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

[bluesoup]

City & FFP (continued)

The more I read on this very good and addictive thread, the crux seems to be the accountants and auditors. An interesting insight is from the FFP site where there is an interesting paragraph. To quote it says:

"City’s punishment suggests that City may have scored an own-goal when they recruited a crack team from Deloittes accountants to work round the rules. Reportedly at great expense, they recruited the same Deloittes team who drew up the FFP rule as their dedicated account-preparation team. The rationale was that they should know where the loop-holes were within the rules. Mindful of this, UEFA brought in rival firm PWC to carry-out their audit of City’s accounts. It is interesting to wonder whether inter-firm rivalry contributed in any way to the outcome. As things have panned-out, despite City’s endeavours, they have been treated in the same as PSG (a club that adopted a fairly naïve and foolhardy approach the Break-Even rules)."

Now this is a clear recognition from FFP that they where trying to check us using their own rules for passing the break even rule. So here comes into play my speculation with the FFP auditors, who challenged our books to take out / revalue our qualification of certain items which left us with a colossal fail which leads to a colossal fine.

If this is the case, I'd assume there would be independent arbitration to test the interpretation used by City's and FFP's auditors and by all accounts City are not naive or stupid to make international accounting standards up ! However, I'd be more inclined to think PWC may have just scored an own goal instead!

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

There is nothing wrong with selling assets such as IP in the years we need money to meet FFP. We manage our money in the way that suits us best.

Only question mark is market value.

Not sure if this would be something checked by our auditors or not, but I would expect that we would have had to have convinced UEFA that the price we got wasnt artificially inflated.

IP is valued at 'what it is worth to the purchaser' you cannot place a value on it unless you need it

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We could re-negotiate up the Etihad deal as its a bargain now from the strides we've made. That would more than cover any fine. But I do feel that UEFA will just find something else to do us about and we'll be bummed year after year until our owner thinks fuck it I'm off which is the aim of all this.

We have got to fight this and any further rules on this laughable Shaft City or FFP as its called needs to be made fully transparent so we know what we're up against.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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

"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.

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.

Where are we hearing this from? It's so ridiculous, it should be dismissed as being not true, unless there's some solid information that this is indeed the problem.

I mean, you could speculate that we have been found "guilty" because our kit colour is light blue and UEFA have deemed that they don't like light blue. But we would dismiss this as being a silly rumour unless there was solid evidence that this is indeed the case.

So where are we hearing it from? If it's from the media, I don't believe it. 90% of them don't know their arse from their elbow (and I include the BBC in that) and the rest just copy the 90%. If someone on here is ITK, then OK fair enough.

 

[squirtyflower]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

"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.

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.

Where are we hearing this from? It's so ridiculous, it should be dismissed as being not true, unless there's some solid information that this is indeed the problem.

I mean, you could speculate that we have been found "guilty" because our kit colour is light blue and UEFA have deemed that they don't like light blue. But we would dismiss this as being a silly rumour unless there was solid evidence that this is indeed the case.

A varying interpretation on whether a perty it an RPT or not is just as daft. A party either owns more than 20% of your business, or they do not. They either have a board member on your board partipatiing in policy making decisions, or they do not. They either have significant influence - with the objective criteria as to what that it is - or they do not.

You can't have PWC saying Etihad own 21% of City when in fact they don't.

I don't think that you see that I agree with you
In a sane world all of what you say is true, understood by all parties, and we sail through FFP into the night

However, the world that UEFA and the cartel operate within is not sane, and far from fair, and we end up with the largest fine, but to who does it go, in the history of world sport.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

Where are we hearing this from? It's so ridiculous, it should be dismissed as being not true, unless there's some solid information that this is indeed the problem.

I mean, you could speculate that we have been found "guilty" because our kit colour is light blue and UEFA have deemed that they don't like light blue. But we would dismiss this as being a silly rumour unless there was solid evidence that this is indeed the case.

A varying interpretation on whether a perty it an RPT or not is just as daft. A party either owns more than 20% of your business, or they do not. They either have a board member on your board partipatiing in policy making decisions, or they do not. They either have significant influence - with the objective criteria as to what that it is - or they do not.

You can't have PWC saying Etihad own 21% of City when in fact they don't.

I don't think that you see that I agree with you
In a sane world all of what you say is true, understood by all parties, and we sail through FFP into the night

However, the world that UEFA and the cartel operate within is not sane, and far from fair, and we end up with the largest fine, but to who does it go, in the history of world sport.

No, I do. I get that you are agreeing. I was just reiterating because it's so incredibly bizarrely daft. (I since edited that part out actually).

UEFA might be bent as a 9 bob note ("might be"... LOL) but PWC aren't.

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

These BDO auditors of ours (Binder Dijker Otte & Co I believe) - are they up to it?

Of course they are backed up by that reputable internationally known law firm of Sue, Grabbit and Runne

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Anyway, if it is the Etihad deal, that’s really great news because that will never stick. We just say fuck off and appeal it at whatever level until it WILL get overturned because we are right and they are not. And anyway, £35m/year is undervaluing it, so they don’t have a zimmer to lean on.

 

[squirtyflower]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Where are we hearing this from? It's so ridiculous, it should be dismissed as being not true, unless there's some solid information that this is indeed the problem.

I mean, you could speculate that we have been found "guilty" because our kit colour is light blue and UEFA have deemed that they don't like light blue. But we would dismiss this as being a silly rumour unless there was solid evidence that this is indeed the case.

A varying interpretation on whether a perty it an RPT or not is just as daft. A party either owns more than 20% of your business, or they do not. They either have a board member on your board partipatiing in policy making decisions, or they do not. They either have significant influence - with the objective criteria as to what that it is - or they do not.

You can't have PWC saying Etihad own 21% of City when in fact they don't.

I don't think that you see that I agree with you
In a sane world all of what you say is true, understood by all parties, and we sail through FFP into the night

However, the world that UEFA and the cartel operate within is not sane, and far from fair, and we end up with the largest fine, but to who does it go, in the history of world sport.

No, I do. I get that you are agreeing. I was just reiterating because it's so incredibly bizarrely daft. (I since edited that part out actually).

UEFA might be bent as a 9 bob note ("might be"... LOL) but PWC aren't.

It is incredible and incredulous that a respected accountancy practice should put themselves in this position but, sometimes, people do daft things at the behest of their employers.

It's in City's court now, literally.

 

[cibaman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Where are we hearing this from? It's so ridiculous, it should be dismissed as being not true, unless there's some solid information that this is indeed the problem.

I mean, you could speculate that we have been found "guilty" because our kit colour is light blue and UEFA have deemed that they don't like light blue. But we would dismiss this as being a silly rumour unless there was solid evidence that this is indeed the case.

A varying interpretation on whether a perty it an RPT or not is just as daft. A party either owns more than 20% of your business, or they do not. They either have a board member on your board partipatiing in policy making decisions, or they do not. They either have significant influence - with the objective criteria as to what that it is - or they do not.

You can't have PWC saying Etihad own 21% of City when in fact they don't.

I don't think that you see that I agree with you
In a sane world all of what you say is true, understood by all parties, and we sail through FFP into the night

However, the world that UEFA and the cartel operate within is not sane, and far from fair, and we end up with the largest fine, but to who does it go, in the history of world sport.

No, I do. I get that you are agreeing. I was just reiterating because it's so incredibly bizarrely daft. (I since edited that part out actually).

UEFA might be bent as a 9 bob note ("might be"... LOL) but PWC aren't.

I was under the impression that UEFA have adopted IAS 24 but without the supporting guidance that goes with it?