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

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Personally I'm waiting until actual facts are released rather than rely on the media who seem determined to hang, draw and quarter us.

I think I'm right in saying that the pre 2010 contracts allowance is only applied if we fail FFPR? In which case the media would be correct in stating we failed FFPR but then we are allowed to apply the exceptions and effectively pass it with no actual punishment due? Would this be the reason we're "under investigation" having "failed"?

I think the wording in the FFP appendix is something like "would otherwise fail"

 

[Hart of the Matter]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is it me or have Sky Sports dropped this story all of a sudden. Was the main story (reported badly) this morning, now not a sniff. Perhaps our legal team have had a word or two about their misrepresentation ?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is it me or have Sky Sports dropped this story all of a sudden. Was the main story (reported badly) this morning, now not a sniff. Perhaps our legal team have had a word or two about their misrepresentation ?

Hopefully either the club or UEFA have told them to stfu before they get themselves in shit, I'm fucking sick of hearing things misreported at this stage.

 

[nwanda]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If anything came to pass on this could a player not basically take UEFA to court as per Bosman and state that the FFP is not allowing them to get fair pay for their services and restricting their income.

Eg if a club say we would have been willing to pay you X amount but due to FFP we can only pay you Y amount now which is less.

Then that player could take UEFA to court for restricting their true worth??

Why doesn't a cucb pay an agent or player to take flak and then it does not look like the club have instigated the challange to FFP.

 

[paulchapo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If anything came to pass on this could a player not basically take UEFA to court as per Bosman and state that the FFP is not allowing them to get fair pay for their services and restricting their income.

Eg if a club say we would have been willing to pay you X amount but due to FFP we can only pay you Y amount now which is less.

Then that player could take UEFA to court for restricting their true worth??

Why doesn't a cucb pay an agent or player to take flak and then it does not look like the club have instigated the challange to FFP.

It is happening right now.

 

[Balti]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

one thing sticks out.

In hardly any of these reports about City and PSG, do the writers add, City's operating loss has come down from £197mill, to £97mill, and currently stands at £50mill, in the space of 2 seasons. And City will make an operating profit within the next two seasons. Not only that, they never mention we are part of a small minority of clubs who are actually debt free, compared to the likes of Liverpool, United, Madrid, Barcelona, etc.

apparently being massively in debt is a massively good thing

apparently

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Yep, pre-2010 exemption clause is only taken into account for:
-Clubs who have breached the 45m limit
-Clubs who show a trend towards break even in their accounts from 2011/12 to 12/13 (decreased losses)
-Clubs who have complied with debt/payables limits
Anyone who complies with all 3 of the above IIRC.

So no sanctions whatsoever then?

Well if we make it inside the 45m mark after the pre-2010 exemption has been applied then the most they can do IIRC is warn us over future conduct and since we're very quickly heading towards break-even that will probably go something along the lines of:
CFCB "Are you going to pass next year and the year after?"
MCFC "Yes"
CFCB "OK then"
It really would be complete madness for UEFA to try anything else if we have reasonable grounds to say that we've complied with their regulations and that we will continue to do so in future. Especially since the CAS have shedloads of previous history for throwing any decision/sanction by UEFA that they have felt to be Frivolous/Biased/Illegal out at the first time of asking and in double quick time.

As I understand it, we submit our figures to the English Club Licensing Panel and they clearly show we've failed. We then go to the UEFA Investigatory Panel as one of the 76 clubs and they apply the pre-2010 rule. If we'd passed that test then there should be no further sanctions in principle but I suspect that they've queried the sale of player IP rights and we've refused to say who we've sold it to. In that case, we'd have failed but we should have been able to show we're on course to comply this year. So I agree it would be madness to come down too hard on us.

However UEFA may feel they have to be seen to do something in order to appease to old G14.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I went Ltd company a couple years back (wish I had done it years ago).

I was able to store £20,000 in goodwill for selling my 'expertise' to my own company. For the next ten years £2k comes off my corporation tax bill.

For the record, I am not a £270m company.

My guess is that you have multiple concurrent clients. Otherwise you would have been clobbered by IR35.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

How can UEFA stop a player playing in tbe CL.

Imagine us signing Mangala, and then we/UEFA tell him he(or another player) can't play in the CL due to FFPR rules.

Restriction of trade?<br /><br />-- Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:06 pm --<br /><br />How can UEFA stop a player playing in tbe CL.

Imagine us signing Mangala, and then we/UEFA tell him he(or another player) can't play in the CL due to FFPR rules.

Restriction of trade?

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So no sanctions whatsoever then?

Well if we make it inside the 45m mark after the pre-2010 exemption has been applied then the most they can do IIRC is warn us over future conduct and since we're very quickly heading towards break-even that will probably go something along the lines of:
CFCB "Are you going to pass next year and the year after?"
MCFC "Yes"
CFCB "OK then"
It really would be complete madness for UEFA to try anything else if we have reasonable grounds to say that we've complied with their regulations and that we will continue to do so in future. Especially since the CAS have shedloads of previous history for throwing any decision/sanction by UEFA that they have felt to be Frivolous/Biased/Illegal out at the first time of asking and in double quick time.

As I understand it, we submit our figures to the English Club Licensing Panel and they clearly show we've failed. We then go to the UEFA Investigatory Panel as one of the 76 clubs and they apply the pre-2010 rule. If we'd passed that test then there should be no further sanctions in principle but I suspect that they've queried the sale of player IP rights and we've refused to say who we've sold it to. In that case, we'd have failed but we should have been able to show we're on course to comply this year. So I agree it would be madness to come down too hard on us.

However UEFA may feel they have to be seen to do something in order to appease to old G14.

If they come down hard on us then surely we'd simply take them to court, whether it be CAS or straight to the EU, and we'd win. FFP is, by almost every measure you chose to use, contrary to EU law. Add to that the fact it is in no way the best way of dealing with financial issues and UEFA haven't got a leg to stand on. UEFA can't even claim the FFP is the "best they can do" with regards to addressing financial concerns. Blocking City spending millions because "it isn't fair to other clubs" isn't a legitimate reason to do so, they need to demonstrate that they are trying to protect us from ourselves, given the direction our finances are heading in, and the way the investment in our club has been handled, it's clear to anyone that FFP in it's current state is simply not required to "protect" City, all it does is restrict us.

 

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is it me or have Sky Sports dropped this story all of a sudden. Was the main story (reported badly) this morning, now not a sniff. Perhaps our legal team have had a word or two about their misrepresentation ?

Hopefully either the club or UEFA have told them to stfu before they get themselves in shit, I'm fucking sick of hearing things misreported at this stage.

I do notice the mainstream print media in this country have been relatively quiet on this story. So far, at least.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well if we make it inside the 45m mark after the pre-2010 exemption has been applied then the most they can do IIRC is warn us over future conduct and since we're very quickly heading towards break-even that will probably go something along the lines of:
CFCB "Are you going to pass next year and the year after?"
MCFC "Yes"
CFCB "OK then"
It really would be complete madness for UEFA to try anything else if we have reasonable grounds to say that we've complied with their regulations and that we will continue to do so in future. Especially since the CAS have shedloads of previous history for throwing any decision/sanction by UEFA that they have felt to be Frivolous/Biased/Illegal out at the first time of asking and in double quick time.

As I understand it, we submit our figures to the English Club Licensing Panel and they clearly show we've failed. We then go to the UEFA Investigatory Panel as one of the 76 clubs and they apply the pre-2010 rule. If we'd passed that test then there should be no further sanctions in principle but I suspect that they've queried the sale of player IP rights and we've refused to say who we've sold it to. In that case, we'd have failed but we should have been able to show we're on course to comply this year. So I agree it would be madness to come down too hard on us.

However UEFA may feel they have to be seen to do something in order to appease to old G14.

If they come down hard on us then surely we'd simply take them to court, whether it be CAS or straight to the EU, and we'd win. FFP is, by almost every measure you chose to use, contrary to EU law. Add to that the fact it is in no way the best way of dealing with financial issues and UEFA haven't got a leg to stand on. UEFA can't even claim the FFP is the "best they can do" with regards to addressing financial concerns. Blocking City spending millions because "it isn't fair to other clubs" isn't a legitimate reason to do so, they need to demonstrate that they are trying to protect us from ourselves, given the direction our finances are heading in, and the way the investment in our club has been handled, it's clear to anyone that FFP in it's current state is simply not required to "protect" City, all it does is restrict us.

Going to court and publicly taking on UEFA and the rest of the big clubs to defend massive spending is everything our owners do not want to do as they build a self funding world class sports organisation. I would imagine only if UEFA did something incredibly dramatic like kick is out and put united into Europe would we even consider it. If you want to create a world class advert to gain long term investment in your country big public legal cases where the media and lost of football will be against us is totally counter productive.
We won't go legal but we won't need to

 

[Anonymous]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Some great points and counter points in this thread. I guess we'll just have to await further details from official sources as there are still a load of unknowns.

I wonder how Presuming Ed is this morning? I bet his Bryan Griggs duvet is positively soaked after some heady dreams of City being hammered by Napoleon!

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

As I understand it, we submit our figures to the English Club Licensing Panel and they clearly show we've failed. We then go to the UEFA Investigatory Panel as one of the 76 clubs and they apply the pre-2010 rule. If we'd passed that test then there should be no further sanctions in principle but I suspect that they've queried the sale of player IP rights and we've refused to say who we've sold it to. In that case, we'd have failed but we should have been able to show we're on course to comply this year. So I agree it would be madness to come down too hard on us.

However UEFA may feel they have to be seen to do something in order to appease to old G14.

If they come down hard on us then surely we'd simply take them to court, whether it be CAS or straight to the EU, and we'd win. FFP is, by almost every measure you chose to use, contrary to EU law. Add to that the fact it is in no way the best way of dealing with financial issues and UEFA haven't got a leg to stand on. UEFA can't even claim the FFP is the "best they can do" with regards to addressing financial concerns. Blocking City spending millions because "it isn't fair to other clubs" isn't a legitimate reason to do so, they need to demonstrate that they are trying to protect us from ourselves, given the direction our finances are heading in, and the way the investment in our club has been handled, it's clear to anyone that FFP in it's current state is simply not required to "protect" City, all it does is restrict us.

Going to court and publicly taking on UEFA and the rest of the big clubs to defend massive spending is everything our owners do not want to do as they build a self funding world class sports organisation. I would imagine only if UEFA did something incredibly dramatic like kick is out and put united into Europe would we even consider it. If you want to create a world class advert to gain long term investment in your country big public legal cases where the media and lost of football will be against us is totally counter productive.
We won't go legal but we won't need to

We wouldn't be going to court to defend our spending, we'd be going to court to challenge the draconian punishment handed down via flawed and, highly likely to be illegal, legislation. Also we wouldn't be taking on the big clubs, just UEFA.

I don't think UEFA will do very much at all to City in terms of a punishment, at the worst they'll hand us an insignificant fine. As I said early though, I'd be interested to see whether we'd challenge ANY form of punishment. If we accept the punishment is it implied that we've accepted the legitimacy of FFP?

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

SSN still reporting we have failed FFP and featuring some expert talking about the range of punishments.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If they come down hard on us then surely we'd simply take them to court, whether it be CAS or straight to the EU, and we'd win. FFP is, by almost every measure you chose to use, contrary to EU law. Add to that the fact it is in no way the best way of dealing with financial issues and UEFA haven't got a leg to stand on. UEFA can't even claim the FFP is the "best they can do" with regards to addressing financial concerns. Blocking City spending millions because "it isn't fair to other clubs" isn't a legitimate reason to do so, they need to demonstrate that they are trying to protect us from ourselves, given the direction our finances are heading in, and the way the investment in our club has been handled, it's clear to anyone that FFP in it's current state is simply not required to "protect" City, all it does is restrict us.

Going to court and publicly taking on UEFA and the rest of the big clubs to defend massive spending is everything our owners do not want to do as they build a self funding world class sports organisation. I would imagine only if UEFA did something incredibly dramatic like kick is out and put united into Europe would we even consider it. If you want to create a world class advert to gain long term investment in your country big public legal cases where the media and lost of football will be against us is totally counter productive.
We won't go legal but we won't need to

We wouldn't be going to court to defend our spending, we'd be going to court to challenge the draconian punishment handed down via flawed and, highly likely to be illegal, legislation. Also we wouldn't be taking on the big clubs, just UEFA.

I don't think UEFA will do very much at all to City in terms of a punishment, at the worst they'll hand us an insignificant fine. As I said early though, I'd be interested to see whether we'd challenge ANY form of punishment. If we accept the punishment is it implied that we've accepted the legitimacy of FFP?

We can accept the punishment with reservations about it's legitimacy and without stating that we think FFPR is a suitable and legal way of managing club's finances.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If they come down hard on us then surely we'd simply take them to court, whether it be CAS or straight to the EU, and we'd win. FFP is, by almost every measure you chose to use, contrary to EU law. Add to that the fact it is in no way the best way of dealing with financial issues and UEFA haven't got a leg to stand on. UEFA can't even claim the FFP is the "best they can do" with regards to addressing financial concerns. Blocking City spending millions because "it isn't fair to other clubs" isn't a legitimate reason to do so, they need to demonstrate that they are trying to protect us from ourselves, given the direction our finances are heading in, and the way the investment in our club has been handled, it's clear to anyone that FFP in it's current state is simply not required to "protect" City, all it does is restrict us.

Going to court and publicly taking on UEFA and the rest of the big clubs to defend massive spending is everything our owners do not want to do as they build a self funding world class sports organisation. I would imagine only if UEFA did something incredibly dramatic like kick is out and put united into Europe would we even consider it. If you want to create a world class advert to gain long term investment in your country big public legal cases where the media and lost of football will be against us is totally counter productive.
We won't go legal but we won't need to

We wouldn't be going to court to defend our spending, we'd be going to court to challenge the draconian punishment handed down via flawed and, highly likely to be illegal, legislation. Also we wouldn't be taking on the big clubs, just UEFA.

I don't think UEFA will do very much at all to City in terms of a punishment, at the worst they'll hand us an insignificant fine. As I said early though, I'd be interested to see whether we'd challenge ANY form of punishment. If we accept the punishment is it implied that we've accepted the legitimacy of FFP?

What our reasoning would be would be almost irrelevant it is what our reasoning would be deemed to be by the world media that would impact on the reputation and mission of our owner and our sponsors.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

How can UEFA stop a player playing in tbe CL.

Imagine us signing Mangala, and then we/UEFA tell him he(or another player) can't play in the CL due to FFPR rules.

Restriction of trade?

-- Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:06 pm --

How can UEFA stop a player playing in tbe CL.

Imagine us signing Mangala, and then we/UEFA tell him he(or another player) can't play in the CL due to FFPR rules.

Restriction of trade?

Nope not restriction of trace because UEFA competitions are invite tournaments. You win the right to be invited which can be revoked if they deem you to have broken rules they set in place. Also he will still be able to play for the club as well in other tournaments and it will be for the club to decide how to handle his loss in money

 

[paulchapo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The whole FFP shite and i include the premier league version of it,is so full of holes and hypocrisy that i cannot believe a half decent lawyer would not kick their arses all over court if it came to it.

Fair play?So clubs with a 30k capacity stadium can compete with ones with a 70k+ capacity on income earned?That is just ONE failing and i am sure there are many,many more.I am still baffled that clubs like Everton for one agreed with it,meaning they will be stuck with crying Kenwright and his like forever,even if a big buyer came in he couldn't pump money in anymore,so meaning they will have to settle for a Europa league place and maybe,maybe the odd cup here and there if they are lucky.They may have put up a challenge for fourth spot this year,mainly on the performance of loan players,how soon before that loophole is slammed shut?

Somebody get these bastards in court and show them up for the self serving pompous hypocrites that are,Fair play my arse!!

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If they come down hard on us then surely we'd simply take them to court, whether it be CAS or straight to the EU, and we'd win. FFP is, by almost every measure you chose to use, contrary to EU law. Add to that the fact it is in no way the best way of dealing with financial issues and UEFA haven't got a leg to stand on. UEFA can't even claim the FFP is the "best they can do" with regards to addressing financial concerns. Blocking City spending millions because "it isn't fair to other clubs" isn't a legitimate reason to do so, they need to demonstrate that they are trying to protect us from ourselves, given the direction our finances are heading in, and the way the investment in our club has been handled, it's clear to anyone that FFP in it's current state is simply not required to "protect" City, all it does is restrict us.

Going to court and publicly taking on UEFA and the rest of the big clubs to defend massive spending is everything our owners do not want to do as they build a self funding world class sports organisation. I would imagine only if UEFA did something incredibly dramatic like kick is out and put united into Europe would we even consider it. If you want to create a world class advert to gain long term investment in your country big public legal cases where the media and lost of football will be against us is totally counter productive.
We won't go legal but we won't need to

We wouldn't be going to court to defend our spending, we'd be going to court to challenge the draconian punishment handed down via flawed and, highly likely to be illegal, legislation. Also we wouldn't be taking on the big clubs, just UEFA.

I don't think UEFA will do very much at all to City in terms of a punishment, at the worst they'll hand us an insignificant fine. As I said early though, I'd be interested to see whether we'd challenge ANY form of punishment. If we accept the punishment is it implied that we've accepted the legitimacy of FFP?

You cannot deny something that exists and if as a club they were just dismissing it why would we try so hard to fall in to place??? The club have already accepted its legitimacy