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

[JGL07]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I can see why City avoided a legal confrontation with UEFA on this issue.

They seem to be confident that they can live with the sanctions applied and have a clean bill of health for subsequent seasons.

Up to now FFP has acted against 'insurgent' teams such as City and in favour of the established G14 clubs.

From next season, City will become part of that established order and FFP will protect City against any other outsider club trying to do what City did.

Leave it to other to stick their heads above the parapet seems to be the best approach.

 

[oldius]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You can choose to fight these things, as many of us would choose to do, or look at the big picture and "take a pinch".

I imagine that, had we chosen to put up a fight, that UEFA would have become a genuine enemy. Like it or not, we want to dine at the big table and that's not going to happen without an invite.

Others will now pick up the fight undoubtedly; restrictions of trade, EU employment law and fan entertainment will all test UEFA's metal. We will not be smeared by that but potentially reap the benefit.

 

[Selbyblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It's a decent article but just tells us what we already know, that UEFA are a bunch of corrupt hypocritical f***ers

At least they have had their accounts audited to enable the massive losses they sustain to be published.

For corruption and self serving behavior look no further than The European Common Market. As i understand it we still await the first audited accounts for this Organisation.
It has penalized Greece and Spain for the very thing it is unable to curb within itself, spending.

Whilst UEFA's ways are totally unfair they are not unusual where people in positions of power often use that power in a selfish way. They have much to protect and fairness is used as a tool to preserve their position not as a guiding light for their actions.

Industry has its own share of this type of people at the top (eg Banking) so it comes as absolutely no surprise to discover that UEFA has been hijacked by the usual suspects, kept in power by the Clubs with most to risk from new competition.

Democracy itself is a great objective, unfortunately the people who make up its pyramid of power forget these objectives once they are elected.
The culture here changes and if they want to survive they must throw away any thoughts of fairness and vote how their Party Whips tell them.

City's owners are not from a democratic background so will probably understand the actions of UEFA much better than we do so I am happy that they have done their best to follow the rules despite the changing goalposts.

I am with PB on this one and feel that City have to all intents and purposes been keeping their powder dry and UEFA and its sustaining senior members would be well advised to welcome them rather than see this initial battle as winning the war.

I am interested to see how this 'Game' develops.

I agree that the failure to produce audited accounts is ridiculous but are we surprised because they are politicians and these are the biggest piggies when it comes to sticking snouts in the trough.

I know the Greek Public are having a terrible time because of cuts etc but to be fair the majority only have themselves to blame. They treated the payment of taxes as voluntary. Why do so many Greek houses have an unfinished top floor? It's a way of getting out of paying property tax. That's just one example.

Also, many occupations were allowed an early retirement due to the nature of work. These retirement ages are 55 for men and 50 for women. As this is also the moment when the state begins to shovel out generous pensions, more than 600 Greek professions somehow managed to get themselves classified as arduous: hairdressers, radio announcers, waiters, musicians, and on and on and on.

There is a good article in Vanity Fair about the situation there.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Without sounding dismissive, the club has obviously decided to (reluctantly) accept the sanctions and I think that we should forget what we did in 2012 or 2013 for that matter.

The only thing that can happen now is that a challenge is laid before the European courts which results in FFP being thrown out. Whilst I would have liked City to have embarked upon this challenge, the reasons for not doing so are obvious and understandable.

Hopefully someone or something can come along which will deliver a blow to UEFA which will show FFP up for what it truly is. In the meantime i'm reassured by both the club's official statement and the interview with Khaldoon (in which he describes the FFP sanctions as a 'pinch') that City will be largely unaffected by the punishment and that the good times will continue to roll.

Oddly enough (you may know this already) City accepting the sanctions (albeit reluctantly, maybe?) means that UEFA effectively 'forgets' 2012 & 2013 since we will now only be audited from this financial year on. Since we already have stated we'll be break even at the end of May and in profit next year the 'sanctions' more and more look like they actually suit our purpose. I've seen people calling for heads to roll at City when they were first announced but perhaps City really have played a blinder with FFPR and someone deserves a pay rise?

 

[Petetheblu]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

hahaha, PSG really are going against FFP.

From next season FFP will be a distant memory, we should have broken even and looking to make profit from there on.

I can understand most peoples gripe, but I think it could be short sighted to not support something that closes the door on wealthier competitor's. Is there any long term benefits such as: eventually lowered wages, lowered transfers and the above of stopping another billionaire creating problems down the line? Maybe I severely missing the full plot and no doubt I'll get lambasted, but I've never read anyone on here actually looking for the positives.


I realise that a 50 million fine is a lot, but and it's a big but (bigger than Barry's even) could that be a fraction of what we may save in the long term.

Also why should we be seen fighting against it if someone else is already ready spending their own money on lawyers.

FFS you just don't get it , do you?

we all know that othet big potential clubs (e.g. Spuds, Everton etc) might benefit from kicking FFP into touch

Yes, they will be competitors , but I will be happy when everyone gets a shot at the big time

and the corrupt, protectionist bloated clique get a bums rush

Look I didn't say I'm all for it, I'm not, its nothing short of bullying......but there again it's not my money, its the Sheikhs and he might feel differently about his million than say you or me.

 

[jimbopm]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Without sounding dismissive, the club has obviously decided to (reluctantly) accept the sanctions and I think that we should forget what we did in 2012 or 2013 for that matter.

The only thing that can happen now is that a challenge is laid before the European courts which results in FFP being thrown out. Whilst I would have liked City to have embarked upon this challenge, the reasons for not doing so are obvious and understandable.

Hopefully someone or something can come along which will deliver a blow to UEFA which will show FFP up for what it truly is. In the meantime i'm reassured by both the club's official statement and the interview with Khaldoon (in which he describes the FFP sanctions as a 'pinch') that City will be largely unaffected by the punishment and that the good times will continue to roll.

Oddly enough (you may know this already) City accepting the sanctions (albeit reluctantly, maybe?) means that UEFA effectively 'forgets' 2012 & 2013 since we will now only be audited from this financial year on. Since we already have stated we'll be break even at the end of May and in profit next year the 'sanctions' more and more look like they actually suit our purpose. I've seen people calling for heads to roll at City when they were first announced but perhaps City really have played a blinder with FFPR and someone deserves a pay rise?

As per the club website:

"Rather than having an accumulative allowance of 30m Euros of losses over the next two reporting years (like all other clubs), MCFC will have specific stipulated allowances for 2013-14 and 2014-15 of 20m Euros and 10m Euros respectively. Significantly, MCFC plans to be profitable in 2014-15 and in the years that follow."

 

[bluemoondays]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Interesting point re. The 20m and 10m euros 'allowance'

The club seem to believe that we'll be profitable next year so we've got an allowance that we supposedly don't even need.

I really, really hope, given what happened with the exclusion issue that caused us to fail, that we are completely watertight on our future accounts and also have cast iron guarantees on what revenue and profits can be included or excluded in the next reporting periods.

I wouldn't put it past EUFA to try and screw us over again next year or the year after.............

 

[lev_yashin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You've made some good contributions to this debate but you really do not know what you're talking about above. Sorry to be so blunt but that's the only way I can say it. You're guessing whereas I know. We have documentary evidence of assurances given by UEFA that weren't upheld when the crunch came. The fact that they changed the rule regarding the wage exemption in a way that if you passed it in 2012, you failed in 2013 should be evidence enough. There's a long game to be played regarding the future of FFP (and you are quite right it won't disappear completely) but there's things that may happen in the short term where the connection may not be immediately apparent.

Then post it here.

If you can't or won't then it's totally irrelevant to the conversation and you shouldn't be using it in this debate.

Stupid comment from a supposedly intelligent person. 'We' as in City, not me. But if you do want documentary proof of UEFA's duplicity then I can provide that.

In the 2011 version of their FFP toolkit, which was in force when we did our 2012 accounts, they define the test to be used when deciding if a club can use the pre-2010 contracts wage exemption as follows:

For the avoidance of doubt, condition (a) means if the quantum of the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation is greater than the quantum of the break-even deficit for the reporting period ending in 2012, then condition (ii) is not satisfied – because part of the break-even deficit in excess of the acceptable deviation is due to the break-even deficit in 2013 and/or 2014 (i.e. not only due to the break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012).

It's not well worded but using their worked examples, the quantum of the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation is £77m. The next figure, the quantum of the break-even deficit for the reporting period ending in 2012 is £83m. The former is not greater than the latter therefore the condition IS satisfied.

The other condition is

b. the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation (for the reporting period ending i2012) is only due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010.

This time, we're comparing the £77m deficit to the £80m and quite clearly that deficit was wholly caused by the £80m. So we can use the £80m according to those tests, which were in place at the time the accounts were prepared. I believe that was confirmed with UEFA.

However, having presumably laid our cards on the table, six months later the condition in (b) has changed to:

b) the break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 is due to contracts entered with players
before 1 June 2010; i.e. the employee benefit expenses reported in FY12 due to players under contract before 1 June 2010 are equal or higher than the deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012.

The deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 is £83m, which is clearly higher than the £80m and therefore this disqualifies us from using the £80m. Having published the 2012 accounts, it was obviously too late to make any adjustments to them in order to meet the revised requirement.

I simply can't imagine that City don't have a letter or some other confirmation from UEFA that we met the conditions to use the £80m wage exemption when the 2012 accounts were published. If so, would you agree that they're entitled to be annoyed?

When I read that, it sounds like this in my head.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQNl4V_R88[/video]

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not sure if this is a Conspiracy Theory or Reality.

City have agreed to a slightly watered down FFP Penalty which restricts our wages bill, player purchase options and CL numbers.
The FFP regs were introduced (according to Mr Platini) at the request of established senior Clubs in Europe.

We learn that PSG want Yaya then on today's City website we are apparently bracing ourselves for approaches for 3 of our players from other senior European Clubs.

Is there some sort of concerted effort being made by as many senior Clubs as possible to disrupt our Team when we will be disadvantaged by penalties or is this the price of success ?

Sorry, slightly off thread topic but hopefully still relevant.

 

[lust overlord]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not sure if this is a Conspiracy Theory or Reality.

City have agreed to a slightly watered down FFP Penalty which restricts our wages bill, player purchase options and CL numbers.
The FFP regs were introduced (according to Mr Platini) at the request of established senior Clubs in Europe.

We learn that PSG want Yaya then on today's City website we are apparently bracing ourselves for approaches for 3 of our players from other senior European Clubs.

Is there some sort of concerted effort being made by as many senior Clubs as possible to disrupt our Team when we will be disadvantaged by penalties or is this the price of success ?

Sorry, slightly off thread topic but hopefully still relevant.

City's website reports this under the "What the papers say" section.
It's from the daily mirror.
Enough said.