FFP - Why I believe we failed

[Irwell]

If I've calculated it right, the total of the aggregate break even deficit exceeds the acceptable deviation by £76m. The break even deficit for 2012 was £83m. Therefore condition (ii) is satisfied which means we could have used the £80m exemption and escaped without sanction.

It's an interesting point. Is it possible that UEFA interpreted this differently anyway, even given the subsequent rule change?

This is just as an example of my meaning off the top of my head and I am far from an expert in this regard, so it may well be that there are other rules that cover this particular scenario, but could it be that the acceptable deviation is only applied at the end of the process?

If that were the case it would mean that we were unable to demonstrate that the aggregate break-even deficit was only due to the 2012 annual break-even deficit as this would only be the case with the acceptable deviation applied. Maybe their interpretation is that if the entirety of the break-even deficit can be accounted for by the break-even deficit for the 2012 reporting period then the pre-2010 wages can be excluded and then as long as the subsequent aggregate break-even deficit is within the acceptable deviation we would be considered to have passed?

As far as I can see from the letter of that specific extract of the rules, the comparison is between aggregate break-even deficit and break-even deficit for the 2012 reporting period, with no allowance made for acceptable deviation.

 

[Bill]

Whats the betting that they will change the regs to make us fail again?

of course they will.

how anyone anywhere cannot see that this is an out and out agenda is beyond me.

please city go and win the fucking thing. never thought I'd say this but fuck all other cups off, take top 4 and this trophy. they would fucking squirm.

Bill, I know CITY are the centre of our universe, but we're really not that important to UEFA.

Their aim was to introduce FFP to propect their cosy cartel. Us & PSG represented this threat.
Now they've done it, the drawbridge is up & no-one else can get in, there's nothing in it for them to punish us any more.

Job done from UEFA - they'll move onto something else.

you have to be kidding me.

we are the only real contender to smash their cartel. psg and co are nothing like as big a threat as us . we are here to stay.
it all started with extending the cl to top 2 teams, now its four, done entirely to make sure their chosen few don't fuck it up in qualifying. then out comes co efficents just in case they draw a club good enough to knock out one of their cash cows, especially the big one.
the draw is a fix, the whole thing is as corrupt as fuck, the bad news is we are now and in the future more so far too good and we'll overcome that corruption.

this is no random attack.

 

[hilts]

of course they will.

how anyone anywhere cannot see that this is an out and out agenda is beyond me.

please city go and win the fucking thing. never thought I'd say this but fuck all other cups off, take top 4 and this trophy. they would fucking squirm.

Bill, I know CITY are the centre of our universe, but we're really not that important to UEFA.

Their aim was to introduce FFP to propect their cosy cartel. Us & PSG represented this threat.
Now they've done it, the drawbridge is up & no-one else can get in, there's nothing in it for them to punish us any more.

Job done from UEFA - they'll move onto something else.

you have to be kidding me.

we are the only real contender to smash their cartel. psg and co are nothing like as big a threat as us . we are here to stay.
it all started with extending the cl to top 2 teams, now its four, done entirely to make sure their chosen few don't fuck it up in qualifying. then out comes co efficents just in case they draw a club good enough to knock out one of their cash cows, especially the big one.
the draw is a fix, the whole thing is as corrupt as fuck, the bad news is we are now and in the future more so far too good and we'll overcome that corruption.

this is no random attack.

Mostly a good post apart from the PSG part, they are as big a threat to the cartel as we are, from a biased point of view they are a threat to us

 

[NMB]

PSG are/were G14

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

PSG are/were G14

Indeed.

 

[jimbo101]

of course they will.

how anyone anywhere cannot see that this is an out and out agenda is beyond me.

please city go and win the fucking thing. never thought I'd say this but fuck all other cups off, take top 4 and this trophy. they would fucking squirm.

Bill, I know CITY are the centre of our universe, but we're really not that important to UEFA.

Their aim was to introduce FFP to propect their cosy cartel. Us & PSG represented this threat.
Now they've done it, the drawbridge is up & no-one else can get in, there's nothing in it for them to punish us any more.

Job done from UEFA - they'll move onto something else.

you have to be kidding me.

we are the only real contender to smash their cartel. psg and co are nothing like as big a threat as us . we are here to stay.
it all started with extending the cl to top 2 teams, now its four, done entirely to make sure their chosen few don't fuck it up in qualifying. then out comes co efficents just in case they draw a club good enough to knock out one of their cash cows, especially the big one.
the draw is a fix, the whole thing is as corrupt as fuck, the bad news is we are now and in the future more so far too good and we'll overcome that corruption.

this is no random attack.

Without FFP their chosen few would have been opened up to anyone with deep enough pockets.
The G14/ECA couldn't risk that, having already had to accommodate Chelsea.
FFP Was merely a tool in order to pull up the drawbridge to stop the unruly masses getting in to spoil their party.

Yes, they would have loved to exclude us, but no we're in, what purpose does it serve them to keep poking us?
We can cause more trouble than they can handle.
Now they've achieved their goal of removing any possibility of anyone else breaking in, they'll just leave us alone.

Don't be so paranoid.

Yes, got then PSG bit wrong.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Re: FFP - Why we failed

No disrespect intended to PB, but I'm not sure why people are treating his posts on this matter as gospel. They are nothing more than assumptions and guesswork, which really is all they can be unless something official is released documenting the whole decision-making process. PB's assumptions and guesswork have proven to be wide of the mark a number of times throughout this whole debacle, so don't see why the opinions on this thread are given any more weight than the opinions posted by other people who are equally, or even more, well informed on the matter, who contradict PB's opinion and who actually have a better track record with their interpretation of these rules.

I'm not saying he is wrong, just that he isn't necessarily right either.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If I've calculated it right, the total of the aggregate break even deficit exceeds the acceptable deviation by £76m. The break even deficit for 2012 was £83m. Therefore condition (ii) is satisfied which means we could have used the £80m exemption and escaped without sanction.

It's an interesting point. Is it possible that UEFA interpreted this differently anyway, even given the subsequent rule change?

This is just as an example of my meaning off the top of my head and I am far from an expert in this regard, so it may well be that there are other rules that cover this particular scenario, but could it be that the acceptable deviation is only applied at the end of the process?

If that were the case it would mean that we were unable to demonstrate that the aggregate break-even deficit was only due to the 2012 annual break-even deficit as this would only be the case with the acceptable deviation applied. Maybe their interpretation is that if the entirety of the break-even deficit can be accounted for by the break-even deficit for the 2012 reporting period then the pre-2010 wages can be excluded and then as long as the subsequent aggregate break-even deficit is within the acceptable deviation we would be considered to have passed?

As far as I can see from the letter of that specific extract of the rules, the comparison is between aggregate break-even deficit and break-even deficit for the 2012 reporting period, with no allowance made for acceptable deviation.

It talks about the deficit over the acceptable deviation (€45m) but to be honest I tried to do the sums in my head and couldn't so had to write it all down. It's really not too clear in the earlier version so the later version is actually easier to understand, although it works against us.

 

[Rascal]

Ive got a Bsc in Economics with a lot of the course being accounts based, albeit 20 years ago.

In reply to previous posters, I dont take anything posted as sacrosanct but what is posted allows me to look at the subject with my knowledge set. And that has to be a good thing for us all. Im not supporting PB here because I think he is always right, but I do know him personally and he is a man of real integrity and his posts wether they are right or wrong challenge me to use my quickly deteriorating mental capacity.

I do think some of the posts in this thread have been very disrespectful.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Ive got a Bsc in Economics with a lot of the course being accounts based, albeit 20 years ago.

In reply to previous posters, I dont take anything posted as sacrosanct but what is posted allows me to look at the subject with my knowledge set. And that has to be a good thing for us all. Im not supporting PB here because I think he is always right, but I do know him personally and he is a man of real integrity and his posts wether they are right or wrong challenge me to use my quickly deteriorating mental capacity.

I do think some of the posts in this thread have been very disrespectful.

Me and my sycophants agree with this post.