going restrictions which have been agreed by the club and which are described further below.
A central purpose of the settlement is to ensure that PSG becomes break-even compliant within the meaning of the CLFFPR in a short space of time.
 In this regard, PSG undertakes to report a maximum break-even deficit of EUR 30 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2015 and no break-even deficit for the financial year ending in 2016. In this context the contract between PSG and the Qatar Tourism Authority has been carefully considered and a fair value, significantly below that submitted by the club, has been assigned.
 PSG accepts that employee benefit expenses cannot be increased during the next two financial periods (2015 & 2016).
 PSG accepts that for the duration of the settlement it will be subject to a limitation on the number of players that it may include on the “A” list for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. Specifically, for season 2014/15 PSG may only register a potential maximum of 21 players on the “A” list, instead of the potential maximum of 25 as foreseen in the relevant competition regulations. If PSG manages to comply with the break-even target the club shall gradually be released from the restriction as regards the registration of players in UEFA club competitions.
 PSG agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. PSG further accepts a calculated limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List for the purposes of
participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by this agreement.
 PSG agrees to pay a total amount of EUR 60 Mio. which will be withheld from the revenues it earns from participating in UEFA competitions commencing in season 2013/14. Of this EUR 60 Mio. an amount of EUR 40 Mio. will be withheld conditionally and will be returned to PSG if the club fulfills the operational and financial measures agreed with the UEFA CFCB.
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, PSG 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 PSG 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.
 
This really is the time for Twatini's (Gill et al sponsored) corruption to be ploughed into the earth....

FFP2 show that FFP1 was fundamentally misconceived and illegal.... so their clinging to that sinking ship's mast looks ridiculous after FFP1 was successfully challenged in court..

The naked self-interest of those scrabbling around to support FFP is comical...


It really is time that City took off the gloves and got stuck into these corrupt wombles...
 
Aguero93:20 - I have. City or PSG are still under sanction if the settlement still applies.
City's doesn't (we were only £8m away from being in profit - ok not FFP transaction profit but even that must have been close - By the settlement the new break even point couldn't be that fair away)
I'd like to know how PSG would be able to get close to the break even point considering that 1/3 of the Qatar Tourist Authority Payment was NOT ALLOWED as valid FFP income.
 
Aguero93:20 - I have. City or PSG are still under sanction if the settlement still applies.
City's doesn't (we were only £8m away from being in profit - ok not FFP transaction profit but even that must have been close - By the settlement the new break even point couldn't be that fair away)
I'd like to know how PSG would be able to get close to the break even point considering that 1/3 of the Qatar Tourist Authority Payment was NOT ALLOWED as valid FFP income.

So where in annex 3 of the new rules does it state this?
 
CI1mx19VEAARiGu.png


To Mr Aguero93:20
[2.] Means City, PSG or any club can't apply for a voluntary agreement if the ownership hasn't changed in the last 12 months.
[3.] Means you can't change an existing voluntary agreement OR enter a new voluntary agreement if you are currently subject to a settlement (as City and PSG were, but City no longer are and as UEFA said in May PSG still were).

Of course they may have changed the rules on related parties to one based upon a "UEFA View" of a related party which if L'Equipe is correct would actually be am astonishing bending of the rules.
 
Apologies if already explained earlier but is there a suggestion now that the FFP fine of €20M was not FFP exempt (Brennan seems to imply that). If that's the case then I would be livid if City didn't throw the book at UEFA, especially as we clearly took the decision to pay the fine in one instalment rather than the two stipulated!
 
Apologies if already explained earlier but is there a suggestion now that the FFP fine of €20M was not FFP exempt (Brennan seems to imply that). If that's the case then I would be livid if City didn't throw the book at UEFA, especially as we clearly took the decision to pay the fine in one instalment rather than the two stipulated!

UEFA clearly stated publicly at the time of the sanctions that fines levied wouldn't count for break even purposes.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top