deano ou812
Well-Known Member
Many thanks prestwich blue...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
Seconded!Many thanks prestwich blue...
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
I've never understood how they can get away with this.Maybe then we should transfer our administration to the Cayman Islands and we could keep our affairs well hidden from prying eyes. If it already works for one franchise, it can work for the rest.
Producing accounts where a bit if it is an unknown black hole..... they can just make up figures without having to show the books?
Last edited:
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
They're still trying so we shouldn't drop our guard. Two more little gems were sneaked in when they made the big announcement last summer that clubs could arrange to breach FFP with UEFA's agreement (something we got sanctioned for).
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.
The other re-defined what the parameters of the "reporting entity" were for FFP purposes. Let's say you had a holding company, which we'll call CFG for the sake of simplicity, which had a football club as a subsidiary (which we'll call MCFC) and also had other football-related operating subsidiaries (which for the sake of argument we'll call CFS and CMS). Previously only MCFC would be included in the reporting entity but now, both CFS and CMS have to be included if they're engaged in football-related activities, even if they've charged MCFC for those services on an arms-length, commercial basis.
While that snake Gill is responsible for financial control matters, they'll always be looking for a way to trip us up.
Regarding the 30% figure, surely that doesn't affect us at all does it Col? I'm guessing that money coming from companies based in Abu Dhabi accounts for no more than around 15% of our revenue these days?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Worst case scenario I'd say is that if you lump Etihad, Aabar, Etisalat & the AD Tourist Authority together it comes to £65m, so less than 20%. And it will be an even smaller percentage when the new TV deal kicks in next season.Regarding the 30% figure, surely that doesn't affect us at all does it Col? I'm guessing that money coming from companies based in Abu Dhabi accounts for no more than around 15% of our revenue these days?
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Worst case scenario I'd say is that if you lump Etihad, Aabar, Etisalat & the AD Tourist Authority together it comes to £65m, so less than 20%. And it will be an even smaller percentage when the new TV deal kicks in next season.
Ok, cheers. I've been at pains to point out to opposition fans in the past that we're becoming less and less reliant on "Abu Dhabi cash" as time goes on. Some of them are too ignorant to realise that it isn't 2008 anymore and that we're turning over a hell of a lot more than £80 million per season. Others think that ALL our sponsorship money comes from one area of the globe and haven't got a clue that we've signed numerous deals with companies all over the world.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Let's say Etihad decided they were going to end their sponsorship of the shirt & stadium. Do people not think that, as a leading PL club which is successful and regularly features in the CL, we'd get a shirt and stadium sponsor that at least matched what Etihad pay us?Ok, cheers. I've been at pains to point out to opposition fans in the past that we're becoming less and less reliant on "Abu Dhabi cash" as time goes on. Some of them are too ignorant to realise that it isn't 2008 anymore and that we're turning over a hell of a lot more than £80 million per season. Others think that ALL our sponsorship money comes from one area of the globe and haven't got a clue that we've signed numerous deals with companies all over the world.
dave_blue12
Well-Known Member
Let's say Etihad decided they were going to end their sponsorship of the shirt & stadium. Do people not think that, as a leading PL club which is successful and regularly features in the CL, we'd get a shirt and stadium sponsor that at least matched what Etihad pay us?
No they don't. Like some plum on GOT they think we'd be back to League 1 where we belong !
Let's say Etihad decided they were going to end their sponsorship of the shirt & stadium. Do people not think that, as a leading PL club which is successful and regularly features in the CL, we'd get a shirt and stadium sponsor that at least matched what Etihad pay us?
They'd only hurt themselves if they tried that.