FFP - Why I believe we failed

[Marvin]

Now we know where we stand and there's transparency, the cards are on the table so we know we'll comply from next year going forward.

In the bigger picture this is just a jab in a 12 round fight, we'll still move on and win things, fuck em

there should no need for compliance though. where was the compliance for the last 20 years when the same clubs creamed money from the completion? where was the ffp as they got richer and richer by a cartel that until we came along was as closed shop as closed shop could be.
why now? why now as we can lure players, outbid the cartel clubs, win bigger tv rights and everything associated with a successful club? why now?

because its Manchester city that's why. uefa couldn't give a flying fuck what psg and co do. they have only spanked them cos even platini has to save some face if possible. to him its worth ruffling a few feathers in France to ensure the cartel is repaired and back to the status quo asap.

dress it up all you like. compliance this, bargaining that, even talk about legal challenges but the bottom line is this is an attack on Manchester city football club. ffp would have had the tiniest bit of credence had it been brought in the moment roman arrived at chelski. uefa's silence on chelsea for the last ten years has been deafening.

An attack on Manchester City Football Club?

The list of clubs affected in this period: Paris St-Germain, Zenit St Petersburg, Rubin Kazan, Anzhi Makhachkala, Galatasaray, Trabzonspor, Bursaspor and Levski Sofia.

If anything after this blip ffp should work in our favour and it'll affect other teams more than us, when our academy starts churning out talented youth so we can sell them on or put them in the first team with no need for transfers?........we'll be generating our own money, our cash cow (so to speak)

Will it affect us, will it fuck!!

Take your tin foil hat off de niro

It's one thing signing the most talented young players, but you have to give them a chance in the 1st team.

 

[bluenova]

Take your tin foil hat off de niro

But you have to wonder. The Sheikh comes along and they bring in FFP despite the fact that clubs like Chelsea have been spending unlimited amounts for a few years and La Liga is totally unbalanced.

UEFA want to tackle debt, yet a club with no debt is the one constantly highlighted.

When the crunch comes, they change the rules so that we fail, while all the time we thought we'd pass, and can do nothing about it.

Platini had been talking about reigning in big spending clubs for years before our takeover. He's called Madrid, Barca, United and Chelsea cheats before we even came on the radar.

You're right about the debt issue - I think that's been the compromise with the existing big clubs. They had more power to push that agenda when the details of FFP were being planned.

I know you think it's a con that we failed with the rules changing and I partially agree. With a little objectivity (hard for us all as it's our own team), we can't deny that things like the Image rights sale were pretty much there just to pass FFP. UEFA have called our bluff - fudging the rules themselves to make us fail - and it looks like UEFA did have the power after all, as City balanced the deal on the table with the potentially more serious consequences they might face if they went to court.

 

[Irwell]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I can't sleep so have moved your post from the main thread into this thread so it's in one place.

You've not adjusted your figures for the infrastructure/youth development costs.

That explains the first part! I misunderstood what the numbers you gave represented.

Let's start from the top.

In FY12:
Loss -£98m/-€121m to which we can add back £15m/€21m
So BE12 is -£83m/-€100m

In FY13:
Loss -£52m/-€64m to which we can add back £20m/€28m
So BE13 is -£32m/-€36m

So aggregate BE is -£115m/-€136m

The acceptable deviation is -€45m as we assume maximum equity contribution of €40m, meaning the aggregate BE deficit that exceeds the AD is -£76m/-€91m

For the first test, BE12 is -€100m which is greater than the -€91m aggregate BE deficit. so that's OK.
For the second test, the aggregate BE deficit that exceeds the AD is €91m/£76m and the wages of players under contract prior to June 2010 is €98m/£80m. So the wages exceeds the €91m and the second test is OK.

So we can use the £80m wages as we've satified all the tests, as set out in the example table. That means aggregate BE of €136m less wages of €98m, giving an adjusted BE of €38m, which is within the €45m maximum allowable deficit.

So at that point using that guidance (which covers the accounts prepared for FY12 and FY13) we've passed according to my calculation. But according to the subsequent revision produced after we've done that calculation (and was produced for FY14) we fail.

Are exchange rates applied as they would have been at the time of each entry in our accounts? Reading the guidance for the toolkit it seems to indicate so and it would be very difficult to get an accurate comparison.

I have applied a specific exchange rate for each year as I only had the Sterling figures to work with, but doing this I get €19m and €24m against your €21m and €28m, which would make our figures €6m worse than the ones you gave. Are the Euro equivalents you gave listed somewhere or have you calculated them yourself?

Given the 2011 rules, using the exchange rates I applied would push the aggregate BE deficit to -€95m against a BE12 of -€102m and it seems to be getting awfully close to margin of error territory for the first part of condition (ii) given the fact these numbers are rounded to the nearest million. We then pass the second part of condition (ii) as the aggregate break even deficit in excess of the acceptable deviation (-€95m) is greater than the pre-2010 expenses (€99m) which is definitely within the margin of error.

BE12: -€121m + €19m = -€102m
BE13: -€62m + €24m = -€38m
Change: +€64m
(condition (i) passed)
---
Aggregate BE: -€140m
Aggregate BE - €5m: -€135m
Contributions: €40m
AG BE - Cont: -€95m
---
AG BE - Cont vs. BE12: -€102m < -€95m
(condition (ii.a) passed)
---
AG BE - Cont vs. Pre-2010: -€95m > -€99m
(condition (ii.b) passed)


I'm tempted to try and go through it all with more accurate numbers if I can find them as it really seems to be too close for comfort.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm tempted to try and go through it all with more accurate numbers if I can find them as it really seems to be too close for comfort.

They wouldn't have failed us if the difference was just around exchange rates and I used the one you had used more or less. Hopefully you now understand I wasn't talking complete bollocks! The figures I've used are the ones I've seen in the media re. the allowable expenses and wage exclusion (which must have come from the club). I think we should be able to assume the club knew what it was doing but the point is that it is very close either way but the club had done the FY2012 accounts well before the revised test came out. That revised test simply compared the FY2012 pre-2010 wages to the FY2012 break-even deficit, whereas the original used FY2013 as well. We went into FY2013 kn owing waht the numbers had to be but the re-issued toolkit made a mockery of that snd there was no way we could adjust any figures to meet it.

It's like doing two exams where you are told you have to average 70% to pass. You get 90% on the first so think you need just 50% on the second. You actually get 60% so think you're home and dry with 75% but come out of the last exam to find the rules have been changed and you needed to get at least 70% on each exam to pass.

 

[Anonymous]

Following an unsuccessful attempt to become a lion tamer, City have announced the signing of Mr Anchovy...

 

[Irwell]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

They wouldn't have failed us if the difference was just around exchange rates and I used the one you had used more or less.

The problem as I see it, though, is that they would have to do exactly that. There is just too much variance in exchange rates and doing otherwise would open them up to too much potential for exploitation. The toolkit itself applies the appropriate exchange rates, which vary by 10% across the two reporting periods. Depending on the exchange rates used we could have passed fairly comfortably or failed. I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to which result it would be.

Hopefully you now understand I wasn't talking complete bollocks!

I never thought you were, I was only trying to bring a bit more balance into matters. I think it's proved pretty clear that these regulations are very ambiguous and I personally would like to see as many alternative interpretations on here as people are able to provide.

The figures I've used are the ones I've seen in the media re. the allowable expenses and wage exclusion (which must have come from the club). I think we should be able to assume the club knew what it was doing but the point is that it is very close either way but the club had done the FY2012 accounts well before the revised test came out. That revised test simply compared the FY2012 pre-2010 wages to the FY2012 break-even deficit, whereas the original used FY2013 as well. We went into FY2013 kn owing waht the numbers had to be but the re-issued toolkit made a mockery of that snd there was no way we could adjust any figures to meet it.

I agree completely that they shouldn't be able to change their own interpretation of the rules like that part way through the monitoring period. The change seems to have made our failure a certainty. I'm not convinced, though, that we would have passed even if the 2011 interpretation was used as the numbers above are so close to the line that both rounding and exchange rates could push us one side or the other. If it was the case that we wouldn't have passed under the 2011 interpretation anyway, the change to their interpretation of the rules would be academic.