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.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
1972Bramhall_Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2012
- Messages
- 145
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Wonder how the Telegraph 'unearthed' this, maybe someone connected with Abu Dahbi?
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10871065/Qatar-World-Cup-2022-France-embroiled-in-corruption-scandal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... andal.html</a>
Michel Platini, one of the most powerful men in world football, was on Monday night under pressure to explain a secret meeting with the man at the centre of the Qatar World Cup scandal.
The Telegraph has unearthed evidence that Mr Platini, a former leading French international and the president of Uefa, European football’s governing body, had a private discussion with Mohamed Bin Hammam, the controversial Qatari who paid millions of pounds to football officials around the world.
The emergence of the meeting means that France has become the first European nation to be drawn into the World Cup bribery scandal, which has so far been limited to African and Caribbean countries.
It is understood that the meeting took place shortly before Fifa awarded the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, and that Mr Bin Hammam personally lobbied Mr Platini to support the Emirate’s bid.
Fifa executive committee members vote in secret, but Mr Platini has disclosed that he voted for Qatar in the ballot, which was held in 2010. He has also supported the proposal to move the tournament to the winter to avoid Qatar’s summer heat.
One executive committee member said they were “shocked” by the disclosure of the meeting.
Australia and the United States, which lost out to Qatar for the 2022 World Cup, indicated on Monday that they might resubmit their bids. There was even suggestion that England’s hopes of hosting the 2018 tournament, which was awarded to Russia, could be revived because the voting process for both tournaments is under review. The decisions over both World Cups were made on the same day.
Leaked documents also show that Mr Bin Hammam:
• Discussed trade deals with many of the officials and countries who were eligible to vote in the decision in 2010, including a gas deal in Thailand.
• Offered car dealerships to Fifa members.
• Discussed internships and jobs for family members of some Fifa members.
The disclosures add to concerns about the impartiality of some Fifa officials, following claims over the weekend that Mr Bin Hammam distributed £3 million in bribes to Fifa delegates.
David Cameron hinted on Monday that England could bid again for the 2018 World Cup if Fifa decided to annul the voting decisions for the two tournaments. The Prime Minister, who was among the England lobbying team, added that he would “see what happens” with the Fifa inquiry.
Mr Cameron said: “There is an inquiry under way, quite rightly, into what happened in terms of the World Cup bid for 2022. I think we should let that inquiry take place rather than prejudge it.”
Documents leaked to The Telegraph show that Mr Platini met Mr Bin Hammam for breakfast shortly before the former footballer met Nicolas Sarkozy, at the time the French president, the son of the emir of Qatar and the country’s prime minister for lunch at the Elysée Palace in November 2010, a month before the World Cup vote.
The following year, the state-owned Qatar Sports Investments bought Paris Saint-Germain, Mr Sarkozy’s favourite team. Mr Platini has always denied that Mr Sarkozy asked him to vote for Qatar, but in an interview he said: “I was invited to a dinner with Mr Sarkozy where there was the prime minister of Qatar. They never asked me during the dinner to vote. It was a clear thing about 'support’. They knew I would be independent.”
Mr Platini’s son Laurent became the chief executive of Burrda, a Qatar owned sports company. He has always said that his son’s role was unconnected to his vote.
Documents also show that an adviser to the Thai Football Association discussed a gas deal between his country and Qatar before the World Cup vote. It is understood that the president of the Thai FA, Worawi Makudi, was involved in a deal between Qatar and a Thai company to deliver gas. In 2012, Qatargas signed a deal with PTT, Thailand’s leading energy company, which sponsors its football association, to deliver two million tonnes of liquefied natural gas to the Far East country.
Letters and emails between Mr Bin Hammam’s staff and Thai football officials show that a range of deals were connected to Qatar’s 2022 bid.
The documents also show that one Asian Fifa official was offered a car dealership by Mr Bin Hammam, again before the vote.
In March, The Telegraph disclosed that Jack Warner, the former vice-president of Fifa, appeared to have been paid £720,000 from a company controlled by Mr Bin Hammam shortly after Qatar was awarded the tournament.
At the weekend, The Sunday Times alleged that Mr Bin Hammam also paid millions of pounds to African football officials who held sway over the continent’s four voting members on the Fifa executive committee.
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, was among those calling for Qatar to be stripped of the tournament if allegations of bribery are proven. He said Fifa “must re-run the contest fairly and openly” if the claims are true.
Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general and a member of Fifa’s independent governance committee, said: “If it’s proved that the decision to give Qatar the World Cup was procured by … bribery and improper influence, then that decision ought not to stand.”
David Gallop, the chief executive of the Football Federation Australia, said it was “too early” to say whether his country’s position would change, but added that “it’s a bit of a 'watch this space’ at this stage”.
An investigator employed by Fifa to investigate the 2018 and 2022 bidding process said he would finish his report next month. Michael Garcia, a New York lawyer, met Qatari officials on Monday. He said he planned to submit a report to Fifa towards the end of July.
Qatar has insisted Mr Bin Hammam was not involved in its bid and denies all allegations of wrong-doing.
A spokesman for the Qatari bid said: “The Qatar 2022 Bid Committee always upheld the highest standard of ethics and integrity. We are cooperating fully with Mr Garcia’s on-going investigation and remain totally confident that any objective inquiry will conclude we won the bid to host the 2022 Fifa World Cup fairly.”
Uefa did not respond to questions about Mr Platini.
Wonder how the Telegraph 'unearthed' this, maybe someone connected with Abu Dahbi?
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10871065/Qatar-World-Cup-2022-France-embroiled-in-corruption-scandal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... andal.html</a>
Michel Platini, one of the most powerful men in world football, was on Monday night under pressure to explain a secret meeting with the man at the centre of the Qatar World Cup scandal.
The Telegraph has unearthed evidence that Mr Platini, a former leading French international and the president of Uefa, European football’s governing body, had a private discussion with Mohamed Bin Hammam, the controversial Qatari who paid millions of pounds to football officials around the world.
The emergence of the meeting means that France has become the first European nation to be drawn into the World Cup bribery scandal, which has so far been limited to African and Caribbean countries.
It is understood that the meeting took place shortly before Fifa awarded the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, and that Mr Bin Hammam personally lobbied Mr Platini to support the Emirate’s bid.
Fifa executive committee members vote in secret, but Mr Platini has disclosed that he voted for Qatar in the ballot, which was held in 2010. He has also supported the proposal to move the tournament to the winter to avoid Qatar’s summer heat.
One executive committee member said they were “shocked” by the disclosure of the meeting.
Australia and the United States, which lost out to Qatar for the 2022 World Cup, indicated on Monday that they might resubmit their bids. There was even suggestion that England’s hopes of hosting the 2018 tournament, which was awarded to Russia, could be revived because the voting process for both tournaments is under review. The decisions over both World Cups were made on the same day.
Leaked documents also show that Mr Bin Hammam:
• Discussed trade deals with many of the officials and countries who were eligible to vote in the decision in 2010, including a gas deal in Thailand.
• Offered car dealerships to Fifa members.
• Discussed internships and jobs for family members of some Fifa members.
The disclosures add to concerns about the impartiality of some Fifa officials, following claims over the weekend that Mr Bin Hammam distributed £3 million in bribes to Fifa delegates.
David Cameron hinted on Monday that England could bid again for the 2018 World Cup if Fifa decided to annul the voting decisions for the two tournaments. The Prime Minister, who was among the England lobbying team, added that he would “see what happens” with the Fifa inquiry.
Mr Cameron said: “There is an inquiry under way, quite rightly, into what happened in terms of the World Cup bid for 2022. I think we should let that inquiry take place rather than prejudge it.”
Documents leaked to The Telegraph show that Mr Platini met Mr Bin Hammam for breakfast shortly before the former footballer met Nicolas Sarkozy, at the time the French president, the son of the emir of Qatar and the country’s prime minister for lunch at the Elysée Palace in November 2010, a month before the World Cup vote.
The following year, the state-owned Qatar Sports Investments bought Paris Saint-Germain, Mr Sarkozy’s favourite team. Mr Platini has always denied that Mr Sarkozy asked him to vote for Qatar, but in an interview he said: “I was invited to a dinner with Mr Sarkozy where there was the prime minister of Qatar. They never asked me during the dinner to vote. It was a clear thing about 'support’. They knew I would be independent.”
Mr Platini’s son Laurent became the chief executive of Burrda, a Qatar owned sports company. He has always said that his son’s role was unconnected to his vote.
Documents also show that an adviser to the Thai Football Association discussed a gas deal between his country and Qatar before the World Cup vote. It is understood that the president of the Thai FA, Worawi Makudi, was involved in a deal between Qatar and a Thai company to deliver gas. In 2012, Qatargas signed a deal with PTT, Thailand’s leading energy company, which sponsors its football association, to deliver two million tonnes of liquefied natural gas to the Far East country.
Letters and emails between Mr Bin Hammam’s staff and Thai football officials show that a range of deals were connected to Qatar’s 2022 bid.
The documents also show that one Asian Fifa official was offered a car dealership by Mr Bin Hammam, again before the vote.
In March, The Telegraph disclosed that Jack Warner, the former vice-president of Fifa, appeared to have been paid £720,000 from a company controlled by Mr Bin Hammam shortly after Qatar was awarded the tournament.
At the weekend, The Sunday Times alleged that Mr Bin Hammam also paid millions of pounds to African football officials who held sway over the continent’s four voting members on the Fifa executive committee.
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, was among those calling for Qatar to be stripped of the tournament if allegations of bribery are proven. He said Fifa “must re-run the contest fairly and openly” if the claims are true.
Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general and a member of Fifa’s independent governance committee, said: “If it’s proved that the decision to give Qatar the World Cup was procured by … bribery and improper influence, then that decision ought not to stand.”
David Gallop, the chief executive of the Football Federation Australia, said it was “too early” to say whether his country’s position would change, but added that “it’s a bit of a 'watch this space’ at this stage”.
An investigator employed by Fifa to investigate the 2018 and 2022 bidding process said he would finish his report next month. Michael Garcia, a New York lawyer, met Qatari officials on Monday. He said he planned to submit a report to Fifa towards the end of July.
Qatar has insisted Mr Bin Hammam was not involved in its bid and denies all allegations of wrong-doing.
A spokesman for the Qatari bid said: “The Qatar 2022 Bid Committee always upheld the highest standard of ethics and integrity. We are cooperating fully with Mr Garcia’s on-going investigation and remain totally confident that any objective inquiry will conclude we won the bid to host the 2022 Fifa World Cup fairly.”
Uefa did not respond to questions about Mr Platini.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Has anyone seen an explanation of what this means from the UEFA sanctions statement? :-
Has anyone seen an explanation of what this means from the UEFA sanctions statement? :-
Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for
seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Manchester City further accepts a calculated
limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List
for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based
on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by
this agreement.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Just listened to the Christian Purslow interview on Hardtalk. As usual it was more about the questions that weren't asked than those that were. I would have liked to hear his opinions on Liverpools current losses with regard to their compliance with FFP, and his opinion on the effectiveness of the sanctions imposed on PSG given that they have reportedly just spent £50 million on David Luiz.
I have always believed that bad owners are the major cause of financial problems at football clubs. The difference seems to be that people like Christian Purslow think owners that put money into clubs as equity are as harmful as those that invest in the form of loans. It's ironic that legal action can prevent the FA imposing an enforceable 'fit and proper person' test (as with Leeds United) but UEFA can impose sanctions on clubs simply because rival teams do not like the level of investment being made by an owner.
Just listened to the Christian Purslow interview on Hardtalk. As usual it was more about the questions that weren't asked than those that were. I would have liked to hear his opinions on Liverpools current losses with regard to their compliance with FFP, and his opinion on the effectiveness of the sanctions imposed on PSG given that they have reportedly just spent £50 million on David Luiz.
I have always believed that bad owners are the major cause of financial problems at football clubs. The difference seems to be that people like Christian Purslow think owners that put money into clubs as equity are as harmful as those that invest in the form of loans. It's ironic that legal action can prevent the FA imposing an enforceable 'fit and proper person' test (as with Leeds United) but UEFA can impose sanctions on clubs simply because rival teams do not like the level of investment being made by an owner.
mancity dan
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Hi Colin. It means that if we hit the target of set for 2014/15 accounts then we will be back up to a 25 man A List for 2015/16.
ColinLee said:Has anyone seen an explanation of what this means from the UEFA sanctions statement? :-
Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for
seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Manchester City further accepts a calculated
limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List
for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based
on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by
this agreement.
Hi Colin. It means that if we hit the target of set for 2014/15 accounts then we will be back up to a 25 man A List for 2015/16.
more lazy than useless
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
The second one first; FFP only covers the top 4 (or is it 2) leagues.
As for the first question, I'm sure there are straightforward provisions for this within the regulations, but I haven't taken much notice of domestic ffp. That said, I would have thought that the most likely scenario is for a club to be bought without the debt. I'm no accountant but my understanding is that common practice is that as part of the deal the liability for the debt stays with the initial owner (who ran up the debt). In other words, if a club is worth £100 million, but has debt of £50 mill, you would pay £100 mill but the debtors would be paid out of the money by the solicitors/bank before the previous owner gets the remaining £50 mill. A bit like if you have a mortgage but change houses; the solicitor pays off the mortgage company before you get the rest (if there is any! And assuming you don't switch the mortgage on to the new property).
If the club's debts are greater than the club's value then its slightly more involved, but not really for the new owner. You would buy the club more or less as above, but the previous owner would have had to agree with the debtors to take on the remaining debt (from the club) after your money went to them or made an arrangement to wipe the balance of the debt (likely option if they realise they aren't getting all their money back). Either way, the initial owner walks away with empty pockets at best.
I'd say City have had a couple of owners who ended up with empty pockets!
dansyb said:I have a couple of questions not city related as it is more to do with the football league's version
If a football league club found itself in financial trouble and went into administration . This is usually followed by the club being taken over and an injection of cash from the new owner to help put the finances in a better position .Now under ffp is this against the rules .If it is then as I see it the club will be left to die
My second question is
If ffp goes all the way to the bottom tier of English football not sure it does but how is a new club supposed to start without a cash injection from it's founder . Club not in business yet so cannot generate it's own cash owner cannot inject his own cash to get the club going
The second one first; FFP only covers the top 4 (or is it 2) leagues.
As for the first question, I'm sure there are straightforward provisions for this within the regulations, but I haven't taken much notice of domestic ffp. That said, I would have thought that the most likely scenario is for a club to be bought without the debt. I'm no accountant but my understanding is that common practice is that as part of the deal the liability for the debt stays with the initial owner (who ran up the debt). In other words, if a club is worth £100 million, but has debt of £50 mill, you would pay £100 mill but the debtors would be paid out of the money by the solicitors/bank before the previous owner gets the remaining £50 mill. A bit like if you have a mortgage but change houses; the solicitor pays off the mortgage company before you get the rest (if there is any! And assuming you don't switch the mortgage on to the new property).
If the club's debts are greater than the club's value then its slightly more involved, but not really for the new owner. You would buy the club more or less as above, but the previous owner would have had to agree with the debtors to take on the remaining debt (from the club) after your money went to them or made an arrangement to wipe the balance of the debt (likely option if they realise they aren't getting all their money back). Either way, the initial owner walks away with empty pockets at best.
I'd say City have had a couple of owners who ended up with empty pockets!
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Cheers for that, if I ever need to consult an expert on FFPR rules in the future I'll be certain not to ask you...mancity dan said:ColinLee said:Has anyone seen an explanation of what this means from the UEFA sanctions statement? :-
Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for
seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Manchester City further accepts a calculated
limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List
for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based
on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by
this agreement.
Hi Colin. It means that if we hit the target of set for 2014/15 accounts then we will be back up to a 25 man A List for 2015/16.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Thanks for that as quite a few clubs had gone into receivership in recent times although not since ffp has been in place and just wondered if ffp could in fact effect the survival of the club .
more lazy than useless said:dansyb said:I have a couple of questions not city related as it is more to do with the football league's version
If a football league club found itself in financial trouble and went into administration . This is usually followed by the club being taken over and an injection of cash from the new owner to help put the finances in a better position .Now under ffp is this against the rules .If it is then as I see it the club will be left to die
My second question is
If ffp goes all the way to the bottom tier of English football not sure it does but how is a new club supposed to start without a cash injection from it's founder . Club not in business yet so cannot generate it's own cash owner cannot inject his own cash to get the club going
The second one first; FFP only covers the top 4 (or is it 2) leagues.
As for the first question, I'm sure there are straightforward provisions for this within the regulations, but I haven't taken much notice of domestic ffp. That said, I would have thought that the most likely scenario is for a club to be bought without the debt. I'm no accountant but my understanding is that common practice is that as part of the deal the liability for the debt stays with the initial owner (who ran up the debt). In other words, if a club is worth £100 million, but has debt of £50 mill, you would pay £100 mill but the debtors would be paid out of the money by the solicitors/bank before the previous owner gets the remaining £50 mill. A bit like if you have a mortgage but change houses; the solicitor pays off the mortgage company before you get the rest (if there is any! And assuming you don't switch the mortgage on to the new property).
If the club's debts are greater than the club's value then its slightly more involved, but not really for the new owner. You would buy the club more or less as above, but the previous owner would have had to agree with the debtors to take on the remaining debt (from the club) after your money went to them or made an arrangement to wipe the balance of the debt (likely option if they realise they aren't getting all their money back). Either way, the initial owner walks away with empty pockets at best.
I'd say City have had a couple of owners who ended up with empty pockets!
Thanks for that as quite a few clubs had gone into receivership in recent times although not since ffp has been in place and just wondered if ffp could in fact effect the survival of the club .
r.soleofsalford
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
haha you are joking right
dansyb said:more lazy than useless said:dansyb said:I have a couple of questions not city related as it is more to do with the football league's version
If a football league club found itself in financial trouble and went into administration . This is usually followed by the club being taken over and an injection of cash from the new owner to help put the finances in a better position .Now under ffp is this against the rules .If it is then as I see it the club will be left to die
My second question is
If ffp goes all the way to the bottom tier of English football not sure it does but how is a new club supposed to start without a cash injection from it's founder . Club not in business yet so cannot generate it's own cash owner cannot inject his own cash to get the club going
The second one first; FFP only covers the top 4 (or is it 2) leagues.
As for the first question, I'm sure there are straightforward provisions for this within the regulations, but I haven't taken much notice of domestic ffp. That said, I would have thought that the most likely scenario is for a club to be bought without the debt. I'm no accountant but my understanding is that common practice is that as part of the deal the liability for the debt stays with the initial owner (who ran up the debt). In other words, if a club is worth £100 million, but has debt of £50 mill, you would pay £100 mill but the debtors would be paid out of the money by the solicitors/bank before the previous owner gets the remaining £50 mill. A bit like if you have a mortgage but change houses; the solicitor pays off the mortgage company before you get the rest (if there is any! And assuming you don't switch the mortgage on to the new property).
If the club's debts are greater than the club's value then its slightly more involved, but not really for the new owner. You would buy the club more or less as above, but the previous owner would have had to agree with the debtors to take on the remaining debt (from the club) after your money went to them or made an arrangement to wipe the balance of the debt (likely option if they realise they aren't getting all their money back). Either way, the initial owner walks away with empty pockets at best.
I'd say City have had a couple of owners who ended up with empty pockets!
Thanks for that as quite a few clubs had gone into receivership in recent times although not since ffp has been in place and just wondered if ffp could in fact effect the survival of the club .
haha you are joking right