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

[WRicko]

Prestwich You say they have changed the related party rules to target us by the following

The first was that any income arising from an entity or person with links to the same person or government would be regarded as a related party transaction if the total revenue from that person or government accounted for 30% or more of the club's overall revenue. So, to take a hypothetical example, let's say there's a country where a member of the government owned a football club and where the club received income from entities connected to that country or person. Even if that person had no direct influence over those companies, and wasn't a related party in the generally accepted sense of the word, then they could all still be deemed by UEFA to be related parties if their aggregate contribution was 30% or more of the club's total revenue. And therefore they could be subjected to the fair market value test and the value of the deal written down for FFP purposes.

One observation is that the word government really ought not to be necessary

Also what is a link if not the same as the definition of related party ? Seems odd that you can such a link as to get all that money but not be related party. Mind you it wont affect since our revenue share from UAE is shrinking. Could it affect PSG ? There revenue seems oddly large

 

[ohfk]

The regulations are clearly contrary to law and are hopelessly compromised by the rôle of our friend Gill in drawing them up. The new ideas for "reform" of the CL (what we know of them) do not allow for competition on an equal basis, which would be of concern to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the granting of automatic qualification to some clubs, qualification through success to others and no qualification to others would inflict financial damage on some clubs but also allow some clubs unfair access to a market while denying others access completely. These ideas would clearly devalue the PL, reduce the value of the PL TV deal and sponsorship of clubs - the FA would have to give serious consideration to withdrawing from UEFA and expelling clubs wishing to join the new CL.

It wouldn't be difficult to guess who those clubs were. Perhaps forming a new euro super league and achieving one of the objectives of the G14 albeit a little later than expected.

Could you imagine if this was Gills 20 year masterplan all along? You'd have to doff your cap to the evil genius! :)

 

[Silva2021]

Whilst that prick is attending United games and on the board, it is a corrupt system that puts him in any position of influence...I think it slowed us down but I think he is too late...I would argue too much focus on stopping us as opposed to concentrating on improving themselves has cost them!!

 

[SilverFox2]

Whilst that prick is attending United games and on the board, it is a corrupt system that puts him in any position of influence...I think it slowed us down but I think he is too late...I would argue too much focus on stopping us as opposed to concentrating on improving themselves has cost them!!

I think he underestimated ADUG's ability to conceive a Business Plan that always had profitability in mind as applied to our owners first venture into football.
I don't think our owner ever underestimates any situation and employs the best people within his ADUG setup to evaluate strategy and potential threats.

I agree Gill as the architect of the cartels tacticts has concentrated too much on stopping us and in a way this helps by giving the CFG more time to develop and if our owner is right with his global strategy it gives him a greater lead from the way other teams have traditionally expanded globally.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Wouldn't these (proposed?) changes put UEFA in a sticky position, legally, then?
I mean can they construct and apply their own arbitrary standards that contradict international standard practice and actually get away without being taken to court?

The simple answer is that I don't know. They've already implemented a system where reporting entities have to report a break-even figure above a certain level, for which there is no equivalent requirement in the non-football world. The question here is whether they can introduce a standard for financial reporting that isn't in line with the standard that would be expected outside FFP.

What does intrigue me is how will they know whether 30% or more of revenue could be from related parties? There's a whole can of worms there, as I assume they'd have to further define the standard rules on related parties.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

PB, the reason I was keen to ask about contact with M. DuPont is that his case centres on the legality of the break even requirement, and if, as seemed probable, there can be no such requirement, Gill's manoeuvring is of no importance. In fact, he exposes himself to accusations of cartel activity. I know some on here were in contact with him, so can they provide an update or, if necessary, reopen the channels of communication.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I guess the £250m from the Chinese kills Gills hopes of the FFP nuance hurting us.

 

[deano ou812]

To be honest I have know real understanding of ffp,but would I be correct in thinking that uefa are amending rules and regulations (the shifting of goalposts)as needed concerning our club...

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

PB, the reason I was keen to ask about contact with M. DuPont is that his case centres on the legality of the break even requirement, and if, as seemed probable, there can be no such requirement, Gill's manoeuvring is of no importance. In fact, he exposes himself to accusations of cartel activity. I know some on here were in contact with him, so can they provide an update or, if necessary, reopen the channels of communication.

I'm not one of those in touch with Dupont but the last I heard, the ECJ had referred the case back to the Belgian courts as they had claimed there was insufficient information for them to issue a ruling.

I guess the £250m from the Chinese kills Gills hopes of the FFP nuance hurting us.

That money is not income. It's purely a balance sheet transaction and that's the stupid thing with FFP - you can't spend cash you do have but you can spend cash you don't have. If, for instance, Bournemouth met Messi's buy-out clause, it's a fair bet they would have to borrow the £180m required as they don't have that sort of cash. But as long as the amortisation and wages didn't take them over the break-even limit, they'd be OK despite the fact they'd be £250m in debt (assuming they borrowed the money got his wages as well) with either little prospect of ever being able to repay that or the repayments completely screwing their cash-flow (and forcing them to borrow to meet operational cash-flow requirements).

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

To be honest I have know real understanding of ffp,but would I be correct in thinking that uefa are amending rules and regulations (the shifting of goalposts)as needed concerning our club...

I'm sure the fact that all their little "improvements" seem designed to impact our club and organisational structure the most is purely coincidental.