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

[coleridge]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We've effortlessly moved from the bad smell in the room, to the chap that everyone wants to sit next to.

It was always going to happen that way. Human behaviour is so predictable at times, especially when money is involved.

Yes, of course. I did try to explain during the uproar over the sanctions that, with my lawyer's wig on, the best tactic was to be compliant, and then support and further endorse the process, so that the club then becomes the driving force for FFP and which will, ultimately, affect the clubs that it should have in the first place such as those with 'reckless spending' such as, well, you know who.

A few pages ago, I also summised that it was an incongruity for those re-entering the CL to not have been monitored in the previous year.

It was also interesting to note the proposal for extending the monitoring period from 3 to 7 years although I'd probably need an accountant to explain the importance of that to me. But if Khaldoon likes it, then so do I. ;)

 

[Roy Munson]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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

I see what you did there ;-)

I'd be surprised - (a) it's not really their game and (b) they haven't got any money.

IBM were hinted at a few pages ago (it is their game and they do have the money) but that doesn't fit with the German comment.

Could be Software AG I suppose, but I don't think they are big enough?

Not sure I'd agree with (a). They already have pretty substantial deals with the NFL. I think they are a McClaren F1 sponsor as well as being involved in golf and tennis. As somebody pointed out, they recently signed a deal with Bayern Munich to provide sports analytics functionality (something they provided for the German World Cup winning team).

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The original Rumsby article in the Telegraph has been edited slightly and it seems Soriano was arguing for up to a 7 year extention to take the monitoring period to 10 years.


Manchester City and PSG push for key extension to Uefa's Financial Fair Play monitoring period

Premier League champions lobby for extension to monitoring period from three to 10 years, to give clubs more time to balance finances

The likes of Roman Abramovich and Sheik Mansour could be given more leeway to spend big under Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations after Manchester City lobbied for rule changes that would allow billionaire benefactors extra time to balance a club’s books.

European football’s governing body is to consider proposals put forward by City and Paris Saint-Germain during what it revealed was a “full and frank” meeting to discuss the future of FFP on Monday, the first since both teams were fined a world-record £49 million for failing its break-even test.

City’s chief executive, Ferran Soriano, was among those to argue that Uefa’s current three-year monitoring period should be extended by up to 10 years to allow clubs to live the same rags-to-riches dream pursued by his side and Chelsea.

One of the major criticisms of FFP is that it may make it much more difficult for new teams to break into the elite of European football.

Yet, any extension of the monitoring period would have to be weighed against the risk that those without sufficient resources may resume the “reckless spending and financial insanity” that prompted Uefa to devise FFP in the first place.

Its president, Michel Platini, is understood to be open to exploring the matter as part of a planned evolution of the regulations from a cost-control measure towards a system that encourages growth.
Any immediate amendments were ruled out during Monday’s meeting of Uefa’s stakeholders, as was the introduction of debt-reduction into the FFP rules, something that would have brought Manchester United under greater scrutiny.

Platini said: “We have succeeded in reducing the cumulative losses of European clubs and in stabilising European football’s finances.

“We must now work together to ensure that clubs can grow and prosper in the future – and today’s discussions were an encouraging step in that direction.”

Monday's meeting was attended by representatives of the Football Association, European Club Association, European Professional Football Leagues, FIFPro, the German Football

 

[crazyg]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

How come Uli Hoeness isn't making the righteous case for FFP?

I think you need to ask the bloke in charge of sorting out his tax returns.

He must have signed those returns, or there wouldn't have been a case against him.

The plea of "I vas only obeying (my accountant's) orders" didn't help those at the Nuremburg trials either.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Soriano is quite correct and I've argued similarly that an owner who wants to invest funds should be allowed an extended timescale to do that, subject to guarantees about ring-fencing the funds and achieving agreed targets along the way.

Similarly, FFP should outlaw the use of leveraged buyouts and restrict the amount that owners can lend to clubs, subject to agreed repayment plans. Also clubs should be stopped from taking on debt just to fund working capital requirements, apart from as part of an agreed financial restructuring plan.

In that way, FFP starts to achieve its stated objectives in a fair, transparent and workable manner.

 

[spacecadet]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Wonder if UEFA will go as far to return to City the fine monies, oh and let us play the extra four men in a game of our choice? ;)

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It strikes me that this debate is all too late however.

We have already suffered under these wretched rules. Goodness knows what players we would have bought if we didn't have FFP and struggling to balance the books hanging over our heads the last few transfer windows. And then the squad restriction and fines as well.

Now, with our soaring revenues FFP is largely behind us, and now - when it really is largely an irrelevance to us - there's the prospect of the rules being changed.

Whereas I am morally opposed to FFP as a matter of principle, should it stand up and no changes be made and as a consequence it fucks over Arsenal (especially) or Liverpool or any of the other turgid shits who were happy to put the knife in, I won't be shedding any tears.

 

[spacecadet]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It strikes me that this debate is all too late however.

We have already suffered under these wretched rules. Goodness knows what players we would have bought if we didn't have FFP and struggling to balance the books hanging over our heads the last few transfer windows. And then the squad restriction and fines as well.

Now, with our soaring revenues FFP is largely behind us, and now - when it really is largely an irrelevance to us - there's the prospect of the rules being changed.

Whereas I am morally opposed to FFP as a matter of principle, should it stand up and no changes be made and as a consequence it fucks over Arsenal (especially) or Liverpool or any of the other turgid shits who were happy to put the knife in, I won't be shedding any tears.

Spot on Blue.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Soriano is quite correct and I've argued similarly that an owner who wants to invest funds should be allowed an extended timescale to do that, subject to guarantees about ring-fencing the funds and achieving agreed targets along the way.

Similarly, FFP should outlaw the use of leveraged buyouts and restrict the amount that owners can lend to clubs, subject to agreed repayment plans. Also clubs should be stopped from taking on debt just to fund working capital requirements, apart from as part of an agreed financial restructuring plan.

In that way, FFP starts to achieve its stated objectives in a fair, transparent and workable manner.

I like this view alot. It links into a comment you made yesterday about the Dupont case yesterday "The key argument against FFP (and one I believe Dupont is using) is that it's not the principle itself which is a problem but the implementation of that principle which is faulty"

Reading this thread has helped me enormously in the understanding of FFP. I feel at times I'm blinded by our contempt for FFP but really what you are saying is Fair Rules for FFP.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The original Rumsby article in the Telegraph has been edited slightly and it seems Soriano was arguing for up to a 7 year extention to take the monitoring period to 10 years.


Manchester City and PSG push for key extension to Uefa's Financial Fair Play monitoring period

Premier League champions lobby for extension to monitoring period from three to 10 years, to give clubs more time to balance finances

The likes of Roman Abramovich and Sheik Mansour could be given more leeway to spend big under Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations after Manchester City lobbied for rule changes that would allow billionaire benefactors extra time to balance a club’s books.

European football’s governing body is to consider proposals put forward by City and Paris Saint-Germain during what it revealed was a “full and frank” meeting to discuss the future of FFP on Monday, the first since both teams were fined a world-record £49 million for failing its break-even test.

City’s chief executive, Ferran Soriano, was among those to argue that Uefa’s current three-year monitoring period should be extended by up to 10 years to allow clubs to live the same rags-to-riches dream pursued by his side and Chelsea.

One of the major criticisms of FFP is that it may make it much more difficult for new teams to break into the elite of European football.

Yet, any extension of the monitoring period would have to be weighed against the risk that those without sufficient resources may resume the “reckless spending and financial insanity” that prompted Uefa to devise FFP in the first place.

Its president, Michel Platini, is understood to be open to exploring the matter as part of a planned evolution of the regulations from a cost-control measure towards a system that encourages growth.
Any immediate amendments were ruled out during Monday’s meeting of Uefa’s stakeholders, as was the introduction of debt-reduction into the FFP rules, something that would have brought Manchester United under greater scrutiny.

Platini said: “We have succeeded in reducing the cumulative losses of European clubs and in stabilising European football’s finances.

“We must now work together to ensure that clubs can grow and prosper in the future – and today’s discussions were an encouraging step in that direction.”

Monday's meeting was attended by representatives of the Football Association, European Club Association, European Professional Football Leagues, FIFPro, the German Football

There are some very interesting noises coming from that meeting, particularly that platini quote. It looks to me like he's paving the way for significant change...particularly the "we have succeeded" line. That's his lunge for the moral high ground and damage limitation line. He loses less face by claiming that FFP was a success and now needs modifying.

There can be no doubt that City and PSG made a watertight case for the ridiculousness of these rules. Anyone with any common sense knows an industry which bans investment is based on lunacy.