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

[Neville Kneville]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Compromise agreements mean two sides accepting things that are not ideal.

I don't think we can dress this up as anything other than a significant setback. Not a catastrophic one, but a setback nevertheless. It means our ability to sign top players this season is compromised and our ability to progress in the CL next year is hampered once again.

I am not sure UEFA have had ti compromise on their position to anything like such an extent. It sounds like we have given in, much more than they have.

Ultimately, we will prevail. But right now this feels like a right kick in the teeth. I feel like an innocent bystander watching a pub brawl. The coppers have stormed in, clouted him around the head and stuffed me in the hack of the van. Now they've said they are prepared to let me off with a caution, for doing nothing. The temptation to smash their fucking faces in, is enormous, but i know i must resist.

We've already got ouR targets. See Ferran Soriano interview.

Progression through the CL is about the luck of the draw, as much as anything else. We will still have 13 1st players available. The rumour was £50mill. It's down to £20mill over 2 seasons. The new BT CL sponsorship deals starts in 2015. Easy!

Absolutely this. What the fuck are people moaning about ? People keep going on about us signing these 'top' players.

Ffs, we just won the league & have been targeting certain players since Christmas. That didn't include Ronaldo, it was centre backs, def mids & maybe Sagna, plus the odd kid. Sheikh Mansour doesn't want to spend 100 fucking mil on players every year.

We are in line to sign exactly who we want.

 

[RandomJ]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

and, by accepting the settlement, confirm to the world MCFC cheated by cooking the books.

NO. We have admitted nothing.

We may have "said" nothing but it is implicit by acceptance. What a fucking brush to tar yourself with. Pissed off doesn't cover it.

Exactly. If next year they decide to move the goal posts again and try and further punish us and we argue they will just turn around and say we've already accepted guilt.

 

[3rdgenerationblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

sssssshHhh.

be quiet everyone.

and the French one and his retards will keep believing they have won.

sssssshHhh.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Given that the PL is adopting uefa style ffp regulations, does any of this squad reduction shit potentially read across to the PL, or is that coming in at a later date, by which time we will be ffp compliant?

Won't effect prem , rules are different, periods different, losses bigger - main thing in prem is salary rises capped by commercial growth

 

[Helmet Cole]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

CL income, plus BT TV income, plus renegotiation of sponsorship = no worries.

 

[Tron Coltrane]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Listen, for anyone who's full of piss and vinegar, all hopped-up and genuinely outraged that the club didn't pick a fight, I get it... FFP is a joke, we were the only ones who seemed likely to fight it, and nothing about this process has been fair. So I don't mean to sound demeaning here, but are all of you old enough to learn the harsh lesson that when you get older you don't get to stand your ground and do what's right when you're juggling a family's best interests?

Just seems like this club is a very big family, and when they saw the gates to the country club closing, and knew that we would be forever in the clear and in good standing on the other side if we would just accept a last minute slap on the wrist -- even if it's for something that we didn't do wrong -- then I'm glad our board chose to take the low road and rush inside. It's in our best interests. Can't believe how little discussion there is focusing on the reality of this news, but that's it: we won. We squeaked through at the last second, and we're on the fancy-pants side of the gate now.

The high road of legal battles and righteousness would've been very exciting, and I would've supported the club if they'd gone that route whole-heartedly. But you don't know what the repercussions would've been behind the scenes. You don't know how many gambling sponsors, and pepsi deals, and so and and so forth would've contractually fallen apart had we faced UEFA exemption. And even if we had talked the players through our reasoning, you don't know how many would've quietly contacted their agents looking for a way out of a club that essentially has an ongoing embargo with a competition that gets them their international call-ups.

Our board could've done the right thing and started a shitstorm, with god knows what kind of fallout, and it would've been fun to take the high road and watch the melee on both sides. But when offered that last-second slap on the wrist and a chance to run through the closing gates, I'm relieved they've been adults and compromised. The club is better off. We're safely through. Job done.

Yes but what about the pies??

Depends if they're homemade.

 

[Rammyblues]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

To be fair we don't need a lot of squad changes, a CB and RB we could probably get away with, another CM would be nice. All we have to do IMO is concentrate again on Prem League and domestic cups, get out of group stage again to keep coefficient up but sack it from there.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

NO. We have admitted nothing.

We may have "said" nothing but it is implicit by acceptance. What a fucking brush to tar yourself with. Pissed off doesn't cover it.

Exactly. If next year they decide to move the goal posts again and try and further punish us and we argue they will just turn around and say we've already accepted guilt.

We haven't said nothing! We have said we have done nothing wrong & only accepted this settlement in order to cause less trouble/loss of money etc.

We have clearly said this.

Read the statement.

 

[OB1]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Our accountants do this under accounting standards there will be absolutely no reason or any justification to sue them . It is also in our interests that the punishment look harsh then it's hard to appeal and everyone can be self satisfied whilst we go on business as usual

Do people actually have any clue what they are talking about when they say sue our accountants? The answer, by the way, is: "no".

Our accountants are the guys who are employees of the club.

Our auditors are the guys who sign off the stautory accounts as part of a legal requirement that has absolutely nothing to do with FFP.

OK then OB1, we are referring to the consultants who were reported to be involved in developing FFP for UEFA. You know doubt realised that.

If these people (who we reportedly contracted) did not include qualified accountants (and we didn't check their credentials) we deserved to get shafted.

Aren't the consultants that you refer to employees of ADUG? And if they are external consultants, they do not have crystal balls. Unless the IP rights income was something specifically excluded in the FFP rules, the consultants could not know that UEFA would seek to disallow them. The revenue was deemed legitmate by the auditors.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here's the regulations on List A and list B:

Conditions for registration: List A
18.08 No club may have more than 25 players on List A during the season, two of whom must be goalkeepers. As a minimum, eight places are reserved exclusively for “locally trained players” and no club may have more than four “association-trained players” listed on these eight places on List A. List A must specify the players who qualify as being “locally trained”, as well as whether they are “club-trained” or “association-trained”. The possible combinations that enable clubs to comply with the List A requirements are set out in Annex VIII.
18.09 A “locally trained player” is either a “club-trained player” or an “association-trained player”.
18.10 A “club-trained player” is a player who, between the age of 15 (or the start of the season during which he turns 15) and 21 (or the end of the season during which he turns 21), and irrespective of his nationality and age, has been registered with his current club for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons (i.e. a period starting with the first official match of the relevant national championship and ending with the last official match of that relevant national championship) or of 36 months.
18.11 An “association-trained player” is a player who, between the age of 15 (or the start of the season during which the player turns 15) and 21 (or the end of the season during which the player turns 21), and irrespective of his nationality and age, has been registered with a club or with other clubs affiliated to the same association as that of his current club for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or of 36 months.
18.12 If a club has fewer than eight locally trained players in its squad, then the maximum number of players on List A is reduced accordingly.
18.13 List A has to be submitted by the following fixed deadlines:
a) 25 June 2012 (24.00 CET) for all matches in the first qualifying round;
b) 12 July 2012 (24.00 CET) for all matches in the second qualifying round;
c) 26 July 2012 (24.00 CET) for all matches in the third qualifying round;
d) 13 August 2012 (24.00 CET) for all matches in the play-offs;
e) 3 September 2012 (24.00 CET) for all further matches from the first match
in the group stage up to and including the final.

Conditions for registration: List B
18.16 Each club is entitled to register an unlimited number of players on List B during the season. The list must be submitted by no later than 24.00 CET on the day before the match in question.
18.17 A player may be registered on List B if he is born on or after 1 January 1991 and has been eligible to play for the club concerned for any uninterrupted period of two years since his 15th birthday by the time he is registered with UEFA. Players aged 16 may be registered on List B if they have been registered with the participating club for the previous two years without interruption.

Last year's squad, with list and HG in bold, was as follows:
A-list
Zabaleta
Kolarov
Fernandinho
Kompany
Nasri
Toure
Aguero
Silva
Demichelis
Jovetic
Negredo
Dzeko
Garcia
Pantilimon
Navas
Hart
Milner
Lescott
Clichy
Boyata
Richards
Nastasic
B-list
Rodwell
Huws

As we've lost Lescott, that's 21 A-list players so if we brought in new A-list, non-home grown players, we'd have to replace someone on that list, which includes 6 home-grown players. However the rules also say you have to reduce the A-list squad if you can't field 8 home-grown players so normally, with a 21-man, A-list squad, you'd only need to have 4 home-grown players. If they apply that the other way round, we could lose 2 players of those 6 (richards & Boyata) and replace them with two non home-grown players. If we need 8, we can promote Rodwell or Huws and use Richard Wright as the second keeper.

Nastasic isn't HG. For UEFA you have to have 8 players who are association trained of whom 4 must be club trained. Richards and Boyata are the only over 21s who are club trained which restricts our current A list to a maximum of 23. The number of players on the B list is unlimited provided they meet the club trained criteria.
The key issue is whether the reduction to 21 retains a minimum of 8 association trained players. If it does it means that 3 of our current 16 foreign trained players would be ineligible for the CL next season . I simply can't believe the club would have agreed to that.