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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

squirtyflower said:
Chippy_boy said:
crazyadi said:
What I want someone of moderate intelligence to explain to me is how PSG have a sponsorship deal, that has been halved, of about £100 million per year and UEFA consider that 'fair market value' for the ground alone, now PSG play in Ligue1 which has the 7th highest average attendance in Europe, their biggest game last couple of years was against Lyon and was watched on TV in 7 different countries. PSG themselves have an average gate around 10% lower than the blues.
City on the other hand have been told that their £35 million sponsorship for shirt, stadium and training ground is NOT fair market value. City play in the EPL which has the highest average attendance in Europe, their biggest games in 2012 was QPR match and was transmitted to over 200 countries worldwide and had a TV viewing audience of over 500million... the EPL having yearly viewing figures of over 4 BILLION.

If city have that much more exposure than PSG and we have average gates 10% higher than PSG then surely £35 million is grossly UNDERvalued.

EXPLAIN????
Click to expand...

Lots of people on here have said it must be the Etihad deal that's the problem, but no-one official has said that on either side, so it's pure speculation. And having thought about it (a lot), researched it fair bit, debated it, and been proved wrong... I am now totally convinced it is NOT the Etihad deal that's the problem. The value of the deal can only be questioned by UEFA if it is a related-party transaction. If it is not a related-party transaction, the deal value as shown in our accounts goes in full towards our break-even result and cannot be alterered.

The rules on what is/what is not a related party transaction are so clearly defined and understood, with no room for different interpretation, that it is imho impossible for our respected, independent auditors to have signed off on this not being an RTP, and then UEFA's respected, independent auditors to say that it is. There's not enough wriggle room in the accounting standards to allow that to happen. It doesn't matter whether in practice we have a bit of influence over Etihad, or whether they have any influence over us. The fact is the same IAS24 accounting standard that both us and UEFA are using, defines various criteria and terms and under those standards, it is not an RPT. So the value cannot be questioned by UEFA.
Click to expand...
It seems it is the Etihad deal and these 'respected' auditors are trying to pull a fast one at the behest of UEFA, hence City's anger
Click to expand...

"It seems"?

I don't believe it Matty. I am not an accountant but I do understand basic accounting principles and I just can't see how two sides could draw different conclusions about the Etihad whilst working under the same accounting framework. I just can't see it.

If UEFA had said David Gill has looked at the accounts and ruled that the Etihad deal is an RPT, then OK yes, but they have their own respected, independent accountants. They don't "pull fast ones".

It's not like dealing with RPT's is a new and challenging area for audit firms. It's bread and butter stuff for them and they will all be bang up to speed on it since it's part of every plc audit they'll likely ever do. The objective - not subjective - tests that IAS24 requires says it's not an RPT and someone like Deloittes or PWC or whoever it is are not going to risk the reputation of the firm, or jail, by lying about it.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Johnsonontheleft said:
Can anyone shed any light on how much David Gill has to do with this please?
Click to expand...
Not sure but he will have a say, after all he was part of the g16 committee.says it all. Corrupt rag shite
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Re Gill's involvement, from the Mail back in March:


Former Manchester United chief executive David Gill has been handed power by UEFA to recommend bans on clubs such as rivals Manchester City and Chelsea, who may find themselves in breach of new European Financial Fair Play rules.

Having stepped down from his post at Old Trafford at the end of last season to become a UEFA executive member, Gill has now been appointed chairman of the governing body’s extremely influential Club Licensing Committee.

The committee essentially decides which clubs are entitled to licences to play Champions League and Europa League football. This will become increasingly important as UEFA’s FFP rules shape the landscape of European football in the coming years.

+5
Influential: Chelsea and Manchester City could potentially suffer at the hands of David Gill
Gill is a known advocate of FFP and one of four Barclays Premier League chiefs who proposed similar rules be implemented in English domestic football back in January.

He said 18 months ago that the new European system would only work if ‘appropriate sanctions’ were imposed on those who missed the targets. Sanctions already discussed by UEFA president Michel Platini have included fines and, for severe offences, competition bans.

Gill’s appointment will certainly raise eyebrows at clubs such as City and Chelsea who are currently striving to ensure their losses are no greater than the 845million (£38m) limit allowed by FFP across last and next season.

+5
Long allegiance: Gill spent 10 years alongside Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United
+5
Sheikh Mansour
+5
Roman Abramovich
Both clubs have been used to viewing Gill as a rival in recent years and it will not have escaped their attention that the 55-year-old is to remain a United director and board member, despite handing over the chief executive baton to Ed Woodward.

On Monday night, a UEFA spokeswoman confirmed that Gill’s committee will have an influence over whether clubs’ finances entitle them to play in major European competition.

This is despite that fact that the Club Financial Control Body will go through individual clubs’ finances initially to see if they meet the targets set by FFP. Gill will play no role in this part of the process.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Chippy_boy said:
squirtyflower said:
Chippy_boy said:
Lots of people on here have said it must be the Etihad deal that's the problem, but no-one official has said that on either side, so it's pure speculation. And having thought about it (a lot), researched it fair bit, debated it, and been proved wrong... I am now totally convinced it is NOT the Etihad deal that's the problem. The value of the deal can only be questioned by UEFA if it is a related-party transaction. If it is not a related-party transaction, the deal value as shown in our accounts goes in full towards our break-even result and cannot be alterered.

The rules on what is/what is not a related party transaction are so clearly defined and understood, with no room for different interpretation, that it is imho impossible for our respected, independent auditors to have signed off on this not being an RTP, and then UEFA's respected, independent auditors to say that it is. There's not enough wriggle room in the accounting standards to allow that to happen. It doesn't matter whether in practice we have a bit of influence over Etihad, or whether they have any influence over us. The fact is the same IAS24 accounting standard that both us and UEFA are using, defines various criteria and terms and under those standards, it is not an RPT. So the value cannot be questioned by UEFA.
Click to expand...
It seems it is the Etihad deal and these 'respected' auditors are trying to pull a fast one at the behest of UEFA, hence City's anger
Click to expand...

"It seems"?

I don't believe it Matty. I am not an accountant but I do understand basic accounting principles and I just can't see how two sides could draw different conclusions about the Etihad whilst working under the same accounting framework. I just can't see it.

If UEFA had said David Gill has looked at the accounts and ruled that the Etihad deal is an RPT, then OK yes, but they have their own respected, independent accountants. They don't "pull fast ones".

It's not like dealing with RPT's is a new and challenging area for audit firms. It's bread and butter stuff for them and they will all be bang up to speed on it since it's part of every plc audit they'll likely ever do. The objective - not subjective - tests that IAS24 requires says it's not an RPT and someone like Deloittes or PWC or whoever it is are not going to risk the reputation of the firm, or jail, by lying about it.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly with your premise, and it is a difficult concept for two sets of auditors to agree on
However it seems as though UEFA's auditors do disagree with City's on this occasion

Like you, I find that incredulous, but this is the stumbling block. Their deception and subterfuge has meant their case is built on sand. Fortunately our owner knows a thing or two about sand.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

hilts said:
MacFeegle said:
Think that UEFA and Platini have realised that the club and Sheik Mansour in particular will not accept a compromise deal that they have acted any way illegally. These extra days are just wriggle room as they've realised they've turned up at a gunfight armed with a knife. Even if we have to take this all the way we will get every penny back, everyone who has had a proper look at what HRH has done for the club and Manchester is laughing their arse off at this.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately i have already heard for the last couple of years from posters in the know how we needn't worry about FFP, how we will pass, so as far as optimism is concerned you and no one else knows how this will pan out, they are after us and will do everything in their power to succeed so saying they will die on their arse is a guess and a baseless one at that
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. I said yesterday there would be no settlement and that hasn't changed. UEFA have come up with a punishment that is ridiculously harsh for a reason, and that reason is to force us down the CAS route. The only plausible explanation I can come up with for this, is that banning us at source would have meant issuing PSG with a similar ban, something Platini had no wish to do to his Qatari chums, and that he is optimistic that CAS will do the job for him.

We have two choices; accept the initial punishment and then watch as any one of the rags, Arsenal or Liverpool appeals it as being unduly lenient, giving Twatini the excuse for the ban that he couldn't implement originally for presentational purposes, or take the matter all the way through to the law courts, where even if we do win, there is no guarantee that UEFA will simply accept us back into an invitation only tournament.

Never forget what this is about. City occupying a Champions League berth means one of the G14 of Liverpool, Arsenal, the rags or Chelsea, missing out on a £50m a year cheque and enduring all the recruitment and retention problems associated with absence from that competition. And on that score, let's say we do mount a legal challenge. How long would it take? A year? 2 years? Do you think Kun, Merlin and Ya Ya will want to stay if they're not getting Chimps League football? And if they did go, how would we be able to recruit anyone of similar quality thereafter, with FFP restrictions still in place?

As a tournament in itself, I don't really give a fuck about the Chimps League, but the income streams and exposure associated with being in it, are essential to our owners. My own inclination would be to swallow the plateful of dog turds being offered us, on the grounds that it represents our best bet of still being in the CL next season, but I'd understand fully if our owners would prefer a full blown legal challenge. Either way though I don't think it really matters. They will find fault with whatever we do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.