FFP - Why I believe we failed

[Well Wisher]

Platini & Co deserve a smack in the mouth for making me read stuff like that on a Footie forum. (no offence to Prestwich_Blue)

Won't be long before we send out a team of accountants instead and we're saying things like "Did you see Jones today? Made a right hash of clearing the suspense account. Much rather have Hargreaves in there as he may not be as good at asset valuation but he's shit hot when depreciating."

Hargreaves depreciated pretty quickly all right :D

At least there's a few laughs to be had in what otherwise makes me feel like I've turned up for the wrong exam. Anyway I'm glad to see the outcome of all this crap isn't as bad as the media were speculating. You all seem in pretty good spirits, and I won't click on an FFP thread again. Nice.

 

[Bob Hope]

After reading City's statement on FFP i don't think they are worried about the sanctions UEFA have implemented and we will be in the black in the not too distant future. This is just a minor set back. By the way PB i think your insight is appreciated on all matters FFP

 

[Sir peace frog]

im glad its been settled for good or bad,the ffp thread was like trying to read a book in Russian ,for me,my head used to spin,how the fuck anyone can make head nor tail of it is beyond me,suppose that says more about me than most of the brainy fookers on here.

p.s. cheers pb and a couple of others for trying to make it as easy as possible for a thicky like me.

I wont be trying to understand it again,ffp thread is officially dead to me.

 

[Irwell]

Sorry Irwell. Were you looking at the rules themselves or the guidance in the associated toolkit?

The latter is much more detailed and gives specific examples. If you follow the link to the toolkit here you'll find it on Page 89. That's the current version.

This is the older version with the original definition, which is on Page 71. http://www.tff.org.tr/Resources/TFF/Documents/0002012/TFF-Dokuman/kulup-lisans/TOOLKITV3.pdf

If you can follow that earlier one and not get a migraine (like I now have) then you deserve a medal.

I'm reading the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations Edition 2012.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>

I'll dig into those two documents and see what I can pick out... If there is a phrase that describes me, it's probably 'dog with a bone'. I can't imagine it will give me a headache! Cheers for the links.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Sorry Irwell. Were you looking at the rules themselves or the guidance in the associated toolkit?

The latter is much more detailed and gives specific examples. If you follow the link to the toolkit here you'll find it on Page 89. That's the current version.

This is the older version with the original definition, which is on Page 71. http://www.tff.org.tr/Resources/TFF/Documents/0002012/TFF-Dokuman/kulup-lisans/TOOLKITV3.pdf

If you can follow that earlier one and not get a migraine (like I now have) then you deserve a medal.

I'm reading the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations Edition 2012.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>

I'll dig into those two documents and see what I can pick out... If there is a phrase that describes me, it's probably 'dog with a bone'. I can't imagine it will give me a headache! Cheers for the links.

We keep dodging between threads and I've put some figures on the other one that I've worked from. Fair play to you as at least you're looking and thinking for yourself.

 

[hello]

Sorry Irwell. Were you looking at the rules themselves or the guidance in the associated toolkit?

The latter is much more detailed and gives specific examples. If you follow the link to the toolkit here you'll find it on Page 89. That's the current version.

This is the older version with the original definition, which is on Page 71. http://www.tff.org.tr/Resources/TFF/Documents/0002012/TFF-Dokuman/kulup-lisans/TOOLKITV3.pdf

If you can follow that earlier one and not get a migraine (like I now have) then you deserve a medal.

I'm reading the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations Edition 2012.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>

I'll dig into those two documents and see what I can pick out... If there is a phrase that describes me, it's probably 'dog with a bone'. I can't imagine it will give me a headache! Cheers for the links.

We keep dodging between threads and I've put some figures on the other one that I've worked from. Fair play to you as at least you're looking and thinking for yourself.

I haven't clicked the links and don't intend to unless I get very drunk and very bored between now and pre season but how the fuck can the guidance notes\rules whatever the correct uefa PC term is for them be changed between inception and the first assessment?

Surely in 2011 or whenever it went official it has to be here as the rules and guide lines for the accounting periods that will be assessed. Changing these guidelines prior to the first assessment just seems absolutely stupid and or corrupt as fuck.

Even the hrmc who love to makes changes dont so so during the accounting period. If they wanted to change the guidelines then they should have done so for the period 2014/2015 onwards after the initial assessment

 

[Irwell]

Having read those regulations, I'm not convinced they are intended to allow the application of acceptable deviation at the point of comparison. It might be me missing something, but I personally could interpret it two ways:

1. The aggregate break-even deficit, if that deficit is higher than the acceptable deviation
2. The amount of the break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation

For the avoidance of doubt, condition (a) means if the quantum of the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds
the acceptable deviation is greater than the quantum of the break-even deficit for the reporting period ending in
2012, then condition (ii) is not satisfied

My issue is with the phrase 'the aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation'.My own interpretation of that would be the first one, taking into account the whole break-even deficit where it is higher than the acceptable deviation, but I can understand an interpretation that it is only the amount the break-even deficit exceeds that acceptable deviation.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'm reading the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations Edition 2012.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>

I'll dig into those two documents and see what I can pick out... If there is a phrase that describes me, it's probably 'dog with a bone'. I can't imagine it will give me a headache! Cheers for the links.

We keep dodging between threads and I've put some figures on the other one that I've worked from. Fair play to you as at least you're looking and thinking for yourself.

I haven't clicked the links and don't intend to unless I get very drunk and very bored between now and pre season but how the fuck can the guidance notes\rules whatever the correct uefa PC term is for them be changed between inception and the first assessment?

Surely in 2011 or whenever it went official it has to be here as the rules and guide lines for the accounting periods that will be assessed. Changing these guidelines prior to the first assessment just seems absolutely stupid and or corrupt as fuck.

The wording in the rules stayed exactly the same. The guidance on what was acceptable changed.

 

[hello]

point still stands,

guidance notes issued by the regulatory authority shouldn't change during the period in question. Even hrmc know that and they are a bunch of gits :)

 

[BobKowalski]

point still stands,

guidance notes issued by the regulatory authority shouldn't change during the period in question. Even hrmc know that and they are a bunch of gits :)

Trouble with guidance notes is just that. They are just a guide. Nothing more. Up until this week FFP has been a theory and no one could say with certainty how it would all pan out once FFP was put into practice.

But now we can. The accounts/revenue streams have been assessed and codified. We no longer have to rely on a 'guide' or informed guesswork. We now know what is acceptable and how to shape future investment because there is now precedent. Allowing something one year then trying to exclude it a year or two later is just begging for a legal challenge as no company can grow a business if you keep changing the rules (City's statement is a not very subtle warning to this effect). And they are rules now. Not just guidelines. And they are rules that both sides have accepted in terms of what is permissible and what is not.

City do not want a war with UEFA and judging by the settlement UEFA don't want one either. The headline 'fine' is just that. A juicy headline. The settlement itself is one that City can be confident of meeting because they negotiated and agreed to it. It brings certainty to the business model for the next two years so why wouldn't City agree to something they can do without breaking sweat? The alternative is arbitration, legal wrangling, bad PR and years of uncertainty. Accepting the deal is good business and City is a business.

As for PB being off the mark with his FFP projections. Well yeah he was. But then so were City and their accountants so I'd cut him some slack. What I guess everyone overlooked was that politically UEFA had to find some high profile name 'guilty' of failing FFP first time round to make it look good and that high profile name was always going to be us. So yeah it stinks but its just the cost of doing business.