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

[KS55]

At the moment they've voted to forbid them for a month while they consider a permanent ban. I suspect they're hoping to ban all future related party deals, but they may not include any retrospective element. I can't see Newcastle standing for any of this and I think those responsible for running PL are alarmed at the turn of events.

If they are hoping to ban all future related party deals, they will have a massive (!) headache in trying to define "related." Even UEFA struggled with their own rule, not sure what was related and what wasn't. See our own 2014 case. Under UEFA rules, related deals are ok, provided they are fair market value. Even after the so called experts have pronounced, UEFA will decide on a political basis. So Qatar's tourist board world wide branding sponsorship of PSG was assessed by independent experts at, iirc, about £9m. PSG's own valuation was, iirc, about £80m, but Leterme allowed it at £100m. Absolutely nothing, of course. to do with the massive tv deal from Bein.
This inflation allowed PSG to escape sanction. When the judge in charge of the Judicial Chamber found out, he appealed to CAS to reopen the case, but they denied jurisdiction. UEFA v UEFA!!!

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Thanks. I think there is another one tho that went into finer details. may have been 20+ pages long if I recall.

Not as far as I'm aware. You might be thinking of CAS1 when the announcement was made and a judgement followed later. Similarly with CAS2 last year when we had the initial press release with the result followed a couple of weeks later with the full details in a 95 page document.

Then there is this extract from @projectriver in his piece https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/

1. On 16 May 2014, MCFC entered into a Settlement Agreement with UEFA in respect of a FFP investigation in the reporting periods and covering the three sporting seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. (“the 2014 Settlement Agreement”).

1. For the duration of the 2014 Settlement Agreement, City were subject to on-going restrictions which were agreed by the club. UEFA stated[1]: “The compliance with the Settlement Agreement will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules. In this connection, Manchester City also undertakes to provide the CFCB with a Progress Report evidencing its compliance with all relevant conditions agreed on a six monthly basis. In case Manchester City fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, the UEFA CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the Adjudicatory Chamber, as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) of the Procedural Rules.”

1. The 2014 Settlement Agreement itself is not publicly available but a number are (albeit in redacted form) including the Dinamo Zagreb[2] Inter[3], Porto, Maccabi Tel Aviv and Marseille[4] Neither PSG’s nor City’s 2014 Settlement Agreement was ever made public even in redacted form. All the agreements available include the following clauses:

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

At the moment they've voted to forbid them for a month while they consider a permanent ban. I suspect they're hoping to ban all future related party deals, but they may not include any retrospective element. I can't see Newcastle standing for any of this and I think those responsible for running PL are alarmed at the turn of events.

They won't ban future related party deals. They are just going into a holding pattern pending introducing new rules.

V good explanation about the implications from lawyer Daniel Geey in todays Athletic podcast here. Well worth a listen.

The Athletic FC Podcast

Football Podcast · 958 Episodes · Updated daily

podcasts.apple.com

 

[M18CTID]

I hope that every Saudi sponsorship that every club has bar Newcastle and City gets terminated, bit like Fergie pulled the plug on players that had been loaned out had been recalled because his son got the bullet.

This is an interesting point. It would be piss funny if the Saudis pulled all their sponsorship deals with United as a result of this vote. And who could blame them if they did? Seriously, a lot of these clubs are run by people who really do have the brains of a rocking horse.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

This is an interesting point. It would be piss funny if the Saudis pulled all their sponsorship deals with United as a result of this vote. And who could blame them if they did? Seriously, a lot of these clubs are run by people who really do have the brains of a rocking horse.

That is an insult to rocking horses .

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

If they are hoping to ban all future related party deals, they will have a massive (!) headache in trying to define "related." Even UEFA struggled with their own rule, not sure what was related and what wasn't. See our own 2014 case. Under UEFA rules, related deals are ok, provided they are fair market value. Even after the so called experts have pronounced, UEFA will decide on a political basis. So Qatar's tourist board world wide branding sponsorship of PSG was assessed by independent experts at, iirc, about £9m. PSG's own valuation was, iirc, about £80m, but Leterme allowed it at £100m. Absolutely nothing, of course. to do with the massive tv deal from Bein.
This inflation allowed PSG to escape sanction. When the judge in charge of the Judicial Chamber found out, he appealed to CAS to reopen the case, but they denied jurisdiction. UEFA v UEFA!!!

I don't think UEFA struggled as such with the related party rules - they were acting on the advice of PWC. But City told them to fuck off based on our certainty our sponsorship deals satisfied IAS24 rules (and FFP rules) and weren't related. This let to settlement and UEFA backed-off but introduced a rule change for sponsorship in 2015:

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

Not what was stated and shared on here at the time of tribunal? I recall us accepting Etihad as a related party for a particular reason. Stage 1 was the UEFA settlement in 2014. PWC went after all the Abu Dhabi sponsorships, used an independent firm to assess "fair value" and said they were...

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

The interesting thing (discusssed in the pod I linked above) is UEFA are supposed to be relaxing FFP rules with the introduction of a new regime including a luxury tax. More than likely Newcastle will like this.

However, UEFA FFP not an immediate concern for Newcastle. New Premier League rules will be of course and how they balance it all out will be fun...

We will be alright whatever they do IMO and I say this knowing the usual suspects always want to clip our wings or destroy.

 

[halfcenturyup]

They won't ban future related party deals. They are just going into a holding pattern pending introducing new rules.

V good explanation about the implications from lawyer Daniel Geey in todays Athletic podcast here. Well worth a listen.

The Athletic FC Podcast

Football Podcast · 958 Episodes · Updated daily

podcasts.apple.com

A good listen, not sure we learned much, though. I suppose after the last ten years we are more up-to-speed on these issues than most fanbases.

The bit about Lee Charnley was bizarre.
And be wary of a lawyer who is so sloppy with his words that he can say a sponsorship could be worth 10 times less.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The interesting thing (discusssed in the pod I linked above) is UEFA are supposed to be relaxing FFP rules with the introduction of a new regime including a luxury tax. More than likely Newcastle will like this.

However, UEFA FFP not an immediate concern for Newcastle. New Premier League rules will be of course and how they balance it all out will be fun...

As I understand it, the new UEFA rules will be built around wages as a % of revenues, no? I am sure the luxury tax will be applied to the "historic" clubs to allow them to invest, but I am also sure they will find a way to impose large fines and bans on the clubs funded by wealthy owners.

And the PL will surely follow their lead.

Plus ça change ...

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

While on the subject of owners spending or not spending their own money on their clubs, has that theatre of dreams had its roof fixed yet?

 

[KS55]

I don't think UEFA struggled as such with the related party rules - they were acting on the advice of PWC. But City told them to fuck off based on our certainty our sponsorship deals satisfied IAS24 rules (and FFP rules) and weren't related. This let to settlement and UEFA backed-off but introduced a rule change for sponsorship in 2015:

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

Not what was stated and shared on here at the time of tribunal? I recall us accepting Etihad as a related party for a particular reason. Stage 1 was the UEFA settlement in 2014. PWC went after all the Abu Dhabi sponsorships, used an independent firm to assess "fair value" and said they were...

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

The interesting thing (discusssed in the pod I linked above) is UEFA are supposed to be relaxing FFP rules with the introduction of a new regime including a luxury tax. More than likely Newcastle will like this.

However, UEFA FFP not an immediate concern for Newcastle. New Premier League rules will be of course and how they balance it all out will be fun...

We will be alright whatever they do IMO and I say this knowing the usual suspects always want to clip our wings or destroy.

Thanks for that.