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

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

Illegal? Maybe not. Fuck them over? Very definitely.

 

[TrueBlue1705]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Really we need to fight this all the way, win or lose its a matter of principal - That smug twat Gill and UEFA can take a running jump - they fine clubs a poultry sum for institutional racism and then want to extort millions from a bloke investing in a club the right way, not plunging it into £100s of millions of debt, creating jobs and investing in youth development and infrastructure .....


Its clearly driven by the likes of Gill and Rumminegge, its a farce and I wish someone could dig some dirt up on that twat Gill so we could see the back of the crafty twat .... He obviously has an agenda and shouldn't be anywhere near a UEFA committee ....

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The only logical explanation for the large sanction is here:

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.

This is bad news in respect of this year as it provides UEFA with a rationale for their sanctions.

However there's no major material impact on the future Etihad Income.

We need to ensure that if we take a fine, we can pass in future. If that's the case, then we're talking about a one-off hit which isn't as bad. However the fine itself may also affect the future break-even calculation.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

And there lies one of our FFPR problems.

David Gill

Nationality: English
Date of birth: 5 August 1957
Executive Committee member since: 2013

Current UEFA roles
Executive Committee (member)
Club Licensing Committee (chairman)
Club Competitions Committee (deputy chairman)

• Born and raised in Reading, David Gill studied at Birmingham University, and became a chartered accountant. He worked in a number of senior financial roles in various companies.

• He joined the Manchester United FC board as finance director in 1997, and became chief executive in 2003, serving for ten years in the position. He remains as a non-executive director of Manchester United. Gill was appointed vice-chairman of the English Football Association in October 2012, having served on the FA board for several years.

• “I believe my experience at The FA and with Manchester United means I can add real value to the running of the game on behalf of all of UEFA’s members,” Gill said on his election to the UEFA Executive Committee in May 2013. “I am looking forward to getting started and making a positive contribution.”

Previous UEFA roles
Club Competitions Committee (second vice-chairman) (2007-2009)
Professional Football Strategy Council (2010-2012)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.org/about-uefa/executive-committee/news/newsid=1962085.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.org/about-uefa/executiv ... 62085.html</a>

Let's not beat around the bush. Gill along with United and Arsenal, will do anything they can to stop Sheikh Mansour and City.

 

[Bottomless_Sailor]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

<a class="postlink" href="http://m.uefa.com/news/1772173/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://m.uefa.com/news/1772173/</a>

European Commission on FFP in 2012

They must be fairly confident it's legal

 

[Gillespie]

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.

IAS24 is pretty wide ranging insofar the interpretation of related parties is concerned<br /><br />-- Tue May 06, 2014 11:39 pm --<br /><br />

http://m.uefa.com/news/1772173/

European Commission on FFP in 2012

They must be fairly confident it's legal

I think they are and even if it's disputable, I guarantee no one will challenge it.

 

[The Man With The Stick]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

How do we know this isn't just all paper waffle? (Operation Title Disturbance)

Could the delays not be due to the fact that it's a new process for all parties.

 

[MSP]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The only logical explanation for the large sanction is here:

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.

This is bad news in respect of this year as it provides UEFA with a rationale for their sanctions.

However there's no major material impact on the future Etihad Income.

We need to ensure that if we take a fine, we can pass in future. If that's the case, then we're talking about a one-off hit which isn't as bad. However the fine itself may also affect the future break-even calculation.

I think it's posted that fine does not affect any future break-even calculation. It's counted as a loan from owner.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

http://m.uefa.com/news/1772173/

European Commission on FFP in 2012

They must be fairly confident it's legal

EC Is purely advisory. ECJ are the ones that count ( the ones that found in favour of Bosman) if UEFA are thinking the EC backing is a guarantee of the ECJ following suit they are on a sticky wicket.

 

[Gillespie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

http://m.uefa.com/news/1772173/

European Commission on FFP in 2012

They must be fairly confident it's legal

EC Is purely advisory. ECJ are the ones that count ( the ones that found in favour of Bosman) if UEFA are thinking the EC backing is a guarantee of the ECJ following suit they are on a sticky wicket.

You reckon?