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

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I hope City have a training kit sponsor on the horizon as well (as we don't have currently)?, could bring significant amount of money that as well.

Khaldoon's Kabs?

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I hope City have a training kit sponsor on the horizon as well (as we don't have currently)?, could bring significant amount of money that as well.

Khaldoon's Kabs?

what about de neros carpet company??

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I hope City have a training kit sponsor on the horizon as well (as we don't have currently)?, could bring significant amount of money that as well.

Khaldoon's Kabs?

Mansour's Minicabs.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here's the key part:

An improved sponsorship deal with Etihad could help the club avoid making excessive losses in the future, although some may argue that City's record-breaking sponsorship is unjustly reliant on the close relationship between the two; Etihad's owner Sheikh Khalifa is half-brother of Sheikh Mansour.

However in May, Uefa ruled that the Etihad sponsorship was not "related party transaction" and was therefore permitted.

Fill yer boots City. I'd even go so far as to speculate as to whether City deliberately set out to fail FFP in order to distract UEFA's attention, although that would be incredibly Machiavellian.

Whilst I would be surprised were this to happen, I would not be shocked if they decided to revisit this "not a related party transaction ruling". Auditors' findings are not cast in stone in perpetuity and whereas nothing has changed and there's nothing to indicate the Etihad deal is related according to IAS 24 standards, these are not normal crooks we are dealing with.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I hope City have a training kit sponsor on the horizon as well (as we don't have currently)?, could bring significant amount of money that as well.

Khaldoon's Kabs?

what about de neros carpet company??

As an occasional visitor when I'm passing by, he needs to get better at making a brew before he makes my "preferred supplier list" tbh.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Khaldoon's Kabs?

what about de neros carpet company??

As an occasional visitor when I'm passing by, he needs to get better at making a brew before he makes my "preferred supplier list" tbh.

pmsl..does he do cashmere rugs???

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I hope City have a training kit sponsor on the horizon as well (as we don't have currently)?, could bring significant amount of money that as well.

Khaldoon's Kabs?

Mansour's Minicabs.

Pablo's PHV's.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

what about de neros carpet company??

As an occasional visitor when I'm passing by, he needs to get better at making a brew before he makes my "preferred supplier list" tbh.

pmsl..does he do cashmere rugs???

I believe he can get them "to order".

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here's the key part:

An improved sponsorship deal with Etihad could help the club avoid making excessive losses in the future, although some may argue that City's record-breaking sponsorship is unjustly reliant on the close relationship between the two; Etihad's owner Sheikh Khalifa is half-brother of Sheikh Mansour.

However in May, Uefa ruled that the Etihad sponsorship was not "related party transaction" and was therefore permitted.

Fill yer boots City. I'd even go so far as to speculate as to whether City deliberately set out to fail FFP in order to distract UEFA's attention, although that would be incredibly Machiavellian.

Whilst I would be surprised were this to happen, I would not be shocked if they decided to revisit this "not a related party transaction ruling". Auditors' findings are not cast in stone in perpetuity and whereas nothing has changed and there's nothing to indicate the Etihad deal is related according to IAS 24 standards, these are not normal crooks we are dealing with.

As you say , nothing has changed , so it would surely take an extraordinary volte face to try and reverse a previously made and accepted decision without any grounds whatsoever to do so.
Any attempt would surely remove any last shred of credibility platini , Uefa and FFP ever had, and would only more clearly show where their priorities lie.
Btw ,I apologise for using the word "credibility" in relation to the above.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here's the key part:

An improved sponsorship deal with Etihad could help the club avoid making excessive losses in the future, although some may argue that City's record-breaking sponsorship is unjustly reliant on the close relationship between the two; Etihad's owner Sheikh Khalifa is half-brother of Sheikh Mansour.

However in May, Uefa ruled that the Etihad sponsorship was not "related party transaction" and was therefore permitted.

Fill yer boots City. I'd even go so far as to speculate as to whether City deliberately set out to fail FFP in order to distract UEFA's attention, although that would be incredibly Machiavellian.

Explain please

Well we could presumably have got Etihad to pay us more, so we passed. But by doing that, UEFA might have taken a different view on the deal and asked more questions or declared it a related party transaction. But by not doing that, we didn't draw attention to the Etihad deal but got them so worked up about the IP sales and the calculation of the wages paid to players signed pre-June 2010 that they just waved it through. Having done that made it difficult for UEFA to go back on that decision and also, having seen what PSG were told was "fair value", it gave us a yardstick for our own deals.

Of course I could be completely overestimating the cunning and subtlety of our owners and we could just have failed FFP because we weren't clever enough.