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

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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 ?

I don't see it in those terms.

The issue there is that when the home grown player rules we first drafted, they assumed a 25 man squad and no-one forsaw a scenario where a team would not have 25. It was therefore not clear how the home grown rules should apply to a 21 man squad.

UEFA decided on a less punitive interpretation of the rules, but I don't see that as them amending the rules.

 

[stony]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The bomb drop reference was simply with regards to Liverpool being the last to know what the FFPR rules could do for them.

I have mentioned today in the transfer forum, the reports about Barkley are steers from City, following the game on Sunday, hence everyone having it.

Just heard Everton mouthpiece Andy Gray on talkshite and it sounds very much like he's smoothing the way for Barkley's transfer to City.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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 ?

I don't see it in those terms.

The issue there is that when the home grown player rules we first drafted, they assumed a 25 man squad and no-one forsaw a scenario where a team would not have 25. It was therefore not clear how the home grown rules should apply to a 21 man squad.

UEFA decided on a less punitive interpretation of the rules, but I don't see that as them amending the rules.

I'd also disagree but I would also question your view chippy.

UEFA clearly did envisage a squad of less than 25, as it's in the CL rules. Exhibit #1 is the statement in Article 18 that a team that can't field 8 locally trained players must reduce the size of their squad accordingly. The obvious implication of that statement is that there is no cast iron requirement to field 8 locally trained players.

Exhibit #2 is in Annex 8, where there are a number of squad configurations consisting of no fewer than 17 players and no more than the 25 mentioned in Article 18. Any squad consisting of fewer than 25 has less than 8 locally trained players in it. There's even an eligible squad that has no locally trained players.

So by my interpretation, when UEFA set a reduced squad size of 21,this should have meant we could have named any configuration within Annex 8. But they not only restricted the squad size but effectively imposed a limit of 16 free players. So that certainly wasn't to our benefit.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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 ?

I don't see it in those terms.

The issue there is that when the home grown player rules we first drafted, they assumed a 25 man squad and no-one forsaw a scenario where a team would not have 25. It was therefore not clear how the home grown rules should apply to a 21 man squad.

UEFA decided on a less punitive interpretation of the rules, but I don't see that as them amending the rules.

I'd also disagree but I would also question your view chippy.

UEFA clearly did envisage a squad of less than 25, as it's in the CL rules. Exhibit #1 is the statement in Article 18 that a team that can't field 8 locally trained players must reduce the size of their squad accordingly. The obvious implication of that statement is that there is no cast iron requirement to field 8 locally trained players.

Exhibit #2 is in Annex 8, where there are a number of squad configurations consisting of no fewer than 17 players and no more than the 25 mentioned in Article 18. Any squad consisting of fewer than 25 has less than 8 locally trained players in it. There's even an eligible squad that has no locally trained players.

So by my interpretation, when UEFA set a reduced squad size of 21,this should have meant we could have named any configuration within Annex 8. But they not only restricted the squad size but effectively imposed a limit of 16 free players. So that certainly wasn't to our benefit.

Fair enough mate, I am no expert on the quota rules. My point still stands in a way though that they were talking about you having less than 25 players *as a result* of failing to provide the requisite number of club trained or association trained players. In the rules, the reduced squad size is a consequence, not a starting point. If you can only have 21 as a maximum and not 25, *before* we start thinking about quotas, then I think there is ambiguity as to how the rules should be applied.

One thing is for sure - the media bandwagon about UEFA changing the rules to suit City is bollocks. One paper prints it and the rest of the vermin jump on the bandwaggon.

 

[Brendan110_0]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Seriously, not a chance they will be sanctioned

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

Hoisted by one's own petard (Liverpool that is)

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Seriously, not a chance they will be sanctioned

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

Hoisted by one's own petard (Liverpool that is)

As opposed to hoisted by one's own Lampard. (Chelsea that is) :-)

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Arsenal income for 2013-2014: around 300m pounds. About 55m more than last time coming from commercial growth, good FA-cup run and new tv money from Sky/BT.
Their wage bill for 13-14 season was 166m pounds.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/20140919/arsenal-announce-full-year-profits" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archiv ... ar-profits</a>

Hopefully soon City make the numbers public too.

Think we will be waiting to November at the earliest.

March I would think. As close to the last day as they can. Otherwise it would give UEFA will change the guidance notes for submitting an FFP return after looking at our published accounts.

Due to us "failing" FFPR we're required to submit our accounts every 6 months for the 2 year period rather than annually. They'll already know exactly where we stand. Which hopefully upsets Platini no end.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere.

How does this sit with you, if true?

Abu Dhabi and FFPR.(considering our sponsorship deal included the shirt, Stadium, and campus)

Real Madrid close to renaming Bernabeu for £400m as Abu Dhabi royal family offer deal

Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2765112/Real-Madrid-close-renaming-Santiago-Bernabeu-400million-Abu-Dhabi-royal-family-offer-huge-deal.html#ixzz3EAgXR2U9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z3EAgXR2U9</a>
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Just to be clear, it's not the comparison with Madrid, but all the s*** our club went through with UEFA(allegedly) and the media, concerning the Etihad sponsorship deal.

 

[gh_mcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Last night I facilitated an invite from Manchester City Supporters club extended to Louis Dupont and Martin Hissel to explain and outline the process for Joing the case against FFP. The meeting was informative and well attended . The upshot is the press release below issued by the supporters club.

This is great news as it takes the number of complainants from 5 agents and 20 fans to 15000 fans. There was as case to answer in law with 25 names exactly with as with 15000. However it will now be much harder for a judge to disregard the importance of the case. Also hopefully other supporters groups will follow (and I am happy to facilitate any contacts)

Manchester City FC Supporters Club was formed in 1949. Although we have strong links with MCFC we are independent with an elected committee and have an agreed set of rules that are designed to help benefit our paid membership

“On 23 September 2014, MCFC Supporters Club (1949) voted unanimously to join the legal actions against FFP led by lawyers Dupont and Hissel (complaint to the European Commission and civil action in the Brussels’ Court).

These actions were initiated by some football players agents and fans from UK, France and Belgium.

MCFC Supporters Club (1949) has almost 15.000 active members, with 168 branches worldwide covering The UK, Europe, Asia & America

Our members are consumers of the football product and it is as such that they denounce the EU competition law infringements caused by the UEFA break-even requirement : far from implementing a true “financial fair play”, this rule is in fact a prohibition to invest that prevents ambitious owners to develop their clubs, that therefore shields the established European Elite from being challenged (this Elite being unsurprisingly the main sponsors of the UEFA rule) and that, consequently, puts additional financial pressure on supporters (higher prices and lower quality).

With this UEFA rule, it is now almost impossible for any ambitious investor to take over a “sleeping giant” and to turn them into the next Manchester City or PSG.

In other words, the UEFA rule may be bad news for MCFC supporters, but Is even worse news for supporters of all clubs that do not today belong to the established European Elite. “

The link is here http://fairplayfc.org/press-release-from-manchester-city-supporters-club/ and also on the supporters club website please share.

One thing is very clear and important to stress. It matters not if the press get on side or other clubs fans join the case. The only thing that matters is that a point of law must be argued in court. Well done to the supporters club for stepping forward

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

One thing is for sure - the media bandwagon about UEFA changing the rules to suit City is bollocks. One paper prints it and the rest of the vermin jump on the bandwaggon.

Apologies on that my friend.

I read that player union action threat caused the climb down by UEFA.

Are you saying that the rule ambiguity allowed UEFA to interpret the rules to City's advantage or were the existing rules crystal clear and never in dispute ?