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

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just to make it clear, I've re-read Annex X of FFP (which deals with the items classed as relevant income) and nowhere does it mention disallowing revenues for the sale of intangible assets if they're for a monetary consideration.

If we've made a non-monetary transfer or revalued something then it's disallowable but not if cash has changed hands. All monetary income resulting from football operations or use of the club brand is allowable under FFP.

So if we do go to CAS then in my view we should be able to show that our income was all legitimate and that UEFA had no provision under their own rules to disallow it.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So if we do go to CAS then in my view we should be able to show that our income was all legitimate and that UEFA had no provision under their own rules to disallow it.

That sounds very encouraging,so why do I believe it wont be that simple??

 

[rickmcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just to make it clear, I've re-read Annex X of FFP (which deals with the items classed as relevant income) and nowhere does it mention disallowing revenues for the sale of intangible assets if they're for a monetary consideration.

If we've made a non-monetary transfer or revalued something then it's disallowable but not if cash has changed hands. All monetary income resulting from football operations or use of the club brand is allowable under FFP.

So if we do go to CAS then in my view we should be able to show that our income was all legitimate and that UEFA had no provision under their own rules to disallow it.

Even UEFA can't be so stupid to say that's the reason they have failed us.

 

[rickmcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So if we do go to CAS then in my view we should be able to show that our income was all legitimate and that UEFA had no provision under their own rules to disallow it.

That sounds very encouraging,so why do I believe it wont be that simple??

Because it's pure speculation, with no basis to support the claim on. We don't even know why we have failed it yet do we? Let's all stop trying to second guess why, what's next, and let's concentrate on today shall we?

 

[Bottomless_Sailor]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So if we do go to CAS then in my view we should be able to show that our income was all legitimate and that UEFA had no provision under their own rules to disallow it.

That sounds very encouraging,so why do I believe it wont be that simple??

Indeed, we'd (hopefully) have told them all this during the 5 day's negotiations that have just taken place.

 

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just to make it clear, I've re-read Annex X of FFP (which deals with the items classed as relevant income) and nowhere does it mention disallowing revenues for the sale of intangible assets if they're for a monetary consideration.

If we've made a non-monetary transfer or revalued something then it's disallowable but not if cash has changed hands. All monetary income resulting from football operations or use of the club brand is allowable under FFP.

So if we do go to CAS then in my view we should be able to show that our income was all legitimate and that UEFA had no provision under their own rules to disallow it.

Even UEFA can't be so stupid to say that's the reason they have failed us.

Well if it isn't that, it's the Etihad one. Which would be more stupid of the two??

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I have no specialist knowledge of this field but I have been involved in the run up to a number of commercial law cases going to the English and European Courts. Invariably, the leading counsel advising the parties will tell them that if you consider that almost all of the facts are on your side, there is still a 15-20% chance of the case being decided against you.

In a case such as this, involving new rules, the application of accounting standards, regular meetings throughout a period to discuss the issue and complex transfer pricing aspects, the chance of a counter-intuitive decision must be higher than 20%.

All of the above applies to both parties, which is why, if I was advising either side, I would urge them to explore the extent to which any "middle ground" can be found to settle.

From City's perspective (especially all of us fans!) it will be hard to accept any penalty which is not derisory but there are, sadly, some prices worth paying even if our gut feel tells us not.

As a final point, all of the the above applies to the conniving UEFA top dogs (how polite and mild mannered I am being today!) which means that they will be being advised to find some middle ground.

Good post that mate. But if UEFA is being run by a tyrannical despot, or indeed just a plain idiot, then they may not heed such advice.

they've got their 'best mates' Portugese puppets lined up heading the "Chamber" and the EU Competition Commision - both of the view that sport isn't an industry and so outside laws to stop unfair competition.

Good posts from Steve and others. I would just add that sometimes us in the UK think a decision is counter intuitive because the European Courts apply a different rationale. They may not just focus on the Directives, accounting standards and regulations etc. and look at what was the core of what the rules were meant to achieve. In a past working life, I was involved in European Working Time legislation and cases and the courts referred back to Treaties to inform their judgments.

It is possible that if this went to the European Courts the Judges could see arguments about the rules and accounting standards as being uncertain and look to see whether we have complied with what FIFA set out to achieve. In such circumstances, I think it would be very uncertain whether the Courts would rule for or against us.

 

[rickmcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just to make it clear, I've re-read Annex X of FFP (which deals with the items classed as relevant income) and nowhere does it mention disallowing revenues for the sale of intangible assets if they're for a monetary consideration.

If we've made a non-monetary transfer or revalued something then it's disallowable but not if cash has changed hands. All monetary income resulting from football operations or use of the club brand is allowable under FFP.

So if we do go to CAS then in my view we should be able to show that our income was all legitimate and that UEFA had no provision under their own rules to disallow it.

Even UEFA can't be so stupid to say that's the reason they have failed us.

Well if it isn't that, it's the Etihad one. Which would be more stupid of the two??

Why is it either one if these 2? We will have signed dozens of deals over the last 3 years, it could be any one of them that UEFA seem to be illegitimate.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Even UEFA can't be so stupid to say that's the reason they have failed us.

Well if it isn't that, it's the Etihad one. Which would be more stupid of the two??

Why is it either one if these 2? We will have signed dozens of deals over the last 3 years, it could be any one of them that UEFA seem to be illegitimate.

It can only be Etihad or the IP deals.

 

[rickmcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well if it isn't that, it's the Etihad one. Which would be more stupid of the two??

Why is it either one if these 2? We will have signed dozens of deals over the last 3 years, it could be any one of them that UEFA seem to be illegitimate.

It can only be Etihad or the IP deals.

Please don't take this the wrong way PB, but why can it only be one of the 2 deals mentioned the reason we have failed FFP because UEFA feel is illegitimate?