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

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

God you are tiresome Johnny.

He is, tiresomely accurate as well. Try harder to see the good in folk Sooty - like I do with Herr Rummenigge & his pals ;-)

Same as a compromise agreement. A ex-colleague of mine submitted tribunal papers against our employer. During the course of solicitors corresponding he offered a compromise agreement. We thought we would win but the thought of the bad publicity and legal costs meant we accepted and paid a settlement. The agreement was worded such that there was no admission of guilt etc.
Can't believe the weasel got a nice lump sum that he didn't deserve.

If you were confident you'd done nothing unlawful you should have taken him to the tribunal then. The standard wording of an Acas COT3 always requires a clause stating that the settlement sum is paid without admitting liability on the part of the employer but you could have proved that in court without paying a bean.

I suspect you are speaking as someone who has never had to consider going to a tribunal. Even if you win, the prospects of getting a decent settlement are not always great, especially if you've already been offered one by the former employer and declined it. Tribunals tend to look rather dimly on that.

Companies in such circumstances usually know they've acted improperly, and wish to avoid the expense and embarrassment of a tribunal, so they make you an offer, and you can get on with life. I've been through it myself, you do not take the risk of tribunal if you are being offered something half reasonable, and it has nothing whatever to do with me being in the right or wrong.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

God you are tiresome Johnny.

He is, tiresomely accurate as well. Try harder to see the good in folk Sooty - like I do with Herr Rummenigge & his pals ;-)

Same as a compromise agreement. A ex-colleague of mine submitted tribunal papers against our employer. During the course of solicitors corresponding he offered a compromise agreement. We thought we would win but the thought of the bad publicity and legal costs meant we accepted and paid a settlement. The agreement was worded such that there was no admission of guilt etc.
Can't believe the weasel got a nice lump sum that he didn't deserve.

If you were confident you'd done nothing unlawful you should have taken him to the tribunal then. The standard wording of an Acas COT3 always requires a clause stating that the settlement sum is paid without admitting liability on the part of the employer but you could have proved that in court without paying a bean.

With all the buggeration that goes with it. Sometimes it's easier to just pay up and move on. And back to City for a moment, if we secure agreement on what is/is not a related party, and agreement on the various sponsorship and IP deal values close to what we put on them, then only having to pay a small amount by way of a settlement fee (I hesitate to use the word "fine") would be a great result.

In any compromise you have to consider how is the other party going to save face? If you just blank them and don't budge an inch, it makes it more difficult for them to accept and you can end up with much worse situation, not because compromise was impossible, but because you were being a tit about it. It's not in our interests to go to court if we can get in all material effect what we are after by agreeing a compromise.

 

[rugbyblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

UEFA has been in permanent dialogue with the European Commission about financial fair play and has received continued support for this initiative. There is also a joint statement from the UEFA President and the EU commissioner for competition, emphasising the consistency between the rules and objectives of financial fair play and the policy aims of the EU commission in the field of state aid.

Notice what's not stated there?

'X number of Judges at the European Court of Justice have ruled that it is legal and proper'.

Unless the European parliament changes the law, it's got sod all to do with what the EU commisioner for competition thinks (when challenged in court), it would come down to what the judges at the European Court of Justice ruled on.

FFP is already being challenged at court, if it was open and shut then it would have been dismissed already, instead the court is expected to rule by early 2015.

 

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

God you are tiresome Johnny.

He is, tiresomely accurate as well. Try harder to see the good in folk Sooty - like I do with Herr Rummenigge & his pals ;-)

Same as a compromise agreement. A ex-colleague of mine submitted tribunal papers against our employer. During the course of solicitors corresponding he offered a compromise agreement. We thought we would win but the thought of the bad publicity and legal costs meant we accepted and paid a settlement. The agreement was worded such that there was no admission of guilt etc.
Can't believe the weasel got a nice lump sum that he didn't deserve.

If you were confident you'd done nothing unlawful you should have taken him to the tribunal then. The standard wording of an Acas COT3 always requires a clause stating that the settlement sum is paid without admitting liability on the part of the employer but you could have proved that in court without paying a bean.

I suspect you are speaking as someone who has never had to consider going to a tribunal. Even if you win, the prospects of getting a decent settlement are not always great, especially if you've already been offered one by the former employer and declined it. Tribunals tend to look rather dimly on that.

Companies in such circumstances usually know they've acted improperly, and wish to avoid the expense and embarrassment of a tribunal, so they make you an offer, and you can get on with life. I've been through it myself, you do not take the risk of tribunal if you are being offered something half reasonable, and it has nothing whatever to do with me being in the right or wrong.

And quite obviously I didn't read the previous posts properly.

Yes I am a twat.

 

[Mraitch]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Piecing together what I have read so far the pre 2010 contract wages in 2011/12 were £80m and this was deductable from the losses for that year because they exceeded the £78m losses. UEFA have adjusted our losses for that year up to over £80m so they are not allowing the deduction of the £80m. The UEFA adjustment for 2011/12 cannot be due to the image rights or IPR sales because they were in 2012/13. The additional losses must have come from a reduction in the value of the Etihad deal. But this can only be adjusted down if it is from a related party and under IAS24 it is not a related party. So how have UEFA arrived at this decision?

 

[jonmcity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Piecing together what I have read so far the pre 2010 contract wages in 2011/12 were £80m and this was deductable from the losses for that year because they exceeded the £78m losses. UEFA have adjusted our losses for that year up to over £80m so they are not allowing the deduction of the £80m. The UEFA adjustment for 2011/12 cannot be due to the image rights or IPR sales because they were in 2012/13. The additional losses must have come from a reduction in the value of the Etihad deal. But this can only be adjusted down if it is from a related party and under IAS24 it is not a related party. So how have UEFA arrived at this decision?

No doubt it is,and will be contested all the way.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Piecing together what I have read so far the pre 2010 contract wages in 2011/12 were £80m and this was deductable from the losses for that year because they exceeded the £78m losses. UEFA have adjusted our losses for that year up to over £80m so they are not allowing the deduction of the £80m. The UEFA adjustment for 2011/12 cannot be due to the image rights or IPR sales because they were in 2012/13. The additional losses must have come from a reduction in the value of the Etihad deal. But this can only be adjusted down if it is from a related party and under IAS24 it is not a related party. So how have UEFA arrived at this decision?

That's exactly what I thought.
I was sure that we were told several hundred posts ago , that the Etihad deal had been passed by auditors as non- related by all the known standards of accountancy in Europe , and suddenly uefa say differently ?
Funnily enough, when I started typing "uefa" my predictive text came up with "unfair"

 

[loftinspace]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

QPR fan in peace. Seem to remember last time we were up your way we had a little mutual celebration so maybe my appearance here is an omen. Something tells me you wont suffer quite so much this time round....

Anyway FFP. You think you've got problems. We're goin to take it up the botty large style whether we go up or stay put. And the irony is we're a far worse side than the one that turned up when Joey (bless) went mental (again). So regarding the legality of FFP, this seems to me a pretty decent summary:

http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/?p=469

Oh and good luck with the other thing ;)

 

[nmc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

God you are tiresome Johnny.

He is, tiresomely accurate as well. Try harder to see the good in folk Sooty - like I do with Herr Rummenigge & his pals ;-)

Same as a compromise agreement. A ex-colleague of mine submitted tribunal papers against our employer. During the course of solicitors corresponding he offered a compromise agreement. We thought we would win but the thought of the bad publicity and legal costs meant we accepted and paid a settlement. The agreement was worded such that there was no admission of guilt etc.
Can't believe the weasel got a nice lump sum that he didn't deserve.

If you were confident you'd done nothing unlawful you should have taken him to the tribunal then. The standard wording of an Acas COT3 always requires a clause stating that the settlement sum is paid without admitting liability on the part of the employer but you could have proved that in court without paying a bean.

With all the buggeration that goes with it. Sometimes it's easier to just pay up and move on. And back to City for a moment, if we secure agreement on what is/is not a related party, and agreement on the various sponsorship and IP deal values close to what we put on them, then only having to pay a small amount by way of a settlement fee (I hesitate to use the word "fine") would be a great result.

In any compromise you have to consider how is the other party going to save face? If you just blank them and don't budge an inch, it makes it more difficult for them to accept and you can end up with much worse situation, not because compromise was impossible, but because you were being a tit about it. It's not in our interests to go to court if we can get in all material effect what we are after by agreeing a compromise.

I understand the concept of without prejudice and agree it will be a useful instrument to agree a fine / payment but - and it's a big but the final position agreed in respect of the treatment of out accounts cannot remain without prejudice - both UEFA and other clubs in the future may want to rely on whatever precedent is set. The problem for UEFA here is that there is no easy way out - most compromise agreements arise from unique circumstances but that's probably not the case with FFP - which is going to be an annual bun fight and a precedent will surely be set - whatever we agree as a fine ( which may remain secret) the way UEFA interprets our accounts cannot remain behind a veil of secrecy. UEFA are in a very bad place if they really have been playing 'Charlie big bananas' simply to appease the G14 clowns because it seems we have stood upto them and we ain't gonna blink anytime soon - and short of them backing down and doing permanent damage to ther foolish plan there probably isn't an easy way out.

 

[jonmcity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

He is, tiresomely accurate as well. Try harder to see the good in folk Sooty - like I do with Herr Rummenigge & his pals ;-)


If you were confident you'd done nothing unlawful you should have taken him to the tribunal then. The standard wording of an Acas COT3 always requires a clause stating that the settlement sum is paid without admitting liability on the part of the employer but you could have proved that in court without paying a bean.

With all the buggeration that goes with it. Sometimes it's easier to just pay up and move on. And back to City for a moment, if we secure agreement on what is/is not a related party, and agreement on the various sponsorship and IP deal values close to what we put on them, then only having to pay a small amount by way of a settlement fee (I hesitate to use the word "fine") would be a great result.

In any compromise you have to consider how is the other party going to save face? If you just blank them and don't budge an inch, it makes it more difficult for them to accept and you can end up with much worse situation, not because compromise was impossible, but because you were being a tit about it. It's not in our interests to go to court if we can get in all material effect what we are after by agreeing a compromise.

I understand the concept of without prejudice and agree it will be a useful instrument to agree a fine / payment but - and it's a big but the final position agreed in respect of the treatment of out accounts cannot remain without prejudice - both UEFA and other clubs in the future may want to rely on whatever precedent is set. The problem for UEFA here is that there is no easy way out - most compromise agreements arise from unique circumstances but that's probably not the case with FFP - which is going to be an annual bun fight and a precedent will surely be set - whatever we agree as a fine ( which may remain secret) the way UEFA interprets our accounts cannot remain behind a veil of secrecy. UEFA are in a very bad place if they really have been playing 'Charlie big bananas' simply to appease the G14 clowns because it seems we have stood upto them and we ain't gonna blink anytime soon - and short of them backing down and doing permanent damage to ther foolish plan there probably isn't an easy way out.

They have to accept independent auditors ruling on the Etihad deal. They will loose the case if they impose their own interpretation. Presidents have been set that show the deal if anything is under valued.