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

[JoeMercer'sWay]

trying to derail our season, typical really, people can't shut up and let the best team win and be magnanimous about it.

 

[stony]

Related Party Transactions -

I am grateful for one journalist for asking a very specific question regarding RPTs. The question was essentially : 'In a number of club accounts, auditors have made decisions about whether an item is an RPT or not. If an item has not been assessed by the club auditors as an RPT does that mean the CFCB will therefore also not be considering the item to be an RPT? The answer confirmed that the CFCB Investigatory Chamber would be looking at the accounts with a fresh pair eyes and will not be relying on the auditors classification of RPT items. ‘As a matter of principle, the checks will be done from scratch’. It was confirmed that the CFCB will carry out their own assessment and determine if the item is an RPT.
UEFA's very clear answer will be of particular interest to fans of Manchester City and PSG - it is clear the Etihad deal and the QTA deal will be assessed against the RPT rules and if judged to be an RPT will undergo a fair value assessment.




If this is true we could be in the poo. I only say if....

PB?

Even if they class the Etihad deal as a RPT There's no way they could say it isn't fair value.

 

[bluemanc]

Re: David Gill

Him and the purple nosed twat made a killing when the rags foreign owners floated shares in the USA.
utds ownership is entwined in Delaware & The Cayman Islands + they are £700 million in debt.
You dont hear the fucker mentioning debt & proof of ownership do you.

 

[Cobwebcat]

If we get punished the most likely sanction could be that we couldn't play all our best players in the CL for a couple of seasons but as long as we still qualified we would get there in the end.

 

[Balti]

ahhhh david fucking gill

manyoo...check
g14....check
fa.....check
southern wanker obviously...check

who fucking cares what he thinks other than southern rag FA coonts?

 

[Balti]

I don't share quite the same concerns as others that the ancien regime are fixated at suppressing City per se, but rather to protect their place at the top table more generally.

What matters more, I suspect, is that the drawbridge is up, not who might have scrambled in before that happened. This might not be a universally held view among the aristocratic European clubs, but I suspect there's now enough critical mass behind acceptance of our good fortune within those circles.

Imagine a lottery winner moving into Prestbury. Initially they will be mainly treated with contempt and derision. Once a few have met them certain attitudes might change, especially if they've got a bit about them. Time goes on and others fall into line, accepting that they're actually ok if you get to know them. Down the line they become a part of the furniture and the local snobs turn their eyes to other extraneous threats to their perceived social superiority. Once you're on the inside, pissing out, your potential threat to the establishment usually dissipates.

The likes of Bayern and Real will aways look down upon us, but may also acknowledge, with all that's been achieved at City since 2008, that we're a 'bad club done good' and the plans now coming into realisation will further reinforce that.

So, in actual fact, we're now probably part of the European Elite, albeit barely. Probably like Morrisons is regarded among the nations leading supermarkets. Not got the 'class' of a Waitrose nor the provenance of a Sanisbury's, nor for that matter, the preeminence of a Tesco's, but, with some reluctance from the others, maybe, part of the club.

We're in. Whether that's a good thing for the wider world of football is another matter, but to my mind removing us, now the drawbridge is up, is more trouble than it's worth for them imo. By the skin of our teeth we're dining at the top table.

The question is: will we become, in time, just like the rest of them?

BOLLOCKS

We are as good as any of them full stop

 

[VOOMER]

Oy Vay!

Quit the doom and gloom. The last two years are the only ones that could give us any grief and we'll be alright on those. This year onwards we're home and dry. There will be no sanctions this summer and, even if there are, they would be suspended. Why would UEFA punish a club that is clearly going to comply with the rules?

Even I know the answer to that!

Let's put it another way then. Why would UEFA punish a club which is going to comply with the rules anyway and which they know would fuck them completely if they did punish them?

Thw whole thing is an elaborate game. They will huff and puff, make all sorts of noises and threats and may even fluff their feathers. But they won't do anything serious.

Exactly, we could drag them through court until they went bankcrupt. Also, I believe we now employ two of the main men who drafted this piece of nonsense?

 

[Balti]

Re: David Gill

ahhhh david fucking gill

manyoo...check
g14....check
fa.....check
southern wanker obviously...check

who fucking cares what he thinks other than southern rag FA coonts?

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Re: David Gill

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

And no doubt the journo's will comply fully to orders........

 

[Bill]

Re: David Gill

He was a **** when he was at the rags, and he's a **** now he's at the FA still looking out for the rags.
He's a ****, and he'll always be a ****. Nothing new to see here.

bearing in mind he's a ****.

 

[Vienna_70]

Re: David Gill

He was a **** when he was at the rags, and he's a **** now he's at the FA still looking out for the rags.
He's a ****, and he'll always be a ****. Nothing new to see here.

bearing in mind he's a ****.

Has anyone mentioned that he's a ****?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I don't share quite the same concerns as others that the ancien regime are fixated at suppressing City per se, but rather to protect their place at the top table more generally.

What matters more, I suspect, is that the drawbridge is up, not who might have scrambled in before that happened. This might not be a universally held view among the aristocratic European clubs, but I suspect there's now enough critical mass behind acceptance of our good fortune within those circles.

Imagine a lottery winner moving into Prestbury. Initially they will be mainly treated with contempt and derision. Once a few have met them certain attitudes might change, especially if they've got a bit about them. Time goes on and others fall into line, accepting that they're actually ok if you get to know them. Down the line they become a part of the furniture and the local snobs turn their eyes to other extraneous threats to their perceived social superiority. Once you're on the inside, pissing out, your potential threat to the establishment usually dissipates.

The likes of Bayern and Real will aways look down upon us, but may also acknowledge, with all that's been achieved at City since 2008, that we're a 'bad club done good' and the plans now coming into realisation will further reinforce that.

So, in actual fact, we're now probably part of the European Elite, albeit barely. Probably like Morrisons is regarded among the nations leading supermarkets. Not got the 'class' of a Waitrose nor the provenance of a Sanisbury's, nor for that matter, the preeminence of a Tesco's, but, with some reluctance from the others, maybe, part of the club.

We're in. Whether that's a good thing for the wider world of football is another matter, but to my mind removing us, now the drawbridge is up, is more trouble than it's worth for them imo. By the skin of our teeth we're dining at the top table.

The question is: will we become, in time, just like the rest of them?

BOLLOCKS

We are as good as any of them full stop

Where did I say that we weren't? My use of: 'view', 'perceived' 'look down upon' and 'regarded' should have given you some indication as to what my post was actually trying to say.

Probably best you save your Tourette's-like outbursts for posts you more readily understand in future.

 

[pominoz]

Re: David Gill

He was a **** when he was at the rags, and he's a **** now he's at the FA still looking out for the rags.
He's a ****, and he'll always be a ****. Nothing new to see here.

bearing in mind he's a ****.

Are we starting a DGIAC campaign, or is it not needed as everyone already knows?

 

[petrusha]

Related Party Transactions -

I am grateful for one journalist for asking a very specific question regarding RPTs. The question was essentially : 'In a number of club accounts, auditors have made decisions about whether an item is an RPT or not. If an item has not been assessed by the club auditors as an RPT does that mean the CFCB will therefore also not be considering the item to be an RPT? The answer confirmed that the CFCB Investigatory Chamber would be looking at the accounts with a fresh pair eyes and will not be relying on the auditors classification of RPT items. ‘As a matter of principle, the checks will be done from scratch’. It was confirmed that the CFCB will carry out their own assessment and determine if the item is an RPT.
UEFA's very clear answer will be of particular interest to fans of Manchester City and PSG - it is clear the Etihad deal and the QTA deal will be assessed against the RPT rules and if judged to be an RPT will undergo a fair value assessment.




If this is true we could be in the poo. I only say if....

PB?

Why? UEFA will make their own assessment of whether it's a related party transaction, but they'll be applying the same clearly defined, objective criteria. We know what the FFP Annex 10 says about that, and that it reproduces more or less word for word IAS 24. Our auditors have clearly gone into the matter in detail and are satisfied that it isn't a related party transaction. Everything we know about the ownership and managements structures of MCFC and Etihad suggests that they're correct.

The passage quoted above is correct in that, should UEFA have genuine grounds for thinking our auditors are wrong, they can make a different determination. But there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that they will. Those comments betray an ability to state what the regulations are but an inability to analyse how they'll apply in practice. Doesn't it occur to this moron that if the auditors (who are professional experts in the field, making this kind of determination every day) have concluded it's not a related party transaction, there just may be a reason for that.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Re: David Gill

He was a **** when he was at the rags, and he's a **** now he's at the FA still looking out for the rags.
He's a ****, and he'll always be a ****. Nothing new to see here.

bearing in mind he's a ****.

Are we starting a DGIAC campaign, or is it not needed as everyone already knows?

It might get confused with the Darren Gough one
He really is a horrible bitter piece of fucking shit gill.

 

[abu13]

For me I believe the crux of the matter will be PSG, what happens with them eill dictate the future of FFP. While we are goibg in the right direction and showing steady progress they appear uo be ploughing on full steam ahead. Any action taken against us thst is more severe than PSG must be appealed agsinst.

if anything was ever going to show corruption up it is this legislstion.

 

[EL APACHE TEVEZ]

I think city's lawyers are itching to get at this,won't be long before this goes to court.

 

[Delboy352]

Think it would be nice to ask the President of the FA to open the campus...after all, his nan did mention us by name...would be after the scrutinations, but a bit of name dropping wouldn't go amiss before the event...

 

[Chris in London]

Related Party Transactions -

I am grateful for one journalist for asking a very specific question regarding RPTs. The question was essentially : 'In a number of club accounts, auditors have made decisions about whether an item is an RPT or not. If an item has not been assessed by the club auditors as an RPT does that mean the CFCB will therefore also not be considering the item to be an RPT? The answer confirmed that the CFCB Investigatory Chamber would be looking at the accounts with a fresh pair eyes and will not be relying on the auditors classification of RPT items. ‘As a matter of principle, the checks will be done from scratch’. It was confirmed that the CFCB will carry out their own assessment and determine if the item is an RPT.
UEFA's very clear answer will be of particular interest to fans of Manchester City and PSG - it is clear the Etihad deal and the QTA deal will be assessed against the RPT rules and if judged to be an RPT will undergo a fair value assessment.




If this is true we could be in the poo. I only say if....

PB?

Why? UEFA will make their own assessment of whether it's a related party transaction, but they'll be applying the same clearly defined, objective criteria. We know what the FFP Annex 10 says about that, and that it reproduces more or less word for word IAS 24. Our auditors have clearly gone into the matter in detail and are satisfied that it isn't a related party transaction. Everything we know about the ownership and managements structures of MCFC and Etihad suggests that they're correct.

The passage quoted above is correct in that, should UEFA have genuine grounds for thinking our auditors are wrong, they can make a different determination. But there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that they will. Those comments betray an ability to state what the regulations are but an inability to analyse how they'll apply in practice. Doesn't it occur to this moron that if the auditors (who are professional experts in the field, making this kind of determination every day) have concluded it's not a related party transaction, there just may be a reason for that.

This.

'Related Party Transaction' can, as a concept, have different meanings depending on how you define it with the relevant rules, but the FFPR definition is exactly the same as the one our auditors have already applied. UEFA might have a fresh pair of eyes looking at it rather than simply going on the auditors' say-so, but they will still be looking at something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

There is a simple issue here. When the FFPR were drawn up, they decided to use an existing, established definition of what is a 'related party transaction'. By that existing test, the Etihad deal is not a RPT. If UEFA wanted some other test, they should have defined RPTs in some other way.

They didn't.

 

[john@staustell]

UEFA has totally lost sight of the fact it is supposed to be an association and has now set itself up asa dictatorial body, a corrupt one at that.

Wont be long before football goes the way of boxing with several associations.boxing did. If you dont like your association, form a new one.