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

[Pam]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Perhaps we should calm down about this.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Good read:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/reports-of-record-%8060m-%A349m-fine-for-psg-and-man-city" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/late ... d-man-city</a>

Seems petty technicalities led to us failing by such a huge margin, rather than just a couple of million. No way should we be remotely considering accepting these draconian punishments.

Good explanation, but not good news as that provides a rationale for UEFA's action which was hitherto just ridiculous

Why is City’s fine so large?

When City filed their accounts, on the face of it they looked to have nominally passed the FFP Break Even test (after permitted exclusions). So even if a few items are adjusted downwards, it was not immediately apparent why they have been given the same punishment as PSG (a club that failed hugely and seem to have made little effort to comply). However on examination, City’s large fine seems to be due to some of the detail within the FFP rules - this is probably also why the club are reported to be so unhappy with the terms being offered to them.


The FFP rules include a provision to allow clubs to exclude wages paid in 2011/12 season to players who were at the club when the rules were introduced (May 2010). City have advised the press that around £80m of wages fall into this category. Without this exclusion City fail hugely. Crucially, the exclusion can only be applied if a number of criteria are ALL met. One of these criteria is that the wages paid to these long-standing players were “equal or higher than the deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012”. See page 94 of FFP Toolkit for relevant section


During 2011/12 City reported a loss of £97m. After a number of permitted exclusions are made, City’s adjusted deficit for the 2011/12 season is probably around £78m - If the relevant excludable wages were £80m, City are therefore right on the edge, with only a couple of million lee-way. Crucially, press reports suggest that the Etihad deal was adjusted downwards (and possibly a £13m Intellectual Property sale may also have been reduced by the CFCB). This would have been enough to ensure the wages exclusion could not be used. Rather than City recording a narrow fail, they are probably looking at a technical fail of over £100m - a figure that would seem to put them in the PSG bracket.

Hmmmm...so UEFA can basically do all the sums then decide what the Etihad deal is worth in order that we still fail. Sounds to me that whatever we did we would have got this penalty.

 

[Gillespie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Apart from your transgendered lesbian managers whining on the subject you have no relevance at all to this thread.

A bit pathetic that

Not to mention out of context

Ignorant abuse is a waste of keyboard digit time

Probably made you feel good though.........so that's ok....right?

Jesus.....

Why are you here, in this thread ?

Fortunately there aren't too many idiots on here

Trying to justify and revise your clubs history ?

No

I also agreed with you. Apart from your annoying whining prick of a manager Arsenal have no relevance to this thread.

You hate Wenger....good for you

 

[80s Shorts]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Perhaps we should calm down about this.

LOL, and on that note I am going to sleep.

Lets cheer the boys on tomorrow and win this league.

Gnight Pam.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Perhaps we should calm down about this.

Jesus, make your mind up ffs.

 

[BigOscar]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Seems to me that we have been used by UEFA to try and appease PSG. They've been seen as the more likely to take UEFA to court (which UEFA must know they'd lose) so have decided to use us to make it look like they've gotten a good deal in an attempt to keep them quiet. We need to call their bluff

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Perhaps we should calm down about this.

Pam - I think someone's hacked your account!!!!!

 

[jollylescott]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Good read:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/reports-of-record-%8060m-%A349m-fine-for-psg-and-man-city" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/late ... d-man-city</a>

Seems petty technicalities led to us failing by such a huge margin, rather than just a couple of million. No way should we be remotely considering accepting these draconian punishments.

This is indeed an interesting article and it looks like the lowering of the value of the Etihad deal plus IP rights has led to us not being able to offset the 11/12 wages.

The other aspect appears to be rivalry between two accounting firms.

In my view this is a case where the punishment doesn't fit the crime. We have tried to comply and PSG haven't. Yet our punishment appears to be the same.

I suspect we would have accepted a much more reduced penalty. However I can see that there is a principle involved.

Its simply bizarre that the most important person in a club can be the accountant. I am also highly sceptical of the timing of all this. It seems to coincidental that it has hit the fan in the last few days of the season.

 

[Gillespie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

As nothing official has been announced I don't understand how the papers printing nothing short of slander are allowed to get away with it.

It has potential to damage our season and seriously undermines our credibility and damages the brand.
We've spent all that money in a bid to build the brand - how are they allowed to print this and get away with it.

If it's untrue, it's libel not slander and the full redress for such under the law is available to Mansour. However, to prove it he has to show damage to his reputation. Not easy that one.

You have 2 games left and in pole position. The only thing that could damage your season is if you fuck up against both sets of the clarets and blues.

They print it because they have been given the leaked info which is why they are so confident not only as to its accuracy but also to its provenance.

FFS get real over FFP

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Good read:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/reports-of-record-%8060m-%A349m-fine-for-psg-and-man-city" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/late ... d-man-city</a>

Seems petty technicalities led to us failing by such a huge margin, rather than just a couple of million. No way should we be remotely considering accepting these draconian punishments.

This is indeed an interesting article and it looks like the lowering of the value of the Etihad deal plus IP rights has led to us not being able to offset the 11/12 wages.

Except we seem to have been previously given the nod that they're alright. There is nothing in FFP that allows UEFA to exclude the sale of IP rights. As long as it's football related then it's alright (barring related party transactions).