Annual report 2012/13 released (merged)

[Balti]

Are you forgetting that Utd can qualify by winning this seasons CL?

 

[kippax81]

Are you forgetting that Utd can qualify by winning this seasons CL?

Please don't post such hideous pictures before the 9pm watershed, mate.

My dog is now howling in feigned agony, the kids have run upstairs screaming, and the missus is blaming it all on me.







Ugly fucker int he? :-)

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

No I did understand your post mate.Its the same paper once more,regurgitating the same old shit.I was taking the piss out of a certain ex Rag manager with my last comment.At the end of the day UEFA will not be in interested in our Club,seeing that we continue to bring our finances into line with their stupid rulings.As you say the credibility of the competition would be harmed and even the Frog is not that stupid,especially as his French clubs appear to be shafting UEFA by themselves.

Oh OK, fair do's mate. The finance expert on SSN was on yesterday, and he was backing up what I said a few weeks ago. If United fail to qualify for the CL next season, they could be in a spot of bother themselves in the next few years. He said they had profits of 80m last year, of which 40m comes directly from Champions League money.

With Vidic, Ferdinand, Evra, Giggs and possibly Rooney / Van Persie needing to be replaced in the summer, realistically, they're going to need to spend 200m to get back in. They're going to have to overpay to get players if not in the CL, because why would anyone sign for them instead of the CL clubs if not for more dough?

The guy on Sky said if they make 40m profits and need to spend 200m, then they will have to increase their borrowing, afterall, where else is the money going to come from?! So bigger debt, more interest payments, overpaying for average players while not in the CL, a very average manager rebuilding a very average squad, they could very easily become the Liverpool of the 90s.

Whereas we are increasing revenues at an exponential rate, looking on course to break even next year, a young ish, immensely talented squad that just needs a couple of players a season to keep it fresh, the new CFA opening next year, new City teams popping up all over the world, the future is absolutely dazzling! (and that's even before we start dreaming about Messi!)

Honestly never thought I'd see the day, but genuinely believe after all the shit we had to put up with for 30 years, no one deserves it more than us.

Lets also not forget that if they do spend £200m in one year, leaving a loss of perhaps £150m they then have to get profitable to the tune of £115 over the next 2 years of the 3 year FFP cycle £150m - £35m allowed losses.

If they are outside the CL and only make profits of £40m per season they are then struggling to pass FFP as they are £35m in the hole.

They are playing catch-up to get into the top four remember and from what I can glean on the rumour mill the sale of the next kit deal is far from going to b a record breaker if they dont get CL this season.

In which case, FFP rules will be changed to suit!

 

[CitizenTID]

Are you forgetting that Utd can qualify by winning this seasons CL?

Have you watched your team this season?

 

[Skashion]

Lets also not forget that if they do spend £200m in one year, leaving a loss of perhaps £150m they then have to get profitable to the tune of £115 over the next 2 years of the 3 year FFP cycle £150m - £35m allowed losses.

If they are outside the CL and only make profits of £40m per season they are then struggling to pass FFP as they are £35m in the hole.

They are playing catch-up to get into the top four remember and from what I can glean on the rumour mill the sale of the next kit deal is far from going to b a record breaker if they dont get CL this season.

Not true, if they spend £200m, let's say the average contract length being four years, it will be amortised at £50m a season and will pose no problems.

 

[fbloke]

Lets also not forget that if they do spend £200m in one year, leaving a loss of perhaps £150m they then have to get profitable to the tune of £115 over the next 2 years of the 3 year FFP cycle £150m - £35m allowed losses.

If they are outside the CL and only make profits of £40m per season they are then struggling to pass FFP as they are £35m in the hole.

They are playing catch-up to get into the top four remember and from what I can glean on the rumour mill the sale of the next kit deal is far from going to b a record breaker if they dont get CL this season.

Not true, if they spend £200m, let's say the average contract length being four years, it will be amortised at £50m a season and will pose no problems.

Aye, silly me.

 

[without a dream]

Lets also not forget that if they do spend £200m in one year, leaving a loss of perhaps £150m they then have to get profitable to the tune of £115 over the next 2 years of the 3 year FFP cycle £150m - £35m allowed losses.

If they are outside the CL and only make profits of £40m per season they are then struggling to pass FFP as they are £35m in the hole.

They are playing catch-up to get into the top four remember and from what I can glean on the rumour mill the sale of the next kit deal is far from going to b a record breaker if they dont get CL this season.

Not true, if they spend £200m, let's say the average contract length being four years, it will be amortised at £50m a season and will pose no problems.

Aye, silly me.

Plus wages, although I imagine the players they're letting go have quite hefty pay packets.

 

[Newman Noggs]

It was the direct quotes from Woodward in the Mail article that interested me.


"Woodward was asked by United investors on a conference call when it would become clear whether FFP was effective.

He replied: 'I am not going to talk about specific teams. This year is the first point where we see how FFP is going to bite, works and has an impact on potential inflation in football.

'A number of clubs are being looked at more closely by UEFA. I would agree that how UEFA deals with those clubs who have breached the rules or are close to breaching the rules will be important to see how FFP impacts on the industry.

'We will probably start to get a sense of how UEFA are coming out five or six months, although the process may take somewhat longer than that.'

Okay, so the United "investors" are understandably worried that UEFA aren't going to save them and Woodward is simply responding to that. It's the timescale I'm more interested in. 5 or six months wouldn't see us banned next season and "somewhat longer than that" means that, in the unlikely event they were minded to ban us, we'd be breaking even or making a profit. maybe Gill is briefing Woodward to manage expectations amongst their investors who are sticking with it in the hope the competition is hobbled..

 

[jrb]

Apologies if this has already been posted?

Some interesting comments by Soriano.

Manchester City CEO rules out paying inflated wages for superstars

7DAYS · February 12, 2014

The CEO of megabucks Manchester City says he never sees a footballer being paid £1million (Dhs6million) a week.

It was recently revealed the Abu-Dhabi backed club fork out a staggering £639,000 (Dhs3.8m) a day on wages.

Lionel MessiDespite that and reports that star earners such as Sergio Aguero pocket a basic £200,000 (Dhs1.2million) a week, City bigwig Ferran Soriano claims there will never be a £1million-per-week player.

“A £1million a week? That’s impossible,” Soriano said. “No [that’ll never happen]. This is £50million a year. I think there might be – might be – some player who makes 20 million euros (Dhs100m) a year. Might be. But who knows.”

Soriano, speaking at the Government Summit in Dubai, said there was also a wage figure that even Manchester City consider too high – that the club would not pay for a player.

“Yes,” Soriano said. “We don’t talk in terms of weekly wage we talk in terms of annual wage.

“And we have not only one number we have a band – a band of salaries that we pay depending on the quality of the player. We have changed the systems last year so that a significant part of the compensation is variable. As an example instead of paying 100 we pay 80.

“Fixed we pay up to 40 in variable, so, if we lose if you are a player and expecting to get 100 and we don’t win, you get 80. If we win, you get 120. If you ask me the number, I’m sorry I won’t be able to give it to you.”

But the numbers widely bandied about in the press reveal that the Blues are prepared to offer as much as £500,000 per week to land world class stars. The top trio of Lionel Messi (pictured), Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Kaka have all been linked with a pay packet at the Etihad Stadium of that figure over the past few years.

Soriano, though, a former general manager at Barcelona, utterly dismissed a massive Manchester City move for Barca star Messi.

“We’ve never made any offer at all, none,” he said. Asked whether Messi was not worth a salary of £1million per week, Soriano replied: “I don’t know. I don’t comment on Leo Messi.”

Meanwhile, Soriano insists City are not breaking UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules – claiming the club will be profitable in two years. The Abu Dhabi-owned outfit have recorded losses of £149.5million over the past two seasons and that’s a problem because FFP rules dictate that clubs limit losses for both seasons to a combined £37million, leaving City a long way short.

But Soriano insists his club plays by the rules. “It does,” he said. “There are a lot of reliefs that can be taken for investment in youth football and, so it does. We will break even this season,” he said, adding that the club would be “profitable within a few years.”

<a class="postlink" href="https://7daysindubai.com/manchester-city-ceo-rules-paying-inflated-wages-superstars/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://7daysindubai.com/manchester-cit ... uperstars/</a>

 

[Maintainin]

Are you forgetting that Utd can qualify by winning this seasons CL?

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Are you forgetting that Utd can qualify by winning this seasons CL?

The only way they'll get into Europe is if we have another war.

 

[whp.blue]

Are you forgetting that Utd can qualify by winning this seasons CL?

The only way they'll get into Europe is if we have another war.

pmsl nearly choked on my coffee

 

[Centurions]

Apologies if this has already been posted?

Some interesting comments by Soriano.

Manchester City CEO rules out paying inflated wages for superstars

7DAYS · February 12, 2014

The CEO of megabucks Manchester City says he never sees a footballer being paid £1million (Dhs6million) a week.

It was recently revealed the Abu-Dhabi backed club fork out a staggering £639,000 (Dhs3.8m) a day on wages.

Lionel MessiDespite that and reports that star earners such as Sergio Aguero pocket a basic £200,000 (Dhs1.2million) a week, City bigwig Ferran Soriano claims there will never be a £1million-per-week player.

“A £1million a week? That’s impossible,” Soriano said. “No [that’ll never happen]. This is £50million a year. I think there might be – might be – some player who makes 20 million euros (Dhs100m) a year. Might be. But who knows.”

Soriano, speaking at the Government Summit in Dubai, said there was also a wage figure that even Manchester City consider too high – that the club would not pay for a player.

“Yes,” Soriano said. “We don’t talk in terms of weekly wage we talk in terms of annual wage.

“And we have not only one number we have a band – a band of salaries that we pay depending on the quality of the player. We have changed the systems last year so that a significant part of the compensation is variable. As an example instead of paying 100 we pay 80.

“Fixed we pay up to 40 in variable, so, if we lose if you are a player and expecting to get 100 and we don’t win, you get 80. If we win, you get 120. If you ask me the number, I’m sorry I won’t be able to give it to you.”

But the numbers widely bandied about in the press reveal that the Blues are prepared to offer as much as £500,000 per week to land world class stars. The top trio of Lionel Messi (pictured), Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Kaka have all been linked with a pay packet at the Etihad Stadium of that figure over the past few years.

Soriano, though, a former general manager at Barcelona, utterly dismissed a massive Manchester City move for Barca star Messi.

“We’ve never made any offer at all, none,” he said. Asked whether Messi was not worth a salary of £1million per week, Soriano replied: “I don’t know. I don’t comment on Leo Messi.”

Meanwhile, Soriano insists City are not breaking UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules – claiming the club will be profitable in two years. The Abu Dhabi-owned outfit have recorded losses of £149.5million over the past two seasons and that’s a problem because FFP rules dictate that clubs limit losses for both seasons to a combined £37million, leaving City a long way short.

But Soriano insists his club plays by the rules. “It does,” he said. “There are a lot of reliefs that can be taken for investment in youth football and, so it does. We will break even this season,” he said, adding that the club would be “profitable within a few years.”

<a class="postlink" href="https://7daysindubai.com/manchester-city-ceo-rules-paying-inflated-wages-superstars/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://7daysindubai.com/manchester-cit ... uperstars/</a>

Why do 'journalists' write pieces and then spoil them by putting crap like this in them :-

But the numbers widely bandied about in the press reveal that the Blues are prepared to offer as much as £500,000 per week to land world class stars. The top trio of Lionel Messi (pictured), Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Kaka have all been linked with a pay packet at the Etihad Stadium of that figure over the past few years.

 

[jrb]

Interesting read.

Manchester City FFP Series Part 2: Analyzing the controversial Etihad deal

In 2011, Manchester City signed a sponsorship arrangement with the Etihad Airways, a company owned by Sheik Mansour's brother and that has never made a profit.

Despite initial reports stating the contract will be worth £400 million for a ten-year period, Nick Harris of Sporting Intelligence reveals the real value is a "bit less than £350m over a decade".

For easy calculation, let's take it to be £35m per year.

The deal "includes a 10-year extension to their shirt sponsorship at City, as well as financial backing for what will be known as the Etihad Campus". The Eastlands was also to be renamed as the Etihad Stadium.

The deal came under widespread scrutiny. Arsene Wenger felt it tested the "credibility" of the FFP and Liverpool owner John Henry sarcastically tweeted, "How much was the losing bid?".

City had consulted UEFA to ensure the deal didn't break any rule, yet the Council of Europe termed it as "improper".

A statement read: "Clubs will no doubt try to supplement their income if possible. They could for example call on sponsors to invest more so as to reduce or eliminate their deficits.

"A case in point is Manchester City, which has entered into a contract estimated at £400m with the airline Etihad. Etihad belongs to the Abu Dhabi royal family, and the Abu Dhabi United Group...

"In order to avoid improper transactions of this kind, UEFA should prohibit clubs from sponsoring themselves or using associated bodies to do so..."

However, City responded: "For the sake of credibility, the Council would do well to seek primary evidence through engaging with organizations rather than taking a position based on speculation." In addition, it was also to be reminded, the Council is an independent body and their conclusion was not that of UEFA's, who have a clear agenda about "fake sponsorships".

"If suddenly Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority, one of City’s sponsors, decided to sponsor City to the tune of £100 million a year. Then UEFA can clearly say that that is not the market value and [that] it’s not real and genuine," a report stated.

UEFA Can't Investigate City

Let's put it this way. Even if City did something wrong, UEFA can't investigate the deal. Period.

This is because, it "is the club - not UEFA - which must demonstrate whether a sponsorship deal represents 'fair value' if the club itself flags up the deal as a 'related party' transaction'".

And as per the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, Edition 2010, a 'related party' transaction is the one when "a close family member to club executives";

a) Has control or joint control over the reporting club;

b) Has significant influence over the club;

c) Is a member of key management personnel of the club or a parent of the club.

Hence, only if Manchester City report the deal as a 'related party' transaction, will they need to show that it represents fair value or else UEFA "will have no information to work with".

Not Just a Shirt Deal

As stated above, the Etihad deal is not just a shirt deal. In fact, it is described as a 'partnership' in the official lease.

Moreover, Etihad will also pay for the naming rights of the stadium and "sponsor the development of the Etihad Campus around its stadium", with the latter "exempt from UEFA's Regulations in terms of assessing the 'fair value' of a sponsorship".

Hence, as Andy Brown quotes, "City could claim that the deal is split into a shirt and stadium sponsorship that represents 'fair value' under the Regulations, and a 'partnership' to develop the Etihad Campus, which falls outside of the Regulations".

i. How does the shirt deal represent fair value?

It is believed that City will earn around £20m for the shirt deal.

If we compare this value to clubs like Manchester United (£25.4 million), Liverpool (£25 million), Barcelona (£26m) and Bayern Munich (£24m), it's not really a steep sum.

City are a global brand now. They are contesting for four trophies this season.

There has been an increase of 133 percent in global TV audience for live matches featuring the club and a 57 percent increase in the live City games telecasted across United Kingdom since 2008/09 season. In addition, on Twitter, they are the most followed Premier League club and on YouTube, their account garnered the maximum views of all clubs last term. Not to forget, the club has the maximum number of followers of European teams on the two main micro-blogging sites in China.

The £20m fee seemed inflated when it was signed but the Sky Blues' fan-base and presence in the football community has grown very quickly over the years and at present, it surely looks as a "fair value". Moreover, in the next two to three years, the £20m may become less than what City are capable of.

They are plying trades with the best clubs in the world, defeating them and hence, merit a shirt deal that matches their counterparts'.

ii. How does the stadium naming ights represent fair value?

This is basically something I have understood from Harris' report and will quote directly from his article.

Via Sporting Intelligence:


There is little or no value in naming rights for old venues with well-established historic names. (Emphasis on history).

There simply isn’t any major economic value in such rights – and I’ve been told this by more than one person linked to more than one of the clubs above by people who’ve explored this issue in the past.

There is a value in naming rights for a new stadium, that’s self-evident. The Emirates, The Ricoh, The Britannia and The KC Stadium are examples.

And there is a value in naming rights – albeit limited – for stadiums that are not particularly long-established.

The question, though, is how to put a price on the renaming of Manchester City’s stadium, to the Etihad Stadium, as it has become from this season?

Opened in 2002 as the City of Manchester Stadium, it was main venue the 2002 Commonwealth Games. CoMS never really caught on. It’s too long a name. And ‘Eastlands’ has always been colloquial.

So the venue does fall into the category of non-established, name-wise.

On that basis, using benchmarks from other sports (and rare cases in football), I think City could probably argue that naming rights for Etihad are worth around £5m a year, perhaps a little more.

Dortmund’s Westfalenstadion, home of the famous Yellow Wall, is now the Signal Iduna Park in a deal earning the club £3.5m a year. City could easily argue the Premier League attracts a premium, and also that their new name is already being used routinely, which can’t be said for Dortmund.

Further afield, naming rights for FedEx Field (formerly the Jack Kent Cooke Stadium) earn the Washington Redskins of the NFL £4.6m a year, while in Miami, Sun Life pay £4.5m a year for naming rights to a venue already on its seventh different name.

In Australia, the ANZ Stadium in Sydney – which was firstly Stadium Australia for the 2000 Olympics, then the Telstra Stadium- is so-called in a deal worth £4m a year.

Etihad have had naming rights since 2009 in a deal estimated locally at £4m-£5m a year.

If that works for them Down Under, as naming rights appear to work for umpteen companies in various sports venues around the world, how can Uefa deny the Etihad Stadium in Manchester holds naming rights values worth cash to City?

They can’t. And won’t. The only quibbling will be on price, and the benchmarks mentioned make £5m a year, including Premier League premium, not so unreasonable.

Look at how often Etihad Stadium is already featuring in the news.

Fair Money for Etihad Campus as well?

The Etihad Campus can change the dimensions of Manchester City.

There will be an academy that will accommodate 400 young players, with classroom facilities for 200.

There will be 16.5 pitches, with 12 of those designed for players between the ages of 8-21. Promising young players will also get accommodation. Not to forget, a 7000-seat stadium for the young players to play home games.

The first team will also be be moving to the Etihad Campus. There will be a new gym and rehab centre and the club's clerical and media teams will be based on site with lavish offices.

Etihad want to be associated with this campus and will pay a premium. A fee of about £10m is not excess- considering the popularity the campus will bring to Etihad company.

Still think City are doing something wrong? Well let's have a look at some other clubs

1. Paris Saint-Germain have a deal with Qatar Tourist Authority worth €200million ($262m) per year until 2016. Both the sponsor and the club are owned by the Qatari Royal Family. Now, this is a deal that over-values a club. Until 2013, PSG hadn't won a trophy for three years, the Ligue 1 title for nearly a decade. Their average attendance last season was just over 41,000 and their fan-base in not enough to command such money.

2. Barcelona have an 'Official logistics partner’ (Serveto), Manchester United have an official 'marine engine partner' (Yanmar) and several other energy drinks partners. Not exactly questionable deals but these are futile sponsorship agreements that just reap in extra money.

3. Chelsea have a "commercially confidential’ three-year deal" with Russian oil and gas giant Gazprom. The deal is believed to be worth £18 million per year.

So, what's wrong with this deal? Well, this is not the first time Abramovich is dealing with Gazprom, a company "heavily influenced" by political forces. He sold his controlling stake in oil company Sibneft to Gazprom in 2005. Did Abramovich have "significant influence" on the deal, something UEFA doesn't allow? From the outlook he does. Yet Chelsea escaped any scrutiny as Gazprom signed an agreement with UEFA as well.

Dodgy isn't, it Jose?

Nonetheless, the credibility of such deals is only for UEFA to decide.

UEFA general secretary Gianni Infantino once said that "UEFA’s 15 strong team of accountants (the Club Financial Control Body) would begin analyzing figures during the spring of 2014 for the years 2011-12 and 2012–13, the first period to be monitored under the new break-even regime". So, if City did any wrongdoing, it will be told.

We, the fans, are not really in a state to decide anything. <a class="postlink" href="http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/2/14/5408818/manchester-city-ffp-etihad-stadium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/ ... ad-stadium</a>

-- Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:38 pm --

BTW.

Spurs have just signed a £100mill, 5 year, shirt sponsorship deal.

That's just the shirt. Not the stadium or campus(if they had one), etc.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Interesting read.

http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/2/14/5408818/manchester-city-ffp-etihad-stadium

That's not bad but Article 1 was an absolute shocker on FFP in general and how we'd comply. His overall conclusion was correct (which at least makes a change) but the way he got there wasn't. I politely pointed out where he'd gone wrong and he asked if I was for real and that I clearly didn't know anything about FFP at all.

So I googled him and found out (wait for it - you'll like this) that he's a 17-year old, Indian High School student who's supported the rags all his life. But he's not a plastic (according to him).

 

[jrb]

Interesting read.

http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/2/14/5408818/manchester-city-ffp-etihad-stadium

That's not bad but Article 1 was an absolute shocker on FFP in general and how we'd comply. His overall conclusion was correct (which at least makes a change) but the way he got there wasn't. I politely pointed out where he'd gone wrong and he asked if I was for real and that I clearly didn't know anything about FFP at all.

So I googled him and found out (wait for it - you'll like this) that he's a 17-year old, Indian High School student who's supported the rags all his life. But he's not a plastic (according to him).

Just shows.

You can or can't take anything at face value on the interweb.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Interesting read.

http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/2/14/5408818/manchester-city-ffp-etihad-stadium

That's not bad but Article 1 was an absolute shocker on FFP in general and how we'd comply. His overall conclusion was correct (which at least makes a change) but the way he got there wasn't. I politely pointed out where he'd gone wrong and he asked if I was for real and that I clearly didn't know anything about FFP at all.

So I googled him and found out (wait for it - you'll like this) that he's a 17-year old, Indian High School student who's supported the rags all his life. But he's not a plastic (according to him).

Just shows.

You can or can't take anything at face value on the interweb.

Here's the first one:

http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2...-series-part-1-why-theyll-meet-ffp-guidelines

 

[jrb]

Saying that, I'd take Nerd at face value all day long.(along with the likes of you PB and others on BM)

A City fan, and a well respected and knowledgeable poster on SSC.

Posted on the SSC Manchester City thread, in reply to yours truly.

nerd(posted on the 3rd of Feb)

Procedural Rules for Interveners

jrb;

- trouble is that most commentators are speaking without having actually read the UEFA procedural rules document for the Club Financial Control Body. They are right to note that is allows other clubs to apply to be 'inteveners' in the adjudication procedure; if they can demonstrate that they are directly interested in the outcom (e.g. if they might otherwise qualify for a Champs League place). This is what the procedural rules say about interveners

Article 22 – Interveners

1 Member associations and clubs who are directly affected and who have a
legitimate interest in participating in the proceedings before the adjudicatory
chamber may be invited or accepted to do so as interveners.

2 Any party seeking to intervene in proceedings shall file a written application to
intervene, together with reasons, within seven days of the proceedings
becoming known to the party seeking to intervene.

3 The extent to which an intervening party may participate in the proceedings
before the adjudicatory chamber or have access to the case file shall be decided
by the CFCB chairman.

Understanding the next bit depends on knowing the CFCB structure. The Body is split into two sections (or 'chambers'), which have no common membership. The investigatory section can be thought of as 'prosecutors'; they determine whether there may be grounds for an adjudication to be made, prepare the evidence and present it at a formal adjudication panel hearing. The adjudicatory section can be though of as 'judge and jury'; they conclude whether a club has broken the rules; and decide on the sanction to be applied. Interveners only get in on the adjudication, not the investigation

The complicatioin is that the investigatory section have a degree of discretion to settle minor infringments of the rules on their own, without requiring a full adjudicatory hearing - as fast-track justice. This seems to be envisaged as the normal mode of proceeding when there is no question of concealment or intention to deceive; e.g. where a club submits accounts that it believes demonstrates a break-even position; but where the investigator - applying UEFA standard accountancy conventions - shows the club as a marginal fail. But there has to be a procedure for an outside club who envisage being 'interveners' to object if they can assert that this fast-track procedure is being abused to let serioius offenders off the hook. The relevant articles are here;

Quote:
Article 14 – End of the investigation

1 At the end of the investigation, the CFCB chief investigator, after having
consulted with the other members of the investigatory chamber, may decide to:
a) dismiss the case; or
b) conclude, with the consent of the defendant, a settlement agreement; or
c) apply, with the consent of the defendant, disciplinary measures limited to a
warning, a reprimand or a fine up to a maximum amount of €100,000; or
d) refer the case to the adjudicatory chamber.

2 The decision of the CFCB chief investigator is notified to the defendant in writing.

3 Decisions of the CFCB chief investigator shall be forwarded to the CFCB
chairman.

4 Decisions of the CFCB chief investigator pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) or Article
14(1)(c) shall be published within five days from the date of their communication
to the defendant.

5 The CFCB chief investigator may, following a reasoned request from the
defendant made within two days from the date of communication of the decision,
redact the decision to protect confidential information or personal data.

Article 15 – Settlement agreement

1
Settlement agreements pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) shall take into account, in
particular, the factors referred to in Annex XI of the UEFA Club Licensing and
Financial Fair Play Regulations. Such agreements may be deemed appropriate
in circumstances which justify the conclusion of an effective, equitable and
dissuasive settlement without referring the case to the adjudicatory chamber.

2 Settlement agreements may set out the obligation(s) to be fulfilled by the
defendant, including the possible application of disciplinary measures and,
where necessary, a specific timeframe.

3 The CFCB chief investigator monitors the proper and timely implementation of
the settlement agreement.

4 If a defendant fails to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement, the
CFCB chief investigator shall refer the case to the adjudicatory chamber.

Article 16 – Review of decisions of the CFCB chief investigator

1 Any decision of the CFCB chief investigator to dismiss a case or to conclude a
settlement agreement or to apply disciplinary measures within the meaning of
Article 14(1)(c) may be reviewed by the adjudicatory chamber on the initiative of
the CFCB chairman within ten days from the date of communication of the
decision to the CFCB chairman.

2 Any decision of the CFCB chief investigator to conclude a settlement agreement
or to apply disciplinary measures within the meaning of Article 14(1)(c) may be
reviewed by the adjudicatory chamber at the request of a directly affected party
within ten days from the date of publication of the decision.

3 The adjudicatory chamber only reviews decisions of the CFCB chief investigator
with regard to the existence of a manifest error of assessment.

4
The adjudicatory chamber may uphold, reject, or modify the decision or refer the
case back to the CFCB chief investigator.

These provisions have been seized on by journos to suggest that other Prem clubs could gang up against City to ensure that they do not receive a lenient sanction - in the event of being found to be in breach of the financial rules, but not to have acted in bad faith.

But what they have missed is Article 16; 3 "The adjudicatory chamber only reviews decisions of the CFCB chief investigator
with regard to the existence of a manifest error of assessment." What this means is that any objection from another club must assert a 'manifest error' in the recommendations of the chief investigator. Just disagreeing with those recommendations, or simply wanting your day in court; is not good enough grounds. You have to demonstrate some point where the chief investigator has his facts wrong.
__________________

 

[Centurions]

What the hell have the Council of Europe got to do with FFPR? Am I missing the point there?

 

[EricBrooksGhost]

Interesting read.

http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/2/14/5408818/manchester-city-ffp-etihad-stadium

That's not bad but Article 1 was an absolute shocker on FFP in general and how we'd comply. His overall conclusion was correct (which at least makes a change) but the way he got there wasn't. I politely pointed out where he'd gone wrong and he asked if I was for real and that I clearly didn't know anything about FFP at all.

So I googled him and found out (wait for it - you'll like this) that he's a 17-year old, Indian High School student who's supported the rags all his life. But he's not a plastic (according to him).

Just shows.

You can or can't take anything at face value on the interweb.

We all(well nearly all) embrace the empowerment of the internet but unfortunately 99.9% of the world has nothing interesting to say then along came the internet and gave them a voice.