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

[fbloke]

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.

The worrying bit is exactly why we added the warning in our statement.

If the agreed punishments are altered then it's very likely City will challenge everything

 

[halfcenturyup]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We can sell any IP we like to these related parties, there is nothing to stop us. They just wont be included in break even calculations for FFP. Disallowed income if you wish.

Has it been confirmed that the IP sale to the third party last year has been disallowed? I guess it must have been to have such a mega fail. That would be staggering if true, a complete brain fart by UEFA, unless it's due to secrecy which prevented a fair assessment of value this year. On the other hand, then it's just a timing issue and could be re-assessed when the secrecy disappears I guess?

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.

 

[dazdon]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I like the bold nature of city's statement, having just read it's it basically says 'we've agreed this for political reasons, but UEFA can fuck off now and in future'. I'm not surprised with the outcome.

That's the way I read it too.

Breaking even next year so go and fuck yourselves with a big stick.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

Chill mate. They haven't said they hold no value but that we won't include them in FUTURE break-even calculations. So that implies they haven't stopped us in this one (and they have no mechanism for doing that so it isn't surprising). But we don't have to include them as we're now only going to be judged on single year accounts for the next two years rather than on a rolling three-year aggregate basis. Which renders the 2011-12 & 2012-13 accounts utterly irrelevant and these were one-offs anyway.

It's like Stephen Hawking promising he won't enter the Olympic High or Long Jump.

 

[The Man With The Stick]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Does anybody know what the money taken from fines will be used for? I hope there's transparancy on this.

 

[homerdog]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

Was going to post a rant, but this sums up my feelings nicely!

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We can sell any IP we like to these related parties, there is nothing to stop us. They just wont be included in break even calculations for FFP. Disallowed income if you wish.

Has it been confirmed that the IP sale to the third party last year has been disallowed? I guess it must have been to have such a mega fail. That would be staggering if true, a complete brain fart by UEFA, unless it's due to secrecy which prevented a fair assessment of value this year. On the other hand, then it's just a timing issue and could be re-assessed when the secrecy disappears I guess?

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.

I was quoting from what the MEN was reporting.

The MEN in their summary say •

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

but my reading of the club statement is that it's just transactions within the group that are excluded.

To be fair to the MEN, the Other Operating Income entry in the Accounts is not really detailed as to what it is (unless I missed it)

 

[NMB]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

I say bring it on. I dare Arsenal to appeal. From the statement made by the club I think we wanted to take it to a higher authority but didn't because we didn't want to ruffle feathers. But it Wenger wants to do it for us - RESULT.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I like the bold nature of city's statement, having just read it's it basically says 'we've agreed this for political reasons, but UEFA can fuck off now and in future'. I'm not surprised with the outcome.

That's the way I read it too.

Breaking even next year so go and fuck yourselves with a big stick.

I really really like it, a lot.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I was quoting from what the MEN was reporting.

The MEN in their summary say •

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

but my reading of the club statement is that it's just transactions within the group that are excluded.

Transactions within the group are related party transactions by definition.

Some more good news - the withholding of prize money does not reduce our revenue, according to UEFA. We can still take credit for all revenues earned.