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

[fbloke]

It seems inevitable now that we will be adjudged to have failed FFP and there will be a penalty of some sort, the only thing that is unclear is what the penalty will be. I would be interested to know at what stage the club considers that a legal challenge is necessary.

My own view is that the club should refuse to accept whatever penalty is handed down, even if it is only financial. If the club's stance is that it refuses to accept the legitimacy of FFP then it would be a sign of weakness for to take any punishment lying down.

As I've pointed out a number of times, we have failed FFP but as long as UEFA agree we're moving in the right direction and don't find any issue with the IP sales then we should not face any sanction according to Annex XI.

Even if we do, I suspect it will be a suspended punishment as I firmly believe we will meet FFP from here on in so why would UEFA punish a club that is making every effort to comply and that they can point to as a "success story"?

And in the highly unlikely event we are fined or something the owners will pay up and keep quiet because that's their way of doing things. If we know we're going to meet it in the future, what's the point of fighting a battle you don't need to?

Colin, I think you are wrong on that that point.

I think there is a very real desire on the City board to stand against FFP. The club are unwilling to recognise that FFP actually exists and we might be seeing Sheikh Mansour and Khaldoon playing the long game, allowing FFP to trundle on and gathering the evidence they need before saying enough is enough.

I actually think that UEFA are aware of this and that the conversations City have had with them have been businesslike but far from pleasant.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It seems inevitable now that we will be adjudged to have failed FFP and there will be a penalty of some sort, the only thing that is unclear is what the penalty will be. I would be interested to know at what stage the club considers that a legal challenge is necessary.

My own view is that the club should refuse to accept whatever penalty is handed down, even if it is only financial. If the club's stance is that it refuses to accept the legitimacy of FFP then it would be a sign of weakness for to take any punishment lying down.

As I've pointed out a number of times, we have failed FFP but as long as UEFA agree we're moving in the right direction and don't find any issue with the IP sales then we should not face any sanction according to Annex XI.

Even if we do, I suspect it will be a suspended punishment as I firmly believe we will meet FFP from here on in so why would UEFA punish a club that is making every effort to comply and that they can point to as a "success story"?

And in the highly unlikely event we are fined or something the owners will pay up and keep quiet because that's their way of doing things. If we know we're going to meet it in the future, what's the point of fighting a battle you don't need to?

Colin, I think you are wrong on that that point.

I think there is a very real desire on the City board to stand against FFP. The club are unwilling to recognise that FFP actually exists and we might be seeing Sheikh Mansour and Khaldoon playing the long game, allowing FFP to trundle on and gathering the evidence they need before saying enough is enough.

I actually think that UEFA are aware of this and that the conversations City have had with them have been businesslike but far from pleasant.

I did say that if they did fight, it wouldn't be a full-on challenge but a battle by proxy. But if they're happy we're going to meet FFP in the future (and only they know) then they play the long game I believe. Having said that, I believe that UEFA have been given a quiet but firm warning against being dickheads towards us. That's why I'm confident that we won't come out of this too badly.

 

[fbloke]

As I've pointed out a number of times, we have failed FFP but as long as UEFA agree we're moving in the right direction and don't find any issue with the IP sales then we should not face any sanction according to Annex XI.

Even if we do, I suspect it will be a suspended punishment as I firmly believe we will meet FFP from here on in so why would UEFA punish a club that is making every effort to comply and that they can point to as a "success story"?

And in the highly unlikely event we are fined or something the owners will pay up and keep quiet because that's their way of doing things. If we know we're going to meet it in the future, what's the point of fighting a battle you don't need to?

Colin, I think you are wrong on that that point.

I think there is a very real desire on the City board to stand against FFP. The club are unwilling to recognise that FFP actually exists and we might be seeing Sheikh Mansour and Khaldoon playing the long game, allowing FFP to trundle on and gathering the evidence they need before saying enough is enough.

I actually think that UEFA are aware of this and that the conversations City have had with them have been businesslike but far from pleasant.

I did say that if they did fight, it wouldn't be a full-on challenge but a battle by proxy. But if they're happy we're going to meet FFP in the future (and only they know) then they play the long game I believe. Having said that, I believe that UEFA have been given a quiet but firm warning against being dickheads towards us. That's why I'm confident that we won't come out of this too badly.

I'm not sure how many of us blues remember Ferrostaal?

We played in the Ferrostaal Cup in year one of Sheikh Mansours's and they were a sponsor if you remember?

Well there were financial irregularities and once that was discovered the Abu Dhabi investors sold up and moved on. There is a very broad and deep streak of honour and doing things properly within the royal family of AD.

UEFA and their FFP fall into the same category as Ferrostaal, but rather than being inside the irregularities City are outside but will be negatively impacted by them and the interests of MCFC and Sheikh Mansour will be directly attacked.

Its clear to me that UEFA are on very thin ice. City refusing to publicly acknowledge FFPR is the clearest possible indication that the mood music has changed betwix City and UEFA as well as City and the old guard represented by the ECA.

I think we are also seeing signs from the old guard that they may well be getting nervous about the lack of action from UEFA.

But there are also clear indications that a number of clubs are being forced to change their ways in a manner that would be unimaginable until FFP. The message from City and PSG may well be that they have the dirt on the football business and that they will bring the house of cards tumbling down if pushed. Let us not forget the fact that City now refuse to do business with quite a few agents and indeed clubs because of what they have encountered in the early years of SM's tenure.

FFP might well be the public battle that City and PSH choose but there is more than that going on behind the scenes.

 

[Bluechipblue]

FFP is threatening the future vision of every club not at the table...FFP will eventually kill football as we know it..[/quote]

Could this be the intention of UEFA ? Kill off the domestic game across Europe as we know it, thus creating a European super league. Platini and co would become heads of an organisation that from being the best show in town, would become the only show in town. Just a thought.

 

[CITYBOY1000]

Colin, I think you are wrong on that that point.

I think there is a very real desire on the City board to stand against FFP. The club are unwilling to recognise that FFP actually exists and we might be seeing Sheikh Mansour and Khaldoon playing the long game, allowing FFP to trundle on and gathering the evidence they need before saying enough is enough.

I actually think that UEFA are aware of this and that the conversations City have had with them have been businesslike but far from pleasant.

I did say that if they did fight, it wouldn't be a full-on challenge but a battle by proxy. But if they're happy we're going to meet FFP in the future (and only they know) then they play the long game I believe. Having said that, I believe that UEFA have been given a quiet but firm warning against being dickheads towards us. That's why I'm confident that we won't come out of this too badly.

I'm not sure how many of us blues remember Ferrostaal?

We played in the Ferrostaal Cup in year one of Sheikh Mansours's and they were a sponsor if you remember?

Well there were financial irregularities and once that was discovered the Abu Dhabi investors sold up and moved on. There is a very broad and deep streak of honour and doing things properly within the royal family of AD.

UEFA and their FFP fall into the same category as Ferrostaal, but rather than being inside the irregularities City are outside but will be negatively impacted by them and the interests of MCFC and Sheikh Mansour will be directly attacked.

Its clear to me that UEFA are on very thin ice. City refusing to publicly acknowledge FFPR is the clearest possible indication that the mood music has changed betwix City and UEFA as well as City and the old guard represented by the ECA.

I think we are also seeing signs from the old guard that they may well be getting nervous about the lack of action from UEFA.

But there are also clear indications that a number of clubs are being forced to change their ways in a manner that would be unimaginable until FFP. The message from City and PSG may well be that they have the dirt on the football business and that they will bring the house of cards tumbling down if pushed. Let us not forget the fact that City now refuse to do business with quite a few agents and indeed clubs because of what they have encountered in the early years of SM's tenure.

FFP might well be the public battle that City and PSH choose but there is more than that going on behind the scenes.

Our owners are obviously acknowledging FFP rules or they wouldn't have been going to the trouble of buying up New York and Australian football clubs to sell on IP and thereby balance the books though at a financial loss but which isn't a loss for FFP rules purposes.

Why else have we commenced the Etihad project with the development money not counting towards losses but the investment is counting ? That project is costing hundreds of millions and no way is the investment going to balance the cost. The new stands and increasing capacity to 61,000 is another measure. They'll be building loads of plush corporate boxes at £500,000 per season ticket that will be snapped up by mysterious Arab sheikhs no doubt who will never seem them more than once or twice. These are all FFP avoidance tactics, at great expense but where the books can be balanced for FFP purposes.

Our owners and their advisers and accountants have put a lot of thought into getting around FFP. They have also laid out vast sums of money that could have been spent on buying Hazard or Falcao or others we've missed out on due to the costs involved.

We didn't worry about transfer fees in the past pre-FFP. We do now. A lot has changed and to say we haven't acknowledged FFP is misguided I believe.

That is different of course from us officially saying something that indicates we will accept any punishment. I think our owners take FFP seriously but if the punishment for failing to comply is draconian then they will fight it.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

It's going to be a long summer if we are found guilty. Whatever punishment is handed down to us short of a ban, is bound to be appealed by some smacked-arse club or clubs who finish outside the top 4, then it's back to UEFA (like I trust them) and maybe onto CAS. I just hope if it does play out like this, that with all the uncertainty and inevitable bad publicity in the media, the club don't get side-tracked, and stick two fingers up to everyone by doing the business in the transfer market.

 

[yeah whatever !!]

FFP is threatening the future vision of every club not at the table...FFP will eventually kill football as we know it..

Could this be the intention of UEFA ? Kill off the domestic game across Europe as we know it, thus creating a European super league. Platini and co would become heads of an organisation that from being the best show in town, would become the only show in town. Just a thought.[/quote]

Kill off the domestic game and you also kill off International football..

 

[fbloke]

I did say that if they did fight, it wouldn't be a full-on challenge but a battle by proxy. But if they're happy we're going to meet FFP in the future (and only they know) then they play the long game I believe. Having said that, I believe that UEFA have been given a quiet but firm warning against being dickheads towards us. That's why I'm confident that we won't come out of this too badly.

I'm not sure how many of us blues remember Ferrostaal?

We played in the Ferrostaal Cup in year one of Sheikh Mansours's and they were a sponsor if you remember?

Well there were financial irregularities and once that was discovered the Abu Dhabi investors sold up and moved on. There is a very broad and deep streak of honour and doing things properly within the royal family of AD.

UEFA and their FFP fall into the same category as Ferrostaal, but rather than being inside the irregularities City are outside but will be negatively impacted by them and the interests of MCFC and Sheikh Mansour will be directly attacked.

Its clear to me that UEFA are on very thin ice. City refusing to publicly acknowledge FFPR is the clearest possible indication that the mood music has changed betwix City and UEFA as well as City and the old guard represented by the ECA.

I think we are also seeing signs from the old guard that they may well be getting nervous about the lack of action from UEFA.

But there are also clear indications that a number of clubs are being forced to change their ways in a manner that would be unimaginable until FFP. The message from City and PSG may well be that they have the dirt on the football business and that they will bring the house of cards tumbling down if pushed. Let us not forget the fact that City now refuse to do business with quite a few agents and indeed clubs because of what they have encountered in the early years of SM's tenure.

FFP might well be the public battle that City and PSH choose but there is more than that going on behind the scenes.

Our owners are obviously acknowledging FFP rules or they wouldn't have been going to the trouble of buying up New York and Australian football clubs to sell on IP and thereby balance the books though at a financial loss but which isn't a loss for FFP rules purposes.

Why else have we commenced the Etihad project with the development money not counting towards losses but the investment is counting ? That project is costing hundreds of millions and no way is the investment going to balance the cost. The new stands and increasing capacity to 61,000 is another measure. They'll be building loads of plush corporate boxes at £500,000 per season ticket that will be snapped up by mysterious Arab sheikhs no doubt who will never seem them more than once or twice. These are all FFP avoidance tactics, at great expense but where the books can be balanced for FFP purposes.

Our owners and their advisers and accountants have put a lot of thought into getting around FFP. They have also laid out vast sums of money that could have been spent on buying Hazard or Falcao or others we've missed out on due to the costs involved.

We didn't worry about transfer fees in the past pre-FFP. We do now. A lot has changed and to say we haven't acknowledged FFP is misguided I believe.

That is different of course from us officially saying something that indicates we will accept any punishment. I think our owners take FFP seriously but if the punishment for failing to comply is draconian then they will fight it.

So basically you're equating everything being done by City as a devise to dodge round FFP?

The nonsense about charging £1/2m to a mystery arab is not even close to acceptable to UEFA and the FFP regs so why bother doing all the other hoop jumping if you dont intend to follow the rules in any case?

The idea also that we have spent perhaps £300m on buying two other clubs just to again dodge FFP with an IP transaction is naive in the extreme.

Perhaps if you see what is developing at City as a business growth and investment for the returns that will be derived in future then you will see things as they actually are.

The plan when City were bought was to take advantage of football as a marketing tool for AD but also to buy a very much undervalued asset which, with some investment, would pay dividends year on year in the future.

I would venture that FFP gets in the way of the plans if it is accepted as being enforceable, a position I dont think City accept.

The Campus developments were also on the table irrespective of Platini and UEFA. In fact the deal with Nike and the development of City Schools (or whatever brand they opt for) etc havent even started yet but are in place, ready to go.

In short FFP is at worst an annoyance that may mean some slight changes in the presentation of the clubs financial position. If it were to go beyond that and UEFA caused any real problems for the City Football Group then you would see a rather more belligerent CFG.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

City were one of four clubs who voted against 'fair play' rules being introduced by the Premier League.

That gives us our answer where we stand in any component of restricted investment.

The plans for the stadium, complex, etc, were all in the pipe, regardless.

Their profit margins still need to be maintained.

Rather than City being worried about the impending rulings, I sense major apprehension from Uefa, with regards them trying to move the goalposts and shift the onus of responsibility to any dissenting clubs.

It would not only be a legal action from City, out auditors would also be well within their rights to protect their good name.

 

[blueparrot]

City were one of four clubs who voted against 'fair play' rules being introduced by the Premier League.

That gives us our answer where we stand in any component of restricted investment.

The plans for the stadium, complex, etc, were all in the pipe, regardless.

Their profit margins still need to be maintained.

Rather than City being worried about the impending rulings, I sense major apprehension from Uefa, with regards them trying to move the goalposts and shift the onus of responsibility to any dissenting clubs.

It would not only be a legal action from City, out auditors would also be well within their rights to protect their good name.

That's the crucial point if they accept our figures the with the pre 2010 contracts we fall into the allowed guidelines. If they challenge our figures then it's not us they are taking on , but the accountants and auditors. That would be a serious allegation of incompetence or fraud.