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

[adrianr]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Club isn't making enough money to be 'financially stable'? FINE THEM 60 MILLION EUROS!!!

Only UEFA. The fact it's the same punishment as PSG who have openly pissed on these rules from the start only adds to the comedy.

 

[bobmcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If what they are doing is so illegal, why haven't we already started legal proceedings ?

Maybe Sheikh Mansour is waiting to see if he qualifies for legal aid?

Legitimate reason I guess

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm not sure that's quite right mate. Reading the previous posts I think it is that they are challenging the value of the deal rather than whether or not it is a related party.

Either way UEFA are on dodgy ground. Shirt front sponsorship, stadium naming rights and campus naming rights at an alleged £40m p.a. represents a significant undervalue in my opinion when you consider:

* Arsenal get £30m p.a. for shirt and stadium and no training facilities.
* Rags get c £35m p.a. for shirt and training facilities
* Rags to get £51m p.a from new Chevrolet shirt deal alone
* s get £23.5m p.a. from Nike for kit supply
* pool get £50m p.a from Warrior for kit supply25m p.a in year one expected to double due to Adidas imposed restrictions in year one)
* Liverpool get £20m p.a. for shirt sponsorship
* Chelsea get £18m per season for shirt sponsorship
* Chelsea get £30m p.a from Adidas for kit supply

These aren't relevant to any discussion about the Etihad deal as they're about Jersey Sales and not Media Exposure.

Not sure mate as I'd use those figures to point out the amount of money clubs charge for the "privilege" of being associated with them and the exposure they bring - you know the excitement and interest generate at "new kit" time. Agree they are not sponsorship deals but I think they are kind of relevant - but then again, I'm no barrister/accountant as you can no doubt probably tell! :)

-- Tue May 06, 2014 10:08 am --

They can only challenge the value if they deem it related party.

This

I'm not sure that is correct either? I understood (and happy to be proven wrong) that any deal has to be at what they would consider market value, related party or otherwise, to prevent over inflation?

If a deal is with an unrelated party, then by it's very definition it is at market value because everyone that is not a related party is part of the market. The market value is whatever value we managed to get.

 

[IanBishopsHaircut]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The shit is going to hit the fan on this isn't it?

And I have a feeling although we ultimately win

We will be painted in the media as TRULY ruining football

 

[bobmcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Club isn't making enough money to be 'financially stable'? FINE THEM 60 MILLION EUROS!!!

Only UEFA. The fact it's the same punishment as PSG who have openly pissed on these rules from the start only adds to the comedy.

This is why I think they are MegaDicks and why it isn't about helping clubs become financially sustainable. Their logic is ridiculous and we should nail them to a wall over this !

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We will be painted in the media as TRULY ruining football

Good.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If what they are doing is so illegal, why haven't we already started legal proceedings ?

How do you know we haven't?

Something like that won't be on the back page of a paper. It will be protected by all kinds of non disclosure agreements.

It's more than probable that we won't hear a single word of our legal intentions.

I'm not sure this kind of thing could be so easily hidden with all the FFP experts chomping at the bit in anticipation of our expected sanctions/punishments.

We don't want FFP scrapped though do we, because (a) it puts downward pressure on wages and transfers, which unless you like pissing money down the drain for good reason, is a good thing. And (b) it shuts the door behind us with respect to any future competitors who may come along.

What we do want is our efforts to play by the rules to be recognised and accommodated with reasonable, sensible and appropriate sanctions or warnings. That is all.

It is clear FFP has made life tricky for us but we have made strenuous efforts to comply, which would indicate to me we do not wish to get it torn up, unless of course they leave us with no alternative.

I still stand by my assessment from a few days back that the upshot of all of this will be no substantive sanctions against us.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The shit is going to hit the fan on this isn't it?

And I have a feeling although we ultimately win

We will be painted in the media as TRULY ruining football

Agree in part. What I think will/should happen if we do take them on and win is there will be a different set of regs which have been better thought out to protect clubs. As others have pointed to ideas such as the luxury tax etc which would do better to protect clubs than simply stopping investment as per current FFP.

 

[Ducado]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just seen the news

Wtf ????

Expand

 

[bluetonium]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If those are the sanctions then I am astounded.

€60m fine - how do UEFA come at this figure? Would this be the same if we had 'done a Portsmouth' and had still overspent but had lost the gamble? Is the money going to help clubs like Portsmouth and lower league clubs? Does it count against us for future FFP calculations?

Squad reduction - As I mentioned before, why not say those 4 places have to be home grown kids then? A reduction in squad size stops players form having a chance to fulfill their dreams, to compete, to do their jobs, and for youngsters to play in the biggest club competition.

Wage reduction - If we accept the above then probably not an issue, but if we have a bigger project in place, like we do, to increase turnover and profitability, then an increase in wage affordability is perfectly legal, logical and just reward.

The last two I can live with, we can get around that easy. The Fine is immoral and unjustified, I would fight to the death over that.

I can't see us agreeing to any of it, especially while Dupont's case is gathering pace and heading for the courts soon.