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

[HelloCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think the feeling is that UEFA were appearing to be harsher than the actual reality. This has already been verified with the homegrown quota in the Champions League.

I'd expect what City have outlined to be accurate.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'd like to think we covered that chance with some legal assurances.
One bitten, twice shy etc...

So would I but FIFA, UEFA and the Swiss Government have 'history' regarding the way how their type of Organisation can be run within Switzerland..

Personally I have confidence that our 'Leaders' have at least written 'evidence' regarding the compromise that resulted in the current fine but am just a little nervous about how it could be used against the dictatorial FIFA and its subsidiaries.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What a strange thing to post...

Besides we can be €20 million in arrears this year and €10 million next.

It's £49 million NET for the year and no, you can't take leftover money over into next year. There's also no clever little getouts like paying part now and part next year.
UEFA say the transfer cap is for 2 seasons regardless whereas City believe we'll be clear of sanctions after this season so who's correct nobody knows.

I think you're reading too much into the 'telling the truth' part.
It's simply 'if it turns out to be true / correct'. If we fail, then we will have not told the truth (which isn't a deliberate lie, just an incorrect prediction).

It was you that emphasised the word 'if' by capitalising it.

Well, it is still a big IF to me. We said we'd have no issues passing FFP last time, and UEFA managed to deem otherwise, so despite very solid assurances from City, it still remains to be seen.
I've every confidence we will, given the assurances, but the proof will be in the pudding.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'd like to think we covered that chance with some legal assurances.
One bitten, twice shy etc...

So would I but FIFA, UEFA and the Swiss Government have 'history' regarding the way how their type of Organisation can be run within Switzerland..

Personally I have confidence that our 'Leaders' have at least written 'evidence' regarding the compromise that resulted in the current fine but am just a little nervous about how it could be used against the dictatorial FIFA and its subsidiaries.

I've no idea to be honest. We thought that last time round when they decided to sanction us.
Beforehand, everybody thought City would cover their backsides with tonnes of documentary evidence, but (in some people's eyes) UEFA pulled a swift move on us and beat us. So who knows what will happen second time around?

Some will object to me saying UEFA beat us, but City had indicated they felt they complied with FFP, and UEFA didn't. We chose not to fight it, but to reach an agreement - which could be for perfectly sensible reasons, but the fact remains, it didn't pan out quite as we thought it would.

In the end, I think the compromise helped UEFA claim a small victory without it being too draconian on City, but they came out looking the victor.

I don't trust UEFA one jot really. Which is why I expect City will have nailed down the detail in the agreement. We aren't just fighting UEFA though, we are probably fighting the politics at UEFA too (the elite clubs in the background, pulling strings).

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

According to City there are zero sanctions from the end if this coming season if/when we break even.

Fanchester's comments aren't accurate.

"The nature of conditions that will result in the lifting of sanctions means that the Club expects to be operating without sanction or restriction at the commencement of the 2015-16 season.

Importantly all non-financial sanctions agreed to would have been complied with as a natural course of the Club’s planned business operations."

I'm hoping City's version is more accurate but UEFA still state online http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles...ncialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf

Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Manchester City further accepts a calculated limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by this agreement.

All other sanctions have the caveat that the 2nd year will be lifted if we pass their specific FFP regulations.

Actually thinking about this perhaps both are correct?
There's no mention of the actual transfer cap here, I wonder if the agreement is that we keep below £49 million net this season and then the restriction is lifted. That might explain

This calculation is based on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by this agreement

which seems meaningless otherwise. It would explain City's take on it too.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I don't know if it's been mentioned but PSG's CL squad restrictions are different to ours too :- http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles...ncialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf

If MC manages to comply with the annual break-even target the club shall be released from the restriction as regards the registration of players in UEFA club competitions for the 2015/16 season.

whereas PSG's say :- http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles...ncialControl/02/10/68/99/2106899_DOWNLOAD.pdf

If PSG manages to comply with the break-even target the club shall gradually be released from the restriction as regards the registration of players in UEFA club competitions

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It's ambiguous, and that always worries me. UEFA are cunning and might twist matters.

I suspect UEFA's statement and City's statement are two takes on a specific legal agreement, with each designed to put a positive slant on things from their own perspective. But I hope it's not an actual reflection of two interpretations of what they've agreed to - otherwise, as you say, it does read like it's a two season cap.

It irks me how they can leave ambiguity in stuff like this. Perhaps there are items in the actual legal agreement that they don't want to disclose, hence the statements looking like a summary of the agreement.

 

[Damanino]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So our 13-14 accounts has to break even? But thats already gone so accountants probably has to know did we break even or not. Doesnt matter what kind of wages or transfers we make now thats not the in the 13-14 accounts.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I suppose my point is that any Organisation that under the banner of Fair Play can demand Accounts by a certain date then change the rules of compliance after that date is definitely in the 'Not to be Trusted' category.

This hypocritical disregard for anything other than achieving an objective shows a certain megalomania which frankly indicates they feel they are above the law. I suppose the fact that they did actually compromise says more about City's arguing strategy than UEFA's wish to show fairness.
Hopefully, they will be satisfied with their apparent victory and move on but if not.......

Again, MCFC are I am sure now fully prepared for many of the possible deceitful rule changes and will no doubt be keeping much of their ammunition dry this time.

However, if it does come to legal action, unless it occurs outside Switzerland, I feel there is little chance of it succeeding.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So our 13-14 accounts has to break even? But thats already gone so accountants probably has to know did we break even or not. Doesnt matter what kind of wages or transfers we make now thats not the in the 13-14 accounts.

Yeah it does still matter. We take a 1 year hit even if we break even this year. If we do break even, then the hit won't be continued for the next year (although there's a little debate about which aspects of our punishment get cancelled, and which, if any, don't).

There's a lag between our accounts and the punishment we are serving. Break even this year, and we should be cleared for next season.
There is NOTHING we can do to stop the transer limit this season. It's a done deal / agreement with UEFA and no getting out of it.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I suppose my point is that any Organisation that under the banner of Fair Play can demand Accounts by a certain date then change the rules of compliance after that date is definitely in the 'Not to be Trusted' category.

This hypocritical disregard for anything other than achieving an objective shows a certain megalomania which frankly indicates they feel they are above the law. I suppose the fact that they did actually compromise says more about City's arguing strategy than UEFA's wish to show fairness.
Hopefully, they will be satisfied with their apparent victory and move on but if not.......

Again, MCFC are I am sure now fully prepared for many of the possible deceitful rule changes and will no doubt be keeping much of their ammunition dry this time.

However, if it does come to legal action, unless it occurs outside Switzerland, I feel there is little chance of it succeeding.

Yes, I agree, it's a bit of a closed shop, and for all the talk of taking them to court etc etc, it's a hell of a process to go through, it courts a lot of negative publicity, and there's still always the chance that they win,
And if they don't win, they'll learn where their weak point were, and create new rules that will win (making sure you suffer in the process). It's a horrible state of affairs really.

We have to reluctantly suck up to them and play it their way it seems. It just slows us down a little, rather than stop us. At least I'm hoping that's the case.

I'm not against the principles of FFP, I just think the current rules are ill-considered and we're being used as guinea pigs during the early stages of it. There are too many differences in local practices to make any of it 'fair'. e.g. Spain's TV money distribution, Monaco's tax, Premier League's dominance.
A club in Belgium can't compete with a club in the PL, and none of the FFP rules (at present) are going to change that.

 

[tonea2003]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So our 13-14 accounts has to break even? But thats already gone so accountants probably has to know did we break even or not. Doesnt matter what kind of wages or transfers we make now thats not the in the 13-14 accounts.

Yeah it does still matter. We take a 1 year hit even if we break even this year. If we do break even, then the hit won't be continued for the next year (although there's a little debate about which aspects of our punishment get cancelled, and which, if any, don't).

There's a lag between our accounts and the punishment we are serving. Break even this year, and we should be cleared for next season.
There is NOTHING we can do to stop the transer limit this season. It's a done deal / agreement with UEFA and no getting out of it.

we have agreed to the limit for this season, don't think that is an issue now.
the confidence of the chairman of break even will enable us to carry on as per everyone from next season onwards.
the projections of income etc will leave us in good stead i'm sure.
our squad is good enough to compete at the top table as it is and with additions ala fernando will only enhance us.
granted there will be no bale type transfer this transfer window, but the club i i feel are comfy with this position.
the future is blue

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I suppose my point is that any Organisation that under the banner of Fair Play can demand Accounts by a certain date then change the rules of compliance after that date is definitely in the 'Not to be Trusted' category.

This hypocritical disregard for anything other than achieving an objective shows a certain megalomania which frankly indicates they feel they are above the law. I suppose the fact that they did actually compromise says more about City's arguing strategy than UEFA's wish to show fairness.
Hopefully, they will be satisfied with their apparent victory and move on but if not.......

Again, MCFC are I am sure now fully prepared for many of the possible deceitful rule changes and will no doubt be keeping much of their ammunition dry this time.

However, if it does come to legal action, unless it occurs outside Switzerland, I feel there is little chance of it succeeding.

Yes, I agree, it's a bit of a closed shop, and for all the talk of taking them to court etc etc, it's a hell of a process to go through, it courts a lot of negative publicity, and there's still always the chance that they win,
And if they don't win, they'll learn where their weak point were, and create new rules that will win (making sure you suffer in the process). It's a horrible state of affairs really.

We have to reluctantly suck up to them and play it their way it seems. It just slows us down a little, rather than stop us. At least I'm hoping that's the case.

I'm not against the principles of FFP, I just think the current rules are ill-considered and we're being used as guinea pigs during the early stages of it. There are too many differences in local practices to make any of it 'fair'. e.g. Spain's TV money distribution, Monaco's tax, Premier League's dominance.
A club in Belgium can't compete with a club in the PL, and none of the FFP rules (at present) are going to change that.

The old adage to ''Keep your friends close and your enemies closer'' springs to mind as a strategy of convenience.

Given the in fighting between Messrs Blatter and Platini this may be seen as opportunity to befriend both.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So our 13-14 accounts has to break even? But thats already gone so accountants probably has to know did we break even or not. Doesnt matter what kind of wages or transfers we make now thats not the in the 13-14 accounts.

No, no, no.

2013-14 accounts (which ended on the 31st of May 2014) are allowed to be €20 million in arrears. 2014-15 accounts will be allowed to be €10 million in arrears.
Note that even when we put forward the 2013-14 accounts which should be break even (according to City) we still need to keep under the €10 million arrears for the 2014-15 financial year (City say we'll be in profit so not a problem). We need to pass both years otherwise the sanctions will continue and may even be increased since this is UEFA we're talking about.
I previously said that the €40 million fine would affect the accounts but I'd forgotten that it's already been stated that as far as FFP is concerned we can include the CL prize money in the accounts even though we won't actually receive it.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If I can ask a question here, when does City's financial year end? Am I correct in thinking that it is 31st May of each year, in which case the Chairman will have a good idea as to whether we broke even as expected during 2013/14 season?

It is 31st of May so when Soriano and Khaldoon said we were on course to break even recently then they would have had a good idea then.

Then that's good news. This may be a simplistic view from myself, but if we were to break even in the year just gone, and after spending somewhere around £90m last summer, then with a reduced transfer budget for this season, a reduction in wage levels for this season, plus an expectation of increased income for this season, then declaring a profit for the year ending next May should be a given.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

But we didn't spend £90m as far as FFP was convened - We spent the amortized value of the fee over the length of the contracts. As the contracts were over 4 years as far as FFP is concerned we spent £22.5m (90 / 4) over last season and the next 3 seasons.

Note: The same applies for all the money the rags are spending this summer.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

But we didn't spend £90m as far as FFP was convened - We spent the amortized value of the fee over the length of the contracts. As the contracts were over 4 years as far as FFP is concerned we spent £22.5m (90 / 4) over last season and the next 3 seasons.

Note: The same applies for all the money the rags are spending this summer.

And since we've been sanctioned UEFA will only take the financial year just passed into consideration (where we should be break even). The previous loss making years have been wiped off the board. Perhaps we have been particularly cute with 'failing' this time round. Even if not on purpose it certainly seems to suit City.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

But we didn't spend £90m as far as FFP was convened - We spent the amortized value of the fee over the length of the contracts. As the contracts were over 4 years as far as FFP is concerned we spent £22.5m (90 / 4) over last season and the next 3 seasons.

Note: The same applies for all the money the rags are spending this summer.

The £90m was just the headline figure, that's why I quoted it. This season's headline level is around half that, amortization or not, so it will go down in the books as a reduction in spending and thus more leeway for future profit.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This is the same question raised a while back.... and I'm not sure a clear answer has been given.


Let's say UEFA tell us we have a transfer limit this season, and that limit is 50 million.

Does that mean, we can spend 200 million on a player and offer him a 4 year contract, thus making our transfer spend just 50 million (1/4 )?
I find that hard to believe in terms of what UEFA are imposing on us. It sounds like UEFA don't take amortisation into account in this instance, and the cap is a proper 50 million.

I would also assume it's not possible to try and be clever and skirt the transfer fee in some way (say buy a player worth 50 million, but only actually pay 10 for him, then buy a friendship scarf from the other club for 40 million!). Of course, that's a ludicrously hypothetical example, but you catch my drift...

And what if you were to enter into an agreement with a club, to take a player right now, but not pay his transfer fee until next year (obviously paying extra for the privilege). It would be obvious to the world what you were doing, but is it wrong?

Maybe it'd just be a lot easier if we went down the normal route and pushing brown envelopes under hotel doors....

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

City stated that it was a net transfer spend of £49m (i.e. £49m + sales).
The worrying thing is I hope it's not in €60m Euros because the pound has risen against the Euro so that would only be £47.8m now.