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

[WRicko]

Does anyone still debate finance with rival fans Iv been doing it recently but after today I think I ought to give up I had shocking stuff off Everton fans recent on two different forums.

 

[SilverFox2]

I also think with the new Premier League deal has created a kind of football apartheid with all but the European elite. Clubs at the arse end of the PL can now outspend many of the former giants of the European game, so what are the G14 going to do next? Put a spending and wage cap on PL teams?

Presumably all none PL teams will put a premium tax on the value of any player that is targeted like Wolfsburg did with City and Utd had to pay for Martial..
I am not all that certain that the cash bonanza will continue in the UK, Sky may want to extend their TV penetration into Europe and the USA is bound to attract more exposure.

My fear is that Platini will be used as a scapegoat by the G14 rather than be seen as the one who carried out the wishes of the cartel

 

[Dribble]

Presumably all none PL teams will put a premium tax on the value of any player that is targeted like Wolfsburg did with City and Utd had to pay for Martial..
I am not all that certain that the cash bonanza will continue in the UK, Sky may want to extend their TV penetration into Europe and the USA is bound to attract more exposure.

My fear is that Platini will be used as a scapegoat by the G14 rather than be seen as the one who carried out the wishes of the cartel

It wouldn't surprise me tbh. The G14 were conspicuous by their absence when their Paris Puppet needed their help the most. The fuckers left him to die a slow and lonely public death and did fuck all to help him........... Nice!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

FFP is going to henceforth wither on the vine.

They're still trying so we shouldn't drop our guard. Two more little gems were sneaked in when they made the big announcement last summer that clubs could arrange to breach FFP with UEFA's agreement (something we got sanctioned for).

The first was that any income arising from an entity or person with links to the same person or government would be regarded as a related party transaction if the total revenue from that person or government accounted for 30% or more of the club's overall revenue. So, to take a hypothetical example, let's say there's a country where a member of the government owned a football club and where the club received income from entities connected to that country or person. Even if that person had no direct influence over those companies, and wasn't a related party in the generally accepted sense of the word, then they could all still be deemed by UEFA to be related parties if their aggregate contribution was 30% or more of the club's total revenue. And therefore they could be subjected to the fair market value test and the value of the deal written down for FFP purposes.

The other re-defined what the parameters of the "reporting entity" were for FFP purposes. Let's say you had a holding company, which we'll call CFG for the sake of simplicity, which had a football club as a subsidiary (which we'll call MCFC) and also had other football-related operating subsidiaries (which for the sake of argument we'll call CFS and CMS). Previously only MCFC would be included in the reporting entity but now, both CFS and CMS have to be included if they're engaged in football-related activities, even if they've charged MCFC for those services on an arms-length, commercial basis.

While that snake Gill is responsible for financial control matters, they'll always be looking for a way to trip us up.

 

[SilverFox2]

They're still trying so we shouldn't drop our guard. Two more little gems were sneaked in when they made the big announcement last summer that clubs could arrange to breach FFP with UEFA's agreement (something we got sanctioned for).

The first was that any income arising from an entity or person with links to the same person or government would be regarded as a related party transaction if the total revenue from that person or government accounted for 30% or more of the club's overall revenue. So, to take a hypothetical example, let's say there's a country where a member of the government owned a football club and where the club received income from entities connected to that country or person. Even if that person had no direct influence over those companies, and wasn't a related party in the generally accepted sense of the word, then they could all still be deemed by UEFA to be related parties if their aggregate contribution was 30% or more of the club's total revenue. And therefore they could be subjected to the fair market value test and the value of the deal written down for FFP purposes.

The other re-defined what the parameters of the "reporting entity" were for FFP purposes. Let's say you had a holding company, which we'll call CFG for the sake of simplicity, which had a football club as a subsidiary (which we'll call MCFC) and also had other football-related operating subsidiaries (which for the sake of argument we'll call CFS and CMS). Previously only MCFC would be included in the reporting entity but now, both CFS and CMS have to be included if they're engaged in football-related activities, even if they've charged MCFC for those services on an arms-length, commercial basis.

While that snake Gill is responsible for financial control matters, they'll always be looking for a way to trip us up.

Perhaps the rule changes are targeted at our owner and the way he has structured his business but FFP was used as a barrier to entry unsuccessfully by the G14.
The only casualties have been the unintended victims who now need rescuing by relaxation of those very rules/

ADUG did not invent Holding Companies and I am sure other clubs use this method of structuring their investments and if they don't they should. Perhaps our owners know more about company structure than Gill et al will ever know. The net result is likely to be other unintended victims with UEFA failing to understand that a Mondeo can be fined for speeding in the same trap prepared for a Ferrari.

I have confidence that our owner has prepared his attack on the cartel well in the past knowing full well that they will resent his intrusion. His current much stronger position both financial and strategically will be more than a match for any possible rule changes UEFA dream up.

However I agree we should always be aware that you can never trust megalomaniacs who have a history of having absolute control.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

They're still trying so we shouldn't drop our guard. Two more little gems were sneaked in when they made the big announcement last summer that clubs could arrange to breach FFP with UEFA's agreement (something we got sanctioned for).

The first was that any income arising from an entity or person with links to the same person or government would be regarded as a related party transaction if the total revenue from that person or government accounted for 30% or more of the club's overall revenue. So, to take a hypothetical example, let's say there's a country where a member of the government owned a football club and where the club received income from entities connected to that country or person. Even if that person had no direct influence over those companies, and wasn't a related party in the generally accepted sense of the word, then they could all still be deemed by UEFA to be related parties if their aggregate contribution was 30% or more of the club's total revenue. And therefore they could be subjected to the fair market value test and the value of the deal written down for FFP purposes.

The other re-defined what the parameters of the "reporting entity" were for FFP purposes. Let's say you had a holding company, which we'll call CFG for the sake of simplicity, which had a football club as a subsidiary (which we'll call MCFC) and also had other football-related operating subsidiaries (which for the sake of argument we'll call CFS and CMS). Previously only MCFC would be included in the reporting entity but now, both CFS and CMS have to be included if they're engaged in football-related activities, even if they've charged MCFC for those services on an arms-length, commercial basis.

While that snake Gill is responsible for financial control matters, they'll always be looking for a way to trip us up.

Maybe then we should transfer our administration to the Cayman Islands and we could keep our affairs well hidden from prying eyes. If it already works for one franchise, it can work for the rest.

 

[mcfc1632]

They're still trying so we shouldn't drop our guard. Two more little gems were sneaked in when they made the big announcement last summer that clubs could arrange to breach FFP with UEFA's agreement (something we got sanctioned for).

The first was that any income arising from an entity or person with links to the same person or government would be regarded as a related party transaction if the total revenue from that person or government accounted for 30% or more of the club's overall revenue. So, to take a hypothetical example, let's say there's a country where a member of the government owned a football club and where the club received income from entities connected to that country or person. Even if that person had no direct influence over those companies, and wasn't a related party in the generally accepted sense of the word, then they could all still be deemed by UEFA to be related parties if their aggregate contribution was 30% or more of the club's total revenue. And therefore they could be subjected to the fair market value test and the value of the deal written down for FFP purposes.

The other re-defined what the parameters of the "reporting entity" were for FFP purposes. Let's say you had a holding company, which we'll call CFG for the sake of simplicity, which had a football club as a subsidiary (which we'll call MCFC) and also had other football-related operating subsidiaries (which for the sake of argument we'll call CFS and CMS). Previously only MCFC would be included in the reporting entity but now, both CFS and CMS have to be included if they're engaged in football-related activities, even if they've charged MCFC for those services on an arms-length, commercial basis.

While that snake Gill is responsible for financial control matters, they'll always be looking for a way to trip us up.

Wow - I had not appreciated that. This makes it clear that MCFC were the target of these regulations and that Gill, on behalf of the scum and broader G14, will abuse his position within UEFA on an ongoing basis. Of course, as commented by the other poster, I have confidence that the Sheik's team will be well prepared, but do worry about the damage this snake and his cartel of self-interest, can do.

 

[acton28.blog]

There shouldn't even be a G14. It should be UEFA and countries each deciding the fate of UEFA football.

 

[taleofbluehalves]

They're still trying so we shouldn't drop our guard. Two more little gems were sneaked in when they made the big announcement last summer that clubs could arrange to breach FFP with UEFA's agreement (something we got sanctioned for).

The first was that any income arising from an entity or person with links to the same person or government would be regarded as a related party transaction if the total revenue from that person or government accounted for 30% or more of the club's overall revenue. So, to take a hypothetical example, let's say there's a country where a member of the government owned a football club and where the club received income from entities connected to that country or person. Even if that person had no direct influence over those companies, and wasn't a related party in the generally accepted sense of the word, then they could all still be deemed by UEFA to be related parties if their aggregate contribution was 30% or more of the club's total revenue. And therefore they could be subjected to the fair market value test and the value of the deal written down for FFP purposes.

The other re-defined what the parameters of the "reporting entity" were for FFP purposes. Let's say you had a holding company, which we'll call CFG for the sake of simplicity, which had a football club as a subsidiary (which we'll call MCFC) and also had other football-related operating subsidiaries (which for the sake of argument we'll call CFS and CMS). Previously only MCFC would be included in the reporting entity but now, both CFS and CMS have to be included if they're engaged in football-related activities, even if they've charged MCFC for those services on an arms-length, commercial basis.

While that snake Gill is responsible for financial control matters, they'll always be looking for a way to trip us up.

I find it bizarre that they'd rather go after a club and owner that has done all that we have, than owners who have bled the club dry by loading their debt on. Look at the state of Villa, Liverpool previously and Utd with their
ownership model.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I find it bizarre that they'd rather go after a club and owner that has done all that we have, than owners who have bled the club dry by loading their debt on. Look at the state of Villa, Liverpool previously and Utd with their
ownership model.

Ha ha, you're foolishly assuming that the sport's governing body might be remotely concerned with the best interests of the game itself!