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

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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

[bigimg]http://th00.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2010/025/a/d/Obamafied_Ali____Rope_a_Dope___by_abelundercity.png[/bigimg]

 

[Le Havre Oswald]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here's the key part:
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.

 

[abu13]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Wasn't there something in the FFP ruling about not being allowed to increase some level sponsorship deals? Not sure that Level 2 is the correct term but you know what i mean.

I'm sure there is no way the Etihad deal would be classed as level 2 and so we must have had some discussions that our main deal may well increase in the futrure.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here's the key part:
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.

In all seriousness, I don't think UEFA and Platini have any credibility left whatsoever, no matter who you support or what your point of view.

There are those in favour of FFP because it protects their privileged position, and those against because they see it for the unfair sham that it is. But either way, I think everyone now recognises that it has nothing to do with fairness and that likewise Platini and UEFA have no honest motives in mind. They are seen by all to be a bent bunch of self serving wankers who would benefit the game greatly if they all fucked off. I really don't think their reputation could get any lower.

Edit: strike that, yes it could. They could be FIFA.

 

[citizen_maine]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here's the key part:
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.

I thought you and various others had agreed that the deal was not a related party deal though? Also, if it has been deemed to not be a 3rd party deal (nefariously or otherwise) then 'fair value' is irrelevant isn't it?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

In all seriousness, I don't think UEFA and Platini have any credibility left whatsoever, no matter who you support or what your point of view.

There are those in favour of FFP because it protects their privileged position, and those against because they see it for the unfair sham that it is. But either way, I think everyone now recognises that it has nothing to do with fairness and that likewise Platini and UEFA have no honest motives in mind. They are seen by all to be a bent bunch of self serving wankers who would benefit the game greatly if they all fucked off. I really don't think their reputation could get any lower.

I think your last sentence misunderstands just how low people can stoop.

 

[abu13]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just thought, how good would it be to announce the sponsorship deals and put a statement out that all our deals "must be dynamic and must be able to evolve constantly"

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

I thought you and various others had agreed that the deal was not a related party deal though? Also, if it has been deemed to not be a 3rd party deal (nefariously or otherwise) then 'fair value' is irrelevant isn't it?

Certainly City didn't declare it as a Related Party Transaction but it's all about interpretation, rather than being absolutely black and white.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You only had to be at Villa on Saturday to realize what FFPR will do to that club.

It's safe to say Villa will never challenge for the title again, let alone get a CL place, while FFPR remains.

 

[Bald fraud]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just thought, how good would it be to announce the sponsorship deals and put a statement out that all our deals "must be dynamic and must be able to evolve constantly"

I like it :)