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

[I'm no cynic but...]

We're not profitable!!! Everyone knows our accounts are bogus and that our match day revenue is only going up because the Sheikh now buys 50000 seats every home game. All our sponsorship deals and partnerships are with Abu Dhabi companies that don't even exist - the Sheikh pays all cash to the club. And the Chinese deal doesn't exist! That Chinese bloke went to OT to have his photo taken with some old giffer with a comb over and a rabbit on his head. The Sheikh pays all the cash and will buy all the players from City and pay their wages to get them to join Chinese clubs.

There are plenty out there who would appear to believe all this!

 

[kas_tippler]

Does FFP even exist nowadays?

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Pep will have plenty of transfer kitty available this summer with the £ 265 mil from the Chinese plus the extra income from the television rights.

That money didn't come into City but anyway, we have cash coming out of our ears. Pep can spend what he wants. The only thing that was going to limit us was squad size restrictions and who we can ship out but with China throwing silly money at 'big names' out stock has risen. It is all failing into place for a bumper summer.

 

[stony]

Does FFP even exist nowadays?

It certainly does. They even managed to sneak in a few new rules under the radar that are squarely directed at us.

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.

 

[kas_tippler]

It certainly does. They even managed to sneak in a few new rules under the radar that are squarely directed at us.

Tbh it's double Dutch to me. Reckon somebody/some team or player will take UEFA to court if it ever seriously effects the game on the basis of restriction of trade.

 

[SilverFox2]

Tbh it's double Dutch to me. Reckon somebody/some team or player will take UEFA to court if it ever seriously effects the game on the basis of restriction of trade.

That will never happen because UEFA is based in Switzerland and we , sorry they, are protected there from all forms of legal action.
The advantage is that they can act like a sovereign state and hopefully continue to do things other sectors of industry can only dream of.

 

[kas_tippler]

That will never happen because UEFA is based in Switzerland and we , sorry they, are protected there from all forms of legal action.
The advantage is that they can act like a sovereign state and hopefully continue to do things other sectors of industry can only dream of.

FIFA are based there but the shit has hit the fan with them, am I missing something?

 

[SilverFox2]

FIFA are based there but the shit has hit the fan with them, am I missing something?

Sorry, I was trying to reflect the original thinking of the G14 who control UEFA when they followed FIFA to Switzerland from Paris.
Law changes in Switzerland in April last year that allowed Sports Organisations to be legally examined coupled with pressure from FBI on USA sponsors caused the FIFA demise.
Whether this continues to UEFA is yet to be seen and of course we have the ongoing legal challenge that has some way to go.

As PB has lucidly explained we still have the G14 working to apply rule changes that are targeted at our owner despite Mr Platini being apparently sacrificed by the powers that actually run UEFA ie Gill et al.

Again apologies if my posts seemed to be from a different time warp.

 

[richards30]

No way mansour will accept any fucking dodgy rule changes in the future!

 

[dasein]

No way mansour will accept any fucking dodgy rule changes in the future!

I think I understand from reading this thread, that uefa has effectively cut us and any other none g14 club out of having a say on rule changes etc. it isn't a complete democracy, and we can't vote to change it to one.