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

[lafitz2008]

Ex-United chief Gill's Financial Fair Play warning

6th March 2014

FORMER Manchester United chief executive David Gill has warned that clubs breaching financial fair play rules will come under close scrutiny in the coming months.

Mr Gill, who left Old Trafford after 16 years as finance director and latterly CEO, is now a now a key figure within European football's governing body, UEFA, and was speaking to business leaders at a dinner in Manchester organised by accountancy firm PwC and recruitment firm Odgers Berndtson.

He said the new Financial Fair Play rules were designed to protect the integrity of European and domestic competitions and are crucial to the long-term interests of football.

Without explicitly naming United's nearest rivals Manchester City - which has been transformed over the last five years by the near £1bn investment of Abu Dhabi's Sheikh Mansour - Mr Gill said: "Tough investigations will be taking place over the next couple of months.

"In some cases we're not talking about rich men owning clubs, but countries, and there will be work to do around related party transactions".

This latter point is particularly pertinent to Manchester City, given its commercial relationship with Abu Dhabi owned, or related companies, including the Abu Dhabi Tourist Board and major club sponsor Etihad Airlines.

During his speech he paid tribute to his "friend" Sir Alex Ferguson, but laughed-off the Scot's recent claim that he had told Gill to demand £150m from Real Madrid for star player Cristiano Ronaldo, who was sold for £80m.

"He (Sir Alex) is a great man, but he's not always right." he said.

He said in terms of global profile and popularity Manchester United punches way above its weight, and at heart it is : "a small business based on an industrial estate two-and-a-half miles outside the UK's third-largest city."

He reiterated his support for the club's American owners the Glazer family, and said the club had been able to be run more effectively as a private business, rather than as a listed company, and the Glazers had "really added value" and overseen remarkable commercial growth of the business by "exploiting the brand on a global scale."

While discussing on the impact of the Bosman Ruling on football - which allows freedom of movement after contracts expire - and the impact on player wages, Mr Gill said United striker Wayne Rooney new contract is not worth the reported £300,000 per week.

"While it's not at that level, I think, it's fair to say the Rooney family will not be wondering where the next holiday is coming from," he added.

Journalists were asked not to report questions from the audience about Manchester United's current league position.


C**t of the highest order. How on earth can he be seen to be independent given his past affiliation to the Rags?

Un-fuckin-believable!!

TBF, his hatred for us is so transparent, I reckon the daft ****'s played right into our hands. We're not owned by a nation state but my a billionaire much like ManUre, we have no debt unlike ManUre and no players on £300,000 per week unlike ManUre!

Also why is Gill commenting on ManUre's affairs and speaking publicly with such authority on Granny Shagger's wage when I though he'd left the Rags?

UEFA impartiality? Thank you Gill, you've just confirmed all our suspicions. The fucking twisted berk should concentrate on football debt NOT legitimate private investment.

Reminds me of Blackadders court martial this.

 

[Bozzie]

It's pretty frightening the legal resources our club would be able to call upon should they have to.

The legal profession will always come down to who has the deepest pockets and we could tie this up in red tape for the next decade, or until the money runs out at UEFA.

I don't think the biggest threat comes from UEFA, however.

I think that comes from the cartel of clubs who will simply threaten to walk away and form another version of the Champions League, outside of UEFA, who are now caught between a rock and a hard place.

Bayern, United, Arsenal and Liverpool would be at the forefront of this, with Chelsea, simply playing both ends until they decide which side the coin drops.

UEFA can cope without City and PSG, which is why, even if they don't want to, may have no option but to see us in court, to protect their very own existence.

I think that's why the club are trying to assume a very conciliatory approach with UEFA. I think they'd like to be seen as a club that has spent big in order to redress to balance and play 'catch up' but now having caught up want to operate in a sound financial manner. The new academy facilities help to demonstrate our commitment to developing young talent from all across Europe. The financial figures are improving year on year and, in my opinion, the recent sponsorship deals that have been announced involving other clubs help to demonstrate the value involved in our current deals and actually allow for re-negotiation in the future.

 

[M18CTID]

Thinking about it, Gill's comments are downright fucking idiotic. The thick twat has basically admitted that he may well try to use his pro-United bias to punish City.

Good luck with that one Gill, because if you're seen to be advocating harsher sanctions against our club compared to any others that may have failed FFP then there will be hell to pay. As corrupt as UEFA is, I can't see how Gill could get away with pulling such a stunt.

 

[gazbaz]

"a small business based on an industrial estate two-and-a-half miles outside the UK's third-largest city."

Well he got that bit right.

 

[petrusha]

It's pretty frightening the legal resources our club would be able to call upon should they have to.

The legal profession will always come down to who has the deepest pockets and we could tie this up in red tape for the next decade, or until the money runs out at UEFA.

I don't think the biggest threat comes from UEFA, however.

I think that comes from the cartel of clubs who will simply threaten to walk away and form another version of the Champions League, outside of UEFA, who are now caught between a rock and a hard place.

Bayern, United, Arsenal and Liverpool would be at the forefront of this, with Chelsea, simply playing both ends until they decide which side the coin drops.

UEFA can cope without City and PSG, which is why, even if they don't want to, may have no option but to see us in court, to protect their very own existence.

Two points here.

Firstly, it's not often mentioned, but this is one of the key reasons that Ferran is our CEO. He has a very impressive contacts book that includes key figures from the very top of the football world down. He's put in a lot of work already into building relationships with the world's biggest clubs (except for those who fall into that category who are our domestic rivals). Let's take Bayern as a case in point. Remember a couple of years back how, when we drew them in the CL, they regarded us will ill-disguised contempt? In the summer just gone they invited us to Munich to feature in their showpiece pre-season tournament and when they came to Manchester in September for their next CL engagement against us, their execs shared a platform with ours.

One thing I'd remember about the above scenario. Our owner is the son of the President, a key government minister and prominent member of the royal family of the nation with the world's second biggest sovereign wealth fund. If it comes to a breakaway, think what could be brought to the table if we're involved that won't be available if we're excluded. Do people think that Bayern, Barca and Real would turn their backs on that? I don't. There'd certainly be a risk of alienating them if they were going to have to compete in the long-term with a City that's propped up by Abu Dhabi money, but City are going be complying with FFP so aren't going to be rocking the boat in a way that would upset these teams. And the potential other benefits we can supply are vast.

In my opinion, if the likes of Kroenke or Henry think they can manoeuvre to exclude us, they may just get a shock.

 

[grunge]

following the Wiki trail.

"MCFC" are owend by "The City Football Group"
"The City Football Group" is owned by "Abu Dhabi United Group"
"Abu Dhabi United Group" is solely owned by Sheikh Mansour and it has been denied that it has any links to the "Abu Dhabi Investment Authority", which is the countries investment group.

 

[petrusha]

Thinking about it, Gill's comments are downright fucking idiotic. The thick twat has basically admitted that he may well try to use his pro-United bias to punish City.

Good luck with that one Gill, because if you're seen to be advocating harsher sanctions against our club compared to any others that may have failed FFP then there will be hell to pay. As corrupt as UEFA is, I can't see how Gill could get away with pulling such a stunt.

I think he's just playing to the constituency of clubs who don't want to think City are being given a free pass. And it's actually better for us that when we do pass, which we will, people can't say UEFA gave us an easy ride.

 

[oakiecokie]

I`m fucked if I know,why some of you are wetting your knickers like a fucking 4 year old girl ?? I believe in HH and Khaldoon to have gone through every part of this shit FFP Regs and the legalities with a fine tooth comb.
Do any of you seriously believe that for one moment there is anything untowards with our finances and our sponsorship deals.
And please spare me the shit about UEFA moving the goalposts !!
Mark my words we are as fucking safe as the council house that we "live" in.
Now go and dry your fooking legs and change your knickers.

 

[aguero93:20]

I`m fucked if I know,why some of you are wetting your knickers like a fucking 4 year old girl ?? I believe in HH and Khaldoon to have gone through every part of this shit FFP Regs and the legalities with a fine tooth comb.
Do any of you seriously believe that for one moment there is anything untowards with our finances and our sponsorship deals.
And please spare me the shit about UEFA moving the goalposts !!
Mark my words we are as fucking safe as the council house that we "live" in.
Now go and dry your fooking legs and change your knickers.

I like my knickers wet.

 

[oakiecokie]

I`m fucked if I know,why some of you are wetting your knickers like a fucking 4 year old girl ?? I believe in HH and Khaldoon to have gone through every part of this shit FFP Regs and the legalities with a fine tooth comb.
Do any of you seriously believe that for one moment there is anything untowards with our finances and our sponsorship deals.
And please spare me the shit about UEFA moving the goalposts !!
Mark my words we are as fucking safe as the council house that we "live" in.
Now go and dry your fooking legs and change your knickers.

I like my knickers wet.

You related to Ken Barlow ?? ;)

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

It's pretty frightening the legal resources our club would be able to call upon should they have to.

The legal profession will always come down to who has the deepest pockets and we could tie this up in red tape for the next decade, or until the money runs out at UEFA.

I don't think the biggest threat comes from UEFA, however.

I think that comes from the cartel of clubs who will simply threaten to walk away and form another version of the Champions League, outside of UEFA, who are now caught between a rock and a hard place.

Bayern, United, Arsenal and Liverpool would be at the forefront of this, with Chelsea, simply playing both ends until they decide which side the coin drops.

UEFA can cope without City and PSG, which is why, even if they don't want to, may have no option but to see us in court, to protect their very own existence.

I think that's why the club are trying to assume a very conciliatory approach with UEFA. I think they'd like to be seen as a club that has spent big in order to redress to balance and play 'catch up' but now having caught up want to operate in a sound financial manner. The new academy facilities help to demonstrate our commitment to developing young talent from all across Europe. The financial figures are improving year on year and, in my opinion, the recent sponsorship deals that have been announced involving other clubs help to demonstrate the value involved in our current deals and actually allow for re-negotiation in the future.

But what happens when we drop £150m on Messi this summer?

All above goes into meltdown.

 

[Hoghead]

It's pretty frightening the legal resources our club would be able to call upon should they have to.

The legal profession will always come down to who has the deepest pockets and we could tie this up in red tape for the next decade, or until the money runs out at UEFA.

I don't think the biggest threat comes from UEFA, however.

I think that comes from the cartel of clubs who will simply threaten to walk away and form another version of the Champions League, outside of UEFA, who are now caught between a rock and a hard place.

Bayern, United, Arsenal and Liverpool would be at the forefront of this, with Chelsea, simply playing both ends until they decide which side the coin drops.

UEFA can cope without City and PSG, which is why, even if they don't want to, may have no option but to see us in court, to protect their very own existence.

I think that's why the club are trying to assume a very conciliatory approach with UEFA. I think they'd like to be seen as a club that has spent big in order to redress to balance and play 'catch up' but now having caught up want to operate in a sound financial manner. The new academy facilities help to demonstrate our commitment to developing young talent from all across Europe. The financial figures are improving year on year and, in my opinion, the recent sponsorship deals that have been announced involving other clubs help to demonstrate the value involved in our current deals and actually allow for re-negotiation in the future.

This#

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

It's pretty frightening the legal resources our club would be able to call upon should they have to.

The legal profession will always come down to who has the deepest pockets and we could tie this up in red tape for the next decade, or until the money runs out at UEFA.

I don't think the biggest threat comes from UEFA, however.

I think that comes from the cartel of clubs who will simply threaten to walk away and form another version of the Champions League, outside of UEFA, who are now caught between a rock and a hard place.

Bayern, United, Arsenal and Liverpool would be at the forefront of this, with Chelsea, simply playing both ends until they decide which side the coin drops.

UEFA can cope without City and PSG, which is why, even if they don't want to, may have no option but to see us in court, to protect their very own existence.

Two points here.

Firstly, it's not often mentioned, but this is one of the key reasons that Ferran is our CEO. He has a very impressive contacts book that includes key figures from the very top of the football world down. He's put in a lot of work already into building relationships with the world's biggest clubs (except for those who fall into that category who are our domestic rivals). Let's take Bayern as a case in point. Remember a couple of years back how, when we drew them in the CL, they regarded us will ill-disguised contempt? In the summer just gone they invited us to Munich to feature in their showpiece pre-season tournament and when they came to Manchester in September for their next CL engagement against us, their execs shared a platform with ours.

One thing I'd remember about the above scenario. Our owner is the son of the President, a key government minister and prominent member of the royal family of the nation with the world's second biggest sovereign wealth fund. If it comes to a breakaway, think what could be brought to the table if we're involved that won't be available if we're excluded. Do people think that Bayern, Barca and Real would turn their backs on that? I don't. There'd certainly be a risk of alienating them if they were going to have to compete in the long-term with a City that's propped up by Abu Dhabi money, but City are going be complying with FFP so aren't going to be rocking the boat in a way that would upset these teams. And the potential other benefits we can supply are vast.

In my opinion, if the likes of Kroenke or Henry think they can manoeuvre to exclude us, they may just get a shock.

I would certainly be interested in the reaction of PSG's owners if attempts are also made to exclude them from any breakaway.

Barcelona might not want to bring an end to a £125m shirt sponsorship deal with the Qatar Foundation.

Or even Arsenal, for that matter? The Emirates deal might suddenly disappear if Sheikh Mansour has a word with his father-in-law.

Whilst all the above would certainly bring major leverage for consideration, I would not trust some of the lengths our rivals will go to.

Perhaps someone in Abu Dhabi might want to sponsor Real Madrid's shirts next season, or just buy T Mobile in Germany just for a little extra insurance!!

 

[M18CTID]

Thinking about it, Gill's comments are downright fucking idiotic. The thick twat has basically admitted that he may well try to use his pro-United bias to punish City.

Good luck with that one Gill, because if you're seen to be advocating harsher sanctions against our club compared to any others that may have failed FFP then there will be hell to pay. As corrupt as UEFA is, I can't see how Gill could get away with pulling such a stunt.

I think he's just playing to the constituency of clubs who don't want to think City are being given a free pass. And it's actually better for us that when we do pass, which we will, people can't say UEFA gave us an easy ride.

Come to think of it, you're probably right petrusha. I don't think Gill would be so daft as to spout off that he's going to try to get us into trouble with UEFA over FFP.

In fact, I've just recalled that when he left his post at United last year there were quotes attributed to him that, somewhat bizarrely when you consider his strong links to United, seemed to be complimenting us for the Sheikh's investment in the infrastructure of the club, particularly the academy. I suppose that it could just be that he isn't intending to do United any favours because weren't there rumours that he was pushed out by the Glazers?

Edit: Here's the Gill article where he talks about us:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11667/8668601/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11667/8668601/</a>

 

[Clarkey_78]

It's pretty frightening the legal resources our club would be able to call upon should they have to.

The legal profession will always come down to who has the deepest pockets and we could tie this up in red tape for the next decade, or until the money runs out at UEFA.

I don't think the biggest threat comes from UEFA, however.

I think that comes from the cartel of clubs who will simply threaten to walk away and form another version of the Champions League, outside of UEFA, who are now caught between a rock and a hard place.

Bayern, United, Arsenal and Liverpool would be at the forefront of this, with Chelsea, simply playing both ends until they decide which side the coin drops.

UEFA can cope without City and PSG, which is why, even if they don't want to, may have no option but to see us in court, to protect their very own existence.

I think that's why the club are trying to assume a very conciliatory approach with UEFA. I think they'd like to be seen as a club that has spent big in order to redress to balance and play 'catch up' but now having caught up want to operate in a sound financial manner. The new academy facilities help to demonstrate our commitment to developing young talent from all across Europe. The financial figures are improving year on year and, in my opinion, the recent sponsorship deals that have been announced involving other clubs help to demonstrate the value involved in our current deals and actually allow for re-negotiation in the future.

But what happens when we drop £150m on Messi this summer?

All above goes into meltdown.

Come on Tolm , stop playing with us !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[hbruz80]

It's pretty frightening the legal resources our club would be able to call upon should they have to.

The legal profession will always come down to who has the deepest pockets and we could tie this up in red tape for the next decade, or until the money runs out at UEFA.

I don't think the biggest threat comes from UEFA, however.

I think that comes from the cartel of clubs who will simply threaten to walk away and form another version of the Champions League, outside of UEFA, who are now caught between a rock and a hard place.

Bayern, United, Arsenal and Liverpool would be at the forefront of this, with Chelsea, simply playing both ends until they decide which side the coin drops.

UEFA can cope without City and PSG, which is why, even if they don't want to, may have no option but to see us in court, to protect their very own existence.

Two points here.

Firstly, it's not often mentioned, but this is one of the key reasons that Ferran is our CEO. He has a very impressive contacts book that includes key figures from the very top of the football world down. He's put in a lot of work already into building relationships with the world's biggest clubs (except for those who fall into that category who are our domestic rivals). Let's take Bayern as a case in point. Remember a couple of years back how, when we drew them in the CL, they regarded us will ill-disguised contempt? In the summer just gone they invited us to Munich to feature in their showpiece pre-season tournament and when they came to Manchester in September for their next CL engagement against us, their execs shared a platform with ours.

One thing I'd remember about the above scenario. Our owner is the son of the President, a key government minister and prominent member of the royal family of the nation with the world's second biggest sovereign wealth fund. If it comes to a breakaway, think what could be brought to the table if we're involved that won't be available if we're excluded. Do people think that Bayern, Barca and Real would turn their backs on that? I don't. There'd certainly be a risk of alienating them if they were going to have to compete in the long-term with a City that's propped up by Abu Dhabi money, but City are going be complying with FFP so aren't going to be rocking the boat in a way that would upset these teams. And the potential other benefits we can supply are vast.

In my opinion, if the likes of Kroenke or Henry think they can manoeuvre to exclude us, they may just get a shock.

I would certainly be interested in the reaction of PSG's owners if attempts are also made to exclude them from any breakaway.

Barcelona might not want to bring an end to a £125m shirt sponsorship deal with the Qatar Foundation.

Or even Arsenal, for that matter? The Emirates deal might suddenly disappear if Sheikh Mansour has a word with his father-in-law.

Whilst all the above would certainly bring major leverage for consideration, I would not trust some of the lengths our rivals will go to.

Perhaps someone in Abu Dhabi might want to sponsor Real Madrid's shirts next season, or just buy T Mobile in Germany just for a little extra insurance!!

Emirates already sponsor Real Madrid. Bayern Munich are part owned by Audi which is owned by VW whose largest single shareholder after Porsche is Qatar Holding.

 

[petrusha]

I would certainly be interested in the reaction of PSG's owners if attempts are also made to exclude them from any breakaway.

Barcelona might not want to bring an end to a £125m shirt sponsorship deal with the Qatar Foundation.

Or even Arsenal, for that matter? The Emirates deal might suddenly disappear if Sheikh Mansour has a word with his father-in-law.

Whilst all the above would certainly bring major leverage for consideration, I would not trust some of the lengths our rivals will go to.

Perhaps someone in Abu Dhabi might want to sponsor Real Madrid's shirts next season, or just buy T Mobile in Germany just for a little extra insurance!!

You're right about the fact that they can't be trusted.

If I were our owner and had all the advantages that the Sheikh has, I'd be looking for ways to build ties with the other businesses owned by key individuals involved with a range of top European clubs. Having companies linked to me enter into key supply contracts, lending money and so on. The type of arrangements that, if pulled at a moment's notice, could cause a real crisis.

I don't think this is Mansour's way of doing things, but it would be mine. :)

 

[George Hannah]

Nevertheless I remain deeply anxious about all this. When are the UEFA penalties for FFP non-compliance to be administered?

 

[aguero93:20]

Nevertheless I remain deeply anxious about all this. When are the UEFA penalties for FFP non-compliance to be administered?

May/june, have to be in before the first qualifying rounds for obvious reasons.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I think many are missing the key point about Gill's statement. Straight away he tries to confuse the issue by claiming that "the new Financial Fair Play rules were designed to protect the integrity of European and domestic competitions and are crucial to the long-term interests of football." Not only is ii hard to say how the PL's version will seek to do this, it's also clear that this had nothing to do with the motives put forward when the plans were presented. The plans were to designed, apparently, to prevent the new TV money from finding its way into the players' pockets rather than the owners! They also placed limits on losses clubs were allowed to make. Unfortunately for Mr Gill and the PL these regulations appear to conflict with the rights of shareholders which are explicitly protected by law, were clearly the result of pressure from certain clubs ("competing parties" no less) and were put into effect by a majority vote against the wishes of other competing parties. Smacks of a cartel to restrict investment, which is naughty. Now this all seems very dodgy and massively uncertain, is causing rebellion in the FL and increasingly the European version is arousing strong and hostile reactions abroad. Everyone wants to stuff City, but without stuffing themselves!

Now, the only occasion on which the football authorities seem to have got their way is on the question of tax bills unpaid by Spanish clubs. This appears to be "illegal" state aid to Spanish clubs and, therefore, at least as naughty as behaving as a cartel. So, Gill actually appears to have abandoned his own rules to try and stuff City. His attack is now based on the grounds that City's entire operation is illegal because the club benefits from state aid! "Without explicitly naming United's nearest rivals Manchester City - which has been transformed over the last five years by the near £1bn investment of Abu Dhabi's Sheikh Mansour - Mr Gill said: 'Tough investigations will be taking place over the next couple of months. In some cases we're not talking about rich men owning clubs, but countries, and there will be work to do around related party transactions.' Sheikh Mansour has always stated clearly that he owns City as an individual, that the club is not financed in any way from state funds while the auditors have never found any trace of any "related party" sponsorship deal, though it has admitted openly that the club has been involved in a related deal in the last year, concerned with "image rights" but not sponsorship. No-one would dream of arguing that Mr Gill's present role involves any conflict of interest or that his latest contribution to the debate is evidence of any; rather it suggests that any attempt to apply the FFPR has been abandoned - in favour of clutching at straws.