You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
Re: City & FFP (continued)
No, they can adjust it to what they think is fair value. I can't imagine even UEFA would be silly enough to suggest that access to City's expertise on both a football and marketing front isn't worth any money at all.
adrianr said:But they could correct it down to £0 for FFP purposes if they think we're using it to circumvent the rules, no? I thought they could adjust all RPT's, it was non-RPT's that were safe?
No, they can adjust it to what they think is fair value. I can't imagine even UEFA would be silly enough to suggest that access to City's expertise on both a football and marketing front isn't worth any money at all.
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It seems a little against natural justice to take into account something that was put in place before the regs came out
Whilst I understand that is the case, I believe the wages settled before the introduction of FFP should be discounted whether you pass or failPrestwich_Blue said:No. You can deduct the £80m if it makes the difference between passing and failing.hello said:Not read the whole 677 pages and sure this has been confirm but people are saying if you pass fpp you can deduct pre 2010 wages some 80m quid or so in our case but if you are failing you can't deduct this sum. Surely that has to be the other way round as even uefa can't be that stupid can they?
It seems a little against natural justice to take into account something that was put in place before the regs came out
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Ahh I see. But an adjustment of a couple of million could be the difference between us failing, and being able to write off the 80m in wages, right? Going to be very interesting how they handle that one. That bit mentioned earlier about parachute payments not being FFP deductible is also interesting if it's the difference between us passing or failing. Sounds like we're potentially talking about only a few million either way?
Damocles said:adrianr said:But they could correct it down to £0 for FFP purposes if they think we're using it to circumvent the rules, no? I thought they could adjust all RPT's, it was non-RPT's that were safe?
No, they can adjust it to what they think is fair value. I can't imagine even UEFA would be silly enough to suggest that access to City's expertise on both a football and marketing front isn't worth any money at all.
Ahh I see. But an adjustment of a couple of million could be the difference between us failing, and being able to write off the 80m in wages, right? Going to be very interesting how they handle that one. That bit mentioned earlier about parachute payments not being FFP deductible is also interesting if it's the difference between us passing or failing. Sounds like we're potentially talking about only a few million either way?
nmc
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It's slightly worse than that a minor (disputed) fail without the pre 2010 reduction is being turned into a significant - circa £100m fail which is the basis for the alleged £50m sanction.
squirtyflower said:Whilst I understand that is the case, I believe the wages settled before the introduction of FFP should be discounted whether you pass or failPrestwich_Blue said:No. You can deduct the £80m if it makes the difference between passing and failing.hello said:Not read the whole 677 pages and sure this has been confirm but people are saying if you pass fpp you can deduct pre 2010 wages some 80m quid or so in our case but if you are failing you can't deduct this sum. Surely that has to be the other way round as even uefa can't be that stupid can they?
It seems a little against natural justice to take into account something that was put in place before the regs came out
It's slightly worse than that a minor (disputed) fail without the pre 2010 reduction is being turned into a significant - circa £100m fail which is the basis for the alleged £50m sanction.
St Helens Blue (Exiled)
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2011
- Messages
- 13,603
Re: City & FFP (continued)
That's how I thought aswell SF.
The wages pre 2010 would be deducted to come to our overall pass or fail figure mate.
It seems to me they have just moved the goalposts so we failed therefore not being allowed to deduct these causing a catastrophic fail.
squirtyflower said:Whilst I understand that is the case, I believe the wages settled before the introduction of FFP should be discounted whether you pass or failPrestwich_Blue said:No. You can deduct the £80m if it makes the difference between passing and failing.hello said:Not read the whole 677 pages and sure this has been confirm but people are saying if you pass fpp you can deduct pre 2010 wages some 80m quid or so in our case but if you are failing you can't deduct this sum. Surely that has to be the other way round as even uefa can't be that stupid can they?
It seems a little against natural justice to take into account something that was put in place before the regs came out
That's how I thought aswell SF.
The wages pre 2010 would be deducted to come to our overall pass or fail figure mate.
It seems to me they have just moved the goalposts so we failed therefore not being allowed to deduct these causing a catastrophic fail.
HalfwayUpTheKippax
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It would be funny if the third party was Arsenal
Matty said:BlueAnorak said: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.
As we declared the sale of Intellectual Property (as opposed to the sale of Image Rights) as involving a related party in our accounts then this gives PWC, on UEFA's behalf, the right to assess this sale against "fair market value" to see if it stands up. If it doesn't then they have the right to discount a proportion of this sale to reduce the value down to what has been determined by PWC to be the "fair market value". We can. of course, challenge any reduction and ask for a second opinion via the adjudication chalmber.
The other sale, that of Image Rights, hasn't been declared by City to be a sale to a related party (although we won;t say exactly who the third party is). If we can prove the 3rd party isn't a related party without letting UEFA know who they actually are (which someone previously stated is something we should be able to achieve) then PWC and UEFA can't reduce the value of this, as it's fair value as determined by the 3rd, unrelated, party.
It would be funny if the third party was Arsenal
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
We shouldn't have to go cap in hand to UEFA to ask them to take off our pre 2010 wages as FFP was only a spawn in Gill's eye at the time we made the contracts
That's my pointnmc said:squirtyflower said:Whilst I understand that is the case, I believe the wages settled before the introduction of FFP should be discounted whether you pass or failPrestwich_Blue said:No. You can deduct the £80m if it makes the difference between passing and failing.
It seems a little against natural justice to take into account something that was put in place before the regs came out
It's slightly worse than that a minor (disputed) fail without the pre 2010 reduction is being turned into a significant - circa £100m fail which is the basis for the alleged £50m sanction.
We shouldn't have to go cap in hand to UEFA to ask them to take off our pre 2010 wages as FFP was only a spawn in Gill's eye at the time we made the contracts
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
To the outsider with little knowledge, I'm looking at you Ed the dickhead, it looks much worse than it is
ExactlySt Helens Blue (Exiled) said:squirtyflower said:Whilst I understand that is the case, I believe the wages settled before the introduction of FFP should be discounted whether you pass or failPrestwich_Blue said:No. You can deduct the £80m if it makes the difference between passing and failing.
It seems a little against natural justice to take into account something that was put in place before the regs came out
That's how I thought aswell SF.
The wages pre 2010 would be deducted to come to our overall pass or fail figure mate.
It seems to me they have just moved the goalposts so we failed therefore not being allowed to deduct these causing a catastrophic fail.
To the outsider with little knowledge, I'm looking at you Ed the dickhead, it looks much worse than it is
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
That's what I find puzzling about all this. Much of our heavy spending happened pre-FFP when there were no regulations in place - regardless of what any bitter opposition fans say, we weren't breaking any rules (sure we've spent significant amounts since FFP came in as well but our revenues were much increased by then compared to what they were during the early days after the takeover). To say you can only apply the pre 2010 contracts clause if it's the difference between a pass and fail when there were no regs in place back then is unfair IMO and it should've been written in that clubs can apply it regardless. The trouble is, we must've accepted the way that UEFA deal with the issue of pre 2010 contracts so I'm not sure the club can really complain about it this far down the line.
squirtyflower said:That's my pointnmc said:squirtyflower said:Whilst I understand that is the case, I believe the wages settled before the introduction of FFP should be discounted whether you pass or fail
It seems a little against natural justice to take into account something that was put in place before the regs came out
It's slightly worse than that a minor (disputed) fail without the pre 2010 reduction is being turned into a significant - circa £100m fail which is the basis for the alleged £50m sanction.
We shouldn't have to go cap in hand to UEFA to ask them to take off our pre 2010 wages as FFP was only a spawn in Gill's eye at the time we made the contracts
That's what I find puzzling about all this. Much of our heavy spending happened pre-FFP when there were no regulations in place - regardless of what any bitter opposition fans say, we weren't breaking any rules (sure we've spent significant amounts since FFP came in as well but our revenues were much increased by then compared to what they were during the early days after the takeover). To say you can only apply the pre 2010 contracts clause if it's the difference between a pass and fail when there were no regs in place back then is unfair IMO and it should've been written in that clubs can apply it regardless. The trouble is, we must've accepted the way that UEFA deal with the issue of pre 2010 contracts so I'm not sure the club can really complain about it this far down the line.