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

[derekthedog]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

think if we wanted to spend more than 49 million, there are plenty of ways around it, i am sure.

loan system, with an option to buy?

maybe buy a player for nyfc?

 

[CC1]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

any clarification on whether other " affected clubs" can appeal against the leniency of this agreement and possibly force further sanctions?

There's no way the rags will - it would put Gill in a really bad light as he was part of the decision re the level of sanctions!!! Arsenal won't because it would piss off UEFA - we've accepted UEFA's sanctions so the appeal would effectively be against UEFA's incompetency

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

From the Telegraph.

The club has also agreed that revenues from the sale of image rights to related parties will not be included in future break-even calculations.


And I think this then precluded the omission of the 2010 wages in the calculations which resulted in FFP failure.

Seen it reported in several places that the Etihad deal was approved, but that UEFA has secured a commitment that we don't raise the value of other Abu Dhabi deals. And we can't use transactions within the Group to inflate Income eg £22m to related parties in our last Annual Account

Worth reading UEFA's own statement re City's settlement agreement. All the media reports are based on this

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles...ncialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf

Decision of the Chief Investigator of the CFCB Investigatory Chamber: Settlement Agreement with Manchester City Football Club Limited
Following an investigation under the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (“CLFFPR”) a settlement agreement was concluded between the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (“CFCB”) Chief Investigator and Manchester City Football Club Limited ("Manchester City") on the basis of Article 14 (1)(b) and Article 15 of the Procedural Rules governing the CFCB.
The settlement was concluded on 16 May 2014 and covers the three sporting seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. For the duration of the settlement, Manchester City will be subject to on-going restrictions which have been agreed by the club and which are described further below.
A central purpose of the settlement is to ensure that Manchester City becomes break- even compliant within the meaning of the CLFFPR in a short space of time.
 In this regard, Manchester City undertakes to report a maximum break-even deficit of EUR 20 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2014 and a maximum break- even deficit of EUR 10 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2015. In this context certain commercial partnerships were subject to examination. 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.
 Furthermore Manchester City agrees that revenues from the sale of assets within their group structure will not be included in future break-even calculations.
 Manchester City accepts that employee benefit expenses cannot be increased during the next two financial periods (2015 & 2016). If Manchester City meets the annual break-even requirements outlined above, this spending limit will be removed for the 2016 financial period.
 Manchester City accepts that for the duration of the settlement it will be subject to a limitation on the number of players that it may include on the “A” list for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. Specifically, for season 2014/15 Manchester City may only register a potential maximum of 21 players on the “A” list, instead of the potential maximum of 25 as foreseen in the relevant competition regulations. If MC manages to comply with the annual break-even

target the club shall be released from the restriction as regards the registration of players in UEFA club competitions for the 2015/16 season.
 Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Manchester City further accepts a calculated limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by this agreement.
 Manchester City agrees to pay a total amount of EUR 60 Mio. which will be withheld from any revenues it earns from participating in UEFA competitions commencing in season 2013/14. Of this EUR 60 Mio. an amount of EUR 40 Mio. will be withheld conditionally and will be returned to Manchester City if the club fulfills the operational and financial measures agreed with the UEFA CFCB.
The compliance with the Settlement Agreement will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules. In this connection, Manchester City also undertakes to provide the CFCB with a Progress Report evidencing its compliance with all relevant conditions agreed on a six monthly basis.
In case Manchester City fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, the UEFA CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the Adjudicatory Chamber, as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) of the Procedural Rules.

 

[Skashion]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The club has also agreed that revenues from the sale of image rights to related parties will not be included in future break-even calculations.

Fucking comedy from UEFA knows no bounds. So basically they've said intellectual property and intangible assets hold no value... despite the millions of pounds clubs pour into scouting networks, brand image and PR. What a crock of shit. Words can't express the level of contempt I hold them in. A joke of an organisation from top to bottom, from being a minute late on the pitch being treated more seriously than horrendous racism to the useless fifth official and everything in-between. Just a fucking ludicrous shambles of an operation.

It's why I'm disappointed we're not going to be the ones to bring them down a peg or seven. I understand the practicalities of course. The pressure from sponsors and commercial partners will be considerable and the actual pain from the sanctions should be fairly light but on principle, these anti-competitive regulations and the farcical organisation that bequeathed their existence should be given a bloody good hiding.

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

From the Telegraph.

The club has also agreed that revenues from the sale of image rights to related parties will not be included in future break-even calculations.


And I think this then precluded the omission of the 2010 wages in the calculations which resulted in FFP failure.

Seen it reported in several places that the Etihad deal was approved, but that UEFA has secured a commitment that we don't raise the value of other Abu Dhabi deals. And the sale of image rights to related parties can't be repeated.

We had £47m of Other Operating Income last season through the sale of Intellectual Property: £22m to related parties, and £24.5m to third parties. I assume the related parties are the new football clubs. Are both transactions now prohibited, or just one?

you're mis-reading this. When they say related parties they mean internally within our group, so we cant sell services to NYCFC or Melbourne. We can sell what we like to any corporate entity that isn't directly linked to us.

 

[Hung]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Unless (as is likely) there is a ‘Grand Plan’ which means this is a short term problem, my fear is that this consigns us for evermore to the apron strings of the elite of European football. Getting income streams as big as Utd’s, RM, Barca etc, despite what we say about our growth of sponsorships etc is a long, long way off. Our turnover is less than half that of the Trafford shithouses. On this basis, if the top clubs want to, they can outbid us for the very best payers as we hit our lower FFP ceiling. As I said earlier in this thread, the prospect of us signing a Messi or a Bale from now on are close to Zero. We may grow our income streams etc, but we have to grow them faster than the competition.

The ‘elite’ have got exactly what they wanted from this, particularly Utd, who probably don’t mind where we are in the pecking order so long as we are one step behind them.

Gutted and I really hope that we ‘have this in hand’, but I wish we had fought on.

 

[nmc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A more coherent summary (in my opinion) from the Telegraph


City's sanctions in full ...
€60 million (£49m) to be withheld from prize money over the next three seasons, but this will be reduced to €20m (£16.3m) if the club complies with agreed spending and break-even limits.
Champions League squad cut to 21 players for next season, but will return to 25 players for 2015-16 if they comply with agreements.
Spending on transfers limited to €60m (£49m) net this summer.
A salary freeze on the Champions League squad for the next two seasons.
City have agreed to cut the losses to a maximum of €20m for (£16.3m) the 2013-14 financial year and €10m (£8.2m) loss for the 2014-15 season.
City's £400m Etihad sponsorship deal was passed by Uefa but the club have agreed not to increase the value of two "second-tier commercial partnerships" with other parties related to their Abu Dhabi-based owners.
The club has also agreed that revenues from the sale of image rights to related parties will not be included in future break-even calculations.


This bit is a bit worrying though :-

Any party affected by the sanction has 10 days to appeal, with Arsenal and Everton possible beneficiaries of any successful challenge following their failure to qualify automatically for the Champions League.

Little point in them challenging this. UEFA wouldn't want to encourage such behavior and it is only valuable to these two parties if we were slung out which is clearly not on the cards. No saying Arsenal won't challenge it but I doubt it; and if they did little would change.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think, given City's statement that their acceptance was governed by how the club is perceived, if any club was stupid enough to appeal the legal dogs would be let loose. City would be seen as the victim and the appellant as a bitter jealous rival and I think City would take the whole process to the cleaners.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

From the Telegraph.

The club has also agreed that revenues from the sale of image rights to related parties will not be included in future break-even calculations.


And I think this then precluded the omission of the 2010 wages in the calculations which resulted in FFP failure.

Seen it reported in several places that the Etihad deal was approved, but that UEFA has secured a commitment that we don't raise the value of other Abu Dhabi deals. And the sale of image rights to related parties can't be repeated.

We had £47m of Other Operating Income last season through the sale of Intellectual Property: £22m to related parties, and £24.5m to third parties. I assume the related parties are the new football clubs. Are both transactions now prohibited, or just one?

I don't know enough details, Im just skirting around the edges really and gleaning what info I can. Importantly the club expects to comply with the FFP charade in future - presumably without the need for these IP deals

 

[moomba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

How could any club appeal the punishment when as far as I know UEFA haven't told anyone the nature of the breach. Appealing a £20m fine for going £100bn over the FFP limits is a bit different to appealing a £20m for going a penny over the limit.