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

Seemingly he is writing about history.

The collective hatred of the cartel were not able to bring themselves to actually do what he says they were close to doing at a time when they saw themselves as invincible and accountable to no one. I wonder why they chose to be so lenient with us.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
And completely misleading as well. The concept of fair market value only applies to transactions with what are known as related parties and Etihad, as I've said before, is not a related party. That's a standard and long-established accounting concept and, if they were, would have been declared as such in our accounts. The fact that our owner, a private individual, is a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi is not enough, in itself, to make City & Etihad related parties.

Therefore UEFA had no grounds to investigate or adjust these, as he's trying to imply. So this wasn't done by or on behalf of UEFA. His "independent assessor" is probably our old friend Ed Thompson.
Click to expand...

It's the usual exercise in placing non-sequiturs to give an image of dodginess - the stadium naming thing for tenants and stadium owners is one that stood out. It's not a secret that the only reason City don't own the stadium is that it would deny income to the city council, and that they are almost de facto owners.

The related parties thing is funny - presumably Harris thinks that international guidelines on related parties don't apply!

He does appear to be quite a bitter man.
 
Ric said:
I see Nick Harris still hasn't got over his bitterness towards us. Phenomenally biased article, as always.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eague-bans-plea-bargain-punishments-2014.html
Click to expand...
I love the 'sources familiar with the process' quote. So it's not someone who was in the know regarding us or PSG (or even UEFA themselves) but someone who had read UEFA's rules? Could it have been the knob that does the Arsenal blog that seems to be as obsessed (and clueless) with us as Harris is?
 
ColinLee said:
I love the 'sources familiar with the process' quote. So it's not someone who was in the know regarding us or PSG (or even UEFA themselves) but someone who had read UEFA's rules? Could it have been the knob that does the Arsenal blog that seems to be as obsessed (and clueless) with us as Harris is?
Click to expand...
It was probably Ed Thompson I suspect. I very much doubt City would have needed to declare to UEFA how the Etihad deal was split, assuming they even had a split.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It was probably Ed Thompson I suspect. I very much doubt City would have needed to declare to UEFA how the Etihad deal was split, assuming they even had a split.
Click to expand...
So "Sources NOT familiar with the process" then. You're probably right, the piece has all the incompitance of Ed.

I can't be bothered digging up the proper facts (it's not worth the effort), but from memory:
UEFA only objected to about £10m of IPR.
The sponsorships from Aabar and Etisalat was let through but we were warned as to increasing it (so it was OK then).
As to a bonus for getting to the FA cup final - this also passed muster as paying for advertising for the FA cup final costs more than that (Arsenal got paid similar bonus payments from Emirates).
Then of course there is no mention of changing the compliance spreadsheet after we submitted our accounts in 2011/12. Old sheet gives us about £5m extra revenue - which would have allowed us to include pre 2010 wage s and thus pass FFP.

Nick Harris has passing similarity to a dog turd.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Nick Harris is a ****.

According to my sources.
Click to expand...
article-2227535-15D52997000005DC-368_224x378.jpg


in some cases looks aren't deceptive
 
BlueAnorak said:
So "Sources NOT familiar with the process" then. You're probably right, the piece has all the incompitance of Ed.

I can't be bothered digging up the proper facts (it's not worth the effort), but from memory:
UEFA only objected to about £10m of IPR.
The sponsorships from Aabar and Etisalat was let through but we were warned as to increasing it (so it was OK then).
As to a bonus for getting to the FA cup final - this also passed muster as paying for advertising for the FA cup final costs more than that (Arsenal got paid similar bonus payments from Emirates).
Then of course there is no mention of changing the compliance spreadsheet after we submitted our accounts in 2011/12. Old sheet gives us about £5m extra revenue - which would have allowed us to include pre 2010 wage s and thus pass FFP.

Nick Harris has passing similarity to a dog turd.
Click to expand...
Just to correct you slightly on a couple of things:
They had no substantive grounds to object to any of the revenue from the sale of IPR but we voluntarily agreed to exclude it from future break-even calculations. They've now removed that loophole by ensuring that the 'reporting perimeter' now includes any company within the group engaged in football related activities. So all income and expenditure relating to CFS & CFM now has to be reported for FFP purposes. As both of those currently run at a loss, there's a slight impact on our overall bottom line but nothing significant.

My understanding was that It wasn't an issue with disallowed revenue that caused the problem but the way of calculating the first step in whether you could use the pre-2010 wages in mitigation. At the time of filing the 2012 accounts the FFP rule in force indicated we could. But the rule changed (very conveniently) just after that and the revised rule said we couldn't.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
It's the usual exercise in placing non-sequiturs to give an image of dodginess - the stadium naming thing for tenants and stadium owners is one that stood out. It's not a secret that the only reason City don't own the stadium is that it would deny income to the city council, and that they are almost de facto owners.

The related parties thing is funny - presumably Harris thinks that international guidelines on related parties don't apply!

He does appear to be quite a bitter man.
Click to expand...
IIRC, there is a covenant in place for 100 years that the stadium must remain in public hands for this period after its completion to comply with the rules governing the granting of the UK and European funds used to build the stadium.

We couldn't buy The Etihad whether we wanted to or not, but the alternative suits both parties for now. Manchester City Council get a hefty annual rent from us as tenants and we were assisted with the purchasing of the land surrounding the stadium on which we built the CFA, Sixth Form College etc.

In terms of FFP, if it wasn't such a stitch up in the first place, I'm sure HRH Sheikh Mansour would have used his own considerable funds to invest in Manchester City instead of us having to get multi national companies to sponsor us as a way of gaining non-football related revenue. So what's the difference? Company A gives us the money or the owner uses his own?

The reason they did this and applied a market rate criteria was as a further attempt to halt our progress. Obviously the European elite football clubs were a far more attractive financial proposition to potential sponsors than a relative newcomer to the top echelons of European football like Manchester City, so the theory was that if this was the only source of non-football related income we were allowed, we'd never be able to financially compete with those clubs already at the top table of European football.

They've done all they can and all it served to do was slow our progress for 2-3 years and the fact these bullshit articles still surface now and again illustrates the bitterness they still harbour against us now we've stepped over their grenade they placed in our way.
 
Last edited:
Inter Me Nan said:
I ain't clicking on that shite, what's the jist of it?
Click to expand...
You don't need to click on it, he's just rehashed the crap he wrote 2 years ago (pretty sure he's actually copy & pasted the majority) with the additional byline that we play PSG midweek. Seriously, that's it.

Oh, he does get a dig in that we are only tenants rather than owners. I don't remember that bit from the original 'story'. Personally it cut me to the quick.
 
Ric said:
I concur. He's one of only three people (to my knowledge) who have blocked me on Twitter, along with Jamie Jackson and Scott the Red. What's the collective noun for a bunch of cunts?
Click to expand...

I've been blocked by the same three mate. Scott the Red was my fave. How he managed to constantly take potshots at City yet claim we're obsessed was quite something.
 
BlueAnorak said:
So "Sources NOT familiar with the process" then. You're probably right, the piece has all the incompitance of Ed.

I can't be bothered digging up the proper facts (it's not worth the effort), but from memory:
UEFA only objected to about £10m of IPR.
The sponsorships from Aabar and Etisalat was let through but we were warned as to increasing it (so it was OK then).
As to a bonus for getting to the FA cup final - this also passed muster as paying for advertising for the FA cup final costs more than that (Arsenal got paid similar bonus payments from Emirates).
Then of course there is no mention of changing the compliance spreadsheet after we submitted our accounts in 2011/12. Old sheet gives us about £5m extra revenue - which would have allowed us to include pre 2010 wage s and thus pass FFP.

Nick Harris has passing similarity to a dog turd.
Click to expand...

I agree nick is not worth the effort but for Bluemoon could you please explain your point point regarding IPR my understanding was there where objections but nothing actually came of these objections.

I do not remember anything about the FA Cup bonus though what you say makes sense

Finally can you explain the last bit about spreadsheets 5 million in revenue and the pre 2010 contracts I remember it being said that we where nearly there in terms of meeting the targets and therefore being able to count the pre 2010 contract. I think i remember something being said about the amount lost in one year an another being an issue ie timing of losses not just amounts and the rules being changed but not sure how or why other than to get us
 
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