FFP - Why I believe we failed

[aguero93:20]

Question for anyone who knows the details of the regulations:

Would a basic salary of, say, £2.5m and a 'bonus' of £7.5m for not getting relegated be allowed to get round the no increase in salary restriction?

In the spirit of this thread, I'm 95% sure it would but can't say for definite. :)

Marcotti's email address? Anyone?

 

[Begbie]

PB....City's very own rangerstaxcase...keep up the good work mate

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I've got this pinned down now and I'm definitely right despite what my new best friend says.

UEFA produce a 'Toolkit', which is a software model that allows clubs to submit their returns in a standard form. Along with this there is guidance about what to include and how it's calculated. The 2011 version of this toolkit talks about the conditions for being able to use the wage exemption and, according to that, we could use it based on the example used to illustrate it. Here's what it says:

(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).

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 – because part of the break-even deficit in excess of the acceptable deviation is due to the break-even deficit in 2013 and/or 2014

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.

In 2013, after we'd published our 2012 accounts, they issued a new one and the guidance notes had changed to say that the 2012 wages (£80m) had to be greater than the break even deficit in 2012 (£83m) to satisfy condition (ii).

So from being able to use the £80m to pass, without changing a single figure, we suddenly found we couldn't use it and therefore failed, when it was too late to change anything. How convenient.

 

[1961_vintage]

Re: FFP - Why we failed

If you re-read my posts you will see I have never claimed he misled people. I went to great lengths to point out that my issue was with people treating his posts as fact rather than being with the posts themselves.

I certainly got that impression and anyone saying anything other than that is being somewhat disingenuous.

But in your efforts to make your point about not taking everything "as gospel" you do seem to be taking a negative stance against a poster who is contributing hugely to improving the understanding of what can be quite a confusing topic for many forum members and whose efforts are greatly appreciated.

 

[cibaman]

I've got this pinned down now and I'm definitely right despite what my new best friend says.

UEFA produce a 'Toolkit', which is a software model that allows clubs to submit their returns in a standard form. Along with this there is guidance about what to include and how it's calculated. The 2011 version of this toolkit talks about the conditions for being able to use the wage exemption and, according to that, we could use it based on the example used to illustrate it. Here's what it says:

(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).

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 – because part of the break-even deficit in excess of the acceptable deviation is due to the break-even deficit in 2013 and/or 2014

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.

In 2013, after we'd published our 2012 accounts, they issued a new one and the guidance notes had changed to say that the 2012 wages (£80m) had to be greater than the break even deficit in 2012 (£83m) to satisfy condition (ii).

So from being able to use the £80m to pass, without changing a single figure, we suddenly found we couldn't use it and therefore failed, when it was too late to change anything. How convenient.

Surely if that is the case we would be 99% guaranteed to have the penalties overturned by the CAS?

 

[Rammyblues]

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

 

[blueparrot]

So by changing this

(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).

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 – because part of the break-even deficit in excess of the acceptable deviation is due to the break-even deficit in 2013 and/or 2014quote]

To this

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.][/quote]

halfway through the monitoring period is the difference between compliance and non compliance ?

 

[petrusha]

I've got this pinned down now and I'm definitely right despite what my new best friend says.

UEFA produce a 'Toolkit', which is a software model that allows clubs to submit their returns in a standard form. Along with this there is guidance about what to include and how it's calculated. The 2011 version of this toolkit talks about the conditions for being able to use the wage exemption and, according to that, we could use it based on the example used to illustrate it. Here's what it says:

(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).

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 – because part of the break-even deficit in excess of the acceptable deviation is due to the break-even deficit in 2013 and/or 2014

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.

In 2013, after we'd published our 2012 accounts, they issued a new one and the guidance notes had changed to say that the 2012 wages (£80m) had to be greater than the break even deficit in 2012 (£83m) to satisfy condition (ii).

So from being able to use the £80m to pass, without changing a single figure, we suddenly found we couldn't use it and therefore failed, when it was too late to change anything. How convenient.

Surely if that is the case we would be 99% guaranteed to have the penalties overturned by the CAS?

I'm not sure you'd get many lawyers who'd ever say that potential litigation has a "99% guaranteed" successful outcome. :)

However, even if City were justifiably confident of winning an appeal to the CAS, there would be huge political ramifications of going down that route. In deciding that discretion would be the better part of valour, we may well have served the club's best interests notwithstanding that we might have avoided the measures we agreed to under the settlement agreement.

 

[andyhinch]

I've got this pinned down now and I'm definitely right despite what my new best friend says.

UEFA produce a 'Toolkit', which is a software model that allows clubs to submit their returns in a standard form. Along with this there is guidance about what to include and how it's calculated. The 2011 version of this toolkit talks about the conditions for being able to use the wage exemption and, according to that, we could use it based on the example used to illustrate it. Here's what it says:

(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).

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 – because part of the break-even deficit in excess of the acceptable deviation is due to the break-even deficit in 2013 and/or 2014

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.

In 2013, after we'd published our 2012 accounts, they issued a new one and the guidance notes had changed to say that the 2012 wages (£80m) had to be greater than the break even deficit in 2012 (£83m) to satisfy condition (ii).

So from being able to use the £80m to pass, without changing a single figure, we suddenly found we couldn't use it and therefore failed, when it was too late to change anything. How convenient.

I'm confused now mate, how can you legally back fit rules?

 

[ForzaMancini]

Re: FFP - Why we failed

So when you claim that he has misled people, you are wrong. Your comments are somewhat perfidious.

You have joined the debate with benefit of hindsight and for some reason, you are trying to claim the moral high ground.

If you re-read my posts you will see I have never claimed he misled people. I went to great lengths to point out that my issue was with people treating his posts as fact rather than being with the posts themselves.

There are some people on the forum who you can't argue against or you will just get drowned out by their sycophants.