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

[Chris in London]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The mere fact that UEFA are not prepared to throw the book at offending clubs points to the fact that they know they are on very thin ice indeed!!

What happens if we appeal, could we drag legal proceedings out for years before UEFA could take any action?

No, CAS deal with things very quickly and UEFA would then be free to proceed while any civil case was ongoing. However, if it goes to CAS I think we'll come out on top.

I hope so, to me FFP seems nothing more than than a strategy to keep the world clubs's elite a closed shop. I'm sure Barca, RM, Bayerm and Man Utd would like to see to FFP work ..... How on earth would another Chelsea or Man City happen in our lifetime??

The depressing thing is that the dream we are living is no longer one fans of Sunderland and Villa and Everton and West Ham can even daydream about. With FFP in play what are the chances that Villa could be taken over by someone determined to propel them to the latter stages of the champions league? Those decent mackems we met at Wembley, those hammers who took the piss out of us at Upton Park when we were only 9-0 up, they have no chance whatever of making real waves in the Champions League. It is a completely closed shop to them. That is just wrong.

I can tell you now (and you could just as easily tell me) who 7 of the top 10 teams in Europe will be in ten years time and that is truly depressing.

 

[Pam]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So what's the worst case scenario

Breaking...SSN taking us live to the City boardroom as the punishment is announced

lol

 

[pavelsrnicek]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The mere fact that UEFA are not prepared to throw the book at offending clubs points to the fact that they know they are on very thin ice indeed!!

What happens if we appeal, could we drag legal proceedings out for years before UEFA could take any action?

No, CAS deal with things very quickly and UEFA would then be free to proceed while any civil case was ongoing. However, if it goes to CAS I think we'll come out on top.

The real appeal would be to the ECJ and I would imagine there would be no punishments applied subject to an ECJ decision as the cost to UEFA of implementing anything that was subsequently overturned could be exorbitant.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The mere fact that UEFA are not prepared to throw the book at offending clubs points to the fact that they know they are on very thin ice indeed!!

What happens if we appeal, could we drag legal proceedings out for years before UEFA could take any action?

No, CAS deal with things very quickly and UEFA would then be free to proceed while any civil case was ongoing. However, if it goes to CAS I think we'll come out on top.

The real appeal would be to the ECJ and I would imagine there would be no punishments applied subject to an ECJ decision as the cost to UEFA of implementing anything that was subsequently overturned could be exorbitant.

If it got that far, UEFA have a terrible track record with CAS, mostly due to their habit on acting well outside their powers and setting silly rules/sanctions that cant be enforced (sound familiar?).

 

[GeekinGav]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

it is a bit of a joke when teams that want to be in the Champions League, have to spend big to get there, then get punished when they do get there.

An its unfair tarnishing every league as the same. The Premier League is the most strongest and competitive leagues in the world with 4-6 teams that can dominate, so we have to spend big to compete, whilst as leagues like France and Spsin, there's only 2 clubs per season that dominate their leagues.

Its all done just to keep the 'elite" teams in and keep everyone from growing. FU UEFA!

 

[Chris in London]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Still though, if that is the case there shouldn't be a problem with PWC examining the deal and giving the CFCB an opinion on it's legitimacy, rendering a suspended punishment unnecessary.

PWC may have been allowed to look at the deal. We don't know. Lets wait for the announcement of any punishment by UEFA and City's response.
I doubt PWC would be be prepaired comment on whether a deal is fair valve or not - especially if the deal is something radically new.

If it's not to a related party then fair value doesn't come into it.

There is an interesting argument as to whether 'related party' means what it means in other contexts (e.g. GAAP) or whether it has an autonomous meaning within the FFPR. There are several legal concepts, by way of comparison, that have an ordinary meaning in every day domestic legal use but a slightly different one when used within e.g. European Union regulations.

If this argument has any validity, it might mean that even though a transaction would not be a related party transaction for ordinary domestic accounting purposes, it might still be a related party transaction for the purposes of complying with FFPR.

I can see the theoretical argument why 'related party' might have a different meaning within FFPR - basically, it depends upon the intention of the lawmakers when they devised the FFP rules. But as I understand it, the definition of related party transaction in the FFPR is basically cut and pasted from general accounting standards (I can't remember which, but IIRC they are in use across the European Union and you would think that choice is quite deliberate).

So what I can't understand is, if 'related party' means something different in FFPR why the fuck did they use the definition that already has a settled meaning? It's like inventing a flying machine and calling it a submarine - apt to mislead, you might think.

Also, our accountants have been working (quite reasonably) on the assumption that 'related party' does indeed carry its settled meaning. For UEFA now to suggest that it does not, never having done so before, rather begs the question how fair any sanction can possibly be if the reason for breach of FFPR is that a club genuinely and honestly believed it was complying with the regulations bearing in mind the settled definition of 'related party' which appeared to be adopted by the FFPR. For UEFA now to say related party transactions have an autonomous FFPR definition when we have proceeded for the last 3 years that they do not is basically shifting the goalposts. Even if that produces a breach, that cannot legitimately lead to a sanction.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Rather amusing that Liverpool fans, or the ones I know, are defending City on this matter.......because they know they will face similar issues in 12 months time

It's Club v Club. Principles are just a smokescreen. I think we've well and truly won the argument among a lot of football fans . FFP can be seen for what it is, although many people would like there to be some genuine regulation of the game. FFP isn't it. It's regulation to protect inequality

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

PWC may have been allowed to look at the deal. We don't know. Lets wait for the announcement of any punishment by UEFA and City's response.
I doubt PWC would be be prepaired comment on whether a deal is fair valve or not - especially if the deal is something radically new.

If it's not to a related party then fair value doesn't come into it.

There is an interesting argument as to whether 'related party' means what it means in other contexts (e.g. GAAP) or whether it has an autonomous meaning within the FFPR. There are several legal concepts, by way of comparison, that have an ordinary meaning in every day domestic legal use but a slightly different one when used within e.g. European Union regulations.

If this argument has any validity, it might mean that even though a transaction would not be a related party transaction for ordinary domestic accounting purposes, it might still be a related party transaction for the purposes of complying with FFPR.

I can see the theoretical argument why 'related party' might have a different meaning within FFPR - basically, it depends upon the intention of the lawmakers when they devised the FFP rules. But as I understand it, the definition of related party transaction in the FFPR is basically cut and pasted from general accounting standards (I can't remember which, but IIRC they are in use across the European Union and you would think that choice is quite deliberate).

So what I can't understand is, if 'related party' means something different in FFPR why the fuck did they use the definition that already has a settled meaning? It's like inventing a flying machine and calling it a submarine - apt to mislead, you might think.

Also, our accountants have been working (quite reasonably) on the assumption that 'related party' does indeed carry its settled meaning. For UEFA now to suggest that it does not, never having done so before, rather begs the question how fair any sanction can possibly be if the reason for breach of FFPR is that a club genuinely and honestly believed it was complying with the regulations bearing in mind the settled definition of 'related party' which appeared to be adopted by the FFPR. For UEFA now to say related party transactions have an autonomous FFPR definition when we have proceeded for the last 3 years that they do not is basically shifting the goalposts. Even if that produces a breach, that cannot legitimately lead to a sanction.

They've copied and pasted IAS24 word for word, therefore it's general accounting standards, they won't get away with changing that one.

 

[M18CTID]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Forgetting City for the moment, FFP regs don't take into account the wildly differing laws in each country with regards to issues like income tax levels, or the way domestic TV monies are distributed. At least over here we have collective TV rights but in Spain the big two make a fortune by selling their own TV rights, while other decent sized clubs are left trailing in their wake. How can it be fair to have a break-even rule that is the same across so many countries when loads of other key factors aren't taken into account?

 

[Blue_Rossy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

And the sheiks response is:

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Forgetting City for the moment, FFP regs don't take into account the wildly differing laws in each country with regards to issues like income tax levels, or the way domestic TV monies are distributed. At least over here we have collective TV rights but in Spain the big two make a fortune by selling their own TV rights, while other decent sized clubs are left trailing in their wake. How can it be fair to have a break-even rule that is the same across so many countries when loads of other key factors aren't taken into account?

I'll answer that one for you. It isn't fair. Hope this helps.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

No, CAS deal with things very quickly and UEFA would then be free to proceed while any civil case was ongoing. However, if it goes to CAS I think we'll come out on top.

I hope so, to me FFP seems nothing more than than a strategy to keep the world clubs's elite a closed shop. I'm sure Barca, RM, Bayerm and Man Utd would like to see to FFP work ..... How on earth would another Chelsea or Man City happen in our lifetime??

The depressing thing is that the dream we are living is no longer one fans of Sunderland and Villa and Everton and West Ham can even daydream about. With FFP in play what are the chances that Villa could be taken over by someone determined to propel them to the latter stages of the champions league? Those decent mackems we met at Wembley, those hammers who took the piss out of us at Upton Park when we were only 9-0 up, they have no chance whatever of making real waves in the Champions League. It is a completely closed shop to them. That is just wrong.

I can tell you now (and you could just as easily tell me) who 7 of the top 10 teams in Europe will be in ten years time and that is truly depressing.

Good post that mate. We've spent too much time pontificating on the minutiae of what particular aspect of the rules might mean specifically for one club (i.e. us) for one season.

The much bigger picture is that these rules are evil. They condemn 90+ % of clubs to never being able to compete at the top table, ever, no matter what they do. No matter how well run, how popular, how successful. Just barred, forever.

Sad and certainly to the detriment of football as a whole. I hope the Bosman guys legal challenge is successful and they are ripped up.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Forgetting City for the moment, FFP regs don't take into account the wildly differing laws in each country with regards to issues like income tax levels, or the way domestic TV monies are distributed. At least over here we have collective TV rights but in Spain the big two make a fortune by selling their own TV rights, while other decent sized clubs are left trailing in their wake. How can it be fair to have a break-even rule that is the same across so many countries when loads of other key factors aren't taken into account?

That's a problem the entire EU has at the moment (eg corporation tax levels) so it wouldn't make sense to treat football as different to any other industry in that regard.

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Forgetting City for the moment, FFP regs don't take into account the wildly differing laws in each country with regards to issues like income tax levels, or the way domestic TV monies are distributed. At least over here we have collective TV rights but in Spain the big two make a fortune by selling their own TV rights, while other decent sized clubs are left trailing in their wake. How can it be fair to have a break-even rule that is the same across so many countries when loads of other key factors aren't taken into account?

That's a problem the entire EU has at the moment (eg corporation tax levels) so it wouldn't make sense to treat football as different to any other industry in that regard.

But I bet there aren't any other industries trying to prevent companies within it from spending their own money, and limiting them to only spend what they earn, whilst expecting them to stay competitive with foreign companies who can earn far more!

 

[SWP's back]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Fuck all difference in Prize money mate, here's an estimate based on reports of the BT deal and last year:
1st: £101.4m
2nd: £100.2m
3rd: £97.1m
Denying Candlepool of whatever sponsor's bonuses they get for winning the league could have a much bigger impact, as well as collecting our own, for the next monitoring period.

Don't the winners get a bigger slice of subesequent Champions League payments?

And then there's indirect impact on Commerical Deals of being Champions

if Man Utd can rake in the mega-deals that they have reportdely done (Nike and Chevrolet) then we can too

No we cant re the deals as they are a much bigger brand than us. They sell more everything than we do. We can probably never get to there size unless they fall to bits.

Chelsea have been winning stuff left right and centre for years and still are nowhere near the size of the rags.

Just look at Liverpool, shite for years and still millions of Asians chose them to support every year

Bollocks Sean mate. Liverpool have failed to monetise their fans which is why our commercial income outstrips theirs and will continue to do so.

 

[nmc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Millions of Asians support the dippers as they do the rags but 90 per cent of them buy fake shirts and merchandise - so club revenue is limited.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The mere fact that UEFA are not prepared to throw the book at offending clubs points to the fact that they know they are on very thin ice indeed!!

What happens if we appeal, could we drag legal proceedings out for years before UEFA could take any action?

No, CAS deal with things very quickly and UEFA would then be free to proceed while any civil case was ongoing. However, if it goes to CAS I think we'll come out on top.

Which is why UEFA will tread very carefully when deciding the punishments. They simply don't want any part of a legal challenge to FFP, they are only too aware how brittle their legislation actually is and how likely it is to be disregarded by any reputable legal body.

Lets also not forget that UEFA currently has special arrangements for tax etc as a sporting body, based in Switzerland.

I wonder what the EU would think if such an organisation was proved to be anticompetitive as well.

I think UEFA are aware of an emperors new clothes moment if an FFP challenge succeeds.

 

[Zabbasbeard]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I hope so, to me FFP seems nothing more than than a strategy to keep the world clubs's elite a closed shop. I'm sure Barca, RM, Bayerm and Man Utd would like to see to FFP work ..... How on earth would another Chelsea or Man City happen in our lifetime??

The depressing thing is that the dream we are living is no longer one fans of Sunderland and Villa and Everton and West Ham can even daydream about. With FFP in play what are the chances that Villa could be taken over by someone determined to propel them to the latter stages of the champions league? Those decent mackems we met at Wembley, those hammers who took the piss out of us at Upton Park when we were only 9-0 up, they have no chance whatever of making real waves in the Champions League. It is a completely closed shop to them. That is just wrong.

I can tell you now (and you could just as easily tell me) who 7 of the top 10 teams in Europe will be in ten years time and that is truly depressing.

Good post that mate. We've spent too much time pontificating on the minutiae of what particular aspect of the rules might mean specifically for one club (i.e. us) for one season.

The much bigger picture is that these rules are evil. They condemn 90+ % of clubs to never being able to compete at the top table, ever, no matter what they do. No matter how well run, how popular, how successful. Just barred, forever.

Sad and certainly to the detriment of football as a whole. I hope the Bosman guys legal challenge is successful and they are ripped up.

Both the way City are being treated (we have actually done nothing wrong) and the fact that the dream is killed for so many other clubs is so depressing. What's wrong with someone taking , say, Derby County and doing what Sheikh Mansour has done? We are not in any debt - we are viable. The people In charge of those clubs who voted for it in the Premier League have done their own clubs a great disservice. This so-called "Financial Fair Play" is totally immoral, unfair and yes, evil. I pray the Bosman guy wins too.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I really do not think that UEFA want a messy dispute with City or PSG, or, for that matter, any of the wealthy Russian clubs. Platini was originally concerned with debt levels in football but his proposals were taken over and manipulated by a number of clubs frightened by the growing threat from these "new" clubs. Proposals to deal with debt turned into a campaign to limit spending and this is enshrined in the "break even rule", which is, as posters have pointed out, the foundation stone of the rules. Clubs can spend only "what they earn" but only from certain "streams" which conveniently do not allow a "stream" flowing from the owner's pocket. Commercial law throughout Europe, though, gives explicit protection to this particular stream.

Now, on an earlier page, a poster said the UEFA would only have to claim that restrictions on owner investment are a way of protecting competition in football for City's case to be destroyed. This is nonsense. Not only does the law throughout Europe protect the right of investors to invest, it takes a very dim view of, and lays down severe penalties for, those who seek, in their own interests, to stop them. UEFA would have to prove that City's freedom from debt is actually harming competition and that FFPR does actually increase and protect competition in football, and that restrictions on investment are the only way of doing this.

Now, FFPR is tainted by its very origins, as Platini admitted to Martin Samuel last summer. "It's what the clubs want" he kept repeating. There's been no secret about which clubs actually want these regulations and their fingerprints are all over them. The fatal flaw in their not-so-neat wheeze is that the regulations seek not to protect and nurture competition but to destroy it. They will lay the foundations of financial stability and of competition, by destroying the ability of City and PSG to spend their owner's own money. It's no good their screaming that the Sheikh is too rich for them to compete with, because the clubs who can put forward the same case against them are legion.

Platini knows this. My suspicion is that he doesn't want to trot out these arguments in the interests of clubs and officials who give him a pain in the sear, especially to damage a club investing more than those clubs have ever done for the obvious good of the game. And in favour of those clubs who never considered breaking even until the crash of 2008 forced them to do so. I suspect this is why clubs can challenge deals made - the risk is then on their heads. why take on an owner who is good for the game. And who can bite back.

If I were Platini I'd send City a letter at most.

 

[burning blue soul]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Forgetting City for the moment, FFP regs don't take into account the wildly differing laws in each country with regards to issues like income tax levels, or the way domestic TV monies are distributed. At least over here we have collective TV rights but in Spain the big two make a fortune by selling their own TV rights, while other decent sized clubs are left trailing in their wake. How can it be fair to have a break-even rule that is the same across so many countries when loads of other key factors aren't taken into account?

I'll answer that one for you. It isn't fair. Hope this helps.

once you accept that ffp is only introduced as a protectionist measure by the big teams in europe who forced uefa to do it, it all makes beautiful sense.