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

[Chris in London]

City & FFP (continued)

Can someone explain where the rules have been changed to make a case against us?
This has been inferred several times on this thread. If UEFA gave us a set of rules to abide by at the introduction of FFP, surely they don't have a leg to stand on from a legal point of view if they are now retrospectively adding different clauses to these rules?
Or are they simply arguing the toss with us about the sale of IP rights?

This is a really good question, I'd like to know that too. I've tried to look it up but not found much.

As well as the points made above, one of the ways they changed the rules is in relation to Related Party Transactions. The rules provide that when applying the break even test, if income comes from a related party and it is at an inflated value, UEFA can impose their own view of what a fair value would be, and re-calculate the break even test on that basis.

The FFP rules replicate exactly a well known international accountancy rule called IAS 24 which defines what is a related party. According to IAS 24, Etihad Airways is not a related party.

If press reports are accurate, UEFA has concluded that the Etihad deal was in fact a related party transaction despite IAS 24 and so it has been revalued by UEFA. They only have the power to make this adjustment to a related party transaction. Having revalued the deal, we fail FFP. Had they not done so, we would not have failed FFPR or at least not by such a wide margin.

So unless the press reports are inaccurate, UEFA have used an internationally recognised accountancy test the meaning of which is well understood and without telling anyone that they were going to make it mean something different in the context of FFPR, they have done just that. After telling us, if certain posters info is correct, that they would do no such thing.

Going back to the speeding analogy, they have fined us for doing 35 in a 30 zone. When our defence is that we were only doing 25 mph, they said 'ah, but the 30 limit is kph not mph'.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The most this will set us back is a season or so.

The only reason we are being punished unfairly is to deter any more owners doing the same thing. We are the guinea pigs. UEFA can't be seen to be fair in case, god forbid, some other club has a crack too.

All will be well eventually and one daywe will benefit from these rules, that is until they are ruled illegal and UEFA have to refund the fines.

That's why UEFA won't say what they're going to do with the money because there is a good chance they will have to pay it back, and they know it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Can someone explain where the rules have been changed to make a case against us?
This has been inferred several times on this thread. If UEFA gave us a set of rules to abide by at the introduction of FFP, surely they don't have a leg to stand on from a legal point of view if they are now retrospectively adding different clauses to these rules?
Or are they simply arguing the toss with us about the sale of IP rights?

This is a really good question, I'd like to know that too. I've tried to look it up but not found much.

They are not completely stupid and therefore they may not be completely breaking the rules for fear of it being easily being contested in court.

(That said, if they are suggesting the Etihad deal is a related-party transaction, then they are being that stupid since the rules around what is/is not a related party are clearly understood and documented and the criteria as laid down in the FFP rules is identical (word for word) to the criteria applied under generally accepted accounting principles and as applied by our independent auditors.)

But look at it this way - for 2 or 3 years we have been open about our cooperation with UEFA and our intention to fully comply with FFP. We even hired the UEFA lawyers who drew the bloody thing up to help us. We have been making strenuous efforts to increase revenue and we have been controlled in our spending. We are on a clear trajectory to break-even.

Then you look at the rules themselves. They specifically say:

The quantum and trend of the break-even result
The larger the quantum of a break-even deficit relative to a licensee’s relevant income, in a reporting period or in aggregate for a monitoring period, the less favourably it will be viewed. An improving trend in the annual break- even results will be viewed more favourably than a worsening trend.

Where's due allowance for our break-even trend?

Projected break-even result
If the projected break-even result for the reporting period T+1 foresees a surplus, it is likely to be viewed more favourably than if the break-even result for the reporting period T+1 foresees a deficit. As part of its considerations, the UEFA Club Financial Control Body may also request a licensee’s longer term business plan (for reporting periods covering T+2 and T+3) in order to better understand the strategy of the club.

Where's due allowance for our plan for sustainability and the incredible work we are doing on setting up youth training and development?

Debt situation
Additional information may also be requested from a licensee in respect of its debt situation. This may include aspects such as the source of debt, the ability to service interest and principal payments, the debt covenant compliance and the maturity profile of debt.

Where's due allowance of us having no debt?

Are we to assume UEFA have let us off lightly with a mere £50m fine and squad restriction, and if it were not for the above, it would have been worse?

 

[Zabbasbeard]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

He is right. But it has been apparent FROM DAY ONE that this is all about the cartel. Where were these journos then?
At least they can see this is totally wrong now.

Exactly right, which is why I marvel that this seems to have come as a surprise to many on here.

Right from the word go, Platini mentioned City (and City alone) in just about every speech relating to FFP, a practice which ceased some 6 to 12 months ago presumably only as the result of UEFA's own lawyers intervening to prevent their case from becoming compromised.

Every aspect of FFP is a carefully orchestrated charade, complete with moving goalposts and false promises, all at the behest of the cartel, but I think many City fans are being extremely naive if they think victory in Court is either a) guaranteed or b) likely to result in UEFA finally playing ball.

If I had to make a couple of predictions they would be that if we go to the Court of Arbritration we will be given a Champions League ban, something that UEFA both wants and is trying to goad us into, as they can't hit us with such a punishment initially without lamping PSG with the same hammer. If we then go all the way through to the law Courts and win, they will either simply exclude us from future European competitions (they're invite only remember), or redraft their own qualifying criteria to the same effect.

Rummenigge, Gill and all the rest of those horrible bent cunts want us nobbled. The CL squad limitation clause will do that without a shadow of doubt. We need to refresh our squad with Europe's finest over the next 3 years (Silva, Ya Ya, Dzeko, Kompers are all 28+), but won't be able to do so. They know we can't accept that clause, and, unlike most posters, I don't expect a compromise to be reached. Remember who lies behind the concept of FFP and what their motivation is. No matter how shamelessly they have to behave, they will do what is necessary to achieve their goals.
Oh, and if we do pursue the matter further, don't expect Everton to be the recipient of our vacated CL spot. Unprecedented situation......short notice.......felt it best to issue an invite to.......?! There's too many people on here thinking like decent, fair minded human beings. That's not who or what we're dealing with. Money talks

UEFA make the rules and they will make them to achieve their objectives and those objectives are clear. I see only one resolution, it is time for someone with foresight to set up a rival competition to the UEFA champions league. It may break the whole of football apart but that is what's needed. That way fans can make a 'choice' as to what variant of the sport they want to follow.

With bigger prize monies, big teams would chase the larger money's on offer. It is the only way I can see that you can break the cartel. Either that or the European Union holds football up to it's own competition laws. Football cannot and should not exist outside of the laws that govern all businesses and whether we like it or not, that is what football clubs have become.

This rival comp is worthy of strong consideration. Doing nothing is not an option.

 

[Keith Moon]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I still wouldn't attach too much importance to anything Ed says, he's woefully incompetent and if UEFA wanted a mouthpiece I'd give them credit for being devious enough to pick someone more capable than him.

Well, if he's not the UEFA leak to PA he's most likely the guy who connected them to their source.

I don't think much has been leaked to PA though, most of it's copied and pasted from this article yesterday :
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.lequipe.fr/Football/Actualites/Paris-sait-a-quoi-s-en-tenir/462690" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.lequipe.fr/Football/Actualit ... nir/462690</a>
But with City replacing PSG.

Yes, its basically the same info but Martyn Ziegier (Chief Sports Reporter, Press Association) says he has his own source at UEFA....

 

[nellyonthewing]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think we should have a special song for eufa tonight..Can someone come up with one . I'm off to the ground in an hour. Otherwise its just 'You can stick your FFP up your arse ..etc'

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Re the squad size, I've checked this season's and we actually named 24 players of whom 21 played some part, of whom Richards, Pantilimon and Rodwell played either a single game or part of one. Huws, Boyata and Jovetic were in the squad but didn't feature at all.

 

[Zabbasbeard]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Fucking agree, Paul.

He is right. But it has been apparent FROM DAY ONE that this is all about the cartel. Where were these journos then?
At least they can see this is totally wrong now.

Exactly right, which is why I marvel that this seems to have come as a surprise to many on here.

Right from the word go, Platini mentioned City (and City alone) in just about every speech relating to FFP, a practice which ceased some 6 to 12 months ago presumably only as the result of UEFA's own lawyers intervening to prevent their case from becoming compromised.

Every aspect of FFP is a carefully orchestrated charade, complete with moving goalposts and false promises, all at the behest of the cartel, but I think many City fans are being extremely naive if they think victory in Court is either a) guaranteed or b) likely to result in UEFA finally playing ball.

If I had to make a couple of predictions they would be that if we go to the Court of Arbritration we will be given a Champions League ban, something that UEFA both wants and is trying to goad us into, as they can't hit us with such a punishment initially without lamping PSG with the same hammer. If we then go all the way through to the law Courts and win, they will either simply exclude us from future European competitions (they're invite only remember), or redraft their own qualifying criteria to the same effect.

Rummenigge, Gill and all the rest of those horrible bent cunts want us nobbled. The CL squad limitation clause will do that without a shadow of doubt. We need to refresh our squad with Europe's finest over the next 3 years (Silva, Ya Ya, Dzeko, Kompers are all 28+), but won't be able to do so. They know we can't accept that clause, and, unlike most posters, I don't expect a compromise to be reached. Remember who lies behind the concept of FFP and what their motivation is. No matter how shamelessly they have to behave, they will do what is necessary to achieve their goals.
Oh, and if we do pursue the matter further, don't expect Everton to be the recipient of our vacated CL spot. Unprecedented situation......short notice.......felt it best to issue an invite to.......?! There's too many people on here thinking like decent, fair minded human beings. That's not who or what we're dealing with. Money talks

Yes, agree, what do think we should do, John (it is John?!)

 

[terraloon]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sorry mate but I cannot agree with that.

1. If the intention was always to "let off" clubs that were not yet in the CL, then the rules should say so. If they do not say so, we can reasonably and quite justifiably assume they are making it up as they go along, which is totally unacceptable.

2. UEFA's inability to audit accounts - were that to be the case - cannot reasonably be used as an excuse to favour one club vs another, when £50m fines are being banded about.

3. Once the CL qualifiers for the next season are known, there's plenty of time for them to submit break-even result information for audit before the season starts. What on earth is the point of auditing break-even results for clubs who have not or may not qualify? A complete waste of time and effort for all concerned.

I think you might be overestimating how quickly these things can be done. If the process didn't start for some clubs till next week, then with the auditing, plus review times, possible appeals etc, it's highly unlikely everything would be sorted before the start of the CL qualifying.

As it's the first year UEFA know this is crunch time for the process and it's likely that there could be challenges and arguments. I don't doubt that this process has been hijacked in some way by current big teams as a way to keep the status quo, but I don't buy the pro-Liverpool agenda.

I hear where you are coming from mate, and I am not sure there's a pro-Liverpool agenda per se. More of a blind-eye to certain clubs and infringements and ton-of-bricks coming down on others. Terrible double-standards at best.

I still stand by me assertion that unless it is clearly stated in the rules somewhere that break-even requirement does not apply if you are not currently in the CL, then they cannot be given a free pass unless blatant cheating is going on.

Please can anyone show me where in the FFP rules it says the break-even requirement does not apply if you are not currently in the CL? I don't see it anywhere.

Sorry to disagree but it is in the regulations.

The brief process is that if a club in EPL will be granted (by the FA) a licence to play in UEFA competitions. A licence is only for one season

The timelines are such that quite a few clubs would apply because they might qualify but come end of the season if they don't qualify then their name isn't put forward by the FA. In effect the only clubs that get granted a licence are those that qualify for CL or EL

As was explained by someone else there are lots of other requirements such as safety, youth development etc.

So in the case of Liverpool they don't have a licence. Man City(by virtue of them competing in the CL in season 2013/14 do)

It is only when a club is granted a licence that the FFP monitoring requirements start and are explained within articles 53 & 54 of UEFAs Licensing Regulations <a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>

Also the FA confirm that the financial tests only take place during the year of qualification.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/more/financial-regulation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... regulation</a>


I would also suggest that a look at article 43 would be worthwhile in that it talks about by applying for a club license you in effect agree to accept UEFAs regulations or if appropriate rulings from CAS

 

[Cobwebcat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Exactly right, which is why I marvel that this seems to have come as a surprise to many on here.

Right from the word go, Platini mentioned City (and City alone) in just about every speech relating to FFP, a practice which ceased some 6 to 12 months ago presumably only as the result of UEFA's own lawyers intervening to prevent their case from becoming compromised.

Every aspect of FFP is a carefully orchestrated charade, complete with moving goalposts and false promises, all at the behest of the cartel, but I think many City fans are being extremely naive if they think victory in Court is either a) guaranteed or b) likely to result in UEFA finally playing ball.



If I had to make a couple of predictions they would be that if we go to the Court of Arbritration we will be given a Champions League ban, something that UEFA both wants and is trying to goad us into, as they can't hit us with such a punishment initially without lamping PSG with the same hammer. If we then go all the way through to the law Courts and win, they will either simply exclude us from future European competitions (they're invite only remember), or redraft their own qualifying criteria to the same effect.

Rummenigge, Gill and all the rest of those horrible bent cunts want us nobbled. The CL squad limitation clause will do that without a shadow of doubt. We need to refresh our squad with Europe's finest over the next 3 years (Silva, Ya Ya, Dzeko, Kompers are all 28+), but won't be able to do so. They know we can't accept that clause, and, unlike most posters, I don't expect a compromise to be reached. Remember who lies behind the concept of FFP and what their motivation is. No matter how shamelessly they have to behave, they will do what is necessary to achieve their goals.
Oh, and if we do pursue the matter further, don't expect Everton to be the recipient of our vacated CL spot. Unprecedented situation......short notice.......felt it best to issue an invite to.......?! There's too many people on here thinking like decent, fair minded human beings. That's not who or what we're dealing with. Money talks

UEFA make the rules and they will make them to achieve their objectives and those objectives are clear. I see only one resolution, it is time for someone with foresight to set up a rival competition to the UEFA champions league. It may break the whole of football apart but that is what's needed. That way fans can make a 'choice' as to what variant of the sport they want to follow.

With bigger prize monies, big teams would chase the larger money's on offer. It is the only way I can see that you can break the cartel. Either that or the European Union holds football up to it's own competition laws. Football cannot and should not exist outside of the laws that govern all businesses and whether we like it or not, that is what football clubs have become.

This rival comp is worthy of strong consideration. Doing nothing is not an option.

UEFA can be got at they are not exempt from EU law. They tried to ignore The Treaty of Rome too. How did that turn out?