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

[Damocles]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You've made some good contributions to this debate but you really do not know what you're talking about above. Sorry to be so blunt but that's the only way I can say it. You're guessing whereas I know. We have documentary evidence of assurances given by UEFA that weren't upheld when the crunch came. The fact that they changed the rule regarding the wage exemption in a way that if you passed it in 2012, you failed in 2013 should be evidence enough. There's a long game to be played regarding the future of FFP (and you are quite right it won't disappear completely) but there's things that may happen in the short term where the connection may not be immediately apparent.

Then post it here.

If you can't or won't then it's totally irrelevant to the conversation and you shouldn't be using it in this debate.

 

[blueinsa]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You've made some good contributions to this debate but you really do not know what you're talking about above. Sorry to be so blunt but that's the only way I can say it. You're guessing whereas I know. We have documentary evidence of assurances given by UEFA that weren't upheld when the crunch came. The fact that they changed the rule regarding the wage exemption in a way that if you passed it in 2012, you failed in 2013 should be evidence enough. There's a long game to be played regarding the future of FFP (and you are quite right it won't disappear completely) but there's things that may happen in the short term where the connection may not be immediately apparent.

Then post it here.

If you can't or won't then it's totally irrelevant to the conversation and you shouldn't be using it in this debate.

Mod war ;-)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You've made some good contributions to this debate but you really do not know what you're talking about above. Sorry to be so blunt but that's the only way I can say it. You're guessing whereas I know. We have documentary evidence of assurances given by UEFA that weren't upheld when the crunch came. The fact that they changed the rule regarding the wage exemption in a way that if you passed it in 2012, you failed in 2013 should be evidence enough. There's a long game to be played regarding the future of FFP (and you are quite right it won't disappear completely) but there's things that may happen in the short term where the connection may not be immediately apparent.

Then post it here.

If you can't or won't then it's totally irrelevant to the conversation and you shouldn't be using it in this debate.

Stupid comment from a supposedly intelligent person. 'We' as in City, not me. But if you do want documentary proof of UEFA's duplicity then I can provide that.

In the 2011 version of their FFP toolkit, which was in force when we did our 2012 accounts, they define the test to be used when deciding if a club can use the pre-2010 contracts wage exemption as follows:

For the avoidance of doubt, condition (a) means if the quantum of the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation is greater than the quantum of the break-even deficit for the reporting period ending in 2012, then condition (ii) is not satisfied – because part of the break-even deficit in excess of the acceptable deviation is due to the break-even deficit in 2013 and/or 2014 (i.e. not only due to the break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012).

It's not well worded but using their worked examples, the quantum of the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation is £77m. The next figure, the quantum of the break-even deficit for the reporting period ending in 2012 is £83m. The former is not greater than the latter therefore the condition IS satisfied.

The other condition is

b. the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation (for the reporting period ending i2012) is only due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010.

This time, we're comparing the £77m deficit to the £80m and quite clearly that deficit was wholly caused by the £80m. So we can use the £80m according to those tests, which were in place at the time the accounts were prepared. I believe that was confirmed with UEFA.

However, having presumably laid our cards on the table, six months later the condition in (b) has changed to:

b) the break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 is due to contracts entered with players
before 1 June 2010; i.e. the employee benefit expenses reported in FY12 due to players under contract before 1 June 2010 are equal or higher than the deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012.

The deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 is £83m, which is clearly higher than the £80m and therefore this disqualifies us from using the £80m. Having published the 2012 accounts, it was obviously too late to make any adjustments to them in order to meet the revised requirement.

I simply can't imagine that City don't have a letter or some other confirmation from UEFA that we met the conditions to use the £80m wage exemption when the 2012 accounts were published. If so, would you agree that they're entitled to be annoyed?

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You've made some good contributions to this debate but you really do not know what you're talking about above. Sorry to be so blunt but that's the only way I can say it. You're guessing whereas I know. We have documentary evidence of assurances given by UEFA that weren't upheld when the crunch came. The fact that they changed the rule regarding the wage exemption in a way that if you passed it in 2012, you failed in 2013 should be evidence enough. There's a long game to be played regarding the future of FFP (and you are quite right it won't disappear completely) but there's things that may happen in the short term where the connection may not be immediately apparent.

Then post it here.

If you can't or won't then it's totally irrelevant to the conversation and you shouldn't be using it in this debate.

Stupid comment from a supposedly intelligent person. 'We' as in City, not me. But if you do want documentary proof of UEFA's duplicity then I can provide that.

In the 2011 version of their FFP toolkit, which was in force when we did our 2012 accounts, they define the test to be used when deciding if a club can use the pre-2010 contracts wage exemption as follows:

For the avoidance of doubt, condition (a) means if the quantum of the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation is greater than the quantum of the break-even deficit for the reporting period ending in 2012, then condition (ii) is not satisfied – because part of the break-even deficit in excess of the acceptable deviation is due to the break-even deficit in 2013 and/or 2014 (i.e. not only due to the break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012).

It's not well worded but using their worked examples, the quantum of the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation is £77m. The next figure, the quantum of the break-even deficit for the reporting period ending in 2012 is £83m. The former is not greater than the latter therefore the condition IS satisfied.

The other condition is

b. the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation (for the reporting period ending i2012) is only due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010.

This time, we're comparing the £77m deficit to the £80m and quite clearly that deficit was wholly caused by the £80m. So we can use the £80m according to those tests, which were in place at the time the accounts were prepared. I believe that was confirmed with UEFA.

However, having presumably laid our cards on the table, six months later the condition in (b) has changed to:

b) the break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 is due to contracts entered with players
before 1 June 2010; i.e. the employee benefit expenses reported in FY12 due to players under contract before 1 June 2010 are equal or higher than the deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012.

The deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 is £83m, which is clearly higher than the £80m and therefore this disqualifies us from using the £80m. Having published the 2012 accounts, it was obviously too late to make any adjustments to them in order to meet the revised requirement.

I simply can't imagine that City don't have a letter or some other confirmation from UEFA that we met the conditions to use the £80m wage exemption when the 2012 accounts were published. If so, would you agree that they're entitled to be annoyed?

Just so I understand.

The £77m is our losses for the 2011/12 season after all acceptable deductions (infra structure spending etc) have been removed from our official losses of £97m, correct?

The £80m is the amount of our wages, on the books, prior to June 2010, correct?

What is the £83m? How has that figure been reached? The UEFA wording is really fucking confusing to follow.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It's a decent article but just tells us what we already know, that UEFA are a bunch of corrupt hypocritical f***ers

At least they have had their accounts audited to enable the massive losses they sustain to be published.

For corruption and self serving behavior look no further than The European Common Market. As i understand it we still await the first audited accounts for this Organisation.
It has penalized Greece and Spain for the very thing it is unable to curb within itself, spending.

Whilst UEFA's ways are totally unfair they are not unusual where people in positions of power often use that power in a selfish way. They have much to protect and fairness is used as a tool to preserve their position not as a guiding light for their actions.

Industry has its own share of this type of people at the top (eg Banking) so it comes as absolutely no surprise to discover that UEFA has been hijacked by the usual suspects, kept in power by the Clubs with most to risk from new competition.

Democracy itself is a great objective, unfortunately the people who make up its pyramid of power forget these objectives once they are elected.
The culture here changes and if they want to survive they must throw away any thoughts of fairness and vote how their Party Whips tell them.

City's owners are not from a democratic background so will probably understand the actions of UEFA much better than we do so I am happy that they have done their best to follow the rules despite the changing goalposts.

I am with PB on this one and feel that City have to all intents and purposes been keeping their powder dry and UEFA and its sustaining senior members would be well advised to welcome them rather than see this initial battle as winning the war.

I am interested to see how this 'Game' develops.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I know that language used in contracts is always ridiculously complicated but I always thought that was necessary (ironic though it sounds) to provide legal clarity not as a mechanism to be so deliberately confusing as to allow the person who has had the contract drawn up to interpret the contract in various ways to suit.

 

[Damocles]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You've made some good contributions to this debate but you really do not know what you're talking about above. Sorry to be so blunt but that's the only way I can say it. You're guessing whereas I know. We have documentary evidence of assurances given by UEFA that weren't upheld when the crunch came. The fact that they changed the rule regarding the wage exemption in a way that if you passed it in 2012, you failed in 2013 should be evidence enough. There's a long game to be played regarding the future of FFP (and you are quite right it won't disappear completely) but there's things that may happen in the short term where the connection may not be immediately apparent.

Then post it here.

If you can't or won't then it's totally irrelevant to the conversation and you shouldn't be using it in this debate.

Stupid comment from a supposedly intelligent person. 'We' as in City, not me. But if you do want documentary proof of UEFA's duplicity then I can provide that.

In the 2011 version of their FFP toolkit, which was in force when we did our 2012 accounts, they define the test to be used when deciding if a club can use the pre-2010 contracts wage exemption as follows:

For the avoidance of doubt, condition (a) means if the quantum of the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation is greater than the quantum of the break-even deficit for the reporting period ending in 2012, then condition (ii) is not satisfied – because part of the break-even deficit in excess of the acceptable deviation is due to the break-even deficit in 2013 and/or 2014 (i.e. not only due to the break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012).

It's not well worded but using their worked examples, the quantum of the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation is £77m. The next figure, the quantum of the break-even deficit for the reporting period ending in 2012 is £83m. The former is not greater than the latter therefore the condition IS satisfied.

The other condition is

b. the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation (for the reporting period ending i2012) is only due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010.

This time, we're comparing the £77m deficit to the £80m and quite clearly that deficit was wholly caused by the £80m. So we can use the £80m according to those tests, which were in place at the time the accounts were prepared. I believe that was confirmed with UEFA.

However, having presumably laid our cards on the table, six months later the condition in (b) has changed to:

b) the break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 is due to contracts entered with players
before 1 June 2010; i.e. the employee benefit expenses reported in FY12 due to players under contract before 1 June 2010 are equal or higher than the deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012.

The deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 is £83m, which is clearly higher than the £80m and therefore this disqualifies us from using the £80m. Having published the 2012 accounts, it was obviously too late to make any adjustments to them in order to meet the revised requirement.

I simply can't imagine that City don't have a letter or some other confirmation from UEFA that we met the conditions to use the £80m wage exemption when the 2012 accounts were published. If so, would you agree that they're entitled to be annoyed?

"I simply can't imagine" doesn't mean "I know". I'm not arguing that UEFA put out various clarifications on the rules that changed, I'm arguing that you said that the other person was guessing when you know when in fact you're as guessing as he is. You don't know that City have documentary evidence of assurances given from UEFA.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just so I understand.

The £77m is our losses for the 2011/12 season after all acceptable deductions (infra structure spending etc) have been removed from our official losses of £97m, correct?

The £80m is the amount of our wages, on the books, prior to June 2010, correct?

What is the £83m? How has that figure been reached? The UEFA wording is really fucking confusing to follow.

As I understand from a review of our accounts and figures quoted in the media (which I assume are sourced from City) the figures work out as follows:

In FY2012 we reported a loss of £98m and, under FFP, could write off £15m for allowable expenses, giving a break-even deficit of £83m.

In FY2013 those figures were £52m and £20m, giving a break-even deficit of £32m. Our aggregate break-even deficit is therefore £115m (83+32). Our maximum allowable loss is €45m, which we'll say is £38m. Therefore the aggregate break-even deficit of £115m is greater than our maximum allowable loss of £38m by £77m.

Following UEFA worked examples in the 2011 toolkit using those figures seems to confirm we're OK and should not face sanctions.

 

[jimbopm]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Without sounding dismissive, the club has obviously decided to (reluctantly) accept the sanctions and I think that we should forget what we did in 2012 or 2013 for that matter.

The only thing that can happen now is that a challenge is laid before the European courts which results in FFP being thrown out. Whilst I would have liked City to have embarked upon this challenge, the reasons for not doing so are obvious and understandable.

Hopefully someone or something can come along which will deliver a blow to UEFA which will show FFP up for what it truly is. In the meantime i'm reassured by both the club's official statement and the interview with Khaldoon (in which he describes the FFP sanctions as a 'pinch') that City will be largely unaffected by the punishment and that the good times will continue to roll.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

People should also not forget nor underestimate the significant "buggeration" factor of a legal battle. Not only does it involve significant cost - which frankly is perhaps the least of our concerns - more importantly it takes up time, energy and effort of those involved with it. Necessarily, Khaldoon, Soriano and others in the management team would spend countless hours on legal nonsense, that could be more productively spent on developing City.

This is one of the single most important reasons businesses reach settlements. Sometimes, even if you know you are in the right and you are certain you would win a legal battle, settling is just the much more pragmatic and sensible option, even if it does stick in the craw somewhat.

I accept what you are saying but I still think FFP should have faced a challenge. From our own club's point of view, a fine would have been just a slight hindrance, as would the wage restraint settlement. But the real danger comes from our C/L sanctions. As I write, we are awaiting details of our squad 'punishment' with its unconfirmed 16 overseas players, and also the makeup of our home grown quota. In numerical terms only, we are to need a full squad if we are to proceed as far as we wish, this being the only surefire way of spreading the club's name, let alone it's retailing operations, to the far ends of the world. Progress to at least reach the latter stages of the C/L would have the capacity to wipe out the fine, including the deferred portion, but as UEFA have restricted us to fighting with our hands tied, we are left with an uphill battle that may leave us with the opposite effect of going through this farce again in 12 months time.