Another investigation bites the dust!

I'm not convinced about the PL's FFP investigation. There isn't anything in the Der Spiegel stuff that would contravene those that I can see.

The only possible issue with the PL rules is that you're only allowed to increase wages by a certain amount if supported by increases in UEFA TV revenues, commercial revenue or matchday revenue.

However there's an alternative basis of calculation, which is that you're allowed to "baseline" wages to the value reported in the 2013 accounts and increase the level from there. In that financial year we paid off Mancini and his coaching staff, which we classed as wages instead of an exceptional item. That's because we paid their contractual 2-year severance agreement in full rather than coming to a separately negotiated arrangement with them. That meant our wage bill in 2013 was £233m and it would make complete sense if that was the baseline figure we used going forward.

Our employee costs in 2017/18 were £260m compared to something like £240m pro-rata over 12 months in 2017 (they were £264m over 13 months). We were allowed a basic increase of £26m from 2013 so our celiling before any other revenue uplifts were taken into account was £259m so there should be no issue as we've more than covered any additional requirements via CL media and matchday revenue alone, without taking commercial income into account. Our 2019 ceiling is £266m (2013 + £33m) but increases in UEFA/Matchday revenue alone is £47m so we could report wages up to £313m on that basis and we could also add in the average transfer profit over 3 years, which is something like £30m, if necessary plus any increase in commercial income not derived from Abu Dhabi.

In short, nothing to fear from the PL's rules therefore.
I thought the PL one was to do with image rights allegedly being paid via a 3rd party rather than going through the accounts as part of the wage structure?
 
I'm not convinced about the PL's FFP investigation. There isn't anything in the Der Spiegel stuff that would contravene those that I can see.

The only possible issue with the PL rules is that you're only allowed to increase wages by a certain amount if supported by increases in UEFA TV revenues, commercial revenue or matchday revenue.

However there's an alternative basis of calculation, which is that you're allowed to "baseline" wages to the value reported in the 2013 accounts and increase the level from there. In that financial year we paid off Mancini and his coaching staff, which we classed as wages instead of an exceptional item. That's because we paid their contractual 2-year severance agreement in full rather than coming to a separately negotiated arrangement with them. That meant our wage bill in 2013 was £233m and it would make complete sense if that was the baseline figure we used going forward.

Our employee costs in 2017/18 were £260m compared to something like £240m pro-rata over 12 months in 2017 (they were £264m over 13 months). We were allowed a basic increase of £26m from 2013 so our celiling before any other revenue uplifts were taken into account was £259m so there should be no issue as we've more than covered any additional requirements via CL media and matchday revenue alone, without taking commercial income into account. Our 2019 ceiling is £266m (2013 + £33m) but increases in UEFA/Matchday revenue alone is £47m so we could report wages up to £313m on that basis and we could also add in the average transfer profit over 3 years, which is something like £30m, if necessary plus any increase in commercial income not derived from Abu Dhabi.

In short, nothing to fear from the PL's rules therefore.

That was my understanding, probably based on something you wrote in the past!

I meant that if the UEFA case was proved based on Spiegel, then the PL could act. I assume if the UEFA case fails, then there is no FA version.
 
That was my understanding, probably based on something you wrote in the past!

I meant that if the UEFA case was proved based on Spiegel, then the PL could act. I assume if the UEFA case fails, then there is no FA version.
The PL have their own FFP-type rules (called Short Term Cost Control) and they're not linked to the UEFA ones in any way. Even in the event that we were found guilty of breaking the UEFA rules, that doesn't automatically mean we'd be guilty of breaching the PL's rules.
 
I'm not convinced about the PL's FFP investigation. There isn't anything in the Der Spiegel stuff that would contravene those that I can see.

The only possible issue with the PL rules is that you're only allowed to increase wages by a certain amount if supported by increases in UEFA TV revenues, commercial revenue or matchday revenue.

However there's an alternative basis of calculation, which is that you're allowed to "baseline" wages to the value reported in the 2013 accounts and increase the level from there. In that financial year we paid off Mancini and his coaching staff, which we classed as wages instead of an exceptional item. That's because we paid their contractual 2-year severance agreement in full rather than coming to a separately negotiated arrangement with them. That meant our wage bill in 2013 was £233m and it would make complete sense if that was the baseline figure we used going forward.

Our employee costs in 2017/18 were £260m compared to something like £240m pro-rata over 12 months in 2017 (they were £264m over 13 months). We were allowed a basic increase of £26m from 2013 so our celiling before any other revenue uplifts were taken into account was £259m so there should be no issue as we've more than covered any additional requirements via CL media and matchday revenue alone, without taking commercial income into account. Our 2019 ceiling is £266m (2013 + £33m) but increases in UEFA/Matchday revenue alone is £47m so we could report wages up to £313m on that basis and we could also add in the average transfer profit over 3 years, which is something like £30m, if necessary plus any increase in commercial income not derived from Abu Dhabi.

In short, nothing to fear from the PL's rules therefore.
Thank god for you,it's all confusing
 
The story seems to be that players were signed from that academy by Danish club FC Nordsjælland but that we had a say over their possible sale, which could be construed as third-party ownership.

Allegedly we sponsored the Right To Dream academy, which allowed them to underwrite the expenses of the players who attended. There is alleged to have been a clause in the agreement with FC Nordsjælland that we had first refusal on the players or could take 25% of the fee if they were sold elsewhere. FC Nordsjælland denied there was any such agreement in place & City said there was no illegality.

The PL reported they were investigating this but it was a while ago so it's not clear whether any formal investigation was opened or is still ongoing or it was just a case of enquiries being made.

Is this not the same case for clubs like United who have similar agreements in place with Antwerp etc.
 
I'm not convinced about the PL's FFP investigation. There isn't anything in the Der Spiegel stuff that would contravene those that I can see.

The only possible issue with the PL rules is that you're only allowed to increase wages by a certain amount if supported by increases in UEFA TV revenues, commercial revenue or matchday revenue.

However there's an alternative basis of calculation, which is that you're allowed to "baseline" wages to the value reported in the 2013 accounts and increase the level from there. In that financial year we paid off Mancini and his coaching staff, which we classed as wages instead of an exceptional item. That's because we paid their contractual 2-year severance agreement in full rather than coming to a separately negotiated arrangement with them. That meant our wage bill in 2013 was £233m and it would make complete sense if that was the baseline figure we used going forward.

Our employee costs in 2017/18 were £260m compared to something like £240m pro-rata over 12 months in 2017 (they were £264m over 13 months). We were allowed a basic increase of £26m from 2013 so our celiling before any other revenue uplifts were taken into account was £259m so there should be no issue as we've more than covered any additional requirements via CL media and matchday revenue alone, without taking commercial income into account. Our 2019 ceiling is £266m (2013 + £33m) but increases in UEFA/Matchday revenue alone is £47m so we could report wages up to £313m on that basis and we could also add in the average transfer profit over 3 years, which is something like £30m, if necessary plus any increase in commercial income not derived from Abu Dhabi.

In short, nothing to fear from the PL's rules therefore.
thanks for that. Informative as ever.
 
And to think, City have now forged an understanding with the Scouse c*nts!

The more you read about what the Scousers have done against City, the more angry you get.


Daily Mail Sports Agenda.

City probe now a cold case​

The Premier League's investigation into Manchester City is in danger of dragging on for so long that the key agitators will no longer be involved in football when it reaches its conclusion.

It has long been known that Manchester United and Liverpool were among the voices calling for action against the champions and were thought to be key to a 2020 bid, revealed by Sportsmail, to get City banned from the Champions League.

However, both are up for sale and, with speculation about further investment from sovereign wealth funds rife, it remains to be seen whether new owners will have the same thirst for blue blood.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.