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

[Bottomless_Sailor]

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).

Do we have records of being given the nod?

 

[Gillespie]

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).

That bit at the end in brackets might be the justification

 

[kalouk]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I wouldn't give them a penny, it doesn't matter how rich Sheikh Mansour is some things are more important. At their most basic the FFP rules are ludicrous. I am not making Sheikh Mansour out to be a saint but he has done nothing but good reaching further than the club into the community. No man should accept sanctions for doing things the right way. I wouldn't accept any punishment from a corrupt organisation using contrived rules. I really believe he should stand firm, to play their games is beneath him. I appreciate the business and legal argument but I honestly believe this is bigger than that. We stood up against Premier League FFP and I believe we should do the same this time.

 

[MSP]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Nobody should have right to lower our deal with Etihad, it's beyond ridiculous.

I guess the cheapest lawyer in England could win this shit on that alone. YOu've got no fucking right to decide what is valuable or not in any deal, it's not your fucking business.

It's only the matter if club has balls to challenge UEFA seriously, out of that there's no chance in hell UEFA could win court case.

 

[meltonblue]

City & FFP (continued)

I still don't get how they can readjust the etihad deal, there seems to be a lot of conflicting reports going on at the minute.

How does the PSG deal get set to 100m and yet ours with Etihad could be readjusted downwards? I get the IP rights part (although I thought that was last years accounts rather than the 11/12 one that the wages could be exempted on?)

Surely we have grounds for complaint on two parts - declaring the etihad deal a related party and then the setting of fair value on it.

Or am I missing something?

 

[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.

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).

This will run and run by the sounds of it. Whatever the end result the most Important thing is to ensure it can't happen a second time to us.

All this over a game of footy!!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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).

That bit at the end in brackets might be the justification

It might but Etihad is not a related party and our auditors are not the only accountants who have looked at it and come to that conclusion.

It's quite possible in fact that one of the accountancy firms that agreed they weren't is the same one that may have said they were.

 

[happy daze]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere but interesting piece about ffp on newsnight tonight,we were very favourably compared to psg because of the local investment and the pulling up the drawbridge mentality from the likes of wenger

 

[MC ID]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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).

That bit at the end in brackets might be the justification

It might but Etihad is not a related party and our auditors are not the only accountants who have looked at it and come to that conclusion.

It's quite possible in fact that one of the accountancy firms that agreed they weren't is the same one that may have said they were.

Errr I'm pretty sure that would be highly illegal of that firm and would fuck them over.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I don't think that's the case at all, people are just seeing it for what it really is

We employ a PR and media team for precisely this sort of thing. The articles by Hayward and Herbert did not appear by chance. City will have invested an awful lot of time in ensuring enough people in the media can see the merits of our case and more importantly say so. It also helps that the physical evidence of what we are doing is growing more apparent on a daily basis. Ideas are fine but bricks and mortar give ideas substance.

It just pisses me off that it's taken the threat of this absurd penalty to get out there in the media and understand why ie that we've been shafted at the 11th hour and prior to now we've been playing softball

Should be on iplayer soon.