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

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Would it not depend on which particular aspects of FFP were being challenged in M.Duponts case ?
As I remember , his client is challenging it , as an agent , on the grounds of restriction of earnings as he feels his earnings potential and that of the players he represents ,will be curtailed by transfer and salary caps imposed by Uefa.
If no other aspects , such as restriction of investment or the operation of a cartel or restriction of trade , will this open the possibilities of separate court cases, keeping uefa in the courts for years?

i'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that the challenge on the grounds of restriction of earnings is specifically aimed at the concept
of an owner only being able to fund his/her investment up to a certain level. I think that this covers the restriction of trade. Showing a
cartel is operating may be much harder to prove and may be a separate case. I'm guessing Dupont would not pursue this although
it's possible that the Brussels court might. If they did, then yes, UEFA and the cartel clubs could end up in court for years. That really
would be happy days! I hadn't even considered that point but it really could come back to bite them.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We have the following:

1) A 10m + 10m + 40m Euro (49m) fine to be paid over 3 years.
This fine is supposed to taken out of our CL earnings (at source), but there is a caveat that IF we break even at the end of the year (and the year after) then we won't have to pay the fine for those years. So all being well, we pay 1/3 of that (20m euro)
Technically, we pay a 10m fine this year, and a 10 million fine next year. IF we fail to adhere to all the other stipulations, we will pay a further 40m fine.

We will pay either of the two options here regardless, so no problem there.

2) A salary and benefits cap for 2014/15 and 2015/16
We're not supposed to increase our salary (or benefits) above our current level for players AND general staff - but City are claiming bonuses don't fall under this. In my view, I hope they've got this bonuses interpretation agreed with UEFA.
IF we meet items 4 and 5, the 2015/16 cap will be lifted.

The Chairman seems to think we're ok on this, but this bonus issue worries me.

3) A transfer cap for 2014/15 and and 2015/16
The cap is 'calculated' in some way based on our net transfer position (strange term!) and is calculated anew each period.
The cap for 2014/15 calculation is commonly reported as 60m Euro (49m). The 2015/16 cap is assumed to have a different value because our 'new transfer position' will have improved. How the calculation works is not known to me, but clearly it should be an improved position, therefore an improved cap.
The chairman seems to believe this cap will be lifted in 2015/16 but this is could be clever word play. The cap might be lifted to a higher value, or (since we don't know how the calculation works) it might become void.

I assume the term 'net transfer position' is deliberately used to prevent City making pre-agreements to sign players in a 'have now, pay later' situation. That said a 'position' essentially means a commitment to buy or sell... so there's an argument to say agreeing to sell a player would also count as part of our position. But regardless, if we don't set up any fancy pre agreements to sell or buy players, then our 'position' should be pretty clear.

4) For 2013/14 we can only report a loss of up to 20m euro.

5) For 2014/15 we can only report a loss of up to 10m euro.

6) A limit of 21 players in CL for 2014/15 and 2015/16
IF we comply with 4) and 5) the 2015/16 restriction will be lifted.

Excellent post but I think 3) is slightly wrong, from City's OS :-

- The Club’s expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros. This will have no material impact on the Club’s planned transfer activity.

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/2014/may/club-statement-16-may

Not sure where you're seeing a disagreement? is it the 'on top of income from players it might sell' aspect?
My interpretation of that is that it's 60m Euro + anything we make from player sales.
If it's the 'no material impact' - I've interpreted that as a bit of bravado to say 'we didn't intend on spending much anyway, so it's not going to hurt'.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just wonder how much legal stuff will be effective against FIFA.

I read somewhere in the FT that it acts like a Sovereign State and as such is not accountable to any outside body.
It is legally incorporated as a Swiss non-profit organisation so should be subject to the Swiss Government who could force change on FIFA.
Switzerland ought to make international sports organisations based on its territory subject to Swiss criminal law but has been reluctant to do so. Hence, even if criminal activity occurs (eg corruption charges re Quatar), Switzerland will not persue FIFA.

Perhaps the pending FFP court case is different (being non criminal) and maybe any external judgement can be implemented ?

Don't knock FIFA mate! If the G14 were ever to set up a closed shop European Super League with UEFA's agreement then FIFA
might well turn out to be our salvation. If UEFA start getting too big for their boots - they've already raised the possibility of
inviting other countries to take part in the Euros and having the event as a genuine rival to the World Cup - then we might be
looking for FIFA to organise a rival World League. FIFA are bastards but they might turn out to be "our" bastards.
FFP is a UEFA (G14) initiative.

Apologies on that my friend.

Please educate me, so UEFA are nothing to do with FIFA, is that your point ?

I am aware that Mr Blatter and Mr Platini are currently at loggerheads but I assumed that involved the presidency of FIFA.
Certainly when corruption allegations were headline news prior to World Cup my understanding was that both UEFA and FIFA were part of the same organisation.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We have the following:

1) A 10m + 10m + 40m Euro (49m) fine to be paid over 3 years.
This fine is supposed to taken out of our CL earnings (at source), but there is a caveat that IF we break even at the end of the year (and the year after) then we won't have to pay the fine for those years. So all being well, we pay 1/3 of that (20m euro)
Technically, we pay a 10m fine this year, and a 10 million fine next year. IF we fail to adhere to all the other stipulations, we will pay a further 40m fine.

We will pay either of the two options here regardless, so no problem there.

2) A salary and benefits cap for 2014/15 and 2015/16
We're not supposed to increase our salary (or benefits) above our current level for players AND general staff - but City are claiming bonuses don't fall under this. In my view, I hope they've got this bonuses interpretation agreed with UEFA.
IF we meet items 4 and 5, the 2015/16 cap will be lifted.

The Chairman seems to think we're ok on this, but this bonus issue worries me.

3) A transfer cap for 2014/15 and and 2015/16
The cap is 'calculated' in some way based on our net transfer position (strange term!) and is calculated anew each period.
The cap for 2014/15 calculation is commonly reported as 60m Euro (49m). The 2015/16 cap is assumed to have a different value because our 'new transfer position' will have improved. How the calculation works is not known to me, but clearly it should be an improved position, therefore an improved cap.
The chairman seems to believe this cap will be lifted in 2015/16 but this is could be clever word play. The cap might be lifted to a higher value, or (since we don't know how the calculation works) it might become void.

I assume the term 'net transfer position' is deliberately used to prevent City making pre-agreements to sign players in a 'have now, pay later' situation. That said a 'position' essentially means a commitment to buy or sell... so there's an argument to say agreeing to sell a player would also count as part of our position. But regardless, if we don't set up any fancy pre agreements to sell or buy players, then our 'position' should be pretty clear.

4) For 2013/14 we can only report a loss of up to 20m euro.

5) For 2014/15 we can only report a loss of up to 10m euro.

6) A limit of 21 players in CL for 2014/15 and 2015/16
IF we comply with 4) and 5) the 2015/16 restriction will be lifted.

Excellent post but I think 3) is slightly wrong, from City's OS :-

- The Club’s expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros. This will have no material impact on the Club’s planned transfer activity.

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/2014/may/club-statement-16-may

Not sure where you're seeing a disagreement? is it the 'on top of income from players it might sell' aspect?
My interpretation of that is that it's 60m Euro + anything we make from player sales.
If it's the 'no material impact' - I've interpreted that as a bit of bravado to say 'we didn't intend on spending much anyway, so it's not going to hurt'.

Sorry, I should have added it in. City specifically say the €60 million cap is for this summer with no mention of the winter window. And God knows what's been agreed for next season.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Excellent post but I think 3) is slightly wrong, from City's OS :-

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/2014/may/club-statement-16-may

Not sure where you're seeing a disagreement? is it the 'on top of income from players it might sell' aspect?
My interpretation of that is that it's 60m Euro + anything we make from player sales.
If it's the 'no material impact' - I've interpreted that as a bit of bravado to say 'we didn't intend on spending much anyway, so it's not going to hurt'.

Sorry, I should have added it in. City specifically say the €60 million cap is for this summer with no mention of the winter window. And God knows what's been agreed for next season.

Yeah. it's all a bit smoke and mirrors from both sides.
I wish I'd made this the opening post and could then update it based on other people's input. It would answer a lot of people's questions and at least list many of the ponderables too. Would be nice to have it all in one place with links to documents etc.

I just cannot believe that FIFA document is 'it' (the actual agreement). I refuse to believe it, it can't possibly be (can it?). And they've mixed some terms too... like 2014/15, then in other places say 2015 period (which is what?). I know sometimes there's a need for privacy, but this does nothing to promote transparency from either side. There shouldn't really be anything to hide in what we've agreed.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Apologies on that my friend.

Please educate me, so UEFA are nothing to do with FIFA, is that your point ?

I am aware that Mr Blatter and Mr Platini are currently at loggerheads but I assumed that involved the presidency of FIFA.
Certainly when corruption allegations were headline news prior to World Cup my understanding was that both UEFA and FIFA were part of the same organisation.

No problem mate. Yes, UEFA not FIFA, are responsible for running the Champions League and the Europa League.
FFP is a UEFA intiative.

Platini would certainly like Blatter's job at FIFA and he is also a senior figure within that organisation.

UEFA is a confederation that, in theory, is subservient to FIFA.
It does however, like the other confederations, have jurisdiction for competitions that it organises.

Similarly the FA has jurisdiction for the competitions that it organises.

The problems between FIFA and UEFA arise because of the size of UEFA compared to the other confederations.

The problem within UEFA is the power held by the former G14 clubs.

All the organisations mentioned are corrupt and the level of corruption increase as you go up the food chain.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Yeah. it's all a bit smoke and mirrors from both sides.

Ain't that the truth?

We are all guessing what the actual transfer restrictions (in terms of net spend) are for each window & for each season.

The only bit we know is 60m euros net spend for the first window.

I'M GUESSING that this is the figure for the season and that we've been told that we can't overspend the season's limit
during the first window with a view to recouping losses in the Winter window.

Worse possible case would be 60m euros for the 2014-15 season and 60m euros for 2015-16.
I'M GUESSING though that the club wouldn't have agreed to this and that the figure for 2015-16 is much higher.

But who knows?

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just wonder how much legal stuff will be effective against FIFA.

I read somewhere in the FT that it acts like a Sovereign State and as such is not accountable to any outside body.
It is legally incorporated as a Swiss non-profit organisation so should be subject to the Swiss Government who could force change on FIFA.
Switzerland ought to make international sports organisations based on its territory subject to Swiss criminal law but has been reluctant to do so. Hence, even if criminal activity occurs (eg corruption charges re Quatar), Switzerland will not persue FIFA.

Perhaps the pending FFP court case is different (being non criminal) and maybe any external judgement can be implemented ?

Don't knock FIFA mate! If the G14 were ever to set up a closed shop European Super League with UEFA's agreement then FIFA
might well turn out to be our salvation. If UEFA start getting too big for their boots - they've already raised the possibility of
inviting other countries to take part in the Euros and having the event as a genuine rival to the World Cup - then we might be
looking for FIFA to organise a rival World League. FIFA are bastards but they might turn out to be "our" bastards.
FFP is a UEFA (G14) initiative.

Apologies on that my friend.

Please educate me, so UEFA are nothing to do with FIFA, is that your point ?

I am aware that Mr Blatter and Mr Platini are currently at loggerheads but I assumed that involved the presidency of FIFA.
Certainly when corruption allegations were headline news prior to World Cup my understanding was that both UEFA and FIFA were part of the same organisation.

FIFA's at the top.
Underneath them are 'confederations' which are - UEFA (Europe), CONCACAF (North and Central America), CAF (Africa), OFC (Oceania), CSF (South America), AFC (Asia)

FIFA are supposed to oversee the game worldwide, and set the direction of the sport, and the rules. They are also supposed to help the sport to grow through their own initiatives, and with help from the confederations.

FIFA organise the world cup and ask the confederations to choose teams to play in the World Cup (usually chosen by each confederation having a qualifying competition).

UEFA organise the CL (European competition), and other confederations organise similar competitions for their regions.

UEFA has all the world famous teams, and CL is the Jewel in the crown for football (outside of the world cup) which makes UEFA pretty powerful. In theory, UEFA are so strong, they could just pull out of FIFA and run their own football stuff. There might be some binding legal agreements to stop this, but in theory, it's strong enough to hold its own.

I believe each confederation is able to have its own unique rules (like goal-line technology) but I do not know if FIFA has to approve them first. Nevertheless, there can be subtle differences in the rules between regions, but it's usually for stuff like number of officials, goal line technology etc, rather than rules of the game.

The power struggle seems to be that FIFA is the world governing body for football, but UEFA is the one that gets most of the PR and exposure, so UEFA's choices can end up setting the direction of football. And on top of that, you've got two power crazed people in Blatter and Platini. Both of whom have a penchant for innovative / oddball initiatives which seem as much motivated by a personal desire to 'leave a mark' as it is for the benefit of the sport, and both of whom depend massively on the support of key people / clubs in the game (which is a recipe for disaster when trying to be impartial)

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Yeah. it's all a bit smoke and mirrors from both sides.

Ain't that the truth?

We are all guessing what the actual transfer restrictions (in terms of net spend) are for each window & for each season.

The only bit we know is 60m euros net spend for the first window.

I'M GUESSING that this is the figure for the season and that we've been told that we can't overspend the season's limit
during the first window with a view to recouping losses in the Winter window.

Worse possible case would be 60m euros for the 2014-15 season and 60m euros for 2015-16.
I'M GUESSING though that the club wouldn't have agreed to this and that the figure for 2015-16 is much higher.

But who knows?

Yes, that's pretty much how I read it too.
I don't think City are above putting a slight spin on things from our side too. UEFA need thing to look like they've dished out a harsh (but fair) punishment, and City need it to look like the punishment is fairly mild to reflect their mild transgression.

I think it's wrong. I think both sides are being deliberately vague. It's not surprising, but it's hardly a shining example of football getting its house in order and being transparent.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The whole thing should have been dealt with in court. By our reluctance to take it that far, we have allowed ourselves to become sitting ducks and, as the last few pages of intellectual offerings have indicated, no-one can safely say what these restrictions are or what they mean.