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

[cibaman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That's a very good point and one that's crossed my mind since everything went quiet. I can't remember the make-up of the AC but there's a former European Court judge on there who is very unlikely to agree to any kind of sanction or assessment decision that he might think would be overturned by his former peers if we were to take things all the way.

Who appointed the AC?

Doesn't matter, any interference with AC by CFCB or UEFA and the whole thing gets thrown out.

If you appoint people that share your views, you don't need interfere. Sort of Like Blair and Hutton.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sure that we haven't failed because of "related party transactions" but because they say you can only deduct pre-2010 wages if those wages > loss that's left after deductions for other allowances.

When they deducted our expenditure on infrastructure etc... the loss was less than pre-2010 wages, therefore we couldn't deduct them, therefore, were left with massive loss.

That's what I understood rather than Uefa saying our sponsorship is inflated. (PSG have 168m deal that Uefa have ignored)

I think it's the other way around: you can only deduct pre-2010 wages if these wage costs are greater than the loss.

Maybe City's loss has been inflated by UEFA because they have disallowed one or more of the Intellectual Property Sales despite these having been signed off and approved by City's Auditors, leaving a deficit exceeding the pre-2010 wage costs so we are unable to deduct those wage costs?

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What I'm failing to understand right now is how other clubs plan to pass FFP. Chelsea made a loss of £49.3M last year albeit not including the sale of Mata but it also does not include the purchase of Matic & Sallah... They still however passed FFP and plan to spend further? Where is their extra income coming from because I can't really see them selling anyone else given half their team is full of has been's and out of contract players.

Liverpool also made a loss of around £50M yet they also plan to spend and unless they sell Suarez, where is their money coming from?

I'm not being funny but how do all these other clubs plan to pass FFP when in my eyes they have already failed? Liverpool apparently plan to spend this summer yet made a -50M loss, say they spend £100M, where is the £150M deficit going to come from just to break even?? Liverpool are also funnily enough operating with a debt in excess of £100M, why the hell is this not taken into consideration??

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/04/liverpool-financial-fair-play-50m-annual-loss-accounts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... s-accounts</a>

Chelsea made the same loss but they barely have any players of any value to sell apart from Hazard and surely they can't be making any more money than last year.

I'm not the best at adding and subtracting but it would be interesting for someone to shed light on how the other clubs can even contemplate passing these rules in the current form. From what I see, no English club will be buying and selling anyone over the summer. It's funny though because in a time when City are completely discouraged from spending we see Chelsea buying Costa for £30M+, United apparently are already buying some 18yr old for £30M+ and basically need an entire new squad. So how do these clubs plan to pass FFP when their current accounts technically say they have already failed?

Something is not quite right if you ask me!

well £30-40m extra comes from the TV deal, extra comes from semi's of CL for Chelsea, whilst I think it's no co-incidence they're going for Costa @32m rather than a Falcao or Cavani at more like 50, they'll be fine whilst Liverpool can stick their extra 40m in this season's books and close them before starting their spree which won't be considered under FFPR.

 

[Chris in London]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sure that we haven't failed because of "related party transactions" but because they say you can only deduct pre-2010 wages if those wages > loss that's left after deductions for other allowances.

When they deducted our expenditure on infrastructure etc... the loss was less than pre-2010 wages, therefore we couldn't deduct them, therefore, were left with massive loss.

That's what I understood rather than Uefa saying our sponsorship is inflated. (PSG have 168m deal that Uefa have ignored)

I hope I don't over-simplify it, but I think the reason we have failed (if we have) by a measure that does not allow Pre 2010 contracts to be taken into account is precisely because they have disallowed some of our income on the basis of it being a related party transaction.

Had they not done so (as they shouldn't) our losses attributable to Pre 2010 wages would have come within the limitation - thus we would have had either a very narrow fail or a skin-of-your-teeth pass

It is why the RPT issue is so important, and that is why UEFA are a bunch of thundercunts for moving the goalposts. They seem to have done it to allow them to reach the conclusion they always wanted to reach.

I am well documented in suggesting that the idea our owner has no influence over the likes of Etihad is laughable, regardless of whether they can legally be referred to as an RP, though I know some on here disagree.

The problem with this is that it assumes 'influence' in the context of FFP means what it means when it is used in every day conversation.

The problem is, UEFA themselves cut and pasted this part of the FFPR from a section of IAS rules where 'influence' doesn't have the same meaning as it has in everyday conversation. 'Influence' in that context has a very precise and specific meaning. Applying that specific test you either have influence or you don't, and the auditors (applying that specific test) have concluded the Sheikh doesn't.

If UEFA did not want 'influence' to bear this very precise and specific meaning in FFPR, they shouldn't have used as the template for their FFP rules internationally agreed and widely understood accountancy standards where it does have this very precise and specific meaning.

If they are doing what has been attributed to them in the press, i.e. have concluded that the Etihad deal is a RPT because of the Sheikh's influence in some broader sense, they are fundamentally moving the goal posts, and that I suspect is why City have been so angry about it.

I think we agree. This is a real mess because they have cut & pasted as you say, but they haven't actually said they are following IAS nor do they have the same level of supplementary guidelines that IAS have PLUS they probably know that we legally are not an RP which will frustrate them as they won't like the fact we are in reality 'related' but not according to their very own rules. However my point was that it doesn't really matter what their view is of Etihad being an RP if the deal is at fair value and to suggest it's not fair value is a hiding to nothing for UEFA

I do agree.

One of the things that really fucks me off is that the stated aims of UEFA for FFP is to ensure that a club lives within its means.

I'm sorry, but how does the artificial depression of a club's income for FFP regulation purposes promote that objective? If a club has an income of £10m from one source, it has an income of £10m from that source. Why should it make a difference if the parties are related or not? The mere presence of an exclusionary power in relation to RPTs suggests to me that UEFA want to prevent own investment. And I can only think of one reason why they would want to stop owners from investing in football clubs.

 

[vintiz]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So no one knows how much is being talked about ?

 

[Rammyblues]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I would like to know the regulations that allow unlimited fines, if anyone has a link to the latest regulations.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sure that we haven't failed because of "related party transactions" but because they say you can only deduct pre-2010 wages if those wages > loss that's left after deductions for other allowances.

When they deducted our expenditure on infrastructure etc... the loss was less than pre-2010 wages, therefore we couldn't deduct them, therefore, were left with massive loss.

That's what I understood rather than Uefa saying our sponsorship is inflated. (PSG have 168m deal that Uefa have ignored)

I hope I don't over-simplify it, but I think the reason we have failed (if we have) by a measure that does not allow Pre 2010 contracts to be taken into account is precisely because they have disallowed some of our income on the basis of it being a related party transaction.

Had they not done so (as they shouldn't) our losses attributable to Pre 2010 wages would have come within the limitation - thus we would have had either a very narrow fail or a skin-of-your-teeth pass

It is why the RPT issue is so important, and that is why UEFA are a bunch of thundercunts for moving the goalposts. They seem to have done it to allow them to reach the conclusion they always wanted to reach.

The problem with this is that it assumes 'influence' in the context of FFP means what it means when it is used in every day conversation.

The problem is, UEFA themselves cut and pasted this part of the FFPR from a section of IAS rules where 'influence' doesn't have the same meaning as it has in everyday conversation. 'Influence' in that context has a very precise and specific meaning. Applying that specific test you either have influence or you don't, and the auditors (applying that specific test) have concluded the Sheikh doesn't.

If UEFA did not want 'influence' to bear this very precise and specific meaning in FFPR, they shouldn't have used as the template for their FFP rules internationally agreed and widely understood accountancy standards where it does have this very precise and specific meaning.

If they are doing what has been attributed to them in the press, i.e. have concluded that the Etihad deal is a RPT because of the Sheikh's influence in some broader sense, they are fundamentally moving the goal posts, and that I suspect is why City have been so angry about it.

I think we agree. This is a real mess because they have cut & pasted as you say, but they haven't actually said they are following IAS nor do they have the same level of supplementary guidelines that IAS have PLUS they probably know that we legally are not an RP which will frustrate them as they won't like the fact we are in reality 'related' but not according to their very own rules. However my point was that it doesn't really matter what their view is of Etihad being an RP if the deal is at fair value and to suggest it's not fair value is a hiding to nothing for UEFA

I do agree.

One of the things that really fucks me off is that the stated aims of UEFA for FFP is to ensure that a club lives within its means.

I'm sorry, but how does the artificial depression of a club's income for FFP regulation purposes promote that objective? If a club has an income of £10m from one source, it has an income of £10m from that source. Why should it make a difference if the parties are related or not? The mere presence of an exclusionary power in relation to RPTs suggests to me that UEFA want to prevent own investment. And I can only think of one reason why they would want to stop owners from investing in football clubs.

This is a point I made yesterday .
M. DuPont , I believe , has as one of his weapons in the current case , the exposure of the fallacy that FFP is the best way to achieve the "stated aims"and that he intends to show other , better targeted methods ( which presumably will not sail quite so close to the winds of illegality)
If I was religious , I'd pray for his success every night!

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I would like to know the regulations that allow unlimited fines, if anyone has a link to the latest regulations.

It's in the "things UEFA think they can get you to agree to in a settlement by trying to scare you with the adjudicatory chamber" section in annex tax the arabs.
;)

 

[cibaman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

All of the PL clubs will be in a much stronger position as a result of the extra telly money.

But United's fall from 1st to 7th just shows how easy it is to suffer a double whammy. Losing out on a CL place and the riches it bring just when you belatedly realise that your squad needs major surgery.

 

[josh1995]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Judging by how long this is taking for actual confirmation, this probably means that the club are either holding up for Uefa to change it's mind or we are taking them to court. Just my thoughts as a newbie here. Plus i don't really understand this FFP crap :D