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

[The slaughtered lamb]

you could, knock him off balance with a bolo punch and crush his windpipe with your heel when he`s on the floor, allegedly

I know what you mean, they're so stupid they make you angry. Sam Dingles the fuckin lot of em.

 

[aguero93:20]

Is there a link to this statement ? It would probably prevent further argument on the subject.

It's one of these

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles...ncialControl/02/10/68/99/2106899_DOWNLOAD.pdf

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles...ncialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf

On mobile so can't tell which link, it says if we meet the sanctions and reach break even for FFP purposes at any stage, the sanctions are lifted. The other one is the PSG statement which says no such thing.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Any club, which is sanctioned by UEFA for breach of FFPR, becomes free of these regulations if they meet the UEFA Break-even requirement in subsequent seasons.

So as I posted months ago, we looked clear, as confirmed by Khaldoon, and I assume PSG have not met the requirement.

 

[aguero93:20]

Any club, which is sanctioned by UEFA for breach of FFPR, becomes free of these regulations if they meet the UEFA Break-even requirement in subsequent seasons.

So as I posted months ago, we looked clear, as confirmed by Khaldoon, and I assume PSG have not met the requirement.

You might be right but PSG's statement says nothing about sanctions being lifted under any circumstance for the three year period, whereas City's does.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

You might be right but PSG's statement says nothing about sanctions being lifted under any circumstance for the three year period, whereas City's does.

True, but UEFA have their own little nugget in a FAQ on their site that says it's for any club, think PSG would find it very easy to take them to court over it.

 

[cleavers]

It's one of these

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles...ncialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf

On mobile so can't tell which link, it says if we meet the sanctions and reach break even for FFP purposes at any stage, the sanctions are lifted. The other one is the PSG statement which says no such thing.

Thanks, its this one, but its a year old (UEFA move goal posts like FIFA officials move money), and it still doesn't make it clear that we're free from restrictions on transfers if we "break even".

It does say we're free from "wage restrictions" if we break even, and that we're free from "squad restrictions" if we break even. It also says we get some of the "fine" back.

However

Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
Manchester City further accepts a calculated limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by this agreement.

is open to debate, which is why people (rightly) don't trust UEFA.

I assume from his end of season sound bites that Khaldoon is comfortable that we have broken even (it would be surprise if we hadn't).

The proof of the pudding will be who we buy, and who we sell.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

I posted it all out and then the forum fucked up for some reason. I'd clarified all that, but then I found this:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html</a>

13) Why has the UEFA Club Financial Control Body reached settlement agreements with clubs?

The CFCB's investigatory chamber can offer clubs settlement agreements, a common instrument for financial regulators to help facilitate compliance. Article 15 of the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body states that "settlement agreements may set out the obligation(s) to be fulfilled by the defendant, including the possible application of disciplinary measures and, where necessary, a specific timeframe. The CFCB chief investigator monitors the proper and timely implementation of the settlement agreement. If a defendant fails to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement, the CFCB chief investigator shall refer the case to the adjudicatory chamber."

14) Can you explain the financial measures handed out and how the figures were determined?

Financial measures are linked to each club's earnings from their participation in European competition during the assessment period.

17) How are clubs that have contravened financial fair play being incentivised to become break-even compliant?

Settlements require the clubs to become compliant with financial fair play within a short period of time. Failure to meet settlement terms will lead to the club being automatically referred to the adjudicatory chamber.

Conversely if a club fulfils each individual requirement of the settlement, it may be released from the limitation on the number of players for UEFA competitions for the following season. If a club becomes break-even compliant during the course of the settlement, all sanctions shall cease to apply for the following season, with the exception of the non-conditional element of the financial measure.

--------------

So basically if our accounts published earlier this year show us to be break-even compliant, then all our sanctions are lifted for next season, except the non-refundable aspect of the fine paid to UEFA in the sanctions last year.

So our settlement states:

In this regard, Manchester City undertakes to report a maximum break-even deficit of EUR 20 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2014.

Our 2013/14 accounts show:

The report also reveals a bottom line loss of £23m for 2013-14. This figure includes the accounting in full of £16m that recognises the total UEFA sanctions imposed in May 2014 following disputed breaches of its Financial Fair Play regulations. The club expects to be entering the 2015-16 season with no outstanding sanctions or restrictions.

Thus our loss minus the withholding of £16m of our prize money is £7m, within the E20m limit. Furthermore the City statement refers to it as being 2 lots of E10m prize money, one taken in 2013/14, one 2014/15, thus that would make it a £15m loss, within the UEFA limit as well. As UEFA are sanctioning us E10m each season, then I think the agreement must be that they will take our losses and deduct the second year of fines from it to give us the value within the acceptable limits, or something to that effect.

So that's why I think City believe they are free to spend.

that's my post with UEFA's relaxation of the settlement restrictions, so for me the only reason why PSG still have restrictions is because they've not met the breakeven requirement, which is stupid really, and their own fault. @cleavers

 

[SilverFox2]

The biggest surprise would be if ADUG had not tied the whole 'pinch' agreement with legal documentation irrespective of the uncertainty of the statement by UEFA.

Surely once bitten twice shy with people who are untrustworthy ?

 

[Silva_Spell]

Loving the coincidental timing of AC Milan suddenly finding a buyer and splashing the cash on Jackson Martinez

 

[cleavers]

that's my post with UEFA's relaxation of the settlement restrictions, so for me the only reason why PSG still have restrictions is because they've not met the breakeven requirement, which is stupid really, and their own fault. @cleavers

Thanks, I assume that those are later than the original PDF last June ?

By the way I'm not arguing that we will still be restricted, I don't follow it like many do, we have people far better qualified on here, I was just saying that I can understand why some are still a little sceptical that we can spend whatever we want.

Our spending will be "net" anyway, and I expect people to be moved out for decent fee's, so while we might spend "£200M" (aim high eh ?), the net figure will be much less than that.