Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Eureka! The penny has finally dropped about why we failed and it's scandalous. Wanted to do this as a separate topic so it's clear to everyone and doesn't get lost in the bigger thread. Hopefully some journo's will pick it up as well.
I assumed from the club statement that there was a difference over how much of the pre-June 2010 wages we could exclude. But UEFA's guidance is crystal clear with no room for misinterpretation. So the issue has to be that they didn't allow us to use this £80m at all.
Here's what the FFP document actually says:
However, when the CFCB Investigatory Chamber looked at our accounts, it must have taken a different view and disallowed the application of the £80m on the grounds that it was less than the reported deficit of £83m and therefore £3m of the aggregate deficit was still made up of 2011/12's deficit. Therefore, in their view and in contradiction to what we were told, we couldn't use the exemption at all. So we failed and for the sake of £3m based on a reading of the rule that was totally different to what we'd been told.
Update: I did some more digging and posted an update on Page 9. The outcome was that UEFA produced a set of guidance notes in 2011, that set out the calculation of the test referred to in (ii) of the quoted FFP rule. This indicated that the £80m would be able to be used to offset our deficit and bring it down to an acceptable figure. But in 2013, after those 2012 accounts had been published, a revised guideline was issued supposedly for the 2013/14 financial year which changed the interpretation of that test to simply assess whether the wages (£80m) were higher than the deficit (£83m) for 2011/12. Clearly, they weren't on the basis of that test, even though the basic rule wording hadn't changed and the two sets of accounts had been issued under a completely different interpretation.
Utter cunts. No wonder the club were furious with the double-crossing bastards.
I assumed from the club statement that there was a difference over how much of the pre-June 2010 wages we could exclude. But UEFA's guidance is crystal clear with no room for misinterpretation. So the issue has to be that they didn't allow us to use this £80m at all.
Here's what the FFP document actually says:
We reported an aggregate break even deficit of £114m, with (as far as I can work out) £83m of that in 2011/12 and £31m in 2012/13. According to the above we should be OK on (i) as we're reporting an improving trend so we go to (ii). The question is, what does that actually mean? To me, and I suspect the club (who would have been guided by UEFA, it means that if we hadn't reported a break-even deficit in 2011/12, would we have still passed? In this case the answer is 'yes' as we only reported a deficit of £31m in 2012/13, which is better than the £37m required. So we were under the distinct impression that we would pass, once the £80m was taken into account and I believe we must have had that in writing.
However, when the CFCB Investigatory Chamber looked at our accounts, it must have taken a different view and disallowed the application of the £80m on the grounds that it was less than the reported deficit of £83m and therefore £3m of the aggregate deficit was still made up of 2011/12's deficit. Therefore, in their view and in contradiction to what we were told, we couldn't use the exemption at all. So we failed and for the sake of £3m based on a reading of the rule that was totally different to what we'd been told.
Update: I did some more digging and posted an update on Page 9. The outcome was that UEFA produced a set of guidance notes in 2011, that set out the calculation of the test referred to in (ii) of the quoted FFP rule. This indicated that the £80m would be able to be used to offset our deficit and bring it down to an acceptable figure. But in 2013, after those 2012 accounts had been published, a revised guideline was issued supposedly for the 2013/14 financial year which changed the interpretation of that test to simply assess whether the wages (£80m) were higher than the deficit (£83m) for 2011/12. Clearly, they weren't on the basis of that test, even though the basic rule wording hadn't changed and the two sets of accounts had been issued under a completely different interpretation.
Utter cunts. No wonder the club were furious with the double-crossing bastards.