They do have the possibility of the new owner rule, which gives them dispensation to exceed ffp limits for 3 or 4 years, provided they can convince UEFA that their business plan will bring them in line.
But, of course, only if they sell the club.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST
- Thread starter razman
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
But, of course, only if they sell the club.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
What I cannot get my head around is this concept of related parties, or not related parties, and how it applies to our sponsorship revenue.
When formulating the FFP rules and the calculation of the break-even requirement, UEFA decided not to use some arbitrary method of determining this, but instead to use rules and principles as defined in International Accounting Standards. The very same principles auditors use when determining whether income should be declared as being from related parties or not.
This was in theory a wise and sensible move. Not only are the rules well known and understood by all the audit firms, they contain rules and guidelines which apply objective, not subjective tests. For the very reason that we do not want to have a situation where companies accounts are open to interpretation, with one firm saying one thing and another firm concluding something different. If a party is deemed not to be related, then all of the income from that organisation is by its very definition "fair market value" since it was fairly obtained from the market! Of course the opposite is true: If revenue is coming from a related party, then there is a question about the basis upon which that revenue was secured and therefore a question about what the fair value would have been had it been obtained on the open market.
As I understand it, Etihad Aviation Group is owned by the Abu Dhabi government, not by ADUG and neither by any other organisation over which Sheikh Mansour has control. In any event the question as to whether Etihad is related or not, will have been the subject of our annual audit of our accounts. And our independent accountants have repeatedly signed off our accounts on the basis that Etihad is NOT a related party. To do so, knowing or suspecting this to be untrue, would be a criminal offence and surely something that any reputable accounting firm would never contemplate.
So how on earth is it that UEFA can unilaterally decide that Etihad *is* related? Sure it may smack of being a bit of a fiddle - since we can all imagine there may be possible influences which could be brought to bear amongst the upper eschelons of the Abu Dhabi powers that be. But that is really not the point, and is - from UEFA's perspective "tough shit". IAS24 - the standard which deals with related parties - has very specific objective tests, which we have passed. It is not within UEFA's remit to decide upon a different set of criteria. Their own rules say they will apply IAS24 standards, and those standards define Etihad as not being related.
And if Etihad is not related, then there can be no question of us having artificially inflated our revenues (from Etihad). They are what they are, as stated in our audited accounts.
What am I missing here? Apart from UEFA being a bunch of crooks who will make up the rules as they go along and as it suits them, of course.
When formulating the FFP rules and the calculation of the break-even requirement, UEFA decided not to use some arbitrary method of determining this, but instead to use rules and principles as defined in International Accounting Standards. The very same principles auditors use when determining whether income should be declared as being from related parties or not.
This was in theory a wise and sensible move. Not only are the rules well known and understood by all the audit firms, they contain rules and guidelines which apply objective, not subjective tests. For the very reason that we do not want to have a situation where companies accounts are open to interpretation, with one firm saying one thing and another firm concluding something different. If a party is deemed not to be related, then all of the income from that organisation is by its very definition "fair market value" since it was fairly obtained from the market! Of course the opposite is true: If revenue is coming from a related party, then there is a question about the basis upon which that revenue was secured and therefore a question about what the fair value would have been had it been obtained on the open market.
As I understand it, Etihad Aviation Group is owned by the Abu Dhabi government, not by ADUG and neither by any other organisation over which Sheikh Mansour has control. In any event the question as to whether Etihad is related or not, will have been the subject of our annual audit of our accounts. And our independent accountants have repeatedly signed off our accounts on the basis that Etihad is NOT a related party. To do so, knowing or suspecting this to be untrue, would be a criminal offence and surely something that any reputable accounting firm would never contemplate.
So how on earth is it that UEFA can unilaterally decide that Etihad *is* related? Sure it may smack of being a bit of a fiddle - since we can all imagine there may be possible influences which could be brought to bear amongst the upper eschelons of the Abu Dhabi powers that be. But that is really not the point, and is - from UEFA's perspective "tough shit". IAS24 - the standard which deals with related parties - has very specific objective tests, which we have passed. It is not within UEFA's remit to decide upon a different set of criteria. Their own rules say they will apply IAS24 standards, and those standards define Etihad as not being related.
And if Etihad is not related, then there can be no question of us having artificially inflated our revenues (from Etihad). They are what they are, as stated in our audited accounts.
What am I missing here? Apart from UEFA being a bunch of crooks who will make up the rules as they go along and as it suits them, of course.
Last edited:
maurizio
Well-Known Member
Will it never f*cking end...I don’t think CAS’s decision will be conclusive.
They will almost certainly find that UEFA didn’t follow the correct process..they’ve already hinted at that.
But with such a complicated situation I think they will bounce it back to UEFA and say start it again and this time do it fairly.
UEFA will then offer City a way out. City might well reject it and we are back to CAS.
That’s my guess.
SWPISHOME
Well-Known Member
If we lose tonight we'd still be 11 points ahead of 5th place.Lose tonight we might not even qualify for Champions League. Happy to be banned from Europa.
Not sure how your working that one out.
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
One way of boosting our coffer's !The legal time limit in the Uk for libel is that you have to start action (even preliminary letters) within 12 months of first publication of the article (online or in print). So we are out of time with Der Spiegel. I don't know the rules in foreign courts though. CFG has been damaged everywhere. Could we sue them in the USA for example? However there would be nothing to stop us suing any UK broadcaster or publisher which has repeated any false allegations within a 12 month period of any CAS ruling. That would include organisations like the Daily Mail, Indpendendent website, Talksport, the BBC, and all the tabloids. All these groups have published or broadcast false stories about City's finances multiple times in recent months. In any civil action they would have to prove that what they had published was true (an impossiblity). They would also struggle with mitigation because to argue the "fair comment" defence you have to prove you published "in good faith" and so many articles have been totally biased and one-sided with not even a single balancing comment from City's side of the story.
David Conn for example is wide open for an action that could finish his career. The Guardian has probably been one of the worst culprits.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 26,159
UEFA should have specified that in the FFP rules then, not just specified FFP as a word for word copy of IAS 24. By IAS 24 rules Etihad Airways are NOT a related party.If its a mistake its UEFA's https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league "After further research Uefa was also advised that Etihad should be considered a related sponsor because of relationships of Mansour’s with members of the extended ruling family involved in the airline."
https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-base/ias-24-related-party-disclosures/
Retrospectively changing the law doesn't fly in international agreements.
projectriver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,259
It's irrelevant because the parties disagreed and we entered a settlement. It's a moot point and exactly why they can't now come back on it (IMO)UEFA should have specified that in the FFP rules then, not just specified FFP as a word for word copy of IAS 24. By IAS 24 rules Etihad Airways are NOT a related party.
https://ifrscommunity.com/knowledge-base/ias-24-related-party-disclosures/
give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 15,679
- Team supported
- Manchester City
heres a thought, what if the G14 group now starting infighting because it might not have been all of them who put pressure on UEFA to come after us. Some of the G14 clubs have more to hide than others and are worried that we know this and will go to court and drag them into as well. It could get interesting. PSG how could their afford two £200 million players ? This will blow up big time !!
Last edited:
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Presumably they could just "withdraw our invitation" to compete in their tournament but this would hugely ramp up the scale of our damages claim so it would be a big legal risk for them. If it took five years our claim would be over a billion in lost revenues as a bare minimum. Would UEFA be that stupid? (Yes I know they might well be!)Quietly hoping they want to take it all the way, Colin, one question that keeps coming to me and I am sure at some point I have seen it mentioned in an official document of some sort is, if we take any on any 'legal' battle with UEFA does that mean we cannot participate in any of their comps at the time? I could be making that up but i'm bloody sure i've read it somewhere in the past.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Not saying you are wrong but by your own reasoning we were never welcome in the PL as the contrived FFP was used as an attempted "Barrier to Entry" so their current action is just an extension of that.Completely agree about the boycott. We should have immediately withdrawn and started whatever legal proceedings were available. As I posted almost immediately, they've filed for divorce and are welcome to it!
Our continued presence in a competition that we've been informed we are not welcome to attend next season is both ludicrous and untenable. Continuing to persist with the illusion that it can all be made OK by CAS is a sycophantic delusion.
As the club hasn't had the moral fibre to pull us, then as fans we should carry out a 100% boycott. Any amount of whistles, tennis balls, banners and boos whilst we still attend will do nothing other that make us look like sulking children.
In short, it should have been an expulsion of all things UEFA and a message to never darken our doors again. This is about the integrity of Manchester City and kowtowing to UEFA in anyway severely damages that beyond repair.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.