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

[BlueTaylor91]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

what do we know now? any change

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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

I strongly suspect you're right. With the wages deduction, we would have just about scraped home. Without it (and the image rights sale) we're £100m out. As I've said before, I can't see anything in the regulations that lets UEFA disallow this revenue. The only income they can disallow is non-monetary income and commercial income that has nothing to do with football or the club branding. As the sale of image rights would seem to fit the criteria of both football and club branding, there should be no reason not to allow it.

As it's still supposedly confidential then I can only assume it's something to do with a partner for the collar site leisure attraction, which has not yet been publicly announced.

 

[Chippy_boy]

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.

How so?

Are you suggesting we will avoid Arab sponsorships if there's issues with the Etihad deal? If you are, that's nonsense.

This new deal suggests nothing.

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What makes you say that mate? Apologies if I'm behind the curve on this one, but I noticed your post and no one had replied.

I don't know, just throwing the question out, he's getting a lot of bad press over these Emails. He's been very vocal about not restricting spending in the Premier League. It's come at the same time as rumours we could try oppose UEFA in court and I'm a conspiracy nut.

Ah! I see. I just had a look at all that and it seems given the reported nature of it all he could end up getting canned. Seems like a disgruntled PA has released them. Shouldn't have done it from a work email address - silly fella. Not sure it has come to light though due to his opposition to FFP, just someone out to make a fast buck I reckon.

If he does go though, it could be interesting as to who would step in - David Gill? Ed Woodward? :))

Guess who's going to decide his fate

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/10829882/Premier-League-chief-Richard-Scudamore-to-face-formal-hearing-for-sexist-emails.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... mails.html</a>

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

Aabar already sponsor us anyway and we don't declare it as an RPT.

 

[vonksbignose]

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 !

So did I, and this response that he gave to a question, made me sit up and take notice:

"Look at the origins of financial fair play and where it ended up, I think the elite clubs had a bigger influence on its final draft than you imagine. Also, I know where those intellectual property rights have gone and why it cannot be disclosed. When City can make an announcement, more will be understood".

I know we're all speculating and everybody seems to be making wild assumptions about things that aren't in the public domain at the moment, but could Samuel's comment be hinting at City refusing to accept punishments, based on deals that they know to be legitimate, but that they are unable to disclose the nature of to UEFA?

Perhaps PB knows more about how much City will have been willing or legally obliged to disclose to UEFA on the basis of confidential contractual agreements such as these?

 

[Chancy Termites]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Can anyone give a theoretical example of someone who may have bought the intellectual property rights, but we wouldn't be able to say who they are?

 

[aguero93:20]

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>

I like his blog :)

 

[goat boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Can anyone give a theoretical example of someone who may have bought the intellectual property rights, but we wouldn't be able to say who they are?

Stab in the dark? EA Sports. The collar site/ las vegas thread has periodically mentioned something very high tech as the vision for that land and they're cards in with City anyway.

 

[jrb]

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 !

So did I, and this response that he gave to a question, made me sit up and take notice:

"Look at the origins of financial fair play and where it ended up, I think the elite clubs had a bigger influence on its final draft than you imagine. Also, I know where those intellectual property rights have gone and why it cannot be disclosed. When City can make an announcement, more will be understood".

I know we're all speculating and everybody seems to be making wild assumptions about things that aren't in the public domain at the moment, but could Samuel's comment be hinting at City refusing to accept punishments, based on deals that they know to be legitimate, but that they are unable to disclose the nature of to UEFA?

Perhaps PB knows more about how much City will have been willing or legally obliged to disclose to UEFA on the basis of confidential contractual agreements such as these?

Can anyone post a link or tell me exactly where the highlighted bit is. Can't find it. Thanks.