City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
From what I remember reading at the time, we had been reassured that we were within the rules but they then changed the boundaries. - sure someone on here ITK could clarify
UEFA did exactly that to us in 2014 by changing the mitigation rules after we had submitted our accounts.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I remember that all clubs were given a 'toolkit' with guidelines to work out if they were within FFP. We interpreted a part of them to mean we could exclude wages from a certain date and put the results in to them. They decided that we'd misinterpreted it and instead of coming back to us just failed us.
I think Fergie and united won it 7 times in 9 years ? nobody said it was bad for the league
Jazzman
Well-Known Member
They changed this toolkit after City submitted our accounts, and therefore we failed. It was simply a trap.
There was an example of how you could comply in the first toolkit.
Exactly the same example was considered a fail in the second toolkit (put out shortly after we released our accounts iirc).
Well they did change the ffp rules against us where we were geared for one set of rules that would of had us clear they changed them just before we gave them our accounts to look at! Guess what we failed we were fined 50m and had to play in Europe with a weaker squad!
Might as well be Celtic hahaha all them 13 titles won was not by united, but it was Celtic because it was truly a shit league
So instead of interpreting it ... why didn't we ask for clarification?
I can probably guess why
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
I would imagine that there would be a provision in the rewritten rules such that any longer contract would be taken into consideration.
With the new approach for FFP having transfer fees as a fraction of income, it may be the difference between being within the rules or not; either way, having an e.g. 10m exemption is fairly easy to keep track of.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Didn't they move the exemption date after our accounts were submitted?
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure now TBH, a few people have stated how they remember it differently with no two agreeing :)
It's good to know that it's not just my memory that's knackered.
I did to anyone that cared to listen ;)
Because our accounts had already been submitted when the toolkit changed.
IIRC we employed the people that wrote the FFP rules to interpret the rules.
Tommy_Catons_Perm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2011
- Messages
- 2,668
How UEFA shifted the Goalposts to Shaft Man City.
By Colin Savage. (@prestwichblue) Introduction I’ve written about this before but it’s clear some people still think that it’s something that I’ve made up in my fevered imagination. Having revisite…
boltfromtheblue.live
I remember PB’s input. It was clear at the time that we were shafted. The new rules on contracts will certainly be carefully worded so that Chelsea are fine & will be the last club allowed to give such long contracts to help them pass FFPHow UEFA shifted the Goalposts to Shaft Man City.
By Colin Savage. (@prestwichblue) Introduction I’ve written about this before but it’s clear some people still think that it’s something that I’ve made up in my fevered imagination. Having revisite…
Yes but the window is nearly closed & the new rules come into force before the summer transfer window. Chelsea’s amortisation over 8 years has helped them spend over £500 million. Something no other club will be able to do.