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

[hello]

Finally got a chance to read this, a very productive video conference this morning :-) I am obviously a simpleton but if accounts are filed against a specific set of guidelines in place at the time, how does changing these guidelines impact the assessment of accounts already files against the "in place" guidelines at the time?
Was this a case of uefa reviewing the casted in stone filed accounts and thinking "hang on the cheeky little upstarts are on track to avoid sanctions" and calling in the bean counters to calculate how the same figures could be interpreted in a different manner under a modified retrospective amendment with absolute assurance the upstarts were banged to rights with the revised toolkit as they effectively modelled it on the public accounts that had already been filed?


Thanks for taking the time to put it together PB.

 

[CityInWashingtonState]

I've been glossing over this issue...

But from what I've gathered, we've done nothing wrong - we've assessed UEFA's rules and have found a way to comply with the rules while still maintaining the ability to sign top class players.

What seems to have happened is that internal emails regarding this subject have been illegally stolen and published.

Yet, have we actually broken existing UEFA rules?

 

[citytilllidie]

I've been glossing over this issue...

But from what I've gathered, we've done nothing wrong - we've assessed UEFA's rules and have found a way to comply with the rules while still maintaining the ability to sign top class players.

What seems to have happened is that internal emails regarding this subject have been illegally stolen and published.

Yet, have we actually broken existing UEFA rules?

We did do, but were punished with a fine and squad reduction for CL. However, they are now saying we lied about how much we failed by, although this shouldn't really matter. Failure is failure, might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, as the saying goes. Whatever, we committed the crime and paid the doled out punishment

 

[portisheadblue]

Does anyone have information on the remuneration David Gill receives annually from Mufc

I read somewhere a while back that his (D Gill) salary was circa £2m per annum and he was a member of a bonus pool of a rather significant sum linked to performance over a multi year period

In summary, every day he will look after the hand that feeds him 100% guaranteed full time etc

Even when he’s doing valuable work at or for FA

.... or UEFA

.... or FIFA

.... or PL ... or ECA

or down the golf club or the pub.

He does the exact job his paymaster require every time and everywhere he can.

BTW I also read that GPC when he agreed to become a rag-ambassador agreed to being paid £100k per day for up to 20 days or a cool £2M in a year.

Clear conflicts arise every week for Mr Gill and nobody seems to care.

 

[waspish]

Even that wouldn't have helped as it only came into play to allow controlled owner investment on a change of ownership. We had been owned by ADUG for a few years by that point.

Ah right, how long is a club having new owners lasts? Soon as they take over that club or 2 years later when they made a plan to how they are going to be sustainable?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Finally got a chance to read this, a very productive video conference this morning :-) I am obviously a simpleton but if accounts are filed against a specific set of guidelines in place at the time, how does changing these guidelines impact the assessment of accounts already files against the "in place" guidelines at the time?
Was this a case of uefa reviewing the casted in stone filed accounts and thinking "hang on the cheeky little upstarts are on track to avoid sanctions" and calling in the bean counters to calculate how the same figures could be interpreted in a different manner under a modified retrospective amendment with absolute assurance the upstarts were banged to rights with the revised toolkit as they effectively modelled it on the public accounts that had already been filed?


Thanks for taking the time to put it together PB.

I've just responded to a question in the 'Champions League Ban?' thread but this is worth answering. We filed those accounts before they changed the rules so it's entirely possible they did just that, mainly (I'd guess) to avoid a court battle over the definition of a related party and other challenges. I strongly suspect that some of the documents UEFA would have had to disclose could have been acutely embarrassing.

However although I believe we submitted the regulation spreadsheet based on just the 2012 accounts, the actual FFP assessment wasn't carried out until after the 2013 accounts were filed so the later rules were the ones in force at that time. But, having used UEFA's instructions to understand if we could use the relevant provision at the time we filed the 2012 accounts, that meant we knew what we had to do in 2013 to complete that. That's what the leaks were about - how we did everything we could to present the necessary bottom line figure in 2013.

It's quite bizarre (or maybe not) that none of the sensible journalists picked up on this. But they don't think about what they're writing. They just parrot what others have written. That's partly the reason I wrote my piece.

 

[hello]

ah the fabled legend of the sensible journalists as rare as an honest politician apparently. Thanks for the clarification of the 2013 filing, I vaguely thought that was the case, still don't see how uefa can change the guidelines to assess against different criteria when part A has been submitted in a 2 part assessment, Your analogy of a 2 part exam was great in this regard, oh you would have passed part A so we've amended the pass mark to be your score +1 and now you've failed it doesn't matter wtf you do in part B. The fact that the revised guidelines resulted in a near surgical precise failure of £1.2m (<0.5% turnover) makes me think that this being coincidence as probable as me winning the lottery.

 

[bluestreak]

ah the fabled legend of the sensible journalists as rare as an honest politician apparently. Thanks for the clarification of the 2013 filing, I vaguely thought that was the case, still don't see how uefa can change the guidelines to assess against different criteria when part A has been submitted in a 2 part assessment, Your analogy of a 2 part exam was great in this regard, oh you would have passed part A so we've amended the pass mark to be your score =1 and now you've failed it doesn't matter wtf you do in part B. The fact that the revised guidelines resulted in a near surgical precise failure of £1.2m (<0.5% turnover) makes me think that this being coincidence as probable as me winning the lottery.

If it was only possible we could recruit someone along the lines of Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander. They would rip EUFA apart and expose the culprits involved in this corruption. Sadly, they are only fiction. :-(

 

[Norbiton]

I've just responded to a question in the 'Champions League Ban?' thread but this is worth answering. We filed those accounts before they changed the rules so it's entirely possible they did just that, mainly (I'd guess) to avoid a court battle over the definition of a related party and other challenges. I strongly suspect that some of the documents UEFA would have had to disclose could have been acutely embarrassing.

However although I believe we submitted the regulation spreadsheet based on just the 2012 accounts, the actual FFP assessment wasn't carried out until after the 2013 accounts were filed so the later rules were the ones in force at that time. But, having used UEFA's instructions to understand if we could use the relevant provision at the time we filed the 2012 accounts, that meant we knew what we had to do in 2013 to complete that. That's what the leaks were about - how we did everything we could to present the necessary bottom line figure in 2013.

It's quite bizarre (or maybe not) that none of the sensible journalists picked up on this. But they don't think about what they're writing. They just parrot what others have written. That's partly the reason I wrote my piece.

Wasn't there something in the Brennan piece about clubs being consulted over the revised toolkit and approving it? Not sure where he got that from or whether all clubs were consulted and approval was unanimous.

 

[aguero93:20]

Wasn't there something in the Brennan piece about clubs being consulted over the revised toolkit and approving it? Not sure where he got that from or whether all clubs were consulted and approval was unanimous.

They asked Bayern, Madrid and the rags and they were all in favour of it.