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

[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.

You reckon?

Yes. I don't think DuPont cares what the EC think and is confident of a win. FFPR are not proportional to the problem they are trying to solve.

 

[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.

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

Looks like that's arguable

Interestingly, BBC’s 5 Live’s @richard_conway reports that the fine is actually a phased deduction from central Champions League prize revenue over three seasons. If this were the case, then it seems likely that the deduction WOULD impact the Break Even test present issues in future years.

 

[Gillespie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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?

Yes. I don't think DuPont cares what the EC think and is confident of a win.

We'll see

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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?

The EC statement is only saying that they believe FFP is consistent with their rules on state-aid as per Article 107. It doesn't cover any part of Article 101, which is the one about Competition and restraint of trade.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You reckon?

Yes. I don't think DuPont cares what the EC think and is confident of a win.

We'll see

Yup.

 

[BigOscar]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Platini and UEFA got the EC to back the FFP principle by claiming it was about helping prevent clubs going bankrupt. Since then, they have massively changed the parameters (with a little "encouragement" from certain clubs) and no lawyer in the world would struggle to show how that is not remotely applicable anymore.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Hardly revisionist when accepting the factual reference to Woolwich, part of our long and rich history.

Not sure what you mean by that last sentence to be honest

It's very simple - the events that happened in the past , let's call that " the history of arsenal FC"
all contribute to the existence of the modern entity ( in this case we'll call that arsenal FC as it is today )
It's a kind of linear thing - you know , one act or decision influencing another and so on .
Like a football club leaving one area for another ,for its own benefit , and becoming very big and rich.

Are you postulating a theory here?

I'd say the past at best is no more than a guide to the future but can no way predict it.

As to Arsenal, I still don't understand the relevance to this thread

I mean you lot moved from Maine Road to Eastlands but how is that relevant to FFP or the price of fish come to that?

Not sure what you mean by that first sentence to be honest.
Are you trying to say that historical events do not affect the the present and the future?

I think geneticists and historians may argue with the vagueness and inaccuracy of that line of thought.
As to arsenal and their relevance , it was you who made the grand statement that football clubs were at the heart of communities , and I pointed out that did not seem to be arsenals thinking when they upped sticks and moved north.
Are you trying to say that this move in no way affected the future development of arsenal as a club ?
Buying world class players in the past and winning titles and trophies with them did not affect the trajectory of arsenals future?
As for the relevance to FFP , when arsenal moved to n. London , presumably it was done to further the development of the club and it was deemed to be beneficial ( otherwise why do it)? Nobody said anything about it being " unfair" or " bad for football" nobody tried to stop them .you may say it was all along tIme ago but it is an important part of arsenals history , and has a bearing on what they are today.
We moved from a clapped out old stadium to a brand new one because we too saw it as being beneficial to our progress as a club . A prospective owner saw the huge potential that this brought and decided to invest in the club.
The rest is , to coin a phrase , history . The top clubs saw it as a threat to their right to success and money .
Cue FFP.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

Yep that was always their plan.
PSG were never their target. Only us. A few smaller Eastern European clubs may get their wrists slapped for window dressing
but it's solely us that the G14 were after. Laughable how when they realised Liverpool would fail they announced that they
wouldn't be auditing their accounts this year. Weren't PSG part of the G14 or G18 themselves? Their ludicrous sponsorship deals are
halved and so is our non related party, at market rate deal with Etihad. It appears that our IP deals are also ruled out which means our
business model going forward isn't viable under FFP terms. This is going to be a War of Annihilation. The G14 want us destroyed
and no other club will fight them. We're very much on our own. We employed the guys who drew up FFP to make sure we would pass
so they moved the goal posts and we still failed.This is going to get very, very ugly. From what Pellegrini said at his press conference
we will know the club's response next week. In the meanwhile lets win the league. I'm going to bed.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Daily Mail.

Man City or Liverpool(edit/Devils Advocate ;-) ) set for £95m in TV money if they win the league... and bottom side to earn more than United last season

The Premier League champions stand to rake in £95million from TV money this season while even the bottom club will earn £63million.

The huge value of new £5.5billion Premier League broadcast deals will be highlighted by the fact that whoever finishes bottom of the table on Sunday should earn more from TV money than the £60.8million Manchester United were paid after winning the league last season.

The new champions are expected to be paid £35million more, and the bottom club around £24million more than QPR earned after finishing bottom last season.

The Premier League has confirmed its merit money payments of £1.2million for every place each club finishes up the table, rising to £24million for the champions. That represents a 60per cent rise on last season.

Facility fees of £750,000 will be paid to a club for every live TV appearance, with a minimum payment of £7.5million.

There has been no confirmation from the league of the equal shares that will be paid to clubs for domestic and overseas broadcasting deals, but they are expected to rise by 60per cent and 70per cent respectively - in line with the increases in those deals - to £23million and £32million per club.

The huge rise in income should help a number of clubs turn their financial fortunes around, especially if they have been able to minimise wage bill rises for players this season.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

Yep that was always their plan.
PSG were never their target. Only us. A few smaller Eastern European clubs may get their wrists slapped for window dressing
but it's solely us that the G14 were after. Laughable how when they realised Liverpool would fail they announced that they
wouldn't be auditing their accounts this year. Weren't PSG part of the G14 or G18 themselves? Their ludicrous sponsorship deals are
halved and so is our non related party, at market rate deal with Etihad. It appears that our IP deals are also ruled out which means our
business model going forward isn't viable under FFP terms. This is going to be a War of Annihilation. The G14 want us destroyed
and no other club will fight them. We're very much on our own. We employed the guys who drew up FFP to make sure we would pass
so they moved the goal posts and we still failed.This is going to get very, very ugly. From what Pellegrini said at his press conference
we will know the club's response next week. In the meanwhile lets win the league. I'm going to bed.

To the chamber!