How UEFA shifted the goalposts on FFP. The definitive story.

[dickie davies]

I note that the Rob Wilson and Halam University said we would still probably have failed.
Of course Rob, but you are being a bit disingenuous as there is a massive difference between failing by less than 10m and 100m. The first gets you a warning the latter gets you a massive fine/ban.

We did fail by £100m+

 

[Bentheblue]

Funnily enough, since I replied, Stuart Brennan has just run a story.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...all-news/man-city-ffp-uefa-financial-15515399

Good news that Stuart has run the story and given you the well deserved credit.
Just hope some of the Rag Tops or the Fail pick it up now.
Big thumbs up to Stuart as well, cannot be easy fighting against the red MEN tide.

 

[BlueAnorak]

We did fail by £100m+

Where have you been for the last 4 years?
We only failed by that amount because we were unable to discount Pre 2010 wages.
With the original toolkit we would been able to discount those wages and would only have failed by 10m (ish).

 

[TCIB]

Funnily enough, since I replied, Stuart Brennan has just run a story.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...all-news/man-city-ffp-uefa-financial-15515399

Good read that.

 

[dickie davies]

Where have you been for the last 4 years?
We only failed by that amount because we were unable to discount Pre 2010 wages.
With the original toolkit we would been able to discount those wages and would only have failed by 10m (ish).

What is it you don't understand?
We failed FFP by over £100m
If it had been £10m or so we would have been well within the loss allowance
Because we weren't (we we £100m+) we tried to use the get out of jail clause but as UEFA changed the way accounts are reported we still failed, so our losses were well over £100m

 

[dom]

Question for PB...

When was FFP introduced by UEFA, was it [1] before Chelsea became the beneficiary of the Rouble, was it [2] later than that but before our Sheikh Mansour takeover, or [3] following our takeover. If these rules were in place before [1], a case could be made for fairness but if later than [3] then there is no doubt who these measures were aimed at.

It was 3 mate

 

[BlueAnorak]

What is it you don't understand?
We failed FFP by over £100m
If it had been £10m or so we would have been well within the loss allowance
Because we weren't (we we £100m+) we tried to use the get out of jail clause but as UEFA changed the way accounts are reported we still failed, so our losses were well over £100m

We failed by over £100m+ because UEFA stitched us up not because UEFA changed the rules. The rules were changed to stitch us up.

 

[dickie davies]

We failed by over £100m+ because UEFA stitched us up not because UEFA changed the rules. The rules were changed to stitch us up.

FFS!
Do you agree that our losses were more than £100m?

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

It's been reported that Der Spiegel are quoting "illegally obtained documents" but the football leaks site that provided this info cannot reveal it's sources for fear of facing Court action itself and so it is far from likely that this matter will go any further.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

LOL. You're both wrong actually although Dicke Davies is partly right in that our losses were over £100m.

Our aggregate losses were just over £150m before adjustments. We could knock £35m off that for FFP purposes making an aggregate break-even deficit of £115m. We were allowed to lose £38m so we were £77m short of meeting FFP. That figure is the definitive one and, whatever UEFA did, we still failed by that amount. Had we been able to offset our £80m wages, as agreed with UEFA, under FFP's Annex XI, then in principle we wouldn't have faced any sanctions. But we'd have still failed FFP by £77m.