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

[Selbyblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Found this about the issue not sure how true. But All our deals are legit and can be proven in court I am sure.

Why is City’s fine so large?
When City filed their accounts, on the face of it they looked to have nominally passed the FFP Break Even test (after permitted exclusions). So even if a few items are adjusted downwards, it was not immediately apparent why they have been given the same punishment as PSG (a club that failed hugely and seem to have made little effort to comply). However on examination, City’s large fine seems to be due to some of the detail within the FFP rules - this is probably also why the club are reported to be so unhappy with the terms being offered to them.

The FFP rules include a provision to allow clubs to exclude wages paid in 2011/12 season to players who were at the club when the rules were introduced (May 2010). City have advised the press that around £80m of wages fall into this category. Without this exclusion City fail hugely. Crucially, the exclusion can only be applied if a number of criteria are ALL met. One of these criteria is that the wages paid to these long-standing players were “equal or higher than the deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012”. See page 94 of FFP Toolkit for relevant section

During 2011/12 City reported a loss of £97m. After a number of permitted exclusions are made, City’s adjusted deficit for the 2011/12 season is probably around £78m - If the relevant excludable wages were £80m, City are therefore right on the edge, with only a couple of million lee-way. Crucially, press reports suggest that the Etihad deal was adjusted downwards (and possibly a £13m Intellectual Property sale may also have been reduced by the CFCB). This would have been enough to ensure the wages exclusion could not be used. Rather than City recording a narrow fail, they are probably looking at a technical fail of over £100m - a figure that would seem to put them in the PSG bracket

Have you been reading Ed Thompson's ramblings?

 

[SWP's back]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Who better to ask for advice about tourism in the Arabian peninsula than a French football club. Money well spent and I'm sure that millions of of stag and hen parties will heading over to Doha any minute now.....

Whoop woop.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Found this about the issue not sure how true. But All our deals are legit and can be proven in court I am sure.

Why is City’s fine so large?
When City filed their accounts, on the face of it they looked to have nominally passed the FFP Break Even test (after permitted exclusions). So even if a few items are adjusted downwards, it was not immediately apparent why they have been given the same punishment as PSG (a club that failed hugely and seem to have made little effort to comply). However on examination, City’s large fine seems to be due to some of the detail within the FFP rules - this is probably also why the club are reported to be so unhappy with the terms being offered to them.

The FFP rules include a provision to allow clubs to exclude wages paid in 2011/12 season to players who were at the club when the rules were introduced (May 2010). City have advised the press that around £80m of wages fall into this category. Without this exclusion City fail hugely. Crucially, the exclusion can only be applied if a number of criteria are ALL met. One of these criteria is that the wages paid to these long-standing players were “equal or higher than the deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012”. See page 94 of FFP Toolkit for relevant section

During 2011/12 City reported a loss of £97m. After a number of permitted exclusions are made, City’s adjusted deficit for the 2011/12 season is probably around £78m - If the relevant excludable wages were £80m, City are therefore right on the edge, with only a couple of million lee-way. Crucially, press reports suggest that the Etihad deal was adjusted downwards (and possibly a £13m Intellectual Property sale may also have been reduced by the CFCB). This would have been enough to ensure the wages exclusion could not be used. Rather than City recording a narrow fail, they are probably looking at a technical fail of over £100m - a figure that would seem to put them in the PSG bracket

Is that ed again? Reads like his crap. press reports suggest this -massive leap of faith- this definitely the case -blather- my exclusive source the sun on sunday tells me

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just one question from a person with no grasp of finances , investment and the law:
Would the circumstances we are facing now have been possible in any other sphere of business within the EU, is there any other market in which these restrictions( punishments ) could be applied by a group of businesses on another business operating in the same market?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just one question from a person with no grasp of finances , investment and the law:
Would the circumstances we are facing now have been possible in any other sphere of business within the EU, is there any other market in which these restrictions( punishments ) could be applied by a group of businesses on another business operating in the same market?

No.

 

[kp789]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is it just me or are UEFA making up all of this as they go along?

also, how can anyone other than the investor know what is a 'good deal'? If DHL think paying however much to sponsor Uniteds training kit is good value for them then that is fine, the same for city and Etihad airways. Besides, I thought the main issue with FFP was to guard against clubs spending beyond their means, if they are getting good money for sponsorship, then that is more money in football and at the end of the day it trickles down to UEFA. They need to stop moaning and look at the real financial issues in football like paying over £50 to watch city play Villa.

 

[cibaman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Found this about the issue not sure how true. But All our deals are legit and can be proven in court I am sure.

Why is City’s fine so large?
When City filed their accounts, on the face of it they looked to have nominally passed the FFP Break Even test (after permitted exclusions). So even if a few items are adjusted downwards, it was not immediately apparent why they have been given the same punishment as PSG (a club that failed hugely and seem to have made little effort to comply). However on examination, City’s large fine seems to be due to some of the detail within the FFP rules - this is probably also why the club are reported to be so unhappy with the terms being offered to them.

The FFP rules include a provision to allow clubs to exclude wages paid in 2011/12 season to players who were at the club when the rules were introduced (May 2010). City have advised the press that around £80m of wages fall into this category. Without this exclusion City fail hugely. Crucially, the exclusion can only be applied if a number of criteria are ALL met. One of these criteria is that the wages paid to these long-standing players were “equal or higher than the deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012”. See page 94 of FFP Toolkit for relevant section

During 2011/12 City reported a loss of £97m. After a number of permitted exclusions are made, City’s adjusted deficit for the 2011/12 season is probably around £78m - If the relevant excludable wages were £80m, City are therefore right on the edge, with only a couple of million lee-way. Crucially, press reports suggest that the Etihad deal was adjusted downwards (and possibly a £13m Intellectual Property sale may also have been reduced by the CFCB). This would have been enough to ensure the wages exclusion could not be used. Rather than City recording a narrow fail, they are probably looking at a technical fail of over £100m - a figure that would seem to put them in the PSG bracket

Is that ed again? Reads like his crap. press reports suggest this -massive leap of faith- this definitely the case -blather- my exclusive source the sun on sunday tells me

It would be bizarre, if the pre 2010 contracts "exemption" could be used to avoid a sanction but is completely ignored once applying a sanction.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just one question from a person with no grasp of finances , investment and the law:
Would the circumstances we are facing now have been possible in any other sphere of business within the EU, is there any other market in which these restrictions( punishments ) could be applied by a group of businesses on another business operating in the same market?

No.

That's pretty much what I thought .
Why then ( another simple , but I hope not stupid question ) does Uefa think that they can operate in this manner, contrary to laws which apply to every other sphere of business?
Have they become so consumed with self - importance that they think they are above the law?
Or has their unchallenged term of football omnipotence led them to believe that somehow they are different from everyone else and that they can make rules which are patently illegal?
I am confused.

 

[jonmcity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Found this about the issue not sure how true. But All our deals are legit and can be proven in court I am sure.

Why is City’s fine so large?
When City filed their accounts, on the face of it they looked to have nominally passed the FFP Break Even test (after permitted exclusions). So even if a few items are adjusted downwards, it was not immediately apparent why they have been given the same punishment as PSG (a club that failed hugely and seem to have made little effort to comply). However on examination, City’s large fine seems to be due to some of the detail within the FFP rules - this is probably also why the club are reported to be so unhappy with the terms being offered to them.

The FFP rules include a provision to allow clubs to exclude wages paid in 2011/12 season to players who were at the club when the rules were introduced (May 2010). City have advised the press that around £80m of wages fall into this category. Without this exclusion City fail hugely. Crucially, the exclusion can only be applied if a number of criteria are ALL met. One of these criteria is that the wages paid to these long-standing players were “equal or higher than the deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012”. See page 94 of FFP Toolkit for relevant section

During 2011/12 City reported a loss of £97m. After a number of permitted exclusions are made, City’s adjusted deficit for the 2011/12 season is probably around £78m - If the relevant excludable wages were £80m, City are therefore right on the edge, with only a couple of million lee-way. Crucially, press reports suggest that the Etihad deal was adjusted downwards (and possibly a £13m Intellectual Property sale may also have been reduced by the CFCB). This would have been enough to ensure the wages exclusion could not be used. Rather than City recording a narrow fail, they are probably looking at a technical fail of over £100m - a figure that would seem to put them in the PSG bracket

Is that ed again? Reads like his crap. press reports suggest this -massive leap of faith- this definitely the case -blather- my exclusive source the sun on sunday tells me

It would be bizarre, if the pre 2010 contracts "exemption" could be used to avoid a sanction but is completely ignored once applying a sanction.

The whole FFP set up is bizarre. Fundamentally unfair, introduced to preserve a cartel. Against EU competition law,

 

[jaiguruKun]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Found this about the issue not sure how true. But All our deals are legit and can be proven in court I am sure.

Why is City’s fine so large?
When City filed their accounts, on the face of it they looked to have nominally passed the FFP Break Even test (after permitted exclusions). So even if a few items are adjusted downwards, it was not immediately apparent why they have been given the same punishment as PSG (a club that failed hugely and seem to have made little effort to comply). However on examination, City’s large fine seems to be due to some of the detail within the FFP rules - this is probably also why the club are reported to be so unhappy with the terms being offered to them.

The FFP rules include a provision to allow clubs to exclude wages paid in 2011/12 season to players who were at the club when the rules were introduced (May 2010). City have advised the press that around £80m of wages fall into this category. Without this exclusion City fail hugely. Crucially, the exclusion can only be applied if a number of criteria are ALL met. One of these criteria is that the wages paid to these long-standing players were “equal or higher than the deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012”. See page 94 of FFP Toolkit for relevant section

During 2011/12 City reported a loss of £97m. After a number of permitted exclusions are made, City’s adjusted deficit for the 2011/12 season is probably around £78m - If the relevant excludable wages were £80m, City are therefore right on the edge, with only a couple of million lee-way. Crucially, press reports suggest that the Etihad deal was adjusted downwards (and possibly a £13m Intellectual Property sale may also have been reduced by the CFCB). This would have been enough to ensure the wages exclusion could not be used. Rather than City recording a narrow fail, they are probably looking at a technical fail of over £100m - a figure that would seem to put them in the PSG bracket

We can speculate all we like about what the official reason for us failing FFP is but, as the rules were brought in specifically to stop us we were always going to be the club that were going to be made an example of. Our presence is far more of an annoyance to the established elite than PSG. Without City there would be no FFP.

As others have said, UEFA is purposefully driving us towards legal action as it wants a precedent to be set so that they are either overturned or cannot be challenged in the future.