Having looked at it all from scratch the only thing that the CFCB can realistically challenge is the IP sale to City Football Group for £22.43m.
Trying to change the meaning of RTP simply won't fly so the Etihad deal will be OK as will the IP sale to a 3rd party - it isn't an RPT deal and it is easy to identify that the firm is not an RPT by means of a letter to PWC from a well respected law firm stating this fact without revealing who the 3rd party is (this mechanism is used all the rime for calculating tax liabilities in various jurisdictions so it is nothing new).
The question over the nature of the 3rd party deal depends on what PWC have said about it. My guess is that they will have said it is a valid deal but as no one has done it before they cannot put a value on it.
That will give the CFCB all the ammunition they need to give it a fair value of zero.
That will mean us failing FFP by between £7m and £15m. Which means we can't deduct £80m in pre June 2010 wages which means a headline failure of £87m+.
City will fight this all the way to the end of the line as the punishment certainly doesn't fit the crime.
Having looked at it all from scratch the only thing that the CFCB can realistically challenge is the IP sale to City Football Group for £22.43m.
Trying to change the meaning of RTP simply won't fly so the Etihad deal will be OK as will the IP sale to a 3rd party - it isn't an RPT deal and it is easy to identify that the firm is not an RPT by means of a letter to PWC from a well respected law firm stating this fact without revealing who the 3rd party is (this mechanism is used all the rime for calculating tax liabilities in various jurisdictions so it is nothing new).
The question over the nature of thie 3rd party deal depends on what PWC have said about it. My guess is that they will have said it is a valid deal but as no one has done it before they cannot put a value on it.
That will give the CFCB all the ammunition they need to give it a fair value of zero.
That will mean us failing FFP by between £7m and £15m. Which means we can't deduct £80m in pre June 2010 wages which means a headlines failure of £87m+.
I fully grasp you take on UEFA's expedience (and you are probably right) but a third party is not going to stump up £22.43m for something that is worthless. If the third party is unrelated to City as we are led to believe then the value of the IP sale has to be very close to the sum paid - i.e the IP rights are generally worth what someone else is prepared to pay for them.
Having looked at it all from scratch the only thing that the CFCB can realistically challenge is the IP sale to City Football Group for £22.43m.
Trying to change the meaning of RTP simply won't fly so the Etihad deal will be OK as will the IP sale to a 3rd party - it isn't an RPT deal and it is easy to identify that the firm is not an RPT by means of a letter to PWC from a well respected law firm stating this fact without revealing who the 3rd party is (this mechanism is used all the rime for calculating tax liabilities in various jurisdictions so it is nothing new).
The question over the nature of the 3rd party deal depends on what PWC have said about it. My guess is that they will have said it is a valid deal but as no one has done it before they cannot put a value on it.
That will give the CFCB all the ammunition they need to give it a fair value of zero.
That will mean us failing FFP by between £7m and £15m. Which means we can't deduct £80m in pre June 2010 wages which means a headline failure of £87m+.
City will fight this all the way to the end of the line as the punishment certainly doesn't fit the crime.
If we have only failed by £7m and £15m then the following may just help push us over the line:
Another very big issue for English clubs is the substantial payments made to the lower leagues in the football "pyramid" and to other charities out of their joint Sky TV deal.[67] In 2009 /2010, Premiership clubs paid a total of £167.2 million to various causes, including £62.2 million to recently relegated clubs in "parachute payments;" £56.4 million across the Football League in "solidarity payments;" £17.3 million to the Professional Footballers' Association,;£7.8 million domestically and £3 million internationally to the Creating Chances Trust ( a charity for children leaving care); £12 million to other charities such as the Football Foundation, which provides funding for grass roots sport; £2.9 million to Professional Games Match Officials (referees and assistant referees); £2 million to the Conference National; and £500,000 to the League Managers Association[67]
These payments cannot be discounted from FFP. The German, Italian and Spanish leagues are not run along this model, with only France’s Lique 1 among the big European leagues having a similar system of voluntary payments to outside interests. The amounts paid by Premiership clubs, around £8.36 million per club or 14% of turnover could make a big difference to a smaller club in meeting FFP, yet could actually be stopped at any time by a 14-6 majority vote of the 20 club chairmen,[61] and as of March 2012, the Premiership continues to lobby UEFA to request that these payments can be offset against the FFP calculations
Whether the other PL clubs are happy to push this through now given our predicament is another matter
I'm saying that the £24.5m deal with an unnamed 3rd party WILL probably have been accepted by PWC.
Its the sale of IP to City Football Group. That owns City, NYFC and Melbourne Heart that will probably be the sticking point. It is an RPT and it gives the CFCB the only chance they have to challenge our figures.
This is sounding more and more like a bunch of ex footballers in UEFA don't know much about the complexities of accounting and tried to do us over before realising everything we've done is legal, and now we are going through it point by point showing them why we are correct and they'll be royally pissed off because this entire thing was based around trying to fuck us over.
I'm saying that the £24.5m deal with an unnamed 3rd party WILL probably have been accepted by PWC.
Its the sale of IP to City Football Group. That owns City, NYFC and Melbourne Heart that will probably be the sticking point. It is an RPT and it gives the CFCB the only chance they have to challenge our figures.
I'm saying that the £24.5m deal with an unnamed 3rd party WILL probably have been accepted by PWC.
Its the sale of IP to City Football Group. That owns City, NYFC and Melbourne Heart that will probably be the sticking point. It is an RPT and it gives the CFCB the only chance they have to challenge our figures.
Got you - apologies. The IP sale to other parts of the Group (NYCFC etc.) is obviously unique in Football but its absolutely common place in business - all multi national companies do it. The value may be disputed but the concept is fine. Any test on this transaction would have to go outside the footballing industry.
to fret about which component of the Framework For Protectionism we are not compliant with is to give it a degree of credibility that it does not warrant
we have tried to observe it despite its worst intentions
if they want this thing to stick they need our support
if they now play hardball with us despite all our efforts then we should do the same in return and take it legal all the way to expose it for the cartel supporting anti-competitive buffoonery that it is
It's quite funny Wenger being so outspoken about FFP. Anybody else remember the team he had at Monaco, full of World class players, yet played in front of three men and a dog. I wonder if Arsene considers himself to be one of the original financial cheats.
Having looked at it all from scratch the only thing that the CFCB can realistically challenge is the IP sale to City Football Group for £22.43m.
Trying to change the meaning of RTP simply won't fly so the Etihad deal will be OK as will the IP sale to a 3rd party - it isn't an RPT deal and it is easy to identify that the firm is not an RPT by means of a letter to PWC from a well respected law firm stating this fact without revealing who the 3rd party is (this mechanism is used all the rime for calculating tax liabilities in various jurisdictions so it is nothing new).
The question over the nature of the 3rd party deal depends on what PWC have said about it. My guess is that they will have said it is a valid deal but as no one has done it before they cannot put a value on it.
That will give the CFCB all the ammunition they need to give it a fair value of zero.
That will mean us failing FFP by between £7m and £15m. Which means we can't deduct £80m in pre June 2010 wages which means a headline failure of £87m+.
City will fight this all the way to the end of the line as the punishment certainly doesn't fit the crime.
If we can prove the 3rd party we have sold out image rights to is not an RPT then it's of no concern to PWC whether or not they deem it to be fair value. If there's no related party link between us and the 3rd party then the value of the deal is fair value, as the third party has chosen to pay it without any internal influence from City. Otherwise you'd have to assess all sponsorship deals for fair value regardless of the RPT nature of the parties involved. Imagine the scenario, City sell our image rights to Nike for £25m, UEFA say, "that's inflated value, we're going to deduct 50% of the value of that deal". What UEFA are doing there is publicly calling into question the ethics, the professionalism and the ability of the Nike marketing board. They'd be sued before the ink dried on their FFP report. A sponsorship deal/image rights purchaes/whatever else you care to think of is worth what someone is willing to pay, as long as the someone is not a related party with undue influence being applied from within.
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.
