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

[Bournemouth Blue]

How about an independent retrospective review of American ownership of English football clubs, where they use the club as a cash cow? When will that happen? What about a retrospective review of Russian oligarchs owning English football clubs? What about corrupt owners of East London football clubs screwing taxpayers by the subsidising of the Olympic Stadium? Just a few examples of the blinkered. i am glad we can afford good lawyers

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

It is shocking the way Newcastle are being treated. Like any other new business they require a major injection of cash in the short-term. It is the only way they will even be able to reach the top table. There should at least be a period of time, perhaps three to five years, when they are allowed to spend well above FFP rules. This should apply to all new owners of clubs.
These new proposals will stifle any club that wants to show a bit of ambition. LFC have already tried to prevent Everton's new stadium by de-railing the planning application at the council. Now they will do everything they can behind the scenes to prevent them investing. This is just corruption.

New rules introduced by UEFA in c2015 for FFP allowed for a programme of initial capital investment and iirc without looking it up it was for a period of 4 years and based on the specific plan submitted. So completely different to what we had to encounter. Of course, we don't know yet the exact detail of the new FFP rules which will be introduced shortly but I'd bet it won't be as bad as this.

The UEFA version is less stringent than this PL version and ironically the main push for this was from the middle ranked PL clubs fearing losing their PL place to relegation or making a European place much more difficult. It's turkeys voting for xmas imo - restricting investment in the PL (player sales etc) and deflating the asset value of the clubs because less attractive to purchase

 

[Roy Munson]

Small u for united Tolmie please

Yep. Needs a small 'u". He's also missing a 'C', 'n', 't' and 's'.

 

[KS55]

I hope you’re right about the legal challenge, but I still respectfully disagree about the intended target. City currently cost the cartel in the region of £100 million a year in CL revenue, plus associated domestic prize money and diminished advertising revenue. Newcastle cost them sweet FA, and with FFP already acting as a constraint on their ability to generate income through sponsorships, nor will Newcastle impact the cartel for years to come. Whilst this “legislation” may unquestionably be aimed at Newcastle as well, it’s primary target is without question in my opinion City, for the reasons stated

Arab muslims that's a problem for Americans. Twats.

 

[KS55]

It would be indeed considering CAS clearly stated them as separate entities.

There is a difference between related under IAS 24 and associated by the PL Definition. CAS and UEFA originally worked on IAS definition. Later UEFA introduced a new associated category. The limits were 15% for related and 30% for associated.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

I still find it amazing that they get away with it. If I take over a failing business there is nothing stopping me pumping in as much money as I like. Take Amazon for example, started from nothing made a loss for God knows how many years, loads of money pumped in and look at it now. I suppose that is what UEFA and PL are frightened of.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I've missed this or I can't see it and automatically presumed any excess would be excluded for the FFP/Cost Control calculation only but not excluded all together. if I'm wrong I agree with you about the risk.

As far as I can see, they want sponsorship contracts to be amended to their FMV either before signed or after, and if after, any "excess" cash to be returned. The cheeky bastards.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

There is a difference between related under IAS 24 and associated by the PL Definition. CAS and UEFA originally worked on IAS definition. Later UEFA introduced a new associated category. The limits were 15% for related and 30% for associated.

The below clause was introduced in 2015 after our argument with UEFA as part of the settlement in 2014.

IF our commercial revenue exceeds 30% of the clubs total revenues then our abu dhabi sponsorships (declared as non-related) would be treated as related and assessed for fair value. This hasn't caused us a problem because our total abu dhabi sposnorships have been under 30%. So it hasn't made any difference to us and subsequently there hasn't been a need to challenge the rule.

It would cause a problem for Newcastle as far as UEFA FFP is concerned because their total turnover is so much lower than ours. However, UEFA FFP isn't an immediate problem for them and, in any case, will be changed shortly with new rules.

There is no limit as such of 15% for related parties. It is simply based on fair value.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

As far as I can see, they want sponsorship contracts to be amended to their FMV either before signed or after, and if after, any "excess" cash to be returned. The cheeky bastards.

Cheeky bastards indeed :)

 

[KS55]

The below clause was introduced in 2015 after our argument with UEFA as part of the settlement in 2014.

IF our commercial revenue exceeds 30% of the clubs total revenues then our abu dhabi sponsorships (declared as non-related) would be treated as related and assessed for fair value. This hasn't caused us a problem because our total abu dhabi sposnorships have been under 30%. So it hasn't made any difference to us and subsequently there hasn't been a need to challenge the rule.

It would cause a problem for Newcastle as far as UEFA FFP is concerned because their total turnover is so much lower than ours. However, UEFA FFP isn't an immediate problem for them and, in any case, will be changed shortly with new rules.

There is no limit as such of 15% for related parties. It is simply based on fair value.



View attachment 32486

Thanks for that. My memory not so good, your post much more accurate.