FFP - Why I believe we failed

[andyhinch]

its all bollocks, we failed ffp because we are Manchester city. they have been after us from the off. lying cheating mard arse cunts. "fair play" ? protecting the cartel more like. they are fooling no one.

sometimes i wish you would just say what you meant :-)

They don't call him Bill the ambiguous for nothing:)

 

[Danamy]

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.

the bit in bold is significant to me in as much as the murky waters are crystal clear( to those that understand them it is) and now we all know where we stand

will we now see a whole host of clubs cutting their cloth accordingly or being hit with fines in the near future
how will liverpool react seeing as is reported they would have failed also, can they splash the cash?

Only as long as they stay within the parameters set out, like Bob has mentioned in his post, the cards are now well and truly on the table.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

They win then

In my opinion yes Marvin..This is the one thing that will make me fuck football off pal,this is hoe strongly I feel.

I'm of the same opinion as you on this one SHB and was trying to explain as much the other night. We've done fuck all wrong, been punished for doing fuck all wrong but apparently it's a victory for us.

Gotta pick our battles you see and the ones where we are in the right (yet are been made a scapegoat over something we haven't done) are seemingly not the right battles to pick.

You couldn't fucking make it up.

And yes, I have been drinking again.

The anger is easy to understand (I'm pretty fucking hacked off myself), but amidst all the teeth gnashing and foaming, do you not think that the club and its lawyers, who are furnished with information and expertise that we do not have, might just have looked at the legal ramifications of every option and made a considered decision in the best interests of the club?

 

[BlueRockape]

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:

Players under contract before 1 June 2010
If a licensee reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation and it fulfils both conditions described below then this would be taken into account in a favourable way.
i) It reports a positive trend in the annual break-even results (proving it has implemented a concrete strategy for future compliance); and
ii) It proves that the aggregate break-even deficit is only due to the annual break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 which in turn is due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010 (for the avoidance of doubt, all renegotiations on contracts undertaken after such date would not be taken into account).
This means that a licensee that reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation but that satisfies both conditions described under i) and ii) above should in principle not be sanctioned.

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.

So why are we not taking the lying cheating bastards to the cleaners ???????

 

[BlueAnorak]

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.

the bit in bold is significant to me in as much as the murky waters are crystal clear( to those that understand them it is) and now we all know where we stand

will we now see a whole host of clubs cutting their cloth accordingly or being hit with fines in the near future
how will liverpool react seeing as is reported they would have failed also, can they splash the cash?

Only as long as they stay within the parameters set out, like Bob has mentioned in his post, the cards are now well and truly on the table.

Look UEFA have shafted us. What's to stop them shafting us again?
It's war and the club need to get their head round that fact pretty sharpish.

 

[andyhinch]

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:

Players under contract before 1 June 2010
If a licensee reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation and it fulfils both conditions described below then this would be taken into account in a favourable way.
i) It reports a positive trend in the annual break-even results (proving it has implemented a concrete strategy for future compliance); and
ii) It proves that the aggregate break-even deficit is only due to the annual break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 which in turn is due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010 (for the avoidance of doubt, all renegotiations on contracts undertaken after such date would not be taken into account).
This means that a licensee that reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation but that satisfies both conditions described under i) and ii) above should in principle not be sanctioned.

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.

So why are we not taking the lying cheating bastards to the cleaners ???????

As Exeter say this is probably in the best interests of club, fucking annoying mind.

 

[BlueRockape]

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:

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.

So why are we not taking the lying cheating bastards to the cleaners ???????

As Exeter say this is probably in the best interests of club, fucking annoying mind.

It will be worse for the club if they think we are a soft touch and pull the same shit next year. If we have done nothing wrong why lay down and let the whip hand of the cartel do what they wish with us.

 

[Ducado]

The reason we are not taking them to the cleaners is because the reality is the sanctions are pretty meaningless, it's like they asked us, it looks bad but when you drill it down it really does not effect us, it looks to me like deals have been done, even to releasing it on a Friday night

 

[BlueRockape]

They win then

In my opinion yes Marvin..This is the one thing that will make me fuck football off pal,this is hoe strongly I feel.

I'm of the same opinion as you on this one SHB and was trying to explain as much the other night. We've done fuck all wrong, been punished for doing fuck all wrong but apparently it's a victory for us.

Gotta pick our battles you see and the ones where we are in the right (yet are been made a scapegoat over something we haven't done) are seemingly not the right battles to pick.

You couldn't fucking make it up.

And yes, I have been drinking again.

The main word is IF. We are taking City's word for this

 

[Danamy]

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:

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.

So why are we not taking the lying cheating bastards to the cleaners ???????

As Exeter say this is probably in the best interests of club, fucking annoying mind.

Like it or not the PR would've had a big factor in City's decision, we've spent a lot more money than the fine getting us to where we are in the world, the headline "City take on UEFA" wouldn't of done us any favours with no guarantees of winning.