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

[inbetween]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This is where City have a big decision to make IMO. No doubt they've made it already but that decision is not out in the public forum yet. Assuming we do accept the fine/squad reduction the we effectively accept FFP. It's a watershed moment......

We've accepted FFP already by the very nature of our actions over the past 2 or 3 years. That's not in doubt.

.

I think we would argue that we haven't accepted the principle of FFP, merely done what we always intended to in implementing our business strategy. FFP has accelerated that process, we incurred larger initial losses as a result of FFP, in the race to beat the drawbridge. And we'll probably break even a couple of years earlier than intended. But breakeven was always the intention. FFP simply made the process less orderly. We've definitely modified our strategy as a result of FFP. so in that sense alone perhaps you could say we've accepted FFP, but I dont think we've done anything that could be held against us in a legal sense.

Not at all. We have gathered sponsors just like every other club has which will help break even. No-one can deem us different from a legal perspective because look at what every other club is doing. Here are some examples.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This is where City have a big decision to make IMO. No doubt they've made it already but that decision is not out in the public forum yet. Assuming we do accept the fine/squad reduction the we effectively accept FFP. It's a watershed moment......

We've accepted FFP already by the very nature of our actions over the past 2 or 3 years. That's not in doubt.

.

I think we would argue that we haven't accepted the principle of FFP, merely done what we always intended to in implementing our business strategy. FFP has accelerated that process, we incurred larger initial losses as a result of FFP, in the race to beat the drawbridge. And we'll probably break even a couple of years earlier than intended. But breakeven was always the intention. FFP simply made the process less orderly. We've definitely modified our strategy as a result of FFP. so in that sense alone perhaps you could say we've accepted FFP, but I dont think we've done anything that could be held against us in a legal sense.

I wasn't saying we have accepted its principles, merely that 2 or 3 years ago when it was first announced, we could have said to UEFA "you can fuck right off with that for a start" and launched a legal battle, and spent what we liked, unhindered. We chose not to do that, with the reasonable expectation that by us playing ball, we would not be shat upon. That's the extent to which I meant "we have accepted it".

 

[Zabbasbeard]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This is where City have a big decision to make IMO. No doubt they've made it already but that decision is not out in the public forum yet. Assuming we do accept the fine/squad reduction the we effectively accept FFP. It's a watershed moment......

We've accepted FFP already by the very nature of our actions over the past 2 or 3 years. That's not in doubt.

.

I think we would argue that we haven't accepted the principle of FFP, merely done what we always intended to in implementing our business strategy. FFP has accelerated that process, we incurred larger initial losses as a result of FFP, in the race to beat the drawbridge. And we'll probably break even a couple of years earlier than intended. But breakeven was always the intention. FFP simply made the process less orderly. We've definitely modified our strategy as a result of FFP. so in that sense alone perhaps you could say we've accepted FFP, but I dont think we've done anything that could be held against us in a legal sense.

Quite. There is no quote or evidence to suggest we have accepted the principle of so-called FFP (there's an oxymoron if ever there was one).

-- Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:56 am --

As for the likes of Liverpool and the rags - they'll never suffer if they have to "rebuild" (when "moneybags" City spend it reported as "over-spending" or "big spending City") because they'll lean on Platini and get the rules bent their way again if they want to exceed their already considerabe budgets. How else can the anomaly of Liverpool and Monaco not being judged on their losses until next Autumn be explained!

 

[Anonymous]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Actually, it could be a masterstroke by UEFA.

Attempt to regulate clubs' debt.
Get knocked back by the cartel and have to change it to prevent other clubs spending in order to compete.
Go all out for marquee targets to undermine i.e. those who pose the biggest threat to the cartel.
End up in court.
Get laughed out and have to amend the rules back to regulating clubs in debt and such.
UEFA get what they wanted originally but can blame the court's ruling rather than themselves being the bad guys to the cartel.

Perhaps Napoleon is a little genius after all?

:D

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Actually, it could be a masterstroke by UEFA.

Attempt to regulate clubs' debt.
Get knocked back by the cartel and have to change it to prevent other clubs spending in order to compete.
Go all out for marquee targets to undermine i.e. those who pose the biggest threat to the cartel.
End up in court.
Get laughed out and have to amend the rules back to regulating clubs in debt and such.
UEFA get what they wanted originally but can blame the court's ruling rather than themselves being the bad guys to the cartel.

Perhaps Napoleon is a little genius after all?

:D

it's why I reckon he's been happy to give so much authority to the likes of Gill and Rummenigge, let them dig their own graves.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Actually, it could be a masterstroke by UEFA.

Attempt to regulate clubs' debt.
Get knocked back by the cartel and have to change it to prevent other clubs spending in order to compete.
Go all out for marquee targets to undermine i.e. those who pose the biggest threat to the cartel.
End up in court.
Get laughed out and have to amend the rules back to regulating clubs in debt and such.
UEFA get what they wanted originally but can blame the court's ruling rather than themselves being the bad guys to the cartel.

Perhaps Napoleon is a little genius after all?

:D

it's why I reckon he's been happy to give so much authority to the likes of Gill and Rummenigge, let them dig their own graves.

Well Bayern are fairly debt-free so Rummenigge just has to worry about taxes, it's the 3 Spanish clubs and the Rags that will be digging. Oh and every Italian club apart from maybe Lazio.

 

[IanBishopsHaircut]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think just as the supposed sanctions are about to be released we slap a very public 250 million pound bid in for Messi...would be hilarious

 

[SWP's back]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What players are being sold to cover this?

I have a funny fart feeling that someone big will be gone this summer

eh?<br /><br />-- Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:11 pm --<br /><br />

Looking further down the line though we are well on the way towards fully complying with FFP so UEFA and their cronies become a total irrelevance. I'm pretty sure PSG are structuring their finances to comply too however probably using dodgy means but probably not...

It depends how much further down the line you look. The fact is for many a long year we are not going to have a global fan base and revenue streams that can match that of Barca, Real, Scum, etc. So whether we like it or not these rules place us at a considerable disadvantage compared to the very biggeest clubs in terms of what we can spend on players transfers and wages, even though we can afford it. This is not "a total irrelevance". It's a travesty and a disgrace.

By "many a long year", do you mean 18 months to 2 years?

 

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We've accepted FFP already by the very nature of our actions over the past 2 or 3 years. That's not in doubt.

.

I think we would argue that we haven't accepted the principle of FFP, merely done what we always intended to in implementing our business strategy. FFP has accelerated that process, we incurred larger initial losses as a result of FFP, in the race to beat the drawbridge. And we'll probably break even a couple of years earlier than intended. But breakeven was always the intention. FFP simply made the process less orderly. We've definitely modified our strategy as a result of FFP. so in that sense alone perhaps you could say we've accepted FFP, but I dont think we've done anything that could be held against us in a legal sense.

I wasn't saying we have accepted its principles, merely that 2 or 3 years ago when it was first announced, we could have said to UEFA "you can fuck right off with that for a start" and launched a legal battle, and spent what we liked, unhindered. We chose not to do that, with the reasonable expectation that by us playing ball, we would not be shat upon. That's the extent to which I meant "we have accepted it".

Well, City's owner made it pretty clear he had no intention of permanently bankrolling the club, and wanted it to be profitable. To that extent FFP and his interests coincide. But it would have gone down that route even if FFP didn't exist.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What players are being sold to cover this?

I have a funny fart feeling that someone big will be gone this summer

eh?

 

[the originalkippaxman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

[/quote]Well Bayern are fairly debt-free so Rummenigge just has to worry about taxes, it's the 3 Spanish clubs and the Rags that will be digging. Oh and every Italian club apart from maybe Lazio.[/quote]

That is because they are the most corrupt club in European football. How any club can get away with the blatant tapping up that they do in German football is beyond me.

 

[GoMancini7]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Hate FFP but once we accept any punishment they offer sand not go against it with lawyers etc. with that we say, ok we play by these corrupt rules and in the end its not the worst thing as FFP will now save us in terms of there wont be really teams coming up from behind us and being our rivals.

We wont have to worry rich investors turn Stoke/Villa etc into a CL team...

Thats the very big plan of this FFP, save the arse of current small elite, and make ithard to the currently big spending teams that not part of elite to become elite. (PSG/City etc)

Tha fact that teams without EL or CL football not even looked at shows this, as those teams still can make 5-10-15-20m etc losses every year in Serie A, Ligue 1, Russian League etc... so the big part of the clubs can still make losses esepcially in lower divisions so their financial stability is not important there easily can happen another Pompy any time if a club will just spend 10m more and the owner wont put the money in. If that happens the club have to sell players, become lot weaker maybe relegate or will be in administration or will have to sell traning ground, stadium etc...
These things can easily happen under a shit owners even with FFP.

Maybe not in PL as its now have its own version of FFP, Championship too.

(still Villa /Pool/QPR even Bolton had losses around 50m or more lately didnt they? If their owners wouldnt get the money on somehow they would be in shit regardless of Uefa FFP they dont care about these teams until they are EL or CL team...)

Its a big corrupt rule hoping to save the arse of small elite of current big clubs.

We pretty much joining to it, and saying we dont like the FFP wont make a difference if we are part of it already.

But we wont fight it. Also dont like the fact that we would fight is the ban is huge like a CL ban for us, but wont fight it if the fin/ban is just some 10m ban and some smaller ban on the size of CL squad next year.

We accept being guilty if the fine is smaller, but fight it if its big. Now are we guilty or not end of the day? We cant have it both ways..
We are guilty if the fine is small, we arent guilty if the ban is big...

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We've accepted FFP already by the very nature of our actions over the past 2 or 3 years. That's not in doubt.

.

I think we would argue that we haven't accepted the principle of FFP, merely done what we always intended to in implementing our business strategy. FFP has accelerated that process, we incurred larger initial losses as a result of FFP, in the race to beat the drawbridge. And we'll probably break even a couple of years earlier than intended. But breakeven was always the intention. FFP simply made the process less orderly. We've definitely modified our strategy as a result of FFP. so in that sense alone perhaps you could say we've accepted FFP, but I dont think we've done anything that could be held against us in a legal sense.

Not at all. We have gathered sponsors just like every other club has which will help break even. No-one can deem us different from a legal perspective because look at what every other club is doing. Here are some examples.

It was very different for Barcelona I think they had to rewrite a club rule to allow paid sponsorship

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We've accepted FFP already by the very nature of our actions over the past 2 or 3 years. That's not in doubt.

.

I think we would argue that we haven't accepted the principle of FFP, merely done what we always intended to in implementing our business strategy. FFP has accelerated that process, we incurred larger initial losses as a result of FFP, in the race to beat the drawbridge. And we'll probably break even a couple of years earlier than intended. But breakeven was always the intention. FFP simply made the process less orderly. We've definitely modified our strategy as a result of FFP. so in that sense alone perhaps you could say we've accepted FFP, but I dont think we've done anything that could be held against us in a legal sense.

Quite. There is no quote or evidence to suggest we have accepted the principle of so-called FFP (there's an oxymoron if ever there was one).

Eh? It's blindingly obvious that we have accepted it by the very nature of our actions over the past 3 years and all the statements coming out of our board saying about how we are working closely with UEFA and full intend to comply. How on earth could you argue otherwise? It's in black and white.

Now, if you mean we haven't compromised our position legally by acting in a way that signals our acceptance and waives future rights to challenge it, then yes that's probably true. But that was not what I meant when I said "we have accepted it", which we clearly have.

 

[garymj]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

My brother is dyed in the wool red, st holder since the late 60s, and even he said FFP is a load of bollocks, introduced to put the block on city, and every man and his dog knows it. Other fans just use it as a stick to beat us with.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think we would argue that we haven't accepted the principle of FFP, merely done what we always intended to in implementing our business strategy. FFP has accelerated that process, we incurred larger initial losses as a result of FFP, in the race to beat the drawbridge. And we'll probably break even a couple of years earlier than intended. But breakeven was always the intention. FFP simply made the process less orderly. We've definitely modified our strategy as a result of FFP. so in that sense alone perhaps you could say we've accepted FFP, but I dont think we've done anything that could be held against us in a legal sense.

I wasn't saying we have accepted its principles, merely that 2 or 3 years ago when it was first announced, we could have said to UEFA "you can fuck right off with that for a start" and launched a legal battle, and spent what we liked, unhindered. We chose not to do that, with the reasonable expectation that by us playing ball, we would not be shat upon. That's the extent to which I meant "we have accepted it".

Well, City's owner made it pretty clear he had no intention of permanently bankrolling the club, and wanted it to be profitable. To that extent FFP and his interests coincide. But it would have gone down that route even if FFP didn't exist.

See above.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Actually, it could be a masterstroke by UEFA.

Attempt to regulate clubs' debt.
Get knocked back by the cartel and have to change it to prevent other clubs spending in order to compete.
Go all out for marquee targets to undermine i.e. those who pose the biggest threat to the cartel.
End up in court.
Get laughed out and have to amend the rules back to regulating clubs in debt and such.
UEFA get what they wanted originally but can blame the court's ruling rather than themselves being the bad guys to the cartel.

Perhaps Napoleon is a little genius after all?

:D

it's why I reckon he's been happy to give so much authority to the likes of Gill and Rummenigge, let them dig their own graves.

Well Bayern are fairly debt-free so Rummenigge just has to worry about taxes, it's the 3 Spanish clubs and the Rags that will be digging. Oh and every Italian club apart from maybe Lazio.

It's more his authority at the ECA which I think would be under threat if the rest of the European clubs rebelled against the status quo.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well Bayern are fairly debt-free so Rummenigge just has to worry about taxes, it's the 3 Spanish clubs and the Rags that will be digging. Oh and every Italian club apart from maybe Lazio.[/quote]

That is because they are the most corrupt club in European football. How any club can get away with the blatant tapping up that they do in German football is beyond me.[/quote]
Just as Real Madrid do, Juventus, Roma, AC Milan and Inter do etc etc etc, how many times have you seen one of our players publicly courted by another club when they have well over 6 months remaining on their contracts.
No more interestingly with Bayern for me, they're debt free and financed by: Adidas (9.1% owners of shares and represented on the board by Herbert Hainer Chairman of the board and Adidas AG chairman - related party), Audi (9.1% Rupert Stadler Vice-Chairman of the board and Audi AG chairman - related party), Deutsche Telekom (Board Member Timotheus Höttges Telekom AG chairman ), Volkswagen (Prof. Dr. Martin Winterkorn Volkswagen AG chairman ).
Adidas and Audi alone have sunk 167million euro in equity into Bayern, Allianz also own 8% of the club. So their 3 main sponsors own 26.2% of the club, enough to control the club by vetoing any actions by the supporters and also indicating that their deals are definitely RPTs.
Tapping up is only the tip of the iceberg where those bastards are concerned.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well Bayern are fairly debt-free so Rummenigge just has to worry about taxes, it's the 3 Spanish clubs and the Rags that will be digging. Oh and every Italian club apart from maybe Lazio.

That is because they are the most corrupt club in European football. How any club can get away with the blatant tapping up that they do in German football is beyond me.[/quote]
Just as Real Madrid do, Juventus, Roma, AC Milan and Inter do etc etc etc, how many times have you seen one of our players publicly courted by another club when they have well over 6 months remaining on their contracts.
No more interestingly with Bayern for me, they're debt free and financed by: Adidas (9.1% owners of shares and represented on the board by Herbert Hainer Chairman of the board and Adidas AG chairman - related party), Audi (9.1% Rupert Stadler Vice-Chairman of the board and Audi AG chairman - related party), Deutsche Telekom (Board Member Timotheus Höttges Telekom AG chairman ), Volkswagen (Prof. Dr. Martin Winterkorn Volkswagen AG chairman ).
Adidas and Audi alone have sunk 167million euro in equity into Bayern, Allianz also own 8% of the club. So their 3 main sponsors own 26.2% of the club, enough to control the club by vetoing any actions by the supporters and also indicating that their deals are definitely RPTs.
Tapping up is only the tip of the iceberg where those bastards are concerned.[/quote]
I thought if you owned under a majority vote it wasn't seen as related party?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That is because they are the most corrupt club in European football. How any club can get away with the blatant tapping up that they do in German football is beyond me.

Just as Real Madrid do, Juventus, Roma, AC Milan and Inter do etc etc etc, how many times have you seen one of our players publicly courted by another club when they have well over 6 months remaining on their contracts.
No more interestingly with Bayern for me, they're debt free and financed by: Adidas (9.1% owners of shares and represented on the board by Herbert Hainer Chairman of the board and Adidas AG chairman - related party), Audi (9.1% Rupert Stadler Vice-Chairman of the board and Audi AG chairman - related party), Deutsche Telekom (Board Member Timotheus Höttges Telekom AG chairman ), Volkswagen (Prof. Dr. Martin Winterkorn Volkswagen AG chairman ).
Adidas and Audi alone have sunk 167million euro in equity into Bayern, Allianz also own 8% of the club. So their 3 main sponsors own 26.2% of the club, enough to control the club by vetoing any actions by the supporters and also indicating that their deals are definitely RPTs.
Tapping up is only the tip of the iceberg where those bastards are concerned.

I thought if you owned under a majority vote it wasn't seen as related party?

Well then it would be seen as an equity injection if said sponsors had ownership ties to the club. In effect, what we're being accused of (and aren't guilty of) with the Etihad deal, Bayern are definitely doing.