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

[cibaman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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?

The other deals aren't big enough?

 

[SWP's back]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Dipped in and out of this thread since it started, whats become clear is that no-one has a clue about anything to do with how UEFA determine whether or not we have breached FFP, our deals are fair or what our punishments can be. A few weeks ago it was all 'we cant fail FFP' then it changed to 'it will be a slap on the wrists' and now its 'our lawyers will wipe the floor with them'. Lets face it, this is real and it is going to seriously affect any plans we had this summer and any plans we have going forward. We are not going to break even anytime soon despite what some people are imagining, as a result we are going to be easy targets for UEFA and the likes of Wenger in his quest to try and keep the status quo. It stinks of corruption and unfairness but its here and we need to face up to it.

It would seem you are totally fucking clueless to be fair. Our CEO seems pretty confident we shall be breaking even this season.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

Is it not a possibility that a court could decide that while , technically according to uefa , we may have failed , it is obvious that we are seriously doing everything possible to comply , and that probably within the next year , we will, and that the punishment being mooted by Uefa is disproportionate and counter -productive given the stated aims of FFP?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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?

Well what other big deals have we done? But I'd put my money on it being the IP deals and specifically the £24.5m third party deal.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We don't even know what our case would be, or if we have settled or what our breaches were, if there were any, so it's a bit pointless speculatiing the technical details of how the imaginary court may rule on it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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?

Well what other big deals have we done? But I'd put my money on it being the IP deals and specifically the £24.5m third party deal.

Me too.

I have ruled out it being the Etihad deal because (a) of the accounting objectivity and lack of wriggle room over whether its a RPT or not, and (b) how could they revalue it substantially lower than £35m/year anyway, especially bearing in mind other clubs' sponsorship deals. £35m for everything Etihad got, does not seem remotely over-valued.

It must be the IP sales.

 

[SWP's back]

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?

So why are you in this thread?

What a fucking silly comment.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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?

Well what other big deals have we done? But I'd put my money on it being the IP deals and specifically the £24.5m third party deal.

Me too.

I have ruled out it being the Etihad deal because (a) of the accounting objectivity and lack of wriggle room over whether its a RPT or not, and (b) how could they revalue it substantially lower than £35m/year anyway, especially bearing in mind other clubs' sponsorship deals. £35m for everything Etihad got, does not seem remotely over-valued.

It must be the IP sales.

Exactly. I'm also reasoning that the related party ones will have to have been fully justified financially , which only leaves that third party deal they're supposedly not revealing details of.

 

[Dribble]

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.

Brilliant post.

The thing is though, if it does go to court, UEFA could be seen as the 'reasonable' party for having offered a prior settlement which we rejected. On the flip side, City could argue that any punishment was unfair, because by international accounting standards, we have complied and were left with no choice but to decline the offer and seek legal redress.

Platini is being blamed for all of this, but it shouldn't be forgotten that the Champions League only came about because of the threat from the G14 to break away from UEFA and form a European Super League. All said and done, Platini is just their Patsy.

I know a lot of us have said fuck UEFA, let's pull out of next year's competition and thus devalue it, but this is EXACTLY what the G14 want. The Champions League thrived just fine without us and I'm sure it will continue to without us even if we are the Premier League champions (which is still not a forgone conclusion.

Real, Barca, Bayern, ManUre, Milan, Juve, Inter, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea. These are the top drawer teams who fans tune in to watch. The Champions League can survive without 1 or 2 of them for a few seasons (Liverpool, Rags, Milan, Inter, Juve), but if they were all to up sticks en masse, say 'fuck you UEFA' and set up their threatened invitation only league, the Champions League would be reduced to being akin to the Europa League and we all know it.

It's the G14 who are the problem and it's they where we should be concentrating our efforts. What we need to do imo, is not to call for the scrapping of FFP, but for its re-formulation as something that is truly fair. We should call for unsustainable debtto be tackled and not legitimate equity investment. We should call for a better distribution of funds throughout football from the top to the bottom and we should call for clear fresh rules about football from FIFA that doesn't stop ambitious clubs and protect the elite thus forming a cartel.

We can only effect UEFA from inside the organisation and not outside it. I hope we choose to fight, but we need to bee tactical and tear the enemy apart from within and use every resource we have at our disposal to do so. Let us legally and ethically highlight what we know is wrong in football and what they're trying to do to us and in doing so hopefully the law will deal with the G14 qnd UEFA, because on our own with FFP breathing down our necks we don't stand a chance against the corrupt bastards because they are acting as Judge and Jury!

 

[Le Havre Oswald]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Will it affect our summer transfers