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

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Liverpool look the weakest of our rivals to me as well, but there were plenty on here refused to take them seriously last year

Yes, but they are lacking bite in attack this season aren't they ;-)

By gum you're right!

And puns aside for one moment, Stevie Mee will be a liability for most of the season, but they can't ever drop him because he is so worshipped in DIpperland. I think Liverpool and Arsenal will be battling for 4th, with the rags 3rd and us and Chelsea 1 and 2.

 

[Zaba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is there any possibilities that City's punishment will be alleviated?

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Yes, but they are lacking bite in attack this season aren't they ;-)

By gum you're right!

And puns aside for one moment, Stevie Mee will be a liability for most of the season, but they can't ever drop him because he is so worshipped in DIpperland. I think Liverpool and Arsenal will be battling for 4th, with the rags 3rd and us and Chelsea 1 and 2.

I think Liverpool will finish 5th, but I don't think they'll be more than 8 or 9 points off top spot in doing so. As to City, Chelsea, the rags and the Arse, I couldn't call it between them

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just wonder how much legal stuff will be effective against FIFA.

I read somewhere in the FT that it acts like a Sovereign State and as such is not accountable to any outside body.
It is legally incorporated as a Swiss non-profit organisation so should be subject to the Swiss Government who could force change on FIFA.
Switzerland ought to make international sports organisations based on its territory subject to Swiss criminal law but has been reluctant to do so. Hence, even if criminal activity occurs (eg corruption charges re Quatar), Switzerland will not persue FIFA.

Perhaps the pending FFP court case is different (being non criminal) and maybe any external judgement can be implemented ?

Don't knock FIFA mate! If the G14 were ever to set up a closed shop European Super League with UEFA's agreement then FIFA
might well turn out to be our salvation. If UEFA start getting too big for their boots - they've already raised the possibility of
inviting other countries to take part in the Euros and having the event as a genuine rival to the World Cup - then we might be
looking for FIFA to organise a rival World League. FIFA are bastards but they might turn out to be "our" bastards.
FFP is a UEFA (G14) initiative.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Fuck off Platini and who sails in her!!

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is there any possibilities that City's punishment will be alleviated?

The best chance is the court case against FFP that goes before the courts, I think, in Spring next year.
I expect FFP to be ruled illegal and all sanctions to be dropped but this is far from certain.
Is there any chance UEFA will relax the punishment if they win the court case? Slim to none and
slim just left town.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We have the following:

1) A 10m + 10m + 40m Euro (49m) fine to be paid over 3 years.
This fine is supposed to taken out of our CL earnings (at source), but there is a caveat that IF we break even at the end of the year (and the year after) then we won't have to pay the fine for those years. So all being well, we pay 1/3 of that (20m euro)
Technically, we pay a 10m fine this year, and a 10 million fine next year. IF we fail to adhere to all the other stipulations, we will pay a further 40m fine.

We will pay either of the two options here regardless, so no problem there.

2) A salary and benefits cap for 2014/15 and 2015/16
We're not supposed to increase our salary (or benefits) above our current level for players AND general staff - but City are claiming bonuses don't fall under this. In my view, I hope they've got this bonuses interpretation agreed with UEFA.
IF we meet items 4 and 5, the 2015/16 cap will be lifted.

The Chairman seems to think we're ok on this, but this bonus issue worries me.

3) A transfer cap for 2014/15 and and 2015/16
The cap is 'calculated' in some way based on our net transfer position (strange term!) and is calculated anew each period.
The cap for 2014/15 calculation is commonly reported as 60m Euro (49m). The 2015/16 cap is assumed to have a different value because our 'new transfer position' will have improved. How the calculation works is not known to me, but clearly it should be an improved position, therefore an improved cap.
The chairman seems to believe this cap will be lifted in 2015/16 but this is could be clever word play. The cap might be lifted to a higher value, or (since we don't know how the calculation works) it might become void.

I assume the term 'net transfer position' is deliberately used to prevent City making pre-agreements to sign players in a 'have now, pay later' situation. That said a 'position' essentially means a commitment to buy or sell... so there's an argument to say agreeing to sell a player would also count as part of our position. But regardless, if we don't set up any fancy pre agreements to sell or buy players, then our 'position' should be pretty clear.

4) For 2013/14 we can only report a loss of up to 20m euro.

5) For 2014/15 we can only report a loss of up to 10m euro.

6) A limit of 21 players in CL for 2014/15 and 2015/16
IF we comply with 4) and 5) the 2015/16 restriction will be lifted.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Is there any possibilities that City's punishment will be alleviated?

The best chance is the court case against FFP that goes before the courts, I think, in Spring next year.
I expect FFP to be ruled illegal and all sanctions to be dropped but this is far from certain.
Is there any chance UEFA will relax the punishment if they win the court case? Slim to none and
slim just left town.

Would it not depend on which particular aspects of FFP were being challenged in M.Duponts case ?
As I remember , his client is challenging it , as an agent , on the grounds of restriction of earnings as he feels his earnings potential and that of the players he represents ,will be curtailed by transfer and salary caps imposed by Uefa.
If no other aspects , such as restriction of investment or the operation of a cartel or restriction of trade , will this open the possibilities of separate court cases, keeping uefa in the courts for years?

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

There is also a danger that if it's challenged, and FFP is deemed to have issues, that COULD just make FIFA adjust the rules again, only to be in line with any judgment made in the courts.

There's a big assumption that if it's proven to be invalid (in whole or in part) that the issue goes away. That is not so. A ruling may actually spell out what is allowed and what isn't... which COULD strengthen FFP.

For example, a court might say 'You can't impose a salary cap', but we think your transfer cap is fine. Then is there a victor in that outcome? not really. UEFA will just adjust accordingly and impose more and harsher transfer caps instead.

I'm not saying this WILL happen, I'm just saying that the 'defeating FFP' in one fell swoop is very unlikely indeed.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We have the following:

1) A 10m + 10m + 40m Euro (49m) fine to be paid over 3 years.
This fine is supposed to taken out of our CL earnings (at source), but there is a caveat that IF we break even at the end of the year (and the year after) then we won't have to pay the fine for those years. So all being well, we pay 1/3 of that (20m euro)
Technically, we pay a 10m fine this year, and a 10 million fine next year. IF we fail to adhere to all the other stipulations, we will pay a further 40m fine.

We will pay either of the two options here regardless, so no problem there.

2) A salary and benefits cap for 2014/15 and 2015/16
We're not supposed to increase our salary (or benefits) above our current level for players AND general staff - but City are claiming bonuses don't fall under this. In my view, I hope they've got this bonuses interpretation agreed with UEFA.
IF we meet items 4 and 5, the 2015/16 cap will be lifted.

The Chairman seems to think we're ok on this, but this bonus issue worries me.

3) A transfer cap for 2014/15 and and 2015/16
The cap is 'calculated' in some way based on our net transfer position (strange term!) and is calculated anew each period.
The cap for 2014/15 calculation is commonly reported as 60m Euro (49m). The 2015/16 cap is assumed to have a different value because our 'new transfer position' will have improved. How the calculation works is not known to me, but clearly it should be an improved position, therefore an improved cap.
The chairman seems to believe this cap will be lifted in 2015/16 but this is could be clever word play. The cap might be lifted to a higher value, or (since we don't know how the calculation works) it might become void.

I assume the term 'net transfer position' is deliberately used to prevent City making pre-agreements to sign players in a 'have now, pay later' situation. That said a 'position' essentially means a commitment to buy or sell... so there's an argument to say agreeing to sell a player would also count as part of our position. But regardless, if we don't set up any fancy pre agreements to sell or buy players, then our 'position' should be pretty clear.

4) For 2013/14 we can only report a loss of up to 20m euro.

5) For 2014/15 we can only report a loss of up to 10m euro.

6) A limit of 21 players in CL for 2014/15 and 2015/16
IF we comply with 4) and 5) the 2015/16 restriction will be lifted.

Excellent post but I think 3) is slightly wrong, from City's OS :-

- The Club’s expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros. This will have no material impact on the Club’s planned transfer activity.

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/2014/may/club-statement-16-may