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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

BluessinceHydeRoad said:
I have a number of queries about all this. Perhaps one of the accountants on here could help me.

It appears (we can't put it more strongly than this as yet!) that it is the Etihad deal which has caused City's problem and the Qatari deal which has got Paris in hot water. Leaving aside the figures and avoiding a comparison, is it likely to be true that UEFA consider both to be related party deals? I know that the auditors have to draw the attention of the shareholders to this if it is the case, but what is the reason for this? I believe, but I am not an accountant, that this is so shareholders can question the value of the deal and judge whether they believe it to be a use of the company's resources of which they approve. What I wish to know is whether that is the limit of flagging up RPDs? If an RPD reflects the will of the shareholders then it is a valid use of their resources?

Now, in the case of Etihad, the head of European operations has always said that the deal is justified on purely commercial grounds. "If the numbers didn't add up we wouldn't be doing this" is what he said when the deal was announced. That view has not changed in 4 years since. In the eyes of the law do UEFA have a scrap of a right to question the commercial judgement of those running an international airline? Are there any circumstances that the courts would accept UEFA as, in any way, a body competent or entitled to do this?

The ramifications are incalculable. Etihad agreed a deal for a limited period to pay City £X pa and they agreed what this money was to be used for, in particular, maybe even exclusively, to help with the construction and development costs of the training complex. The deal is to last 10 years and is justified (if it has to be to anyone but shareholders) because the Etihad airline is developing Manchester as a hub airport and wish to associate themselves with the local football club. They wish to help grow the club so that it becomes part of an increasing story of success which reflects well on the airline. But 4 years down the line along come UEFA to tell them that they're paying too much and that they won't let the club spend all of the monies without severe punishments meant to compromise the aim of the deal. Would Etihad airline not feel they had a watertight case against the mischievous commercial interference UEFA are now practising? What could the penalties for UEFA be? And what might the impact on the attitude of other sponsors of football clubs, notably but not exclusively, Emirates airline? Would they want to risk Platini and his bunch of footballers f***ing up their expenditure plans in four years time? Might the courts be rather alarmed at UEFA's concern for fair value? And the precise criteria they use?
Click to expand...

There's quite a few misconceptions here I'm afraid. I won't go into all the detail as it would take too long (and I'd miss half of them anyway), but for starters:

1. It's not a given that the issues relate to the Etihad deal at all. Personally, I can't see how they can be, as that would mean UEFA are deeming it a related-party transaction when an independent, professional firm of auditors deems it is not. Taking that line would open up a WHOLE can of worms for UEFA and I can't for a moment imagine they have gone there.

2. Declaration of related-party transactions is so that potential investors (and the taxman) can get a proper picture of your finances without them being distorted by made up figures.

3. UEFA are not and will not say how much whoever can pay us for whatever. Any judgement they make has no bearing on what our actual accounts look like, nor what we can spend the money on. All they are saying is that for the purpose of the FFP break-even-result calculation (and for no other reason) they may adjust the figures.

4. If City were unable to fulfil their contractual obligations to Etihad, Etihad could in theory come after us, City. Not after UEFA since Etihad's relationship is with City not with UEFA.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Retweeted by The Football Ramble
Niall McVeigh @niallmcveigh · 3h

City fined £50m or, to put it into context, around the cost of 2,500 incidents of racial abuse, for spending money that they can afford to.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Gary Owen's Sloping Shoulders said:
Shine on! The whole thing is not worth a candle and doesn't hold a candle to the old arrangements.
Platini can wax lyrical if we wants but we'all just turn up the heat and then it won't stand up in court. ;-)
Click to expand...
Did someone mention four candles?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Wow.what a thread.just got up and caught up.

My take on it...lets just win this league and let our owners..lawyers worry about this rubbish.
Im off for a bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

r.soleofsalford said:
St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:
Wow.what a thread.just got up and caught up.

My take on it...lets just win this league and let our owners..lawyers worry about this rubbish.
Im off for a bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes.
Click to expand...




i prefer 8-0 granola
Click to expand...

cereal munching ballet dancers!! black pudding, chips, fried eggs and the works please - if Platini will allow me
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

This from a solicitor on Twitter

@JakeFCohen: Pressure is on UEFA, not Manchester City, to reach FFP settlement (UEFA wants to avoid being sued by clubs) - <a class="postlink" href="http://t.co/vidvzO5c9T" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://t.co/vidvzO5c9T</a> #mcfc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.