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

[Rammyblues]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

IMO Dupont will suceed, I am 99.99% sure. He was suggesting if memory serves that if a club wants to be in debt the owner has to put the equivalent of the debt in a trust fund.

In other words just for example if we wanted to sign 200m worth of players we lodge also 200m in a trust fund in case things go wrong. Will UEFA implement that not on your fucking Nelly, won't stop ourselves or PSG upsetting the rest.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A bit of fishing.

Dubai builder Arabtec said on Wednesday that its first-quarter net profit more doubled on the back of a strong delivery of projects and growth in its Gulf businesses.

The contractor, in which Abu Dhabi state fund Aabar owns a major stake, is planning a series of acquisitions and mergers, Chief Executive Hasan Ismaik said in a statement.

It is targeting global players in high-margin sectors such as oil and gas, power plants, infrastructure, and facility management of huge industrial plants, he said.

Arabtec made a net profit of AED138m ($37.57m) compared with AED62.5m a year earlier.

The earnings beat estimates of analysts polled by Reuters who forecast an average profit of AED116.3m.

Revenue for the quarter rose 39 percent to AED2.152bn.

Arabtec is trying to evolve from a local contractor into a multinational development company as its finances are boosted by a recovery in Dubai's property market and its closeness to Aabar.

It announced plans to list a portion of its construction unit in an initial public offering in Abu Dhabi next year.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.arabianbusiness.com/dubai-s-arabtec-says-q1-net-profit-more-than-doubles-549427.html#.U3OzZ-8U9mM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.arabianbusiness.com/dubai-s- ... 3OzZ-8U9mM</a>


[bigimg]http://i.imgur.com/5Fk2QE4.jpg[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://i.imgur.com/o56VQbV.jpg[/bigimg]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.arabtecholding.com/FinancialReports/ArabtecAnnualReport2013English.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.arabtecholding.com/Financial ... nglish.pdf</a>

 

[S04]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand another...

This one will upset the frothers as it's Arab-based unlike most of our recent commercial deals.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.zawya.com/story/Arabtec_Signs_Regional_Sponsor_Agreement_with_Man_City-ZAWYA20140514142015/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.zawya.com/story/Arabtec_Sign ... 514142015/</a>

Arabtec Holding today signed an agreement with Manchester City Football Club, which will establish Arabtec as a regional sponsor of the Premier League Champions for a term of three years.

The Club, which won its second Premier League title in three years last Sunday, will enjoy the support of the leading engineering and construction group of companies specialising in complex projects in the Middle East and North Africa region. In return, Arabtec will gain certain promotional rights and privileges that will reinforce its brand in MENA, Russia, India, and Serbia.

Under the agreement, which will run up to the end of the 2017 season, Arabtec will have access to specific rights of use of the Club's brand. It will also get tickets and special programmes for VIPs to attend matches and special events. This is in addition to visibility of Arabtec 's logo and promotional materials at the Etihad Stadium and across the Club's digital platforms

The agreement was formalised at a special ceremony attended by Manchester City Chairman, Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak It was signed by Hasan Ismaik, Managing Director and CEO of Arabtec Holding , and Ferran Soriano, the Club's Chief Executive Officer, Hasan Ismaik, Managing Director and CEO of Arabtec Holding , commented:

"I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to His Highness Sheikh Mansour Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister of Presidential Affairs, and to the Manchester City management for having won the Premier League title for the second time under the ownership of His Highness. These achievements as well as the solid foundations upon which the Club is built have prompted us to go into a regional partnership agreement that will be highly beneficial for both parties. Both Manchester City and Arabtec are leaders in their field and this alliance will bring mutual prominence to both organisations.

Ismaik pointed out that the regional sponsorship of Manchester City will further boost Arabtec 's brand in the Region and the world over, at a time when the Company is pushing ahead with plans to become one of the top ten companies in the world by 2018.

"We are proud to be part of this golden time Manchester City is enjoying, with two out of its four league titles having been won under the ownership of His Highness Sheikh Mansour. Ismaik said.

Ferran Soriano, Chief Executive Officer of Manchester City, welcomed the partnership with Arabtec , noting the important role of sponsorship agreements in further developing the Club. " Arabtec is an important force in its sector and across its region. Both Manchester City and Arabtec are ambitious to become globally recognised brands. As Arabtec looks to develop and grow further across the markets which our agreement focuses on, we are looking forward to a successful relationship and to working together." said Soriano.

Is it just me who loves how much our UAE sponsorship's seem to irritate other fans?

Just to get them foaming at the mouth on this one - here's the link to the club.

Majority shareholder of Arabtec is Aabar (also a sponsor) - Aabar are 98% owned by IPIC, and the chairman of IPIC is Sheikh Mansour.

Lovely job lads, keep them coming.

Aabar owns 21.6% of Arabtec, not a majority by any means...

 

[Bottomless_Sailor]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Will be interesting to see if Everton/Arsenal do appeal our sanctions.

I'm sure they'll be tempted, but Arsenal are already in the Champions League, and Everton may wish to maintain a good relationship with us.

On the face of it they'd appeal, but given that UEFA are unlikely to ever exclude us and the utter animosity it would create between ourselves and whichever club appeals, would they think it was worth their while?

 

[Bluep*ss]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Appolgies if this has been posted before - On the subject of Financial Foul Play – this chap seems to have it covered (for those who haven’t seen it before). Be sure to read from the bottom up, as this is chronologically correct: FFP Stinks - from a City fan.

<a class="postlink" href="http://ffpstinks.blogspot.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://ffpstinks.blogspot.co.uk/</a>

 

[TrueBlue1705]

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.

As far as I understand it just because a deal is classed as RPT it doesn't mean its thrown out by UEFA - however they can then decide whether the transaction is 'fair' and represents a realistic deal and is not just an owner pumping lots of money in via a related company - My understanding is that UEFA have said our £35m year Etihad deal is inflated so won't allow the full £35m to taken into account - something if true which I believe is total bollocks .... and they have questioned the IP deals too ... the cumulative effect is under the current rules we can NOT write off pre 2010 wages which we would have been able to do had the Etihad sponsorship and other deals passed FFP's made up as you along tests!!

I think realistically like others we probably narrowly failed and should have faced a modest fine at worst ..... If UEFA try to make this stick I think they are in deep shit!!

On top of all this it sounds like PSG have been let off very lightly if they are getting the same sanctions s us!!

 

[nmc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Could it remotely just possibly, conceivably be because contrary to what the press would have you believe, we are actually signing up partners who are genuinely interested in sponsoring us, and guess what, since we are successful, high profile and Abu Dhabi owned, for some bizarre reason other Emirati companies are interested in hooking up with us?I

Just a wild stab in the dark, like.

Could be a bit of both.

UEFA trying to claim our sponsors from that part of the world are unfair.
We claim there is huge interest in City in UAE.

What better way to prove the point than to announce another deal?

Quite bloody right!

It's completely beyond me that any regulator could expect anything else but dozens of deals with Abu Dhabi companies. It's basic marketing sense, as MCFC are clearly the highest profile football team there, so why sponsor any other team? It's really not very different (other than in the magnitude of the money involved of course!) to any local plumber sponsoring the match ball at his local non-league team. "Ah, no, I'm sorry, you come from Frickley, so you can't sponsor the game between Frickley and Blyth Spartans, related party you see, but maybe you'd be interested in sponsoring the ball for the Bognor Regis game..."

Does that mean Gorton Electrical was an RPT?

 

[S04]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It might be bollox but what I heard indicated that the Etihad deal was sound but Uefa was unhappy about our image rights arrangements while City was unhappy because that in itself triggered a removal of the £80m wage clause... But as I said it might just be bollox

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Appolgies if this has been posted before - On the subject of Financial Foul Play – this chap seems to have it covered (for those who haven’t seen it before). Be sure to read from the bottom up, as this is chronologically correct: FFP Stinks - from a City fan.

<a class="postlink" href="http://ffpstinks.blogspot.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://ffpstinks.blogspot.co.uk/</a>

Cheers for that. Clicked the Martin Samuel Q & A on there. Oh what fun !

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It might be bollox but what I heard indicated that the Etihad deal was sound but Uefa was unhappy about our image rights arrangements while City was unhappy because that in itself triggered a removal of the £80m wage clause... But as I said it might just be bollox

That seems to be backed up by the new sponsorship deal signed today in Abu Dhabi.