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

[GXCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If we contest it and they increased the punishment to CL exclusion would the players be able to claim loss of earnings from them? As we know most of the renegotiated contracts were on reduced salary with increased bonuses. I would imagine the CL features pretty high up on the bonus list and could see some our players taking a significant hit in their pockets. If their agents are on a percentage of this then they are affected as well. UEFA could see a number of cases brought against them from individuals as well as City

 

[dario2739]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That article shows you how much of our revenue is actually fudged.

I think we have to hold our hands up as supporters and recognise that City have been indulging in 'creative' accounting practices. However I would offset that by saying that I believe we are not the only club doing this kind of thing, and that ultimately there would be no need for these questionable revenue streams if it wasn't for FFP.

UEFA's accountants have obviously decided that they want to single us out for punishment, I believe our only course of action will be challenging FFP legally on the grounds that it is anti-competitive.

Eh? You know all this as fact? Or are you speculating that all the above is true? Its an important distinction, do you know what UEFA have said?

I think every football club worldwide is guilty of 'creative accounting'!

 

[Anonymous]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If we contest it and they increased the punishment to CL exclusion would the players be able to claim loss of earnings from them? As we know most of the renegotiated contracts were on reduced salary with increased bonuses. I would imagine the CL features pretty high up on the bonus list and could see some our players taking a significant hit in their pockets. If their agents are on a percentage of this then they are affected as well. UEFA could see a number of cases brought against them from individuals as well as City

I dunno, would the players not sue City as they would view the club as having been negligent by not adhering to FFP? Maybe they'd sue both and City would sue UEFA re FFP and with a counter action if the players sued City too?

 

[Clevers]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think we have to hold our hands up as supporters and recognise that City have been indulging in 'creative' accounting practices. However I would offset that by saying that I believe we are not the only club doing this kind of thing, and that ultimately there would be no need for these questionable revenue streams if it wasn't for FFP.

UEFA's accountants have obviously decided that they want to single us out for punishment, I believe our only course of action will be challenging FFP legally on the grounds that it is anti-competitive.

Eh? You know all this as fact? Or are you speculating that all the above is true? Its an important distinction, do you know what UEFA have said?

I think every football club worldwide is guilty of 'creative accounting'!

Frankly, if the Independent told me it was raining I'd go outside to check.

 

[nwanda]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I am sure this has already bee advised somewehere but do we know if the reason they have an issue with the Etihad deal is down to being a related party or on a fair value basis.

 

[jimbopm]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That article shows you how much of our revenue is actually fudged.

I think we have to hold our hands up as supporters and recognise that City have been indulging in 'creative' accounting practices. However I would offset that by saying that I believe we are not the only club doing this kind of thing, and that ultimately there would be no need for these questionable revenue streams if it wasn't for FFP.

UEFA's accountants have obviously decided that they want to single us out for punishment, I believe our only course of action will be challenging FFP legally on the grounds that it is anti-competitive.

Eh? You know all this as fact? Or are you speculating that all the above is true? Its an important distinction, do you know what UEFA have said?

Isn't this thread just a load of speculation? If it is then does that preclude anyone from airing their views until the full facts have been established?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not quite DD, you'd have to buy £16k worth of ladders :D

No you wouldn't.

You'd put the 2k as a one off expense and wipe out your profits.

Technically the ladder's cost should be accrued/depreciated, but it was just a simple example.

A better one is that you spend £2k on a local radio advert.

But we are deviating from the point ;-)

Hmmm, may be slightly different in the uk but a capital expense for tax purposes usually can't be written off in one year, here fixed assets have to be written off over 8 years (depreciation is totally different to capital tax allowances btw).

Of cause you can. It can be classed as a directors' loan to the company, so you pay it out of your own pocket and the business ends up owing you the £2k.

Hence,reduced liability, as the reimbursement eats into the company profits.

I attempt to do this every year to keep my corporation tax bill as a low as possible.

The problem comes when you need to switch mortgage. As I have recently discovered, it's a real bastard trying to convince the bank you are actually earning way more than your bottom line re company profits.

The lending criteria is way tougher, these days, and they don't want to hear how tax efficient you are.

Like FFPR, they only want to see one side of the coin, regardless of the strength of your business.

You might not need a pair of ladders, but a car or something which bridges the gap between business and personal (a mobile phone/Mac), is always a winner.

Or so I'm told;)

 

[Blue Tooth]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I am sure this has already bee advised somewehere but do we know if the reason they have an issue with the Etihad deal is down to being a related party or on a fair value basis.

It's getting like Groundhog day in this thread...FFS make a fucking announcement someone.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I am sure this has already bee advised somewehere but do we know if the reason they have an issue with the Etihad deal is down to being a related party or on a fair value basis.

We don't know if the Etihad deal is an issue at all. But if it was, they'd have to say it was an RPT before they could apply a fair value assessment. As the club believe it's not an RPT and is demonstrably fair value, then my assumption is that the problem isn't with this but with the sale of image rights to an unnamed third party.

 

[baldybouncer]

Re: City & FFP (continued)