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

[SWP's back]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It's all about our muslim owners for me. 100%
Those dinosaurs at uefa fifa..All racist cunts

Will you calm the fuck down you giddy little sod.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Where are Chelsea in all this?

They lost £49m last season, which is way more than the allowed €45m over the the 11-12 and 12-13 seasons.

But here's where it gets interesting...The rules say

Players under contract before 1 June 2010
If a licensee reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation and it fulfils both conditions described below then this would be taken into account in a favourable way.
i) It reports a positive trend in the annual break-even results (proving it has implemented a concrete strategy for future compliance); and
ii) It proves that the aggregate break-even deficit is only due to the annual break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 which in turn is due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010 (for the avoidance of doubt, all renegotiations on contracts undertaken after such date would not be taken into account).
This means that a licensee that reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation but that satisfies both conditions described under i) and ii) above should in principle not be sanctioned.

This of course is the clause we are expecting to use to get us over the line, or at least so close to as not be a problem.

But Chelsea's trend is getting worse. They made a small profit of £1.4m in 2011-12 and a loss of £49.4m in 2012-13.

So according to the rules, the exclusion of players contracts prior to 1st June 2010 should not be relevant. They don't show an improving trend and therefore they have failed, full stop.

Unless I am misinterpreting something?

 

[SWP's back]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Don't underestimate the scheming role that Karl-Heinz Rummenigge has played in this corrupt fiasco. He's pressing UEFA to impose a transfer ban. History proves he normally gets his way with his puppets at UEFA.

There cannot be a transfer ban.

For fucks fucking cunty sake.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Where are Chelsea in all this?

They lost £49m last season, which is way more than the allowed €45m over the the 11-12 and 12-13 seasons.

But here's where it gets interesting...The rules say

Players under contract before 1 June 2010
If a licensee reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation and it fulfils both conditions described below then this would be taken into account in a favourable way.
i) It reports a positive trend in the annual break-even results (proving it has implemented a concrete strategy for future compliance); and
ii) It proves that the aggregate break-even deficit is only due to the annual break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 which in turn is due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010 (for the avoidance of doubt, all renegotiations on contracts undertaken after such date would not be taken into account).
This means that a licensee that reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation but that satisfies both conditions described under i) and ii) above should in principle not be sanctioned.

This of course is the clause we are expecting to use to get us over the line, or at least so close to as not be a problem.

But Chelsea's trend is getting worse. They made a small profit of £1.4m in 2011-12 and a loss of £49.4m in 2012-13.

So according to the rules, the exclusion of players contracts prior to 1st June 2010 should not be relevant. They don't show an improving trend and therefore they have failed, full stop.

Unless I am misinterpreting something?

The first batch of clubs investigated are the clubs in European competition that made a loss in 2011/12, Chelsea made a profit that year so haven't been investigated yet, however, since their losses over the 2 years total £48m I'd say either infrastructure (they're searching for a new stadium) or youth development will bring them down the £11m or so needed. Next year they could be in trouble though.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Where are Chelsea in all this?

They lost £49m last season, which is way more than the allowed €45m over the the 11-12 and 12-13 seasons.

But here's where it gets interesting...The rules say

Players under contract before 1 June 2010
If a licensee reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation and it fulfils both conditions described below then this would be taken into account in a favourable way.
i) It reports a positive trend in the annual break-even results (proving it has implemented a concrete strategy for future compliance); and
ii) It proves that the aggregate break-even deficit is only due to the annual break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 which in turn is due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010 (for the avoidance of doubt, all renegotiations on contracts undertaken after such date would not be taken into account).
This means that a licensee that reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation but that satisfies both conditions described under i) and ii) above should in principle not be sanctioned.

This of course is the clause we are expecting to use to get us over the line, or at least so close to as not be a problem.

But Chelsea's trend is getting worse. They made a small profit of £1.4m in 2011-12 and a loss of £49.4m in 2012-13.

So according to the rules, the exclusion of players contracts prior to 1st June 2010 should not be relevant. They don't show an improving trend and therefore they have failed, full stop.

Unless I am misinterpreting something?

You are. Chelsea are part of the clique, and we're not!

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I doubt MCFC will allow UEFA to look at the IPR deal in terms of non-financial detail as they believe the details will be leaked.

Interesting thought is that assuming this is a proper commercial deal and is being kept quiet pending some grand announcement then, if or when it is finally announced, we'd presumably be in the clear. So I'd expect a suspended punishment if we'd said we won't reveal the third party until we're ready to do so. Because once it's in the public domain then it can go back into the revenue stream.

Still though, if that is the case there shouldn't be a problem with PWC examining the deal and giving the CFCB an opinion on it's legitimacy, rendering a suspended punishment unnecessary.

PWC may have been allowed to look at the deal. We don't know. Lets wait for the announcement of any punishment by UEFA and City's response.
I doubt PWC would be be prepaired comment on whether a deal is fair valve or not - especially if the deal is something radically new. It is a fact of life that service companies only tell you what you should already know.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I hate to say it but the other glaring reason we won't go legal is that FFP will be hugely in City's interests soon as we will be at the top of the game Benefitting from the closed shop - we the fans may not morally agree but it will be very helpful to the clubs and owners goals! Why would we challenge something that will be so advantageous for the sake of a small fine?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Interesting thought is that assuming this is a proper commercial deal and is being kept quiet pending some grand announcement then, if or when it is finally announced, we'd presumably be in the clear. So I'd expect a suspended punishment if we'd said we won't reveal the third party until we're ready to do so. Because once it's in the public domain then it can go back into the revenue stream.

Still though, if that is the case there shouldn't be a problem with PWC examining the deal and giving the CFCB an opinion on it's legitimacy, rendering a suspended punishment unnecessary.

PWC may have been allowed to look at the deal. We don't know. Lets wait for the announcement of any punishment by UEFA and City's response.
I doubt PWC would be be prepaired comment on whether a deal is fair valve or not - especially if the deal is something radically new. It is a fact of life that service companies only tell you what you should already know.

It's not that new mate, as has already been stated it's used for CT reasons between related companies all the time and it should be possible for them to give an opinion on whether the accounts released show a true and fair view including this figure, just as our auditors have done. If PWC do that and the pre-2010 brings us under the break-even limit, then it's case closed.

 

[Le Havre Oswald]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So what's the worst case scenario

 

[Jacks77]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Why would Chelsea be in trouble? 50m loss in two years and certainly some of that easily can be written off...

 

[Anonymous]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So what's the worst case scenario

The speculation continues unabated?

 

[TrueBlue1705]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You have to chuckle to think the punishment could be a very hefty fine of miliions - ironic!!! ... what a bunch of corrupt f*ckers UEFA and FIFA are ... its a farce and they are opening up a can or worms, very lengthy, expensive legal wrangling in the pipeline and UEFA makeing enemies of some very powerful people and setting themselves for a very BIG fall, nolthing more than they deserve IMO ...... WANKERS

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Interesting thought is that assuming this is a proper commercial deal and is being kept quiet pending some grand announcement then, if or when it is finally announced, we'd presumably be in the clear. So I'd expect a suspended punishment if we'd said we won't reveal the third party until we're ready to do so. Because once it's in the public domain then it can go back into the revenue stream.

Still though, if that is the case there shouldn't be a problem with PWC examining the deal and giving the CFCB an opinion on it's legitimacy, rendering a suspended punishment unnecessary.

PWC may have been allowed to look at the deal. We don't know. Lets wait for the announcement of any punishment by UEFA and City's response.
I doubt PWC would be be prepaired comment on whether a deal is fair valve or not - especially if the deal is something radically new.

If it's not to a related party then fair value doesn't come into it.

 

[coleridge]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I doubt MCFC will allow UEFA to look at the IPR deal in terms of non-financial detail as they believe the details will be leaked.

Interesting thought is that assuming this is a proper commercial deal and is being kept quiet pending some grand announcement then, if or when it is finally announced, we'd presumably be in the clear. So I'd expect a suspended punishment if we'd said we won't reveal the third party until we're ready to do so. Because once it's in the public domain then it can go back into the revenue stream.

Still though, if that is the case there shouldn't be a problem with PWC examining the deal and giving the CFCB an opinion on it's legitimacy, rendering a suspended punishment unnecessary.

IPRs by their very nature require first confidentiality and then exclusivity. As ever, PB is correct. I don't have time to be heavily involved in this debate and so I merely ask, are we talking about licensing fees or also the intangible assets on the balance sheet, the latter being difficult to calculate with any certainty? 'Image rights' is a very bland term. It requires specific contracts/franchises/licences to quantify. That seems to be what UEFA cannot know yet.

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So what's the worst case scenario

Technically we could be banned from Europe next season.

That's the strongest punishment that UEFA are able to administer under the FFP rules.

The chances of that happening are miniscule to say the least, however. It wouldn't be a punishment that was, in any way, comparable to the "offence" committed and it would inevitably trigger a legal challenge to the punishment from City (and likely PSG who would surely be handed the same punishment). UEFA don't want that. In fact that's their nightmare scenario, two clubs with the financial backing, and high profile, of City and PSG taking UEFA's paper thin, and shoddily created FFP regulations through a legal process that will almost certainly result in them being torn to shreds.

 

[TrueBlue1705]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The mere fact that UEFA are not prepared to throw the book at offending clubs points to the fact that they know they are on very thin ice indeed!!

What happens if we appeal, could we drag legal proceedings out for years before UEFA could take any action?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The mere fact that UEFA are not prepared to throw the book at offending clubs points to the fact that they know they are on very thin ice indeed!!

What happens if we appeal, could we drag legal proceedings out for years before UEFA could take any action?

No, CAS deal with things very quickly and UEFA would then be free to proceed while any civil case was ongoing. However, if it goes to CAS I think we'll come out on top.

 

[BobKowalski]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So what's the worst case scenario

Breaking...SSN taking us live to the City boardroom as the punishment is announced

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The mere fact that UEFA are not prepared to throw the book at offending clubs points to the fact that they know they are on very thin ice indeed!!

What happens if we appeal, could we drag legal proceedings out for years before UEFA could take any action?

No, CAS deal with things very quickly and UEFA would then be free to proceed while any civil case was ongoing. However, if it goes to CAS I think we'll come out on top.

Which is why UEFA will tread very carefully when deciding the punishments. They simply don't want any part of a legal challenge to FFP, they are only too aware how brittle their legislation actually is and how likely it is to be disregarded by any reputable legal body.

 

[TrueBlue1705]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The mere fact that UEFA are not prepared to throw the book at offending clubs points to the fact that they know they are on very thin ice indeed!!

What happens if we appeal, could we drag legal proceedings out for years before UEFA could take any action?

No, CAS deal with things very quickly and UEFA would then be free to proceed while any civil case was ongoing. However, if it goes to CAS I think we'll come out on top.

I hope so, to me FFP seems nothing more than than a strategy to keep the world clubs's elite a closed shop. I'm sure Barca, RM, Bayerm and Man Utd would like to see to FFP work ..... How on earth would another Chelsea or Man City happen in our lifetime??