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

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This is a very strange article indeed. One of the most curious statements concerns the Bosman case and declares that "the legislation that Bosman struck down was longstanding and antiquated." Dupont struck down no legislation at all. What he did strike down was the retain and transfer system. This was not legislation but a code of practice in use in football and solely in football. George Eastham had established his right to change clubs when his contract had expired in the 1960s but no-one had pushed this because it suited no-one's interests. Indeed Bosman established a principle but had his career destroyed. What Marcotti doesn't point out is that UEFA fought to the death to maintain this "system" when it was obvious they would lose in court and it actually left the courts to decide on what the rights of the various parties in the dispute were. This "system" was far less in the interests of the clubs than, for instance, the system in use by our FA - the old tribunal. Retain and transfer was against the law and Dupont had it declared so, and any future violation of the law will involve heavy damages, compensation, a fine etc etc. Furthermore the ECJ gave UEFA a sharp lecture that sporting matters must be decided on the basis of what the law is, and not what UEFA sees as its best interests.

What the Eastman case established was the right of players to leave at the end of their contract. It did not take away transfer fees for out of contract players but denied the club the right to unilaterally set a fee. Instead a tribunal was set up to assess the transfer fees payable for an out of contract player.

The Bosman situation would probably never have applied in England or Scotland. When the Bosman ruling was eventually accepted for international transfer, the home associations tried to ignore it and kept to the old system. John Collins left Celtic for Monaco FC and Celtic tried to argue that the Bosman ruling did not apply as Monaco was not an EU member and tried to sue for a transfer fee. They didn't get very far with that argument. The fact that players could transfer free to clubs in other associations and then be transferred back to another club for a fee convinced the FA to back down and accept Bosman.

The FA clung on to transfer fees for young players were out of contract. In England it applied to players up to 24 years while in Scotland it was for up to 23 years olds. There was the situation where Clayton Donaldson of York City signed a pre-contract agreement with Hibs. Hibs offered around £200,000 to sign him in the Winter transfer window. This was turned down as they valued him at £500,000 and were sure they would get that from a transfer tribunal in the Summer. They found to their horror that they would get nothing as Donaldson was over the age limit for Scotland (if not in England).

Time and time again, the Football Authorities seem to think they can override established legal principles over issues such as maximum wages, retain and transfer, and now FFP. They have lost all previous issues as soon as anyone is strong enough and persistent enough to take them through the courts. They will lose this one as well.

Hole in one!

 

[SouthStandStander]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I don't like it up here can someone put me back in my stable FFS........lol

Managed to get a nice bit of info over the weekend. City, the campus and all of the CFG are in the process of consolidating all of the I.C.T. syatems (a massive undertaking given the dozens of different systems used across CFG). This will form part of a pretty big sponsorship agreement with the software company involved. I won't specifically name the company except to say they are a German giant.

Come on, don't be a sap, tell us who it is.

I see what you did there ;-)

 

[coleridge]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Talks today but no specifics yet...

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 54 seconds ago
FFP discussions also included debate about possible advantages to clubs like Liverpool and Monaco who didn't play in Europe season before

And what would that mean ? An acknowledgement that without Champions League income you can't get into the Champions League without breaking the regulations therefore an allowance in terms of lossses ? and wouldn't that benefit other clubs currently out of the CL. Clubs like the rags to pick a random example ?

Maybe just me but I read it the other way round. Not in Europe and so no scrutiny under FFP.

The accounting gives me a headache but the commercial clout of PSG and MCFC is clearly telling.

BTW Qatar is not in the Emirates as they declined to join, along with Bahrain, back in 1971 when the British Army left. Sorry for being a pedant.

Anyway, is FFP slowly deteriorating before our very eyes?

 

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Talks today but no specifics yet...

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 2 minutes ago
UEFA says club reps, including from PSG and Man City, met Platini today in FFP discussion. Talks were ``full and frank''.

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 1 minute ago
Clubs discussions at UEFA on FFP included talks on `fair value related transactions'- City and PSG both targeted by UEFA on this issue

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 54 seconds ago
FFP discussions also included debate about possible advantages to clubs like Liverpool and Monaco who didn't play in Europe season before

If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that the "related transactions" will have been high on both PSG and City's agenda. Both within football, and in the advertising world in general, it's difficult not to avoid the high visibility campaigns of companies related to AD, Qatar, Dubai, etc. It's part of the Emirate business model, to use their financial power to out market their rivals and provide a superior product.

Arsenal did a shirt sponsorship deal with Emirates two years ago worth 150 million over 5 years. For UEFA to suggest then that a deal with Etihad based around similar ballpark figures isn't acceptable to them simply because Etihad is an AD based airline is a nonsense. It's effectively punishing Sheikh Mansour for being a successful business man who can have his business's work for each other in different ways. The visibility which Etihad gets from City has a market value which Etihad decide based on how successful they think City will be. It's not a value which UEFA should be deciding based on FFP.

Is it not something which could land UEFA in court with a multi-million dollar damages suit? If UEFA told Chevrolet that their deal with United was overvalued would their reply not be along the lines that that was for them to decide because they didn't want to identify their cars with a brand which was a mid table joke getting nothing but bad publicity, but with a club which had invested Chevrolet money to become a football powerhouse.... Similarly Etihad aren't motivated by a desire to give City a few bob, but by using Abu Dhabi money to associate club and company with a football superpower - and this leads them to set the limit on their investment. If they just wante to chuck a few bob into football they might as well sponsor Accrington Stanley.

Being that I'm not a lawyer it's always hard to know in things like this what's "legal" and what's not. But it's difficult for UEFA to make any case against PSG or City with regards sponsorship deals being overvalued when they themselves take in ridiculous amounts of sponsorship monies from such upstanding organisations as Gazprom who also coincidentally, sponsor Chelsea, a club who's owner sold his Oil company to Gazprom. Nope, nothing at all dodgy about that deal and certainly nothing for UEFA to worry about with regards related parties and the like.

 

[OB1]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Talks today but no specifics yet...

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 2 minutes ago
UEFA says club reps, including from PSG and Man City, met Platini today in FFP discussion. Talks were ``full and frank''.

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 1 minute ago
Clubs discussions at UEFA on FFP included talks on `fair value related transactions'- City and PSG both targeted by UEFA on this issue

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 54 seconds ago
FFP discussions also included debate about possible advantages to clubs like Liverpool and Monaco who didn't play in Europe season before

If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that the "related transactions" will have been high on both PSG and City's agenda. Both within football, and in the advertising world in general, it's difficult not to avoid the high visibility campaigns of companies related to AD, Qatar, Dubai, etc. It's part of the Emirate business model, to use their financial power to out market their rivals and provide a superior product.

Arsenal did a shirt sponsorship deal with Emirates two years ago worth 150 million over 5 years. For UEFA to suggest then that a deal with Etihad based around similar ballpark figures isn't acceptable to them simply because Etihad is an AD based airline is a nonsense. It's effectively punishing Sheikh Mansour for being a successful business man who can have his business's work for each other in different ways. The visibility which Etihad gets from City has a market value which Etihad decide based on how successful they think City will be. It's not a value which UEFA should be deciding based on FFP.

Etihad is not one of Mansour's businesses, he is not part of the company in any way shape or form, as far as I am aware. That's why it is not a related party for accounting disclosure purposes; which are mirrored in the FFP regs.

 

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Talks today but no specifics yet...

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 2 minutes ago
UEFA says club reps, including from PSG and Man City, met Platini today in FFP discussion. Talks were ``full and frank''.

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 1 minute ago
Clubs discussions at UEFA on FFP included talks on `fair value related transactions'- City and PSG both targeted by UEFA on this issue

tariq panja ‏@tariqpanja 54 seconds ago
FFP discussions also included debate about possible advantages to clubs like Liverpool and Monaco who didn't play in Europe season before

If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that the "related transactions" will have been high on both PSG and City's agenda. Both within football, and in the advertising world in general, it's difficult not to avoid the high visibility campaigns of companies related to AD, Qatar, Dubai, etc. It's part of the Emirate business model, to use their financial power to out market their rivals and provide a superior product.

Arsenal did a shirt sponsorship deal with Emirates two years ago worth 150 million over 5 years. For UEFA to suggest then that a deal with Etihad based around similar ballpark figures isn't acceptable to them simply because Etihad is an AD based airline is a nonsense. It's effectively punishing Sheikh Mansour for being a successful business man who can have his business's work for each other in different ways. The visibility which Etihad gets from City has a market value which Etihad decide based on how successful they think City will be. It's not a value which UEFA should be deciding based on FFP.

Etihad is not one of Mansour's businesses, he is not part of the company in any way shape or form, as far as I am aware. That's why it is not a related party for accounting disclosure purposes; which are mirrored in the FFP regs.

True, but the argument which has been pursued by UEFA both in private and in public is that his family own the airline and although he may not be a sitting board member, direct relatives of his are.

Again the problem is UEFA are effectively saying to both the sponsoring party and the football club "we don't believe this deal is a real sponsorship deal" which even outside of the accounting regulations, is a fucking nonsense.

 

[OB1]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That piece by Marcotti is very weak.

 

[nmc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Rummenigge trying to justify the existence of FFP.


Rummenigge: Clubs must work together on FFP

Bayern Munich president Karl-Heinz Rummenigge wants to see European clubs work together to ensure Financial Fair Play (FFP) is adhered to.

A host of clubs have been investigated by UEFA in recent months after possible breaches of FFP regulations, including Liverpool, Inter and Roma.

Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain, meanwhile, were both fined and hit with sanctions by the governing body in May for breaches of the regulations.

Rummenigge believes fines and sanctions are not the right way forward, though, and says self-regulation between the clubs is the best way for FFP to be implemented.

"Basically I'm not a friend of penalties as there are many examples in politics that show sanctions are not getting the intended results," he told Goal.

"I'm a person who likes to convince. We've got a meeting at UEFA in Geneva on which the president of PSG and the chairman of Man City will participate, and also clubs will participate who have well implemented the guidelines of FFP.

"At the end of the day we need to create a community. We're all in the same boat and we need to row together for the benefit of football.

"I can remember a conversation with [UEFA president Michel] Platini and me with Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea and he uttered very positive [words] about FFP. He had to spend hundreds of millions of euros every year to equalise the deficits of the club and to keep the balance sheets in good conditions.

"That cannot be in the interest of an investor.

"We heard the same from Silvio Berlusconi, owner of Milan, and Massimo Moratti, former owner of Inter.

"Actually I've heard nobody commenting negative about FFP.

"It's about us and especially about Platini to convince these persons to walk alongside to this path and not to try to go their own way."

Read more at <a class="postlink" href="http://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/clubs-must-work-together-implement-ffp-rummenigge#UTqBFHIJDKiPyQqi.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/clubs-m ... KiPyQqi.99</a>

That's right Karl - remember how the Treaty of Versailles worked out.

 

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That piece by Marcotti is very weak.

Not for the first time in recent weeks/months it has felt like Marcotti has written a piece simply to fill a column rather than to impart any kind of insightful information or an opinion.

 

[blueinsa]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I don't like it up here can someone put me back in my stable FFS........lol

Managed to get a nice bit of info over the weekend. City, the campus and all of the CFG are in the process of consolidating all of the I.C.T. syatems (a massive undertaking given the dozens of different systems used across CFG). This will form part of a pretty big sponsorship agreement with the software company involved. I won't specifically name the company except to say they are a German giant.

Come on, don't be a sap, tell us who it is.

I see what you just did there.

Won't be allowed of course as Germany is on the same planet as the UAE and thus will rightly be deemed a related party!