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

[inbetween]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think we are all being played, it smacks of Uefa and City being in bed over this all along?

All window dressing, keeps the G14 from turning on Uefa, plastic enough sanctions for City to more than work around them.

Indeed, to be honest though in terms of FFP, the sanctions aren't sanctions they are just restrictions on our activities. The wage bill limit lets say we can work around by signing players with bonuses or even implementing incremental increases as the contract matures which means that is made totally irrelevant.

The transfer cap means we can simply spend X amount but that X amount can be upto infinite providing we justify it with selling players.

The sanction of our Champions League money is also quite illuminating, it certainly shows that UEFA do not want to hurt City and instead of a fine they are simply keeping money which they already have, effectively a fine where nobody loses.

We are also limited to a 21 man squad in the Champions League, last year we used exactly 21 players... No problems there then!

The only real significant sanction is the special exception on our losses which are substantially decreased to 20M Euro for next year, judging on the statement we intend to beat that into profitability anyway.

I don't see anything in those sanctions which might threaten us apart from a limitation for one year on our transfer activity so let's say the big money deals will not happen but then again we already have a strong squad which just needs a few additions which won't break the bank anyway.

All good news, the bad news I guess is the club are not happy with the way UEFA have seemingly interpreted their rules how they see fit.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not true. Bonuses are treated in exactly the same way as wages. Think P11/D

But not for the purposes of this settlement. Performance related bonuses will not be included in the wages cap.

Really? I missed that. If that's the case, then this start to look a bit more like a toothless face saving exercise by UEFA because such a clause effectively renders the wages cap null and void. We can give them bonuses based on bogus criteria that they will always achieve. Employers used this trick in the 90's with Performance Related Pay.

For someone who negotiates multi-million pound contracts you seem to have a troubling lack of regard for the details ;-)

 

[inbetween]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Funny how our sponsorships are all deemed legit by Uefa despite all the self-proclaimed FFP experts on the net with a few exceptions claimed that it was fake deals... Wishful thinking at it´s best I think.

Have UEFA said what was the problem then?

It is confirmed as being the "Other Operating Income". If so, how do we deal with that going forward?

I note in City's club statement we say

Given the unique nature of the new City Football Group structure – which incorporates MCFC, New York City, Melbourne Heart and a number of other companies, the Club has agreed to certain non-material terms in order to make FFP reporting as easy as possible for UEFA to discern

What does that mean? We account for this income in a different way?

It simply means that there has to be transparency as they are separate entities, IE, we have to disclose NYCFC and Melbourne Heart dealings too because they are effectively part of the same umbrella group. They are however completely separate companies but are clearly related to the club.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

But not for the purposes of this settlement. Performance related bonuses will not be included in the wages cap.

Really? I missed that. If that's the case, then this start to look a bit more like a toothless face saving exercise by UEFA because such a clause effectively renders the wages cap null and void. We can give them bonuses based on bogus criteria that they will always achieve. Employers used this trick in the 90's with Performance Related Pay.

For someone who negotiates multi-million pound contracts you seem to have a troubling lack of regard for the details ;-)

The monopoly players aren't what they used to be!!

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

But not for the purposes of this settlement. Performance related bonuses will not be included in the wages cap.

Really? I missed that. If that's the case, then this start to look a bit more like a toothless face saving exercise by UEFA because such a clause effectively renders the wages cap null and void. We can give them bonuses based on bogus criteria that they will always achieve. Employers used this trick in the 90's with Performance Related Pay.

For someone who negotiates multi-million pound contracts you seem to have a troubling lack of regard for the details ;-)

I'm not being paid for this GDM ;-). And I don't normally negotiate pissed, whilst watching the telly at the same time.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is the Chapter on FFP (an ever-present theme of Bluemoon for 2 years now) about to close?

I think so. I know it's still headline news, but by Monday it wont even be news

The only thing that could keep it going is if Arsenal kick off (but Wenger will go on his hols)

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think we are all being played, it smacks of Uefa and City being in bed over this all along?

All window dressing, keeps the G14 from turning on Uefa, plastic enough sanctions for City to more than work around them.

City's warning to UEFA, and what amounts to the ECA and the G14 to play fair is significant.

As City move into very profitable times we could easily become the ones who challenge other clubs who fail FFP.

Also, as I talked of ages ago on this thread City have agreed to keep things simple for UEFA to run the FFP regs more easily. I talked about City changing the way football clubs work and FFP having to keep up, well it seems that City have taken one on the chin to allow UEFA to develop things within FFP to match the new reality.

 

[bluegonads]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

i can't see the medicine being so easy to swallow.
and if "affected parties" don't like the doses administered can they not still appeal and force UEFA to prescribe an amputation?

 

[inbetween]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is the Chapter on FFP (an ever-present theme of Bluemoon for 2 years now) about to close?

I think so. I know it's still headline news, but by Monday it wont even be news

The only thing that could keep it going is if Arsenal kick off (but Wenger will go on his hols)

Wenger won't matter to anyone because he won't be at Arsenal after they lose today.

 

[Keith Moon]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Funny how our sponsorships are all deemed legit by Uefa despite all the self-proclaimed FFP experts on the net with a few exceptions claimed that it was fake deals... Wishful thinking at it´s best I think.

Have UEFA said what was the problem then?

It is confirmed as being the "Other Operating Income". If so, how do we deal with that going forward?

I note in City's club statement we say

Given the unique nature of the new City Football Group structure – which incorporates MCFC, New York City, Melbourne Heart and a number of other companies, the Club has agreed to certain non-material terms in order to make FFP reporting as easy as possible for UEFA to discern

What does that mean? We account for this income in a different way?

From the UEFA statement:
"In order to avoid dispute and for the avoidance of doubt, Manchester City has agreed that for the period of the settlement it will not seek to improve the financial terms of two second tier commercial partnerships."

I guess that Eithad is on of the two "second tier commercial partnerships" and that the other one is "Visit Abu Dhabi", so we can't upgrade that one to the same level as what UEFA approved for PSG's deal with qatar tourism authority.