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

[M18CTID]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Surely they should get the same sanctions as us and psg!

Depends on how much they fail by I guess? Either way, if UEFA have deemed that they've failed then they will be sanctioned one way or another

Of course, all this talk is assuming that they will fail but they might not - for example, we don't know how much of their recent losses can be legitimately written off for FFP purposes. There was talk that a sizeable chunk of the losses were attributed to costs associated with the failed stadium development. That's why I'm reluctant to get giddy over this. That said, if they do indeed fail then I'll be pissing my sides almost as much as I was when Gerrard's slip kicked open the door for us to snatch the title because the irony of THAT club failing FFP - when so many associated with it (from the owner through to the manager through to some of the sanctimonious fuckwits on RAWK) have banged on about doing things the right way - will be a thing of utmost beauty.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Isnt this what Chelsea done a few years ago, Abramovich converted his loans to equity, essentially writng them off and allowing them to pass FFP as they would have failed otherwise

That's how I understood it.

The amount that an owner is allowed to put in is now limited to about $40m on a reducing scale there after.

Sheikh Mansour has cleared all debt from the club by a debt/equity swap too but unlike RA the debt doesnt sit in another company under his ownership its just gone.

Re MCFC then, what type of Company structure does it have ?
I realise it is ultimately owned by ADUG via CFG but who owns its shares ?

 

[JGL07]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If they aren't, that might meet with rather more than raised eyebrows from those that were.

The conversations I have had on Twitter suggest that the only way they pass is if an cash/equity swap occurs and that will allow pre-11 wages to be discounted.

So if they do fail, or if their arrangements are dealt with differently than those by City and PSG, and they are not punished then I think its almost certain that City and PSG will sue.

Isnt this what Chelsea done a few years ago, Abramovich converted his loans to equity, essentially writng them off and allowing them to pass FFP as they would have failed otherwise

That would make no difference to FFP.

Debts are not taken into account, it is based on losses incurred (or not incurred).

 

[grunge]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Strictly speaking you're only allowed to lose €5m over the 2 (or 3) year monitoring period. Your owner can cover up to another €40m of losses. I'm not aware that FSG put in any equity investment during FY12 and 13. I also believe any write-off for the failed stadium development was in the 2011 accounts.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Behind the paywall, can you copy and paste?

Sorry mate - I was amazed I got a link up.
It's basically saying the dippers look like they'll be having Champs League money withheld for breaching the rules. With it being the Times, I'm hoping their facts are correct.

I've been saying this for a while. They definitely would have failed this summer and, as a result, have to submit their accounts for FY2014 to UEFA shortly. They'll still fail and will have to rely on being able to offset the wages paid in 2011/12 to players in contract prior to June 2010. But you can only do that if the trend in your results is improving, whereas theirs got worse from 2012 to 2013. If UEFA apply that strictly then they're screwed.

Apply it "strictly"? The rule is there in plain black and white. Unless your financial trend is improving (and theirs is not) then they cannot offset wages due to pre-2010 contracts. I know you know this.

There's no wriggle room here and if by some chance Liverpool dodge this, we can add it to the ever lengthening list of evidence of conspiracy.

-------------------

FFP ANNEX XI:


2. For the purpose of the first two monitoring periods, i.e. monitoring periods assessed in the seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, the following additional transitional factor is to be considered by the UEFA Club Financial Control Body:

"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.

Players under contract before 1 June 2010
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)."

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

When I said "strictly" I meant that if you couldn't report an improving trend between FY2012 & FY2013 (which they can't) then you couldn't use Annex XI to escape sanctions. That's certainly in black and white.

However if they say that they can demonstrate an improvement between FY2012 and FY2014 (which they certainly should be able to) then they could be allowed to use Annex XI. I'm not aware that FSG has issued any guidance on that as yet but under the current guidance they would certainly fail.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sorry mate - I was amazed I got a link up.
It's basically saying the dippers look like they'll be having Champs League money withheld for breaching the rules. With it being the Times, I'm hoping their facts are correct.

I've been saying this for a while. They definitely would have failed this summer and, as a result, have to submit their accounts for FY2014 to UEFA shortly. They'll still fail and will have to rely on being able to offset the wages paid in 2011/12 to players in contract prior to June 2010. But you can only do that if the trend in your results is improving, whereas theirs got worse from 2012 to 2013. If UEFA apply that strictly then they're screwed.

Apply it "strictly"? The rule is there in plain black and white. Unless your financial trend is improving (and theirs is not) then they cannot offset wages due to pre-2010 contracts. I know you know this.

There's no wriggle room here and if by some chance Liverpool dodge this, we can add it to the ever lengthening list of evidence of conspiracy.

-------------------

FFP ANNEX XI:


2. For the purpose of the first two monitoring periods, i.e. monitoring periods assessed in the seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, the following additional transitional factor is to be considered by the UEFA Club Financial Control Body:

"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.

Players under contract before 1 June 2010
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)."

Regarding strict interpretation, were we not the recipients of beneficial amendment of an actual penalty when UEFA decided to not apply its initial parameters on our CL player composition ?

If they have this flexibility for its fines surely they can do the same at initial stages ?

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That's how I understood it.

The amount that an owner is allowed to put in is now limited to about $40m on a reducing scale there after.

Sheikh Mansour has cleared all debt from the club by a debt/equity swap too but unlike RA the debt doesnt sit in another company under his ownership its just gone.

Re MCFC then, what type of Company structure does it have ?
I realise it is ultimately owned by ADUG via CFG but who owns its shares ?

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00040946/MANCHESTER-CITY-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED/group-structure

 

[mancity dan]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The amount that an owner is allowed to put in is now limited to about $40m on a reducing scale there after.

Sheikh Mansour has cleared all debt from the club by a debt/equity swap too but unlike RA the debt doesnt sit in another company under his ownership its just gone.

Re MCFC then, what type of Company structure does it have ?
I realise it is ultimately owned by ADUG via CFG but who owns its shares ?

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00040946/MANCHESTER-CITY-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED/group-structure

Interesting site that as you can go back and look at our financial accounts over the past 10 years.