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

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Did we get to the bottom of the fact that UEFA make no mention of lifting transfer restrictions in 15/16 if we comply with the spending limits imposed?

The fact that the club says we'll be working without restriction in 15/16 is clearly at odds with this, and I am trying to work out whether this is because we are absolutely correct based on some clear and detailed, but unpublished, agreement with UEFA. Or a derived interpretation by us, over which we might get further shafted when the time comes?

Can anyone explain exactly why we will be working without restriction in 15/16?

Is it as simple as because we aren't planning on spending much anyway, and therefore although the transfer limits are still in place in 15/16, we won't feel restricted by them?

 

[bluemoon32]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'll never understand why we haven't fought this and ended up just bending over and taking it.
Gives the impression we've been naughty, were caught cooking the books and have now accepted the charges as we believe we've gotten off lightly.
There's more to this than meets the eye

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This is from the Mail;

Don't we have to include 3 keepers?

There's a contradiction if UEFA have confirmed the 4+4 rule applies. The final sentence of the club's official statement says that all of the non financial restrictions were part of our existing plans.

A minimum of 2 keepers, in fact it may even be a maximum of 2 but the rules don't actually say either way in terms of maximum. Of course with a 21 man limit that wouldn't affect us anyway.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It was a press release to try to show that everything was under control from the club's pov I guess.

Not convinced by the two question marks though. It seems there are transfer restrictions for 2015/6 (even if we don't expect to spend more than 49 million it is still a restriction) and I doubt very much that an exception to one of the CL rules (squad size) means an exception to another (4+4) so I would imagine we will be having problems with CL squad size next year. Unless it is absolutely clear between UEFA and the club that the 4+4 rule doesn't apply, then I would expect us to get shafted when we present the list after the summer. On the other hand, I can't imagine the club wouldn't be absolutely sure on this. It would be a big mistake to get it wrong ....

Did we get to the bottom of the fact that UEFA make no mention of lifting transfer restrictions in 15/16 if we comply with the spending limits imposed?

The fact that the club says we'll be working without restriction in 15/16 is clearly at odds with this, and I am trying to work out whether this is because we are absolutely correct based on some clear and detailed, but unpublished, agreement with UEFA. Or a derived interpretation by us, over which we might get further shafted when the time comes?

Can anyone explain exactly why we will be working without restriction in 15/16?

Is it as simple as because we aren't planning on spending much anyway, and therefore although the transfer limits are still in place in 15/16, we won't feel restricted by them?

 

[City Raider]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'll never understand why we haven't fought this and ended up just bending over and taking it.
Gives the impression we've been naughty, were caught cooking the books and have now accepted the charges as we believe we've gotten off lightly.
There's more to this than meets the eye

What we're saying and what we're doing in the background are probably very different things.

FFP will be challenged, but we risk to much reputational damage to be the club leading it.

 

[dctid]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'll never understand why we haven't fought this and ended up just bending over and taking it.
Gives the impression we've been naughty, were caught cooking the books and have now accepted the charges as we believe we've gotten off lightly.
There's more to this than meets the eye

City did not fight it because quite simply the legal assessment and / or business assessment (which is what the City statement implies) was such that there was no significant prospect of a positive outcome

Simply put the risks were too great so we had little option other than to take it

PSG got off far far worse with the marking down of the tourist deal and this will hit them for years to come

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

it's really sad when Joe Bernstein can work it out and some numbnuts on here can't

It's speculation pure and simple, and you are joining the fray, to be honest you having been on the WUM for a few days now, take this as a hint to desist
Cheers

it's not speculation it's simple arithmetic and if pointing out the elephant in the room to those who haven't noticed it is wumming then do your worst - I'm sure the Sheikh Sneerers etc will be delighted.

It's not speculation only if you blindly accept the daily fails 'fact' that "UEFA confirmed" the 8 HG rule. For now I'd rather presume that the daily fail is talking bollocks.

 

[GXCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'll never understand why we haven't fought this and ended up just bending over and taking it.
Gives the impression we've been naughty, were caught cooking the books and have now accepted the charges as we believe we've gotten off lightly.
There's more to this than meets the eye

City did not fight it because quite simply the legal assessment and / or business assessment (which is what the City statement implies) was such that there was no significant prospect of a positive outcome

Simply put the risks were too great so we had little option other than to take it

PSG got off far far worse with the marking down of the tourist deal and this will hit them for years to come

It was marked down to €100m. The Etihad deal is only £40m so it's hardly going to hit them too hard.

 

[richards30]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'll never understand why we haven't fought this and ended up just bending over and taking it.
Gives the impression we've been naughty, were caught cooking the books and have now accepted the charges as we believe we've gotten off lightly.
There's more to this than meets the eye

From reading the statement it wouldn't surprise me if we've taken the rap from uefa as a favour. We will break even this financial year and be in profit for forever more so there will be no problem in what we spend in the future. It was also telling the last statement about simplifying the breakdown of the new york city and Melbourne heat monies as it looks like uefa think we've tried to in a sense cook the books! Funny thing is ffpr wont affect us ever again but the clubs who clamoured for it will always face challenges!

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It's speculation pure and simple, and you are joining the fray, to be honest you having been on the WUM for a few days now, take this as a hint to desist
Cheers

it's not speculation it's simple arithmetic and if pointing out the elephant in the room to those who haven't noticed it is wumming then do your worst - I'm sure the Sheikh Sneerers etc will be delighted.

It's not speculation only if you blindly accept the daily fails 'fact' that "UEFA confirmed" the 8 HG rule. For now I'd rather presume that the daily fail is talking bollocks.

the trick is to see the blindingly obvious between the bollocks