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

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

todays events only highlight how seriously they're taking duponts legal challenge

they're trying to out manoeuvre him but i think this changes little with respect of the actual law

the only worry is the weight of bayern and the country they represent in terms of european political power - i can't see an unprejudiced process

The law is the law is the law, and unless something is in statute then there is little they can do other than to adhere to the Court's judgement.

 

[Maly]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Question for the legal beagles on here:
If Dupont wins the case and due to evidence supplied it implies that there is a cartel in football.....what happens then?

Would the courts go after the Clubs involved &/or the executives involved?

If so, would said clubs face potential heavy fines & directors/executives face fines or prison terms?

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Exactly, wouldn't a 10 year monitoring period effectively remove a lot of the negative effects of FFP ? I mean it would allow an owner to initially invest, and give time to increase the commercial income to match the expenses. Perhaps this is City's attempt to change the system from within.

Cheers

Jazzman

Conversely it may indicate that it would take ten years to break even making it a long haul for most serious investors.

they only have to look at us to know it doesn't though.

Exactly, but the 10 year statement was made by ADUG not another clubs owner so it was possibly made as a warning to new investors that they must gamble on having an efficient business plan that must breakeven in the short term and/or as well as seeming to be constructive about FFP for meeting consumption.

Lets be fair, ADUG are uninterested in the outcome of the upcoming court case.

So if it is thrown out they are warning the potentially new investors and if it is not then they must appear to work to advance its cause whilst striding away from the rest with the next phase of their global plan.

 

[CatMan]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Question for the legal beagles on here:
If Dupont wins the case and due to evidence supplied it implies that there is a cartel in football.....what happens then?

Would the courts go after the Clubs involved &/or the executives involved?

If so, would said clubs face potential heavy fines & directors/executives face fines or prison terms?

In a world where a cold blooded murderer can seemingly avoid a Jail term, do you seriously believe UEFA could allows themselves to lose let alone leave individuals open to prosecution.

City's situation is simple here and in short we need to drink to survive. The problem is that the only drink available is Tetley and to coin a phrase 'If you can't beat them, join them'

 

[Maly]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Question for the legal beagles on here:
If Dupont wins the case and due to evidence supplied it implies that there is a cartel in football.....what happens then?

Would the courts go after the Clubs involved &/or the executives involved?

If so, would said clubs face potential heavy fines & directors/executives face fines or prison terms?

In a world where a cold blooded murderer can seemingly avoid a Jail term, do you seriously believe UEFA could allows themselves to lose let alone leave individuals open to prosecution.

City's situation is simple here and in short we need to drink to survive. The problem is that the only drink available is Tetley and to coin a phrase 'If you can't beat them, join them'

Not sure I've explained properly or if you've misunderstood.

I'm not really talking UEFA here, more the clubs ie old G14 clubs creating a cartel.

So, I'm wondering if this is akin to huge corporations illegally manipulating the marketplace to gain a competitive advantage. If this is the case, what penalties would the clubs and their directors face.

 

[80s Shorts]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Conversely it may indicate that it would take ten years to break even making it a long haul for most serious investors.

they only have to look at us to know it doesn't though.

Exactly, but the 10 year statement was made by ADUG not another clubs owner so it was possibly made as a warning to new investors that they must gamble on having an efficient business plan that must breakeven in the short term and/or as well as seeming to be constructive about FFP for meeting consumption.

Lets be fair, ADUG are uninterested in the outcome of the upcoming court case.

So if it is thrown out they are warning the potentially new investors and if it is not then they must appear to work to advance its cause whilst striding away from the rest with the next phase of their global plan.

Wholly wrong. How on earth can they be uninterested?

 

[Falastur]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

they only have to look at us to know it doesn't though.

Exactly, but the 10 year statement was made by ADUG not another clubs owner so it was possibly made as a warning to new investors that they must gamble on having an efficient business plan that must breakeven in the short term and/or as well as seeming to be constructive about FFP for meeting consumption.

Lets be fair, ADUG are uninterested in the outcome of the upcoming court case.

So if it is thrown out they are warning the potentially new investors and if it is not then they must appear to work to advance its cause whilst striding away from the rest with the next phase of their global plan.

Wholly wrong. How on earth can they be uninterested?

City's plan was always to hyper-inflate City's income and then move to a self-sufficient model. Whether that involves breaking even earlier on lower revenues than anticipated due to FFPR or not until 2020 but turning over enough money to buy a Messi each season, their plan was never to sink £200m more into City than they get back every season for the next 100 years, that just wouldn't make sense. FFPR vastly sped up ADUG's plans to make City self-sufficient, but it got them there all the same. Now that City is looking at breaking even, and with no plans to limit the revenue-making on the horizon, FFPR really makes little impact. OK, it determines whether we can spend £50m this season or £250m, but then it's fairly obvious MCFC was never intended to be run on a Galacticos model anyway, so even if we banked a billion every year we wouldn't spend that much, and I think in the next few seasons you'll probably see us start to only spend what needs to be spent, while other teams dominate the transfer market and draw all of the headlines. We could do that whether restricted under FFPR or not.

At least, this is my interpretation of SilverFox's message.

 

[Bluemoon230989]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

UEFA secures landmark formal cooperation agreement with European Commission
Tuesday 14 October 2014 17.00 CET

049 - Arrangement for Cooperation marks historic achievement in UEFA-EU relations

UEFA and the European Commission have today signed a historic agreement between the two organisations, marking a momentous milestone in relations between the European bodies. UEFA President Michel Platini, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and European Commissioner responsible for sport Androulla Vassiliou met this afternoon at the Commission’s headquarters in Brussels to launch the Arrangement for Cooperation which sets out the basis for a formal UEFA-EC partnership.

The Arrangement for Cooperation comes as UEFA celebrates its 60th anniversary. It cements the organisations’ joint commitment to structured cooperation in key policy areas and underlines UEFA’s strong desire to continue working with the Commission and other national and European public bodies. UEFA is pleased that the Commission shares its vision for the future of European football and fully supports its major initiatives, including the implementation of Financial Fair Play.

UEFA President Michel Platini said: “We have come a long way in our relationship with the European Commission and this Arrangement for Cooperation is proof that our bond is stronger than ever. With the increased support of the European Commission, we will intensify our fight to safeguard the ethics of sport and to promote good governance. By working together, we will make sure football can overcome the many challenges it faces, whether it be discrimination, match-fixing, third party player ownership or violence. UEFA is also pleased to have the commitment of the European Commission to cooperate in the promotion of grassroots football and to continue to support the implementation of the Financial Fair Play process, which will ensure football can grow and prosper in years to come. I am very proud of this Arrangement for Cooperation and believe that it comes at a crucial time for European Football."

Androulla Vassiliou, the European Commissioner responsible for sport, said: "This agreement is a significant step forward in our cooperation with UEFA, which is an important partner for the European Commission in its dialogue with the world of sport. I am pleased that, over the course of my mandate, the Commission has strengthened its ties with UEFA, working closely on a wide range of issues affecting football. Our goal has always been to maintain stability in the world of professional sport, appreciating its specificity while fully respecting EU law. We are also committed to maximising the impact that sport can have on society as a catalyst for social change in areas such as improving health and gender equality. We have worked well with UEFA in the past on these issues and this agreement ensures that our close collaboration will continue."

The Arrangement for Cooperation commits the two organisations to regular bilateral meetings and includes a target of holding senior level meetings at least once a year. In order to further promote the social role of sport, and in particular in relation to health and physical activity, the agreement also envisages collaboration between the European Commission and UEFA in the context of the planned European Week of Sport.

See here for the full text of the Arrangement for Cooperation between the European Commission and UEFA: <a class="postlink" href="http://uefa.to/1u0l8C9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://uefa.to/1u0l8C9</a>


I'd not heard any mention of this "agreement" in the press, but found this on UEFA's website this evening.
Read the third paragraph.
Call me suspicious but I think I can guess where that fat bastard Platini thinks he's going with this.

 

[80s Shorts]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Exactly, but the 10 year statement was made by ADUG not another clubs owner so it was possibly made as a warning to new investors that they must gamble on having an efficient business plan that must breakeven in the short term and/or as well as seeming to be constructive about FFP for meeting consumption.

Lets be fair, ADUG are uninterested in the outcome of the upcoming court case.

So if it is thrown out they are warning the potentially new investors and if it is not then they must appear to work to advance its cause whilst striding away from the rest with the next phase of their global plan.

Wholly wrong. How on earth can they be uninterested?

City's plan was always to hyper-inflate City's income and then move to a self-sufficient model. Whether that involves breaking even earlier on lower revenues than anticipated due to FFPR or not until 2020 but turning over enough money to buy a Messi each season, their plan was never to sink £200m more into City than they get back every season for the next 100 years, that just wouldn't make sense. FFPR vastly sped up ADUG's plans to make City self-sufficient, but it got them there all the same. Now that City is looking at breaking even, and with no plans to limit the revenue-making on the horizon, FFPR really makes little impact. OK, it determines whether we can spend £50m this season or £250m, but then it's fairly obvious MCFC was never intended to be run on a Galacticos model anyway, so even if we banked a billion every year we wouldn't spend that much, and I think in the next few seasons you'll probably see us start to only spend what needs to be spent, while other teams dominate the transfer market and draw all of the headlines. We could do that whether restricted under FFPR or not.

At least, this is my interpretation of SilverFox's message.

That is as strange a comment as SilverFox believing that ADUG are uninterested in any upcoming court case. Why on earth would we spend what does not need to be spent ?

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Exactly, but the 10 year statement was made by ADUG not another clubs owner so it was possibly made as a warning to new investors that they must gamble on having an efficient business plan that must breakeven in the short term and/or as well as seeming to be constructive about FFP for meeting consumption.

Lets be fair, ADUG are uninterested in the outcome of the upcoming court case.

So if it is thrown out they are warning the potentially new investors and if it is not then they must appear to work to advance its cause whilst striding away from the rest with the next phase of their global plan.

Wholly wrong. How on earth can they be uninterested?

City's plan was always to hyper-inflate City's income and then move to a self-sufficient model. Whether that involves breaking even earlier on lower revenues than anticipated due to FFPR or not until 2020 but turning over enough money to buy a Messi each season, their plan was never to sink £200m more into City than they get back every season for the next 100 years, that just wouldn't make sense. FFPR vastly sped up ADUG's plans to make City self-sufficient, but it got them there all the same. Now that City is looking at breaking even, and with no plans to limit the revenue-making on the horizon, FFPR really makes little impact. OK, it determines whether we can spend £50m this season or £250m, but then it's fairly obvious MCFC was never intended to be run on a Galacticos model anyway, so even if we banked a billion every year we wouldn't spend that much, and I think in the next few seasons you'll probably see us start to only spend what needs to be spent, while other teams dominate the transfer market and draw all of the headlines. We could do that whether restricted under FFPR or not.

At least, this is my interpretation of SilverFox's message.

My own take on this is that City would definitely be interested if it was a rolling ten year plan rather than a fixed ten year plan whereby we would have to rejoin the fold on expiry. Business cycles are flexible and there will be good years and there will be bad years within that timeline In ten years time, we might be hunky dory, but circumstances might change and another petrodollar club might emerge, to which we must respond or face the possibility of being sidelined.

 

[bluesoup]

City & FFP (continued)

Read this twice before I realised that the quoted statement from Androulla had no reference to FFP and is focused on health and equality. Seems Platini has used this press release to his promote his self adulation of how successful FFP has been so far... Well it is a uefa article !

 

[dom]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

mmmmmm.........................


not entirely , or even very happy ...

watch out for this french cock crowing.....this has a bad smell to it

Looks as though Twatini has shored up the EU angle......

vet suspicious of what I am reading this evening....

I do really hope that I am wrong

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

last point of the new agreement

5.4. This Arrangement does not create rights or obligations under international, EU or
domestic law.

That's what I thought too. The law is presumably still the same, so does this really change anything ?

Cheers

Jazzman

Incidentally, the agreement doesn't mention that the EU support FFP once - though they support the aim of financial stability - while stating that European law comes first.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

last point of the new agreement

5.4. This Arrangement does not create rights or obligations under international, EU or
domestic law.

That's what I thought too. The law is presumably still the same, so does this really change anything ?

Cheers

Jazzman

Incidentally, the agreement doesn't mention that the EU support FFP once - though they support the aim of financial stability - while stating that European law comes first.

Absolutely.

Dupont isn't challenging ffp anyway, he is challenging the way it is being implemented, & the fact that it fails to achieve its objective & creates an inbalance in favour of the established clubs. Ffp would still continue, even if he won.

 

[Deepest Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I see what you did there ;-)

I'd be surprised - (a) it's not really their game and (b) they haven't got any money.

IBM were hinted at a few pages ago (it is their game and they do have the money) but that doesn't fit with the German comment.

Could be Software AG I suppose, but I don't think they are big enough?

Not sure I'd agree with (a). They already have pretty substantial deals with the NFL. I think they are a McClaren F1 sponsor as well as being involved in golf and tennis. As somebody pointed out, they recently signed a deal with Bayern Munich to provide sports analytics functionality (something they provided for the German World Cup winning team).

Playing catch up on this thread so apologies if already mentioned but SAP seem to be making a big play for the football market at the moment.
There was an article in Tuesday's Times describing how they are linking up with Europe's top clubs (we were namechecked) to develop services that will assist in scientific analysis of performance.
Football at the top end is now so awash with money that sponsors are as interested in B2B sales as to the individual consumer.

 

[Deepest Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

There are some very interesting noises coming from that meeting, particularly that platini quote. It looks to me like he's paving the way for significant change...particularly the "we have succeeded" line. That's his lunge for the moral high ground and damage limitation line. He loses less face by claiming that FFP was a success and now needs modifying.

There can be no doubt that City and PSG made a watertight case for the ridiculousness of these rules. Anyone with any common sense knows an industry which bans investment is based on lunacy.

It's funny Platini already sees FFP as a success. I wonder if that's because privately he was under enormous pressure to sanction City and PSG, and that this summer's fines, transfer spend limits, squad limitations, etc have put him a position with strength with regards the rest of the cartel and what happens next.

What I mean by that is, is it inconceivable that he's now saying to the likes of Bayern that the "sugar daddies" now know they can't just spend without limits on players, and that dialling back the regulations having made the point to City and Paris is the right and proper thing to do. After all there are many practical realities to FFP which are a farce (leveraged buy outs, debt burdens etc). Clubs like United, Madrid, even Barcelona, who carry heavy debt burdens, are subject to illegal state aid, etc are the next logically on UEFA's list of "bad" clubs to go after.

Anyway what I'm saying in a convoluted way is that I'm not surprised that there will be a dialling back of FFP and i'm not surprised if they find ways to allow for people like Mansour to come in and invest over a longer period of time to challenge the elite.

Most importantly though for City, FFP has now become an irrelevance. I can see us being in a position where needing to spend even 200 million next summer won't be a problem.

Exactly how I see it. The only way it has been "a success" is what you refer to: he can turn round to Gill et al and say "there, we did it".

There simply has to be a complete rework of FFP and I see this as the start of it. Who even knows what pressure has been brought behind the scenes by City and PSG? One thing's for sure: there were some heavyweight discussions taking place in the summer when the announcements were delayed. I think the legal implications of this, when faced with pockets as deep as The Sheikh's, could bring UEFA down completely. Imagine if City or PSG pursued for damages? What kind of sums we could be talking there?!?!

I wouldn't be surprised if this is part of some kind of off-the-record deal done in the summer. We took the little hit (£20m was it, and a 21 man Euro Squad) so UEFA could look like they've won, with a promise that that's the end of it and FFP is rewritten completely this season under the pretence of UEFA being the drivers, rather than them running scared.

Like you, I think the way is going to be cleared for us now.

Looks to me like we've played the long game and scored an important victory.
Chalk another one up to Khaldoon and Ferran.

 

[OB1]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'd be surprised - (a) it's not really their game and (b) they haven't got any money.

IBM were hinted at a few pages ago (it is their game and they do have the money) but that doesn't fit with the German comment.

Could be Software AG I suppose, but I don't think they are big enough?

Not sure I'd agree with (a). They already have pretty substantial deals with the NFL. I think they are a McClaren F1 sponsor as well as being involved in golf and tennis. As somebody pointed out, they recently signed a deal with Bayern Munich to provide sports analytics functionality (something they provided for the German World Cup winning team).

Playing catch up on this thread so apologies if already mentioned but SAP seem to be making a big play for the football market at the moment.
There was an article in Tuesday's Times describing how they are linking up with Europe's top clubs (we were namechecked) to develop services that will assist in scientific analysis of performance.
Football at the top end is now so awash with money that sponsors are as interested in B2B sales as to the individual consumer.

The work that SAP seem to be doing on big data and analytics in the field of football would surely tie in well with what may be the sport's finest training complex.

SAP is not a consumer brand but wider brand recognition never does any harm, IMO. Ultimately, it's always people that you employ and people that buy your product, even if they are buying it for a business purpose.

Of course, it could, as TH suggested, be Siemens that was being referred to.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not sure I'd agree with (a). They already have pretty substantial deals with the NFL. I think they are a McClaren F1 sponsor as well as being involved in golf and tennis. As somebody pointed out, they recently signed a deal with Bayern Munich to provide sports analytics functionality (something they provided for the German World Cup winning team).

Playing catch up on this thread so apologies if already mentioned but SAP seem to be making a big play for the football market at the moment.
There was an article in Tuesday's Times describing how they are linking up with Europe's top clubs (we were namechecked) to develop services that will assist in scientific analysis of performance.
Football at the top end is now so awash with money that sponsors are as interested in B2B sales as to the individual consumer.

The work that SAP seem to be doing on big data and analytics in the field of football would surely tie in well with what may be the sport's finest training complex.

SAP is not a consumer brand but wider brand recognition never does any harm, IMO. Ultimately, it's always people that you employ and people that buy your product, even if they are buying it for a business purpose.

Of course, it could, as TH suggested, be Siemens that was being referred to.

I know SAP quite well (until recently I used to work for them) and systems integration work is not their bag at all, so given the earlier description it didn't sound like them. They are also doing shockingly badly in the UK at the moment and I would question whether they have the required cash to splash around. That said their HANA platform is where all their focus is and where their money is being spent, and it does fit well with the real-time BI type of thing that's relevant to sport, so I don't rule it out.

EDIT: Sorry, missed Roy's comments above...

What I meant, Roy, was that they aren't an SI and what you hinted at before sounded more like systems integration work. I guess you know more than me though and since you are questioning my comments, presumably we can conclude it *is* SAP then?

 

[jonmcity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Playing catch up on this thread so apologies if already mentioned but SAP seem to be making a big play for the football market at the moment.
There was an article in Tuesday's Times describing how they are linking up with Europe's top clubs (we were namechecked) to develop services that will assist in scientific analysis of performance.
Football at the top end is now so awash with money that sponsors are as interested in B2B sales as to the individual consumer.

The work that SAP seem to be doing on big data and analytics in the field of football would surely tie in well with what may be the sport's finest training complex.

SAP is not a consumer brand but wider brand recognition never does any harm, IMO. Ultimately, it's always people that you employ and people that buy your product, even if they are buying it for a business purpose.

Of course, it could, as TH suggested, be Siemens that was being referred to.

I know SAP quite well (until recently I used to work for them) and systems integration work is not their bag at all, so given the earlier description it didn't sound like them. They are also doing shockingly badly in the UK at the moment and I would question whether they have the required cash to splash around. That said their HANA platform is where all their focus is and where their money is being spent, and it does fit well with the real-time BI type of thing that's relevant to sport, so I don't rule it out.

Footballers trying to learn SAPwanees lol. Oracle not much better also. They sell these systems as integrated when in fact they are lots of modules bought from acquisitions that don't work together without major integration headache.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The work that SAP seem to be doing on big data and analytics in the field of football would surely tie in well with what may be the sport's finest training complex.

SAP is not a consumer brand but wider brand recognition never does any harm, IMO. Ultimately, it's always people that you employ and people that buy your product, even if they are buying it for a business purpose.

Of course, it could, as TH suggested, be Siemens that was being referred to.

I know SAP quite well (until recently I used to work for them) and systems integration work is not their bag at all, so given the earlier description it didn't sound like them. They are also doing shockingly badly in the UK at the moment and I would question whether they have the required cash to splash around. That said their HANA platform is where all their focus is and where their money is being spent, and it does fit well with the real-time BI type of thing that's relevant to sport, so I don't rule it out.

Footballers trying to learn SAPwanees lol. Oracle not much better also. They sell these systems as integrated when in fact they are lots of modules bought from acquisitions that don't work together without major integration headache.

True of Oracle mate (I worked there for 10 years too!) But less so of SAP. Business Suite is a pretty well integrated system. The trouble is it's so big and complex - that's why it costs millions to implement.