journalist Jonathan Norcroft and Colin Savage talk FFP

I don't do twatter can you link some of these offensive pisstakes for my perusal.
Innocent till proven guilty in my house.
 
The blue phantom said:
Norcroft is one vile bastard. As a few of us were saying on the De Spiegel thread, he's been pisstaking blues with Harris and fuckin Duncan Castles on their Twitter chat. All he wants is our club punished which he has stated on Twitter.

The guy is an out an out Cvnt.
Click to expand...
It's worth a watch tbh, he is a typical press man but you can see underneath he knows ffp is a big pile of bollocks
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
It's worth a watch tbh, he is a typical press man but you can see underneath he knows ffp is a big pile of bollocks
Click to expand...

Tin hat on here but I actually don't think the concept of FFP itself is a particularly bad thing as long it's implemented for the right reasons - ie: to try and prevent clubs from getting into financial difficulties for one - and owners aren't prohibited from investing their own money too much. As it is, the particular part of FFP that applies to City (the bit we're all familiar with) is a bit of a joke but that's only one part of the regs. There are other aspects to FFP that aren't really applicable to us under our current ownership - but may have been a huge issue if Thaksin had continued owning the club - which UEFA have gotten bang on IMO. Namely that clubs should settle their debts to other clubs promptly. UEFA actually take a dimmer view of clubs who fall foul of this than the break-even part of FFP and clubs have been banned from European competition as a result.
 
The three things Norcroft said where we broke the rules was it the Sancho payment the third party players and the sponsors only one there that we could get done by is the third party players.
 
M18CTID said:
Tin hat on here but I actually don't think the concept of FFP itself is a particularly bad thing as long it's implemented for the right reasons - ie: to try and prevent clubs from getting into financial difficulties for one - and owners aren't prohibited from investing their own money too much. As it is, the particular part of FFP that applies to City (the bit we're all familiar with) is a bit of a joke but that's only one part of the regs. There are other aspects to FFP that aren't really applicable to us under our current ownership - but may have been a huge issue if Thaksin had continued owning the club - which UEFA have gotten bang on IMO. Namely that clubs should settle their debts to other clubs promptly. UEFA actually take a dimmer view of clubs who fall foul of this than the break-even part of FFP and clubs have been banned from European competition as a result.
Click to expand...


FFP as a concept was bang on imo, wasn't it originally formulated by some Notts county fans? bet they wish it was acted on before the corruption of g14\uefa got their mitts into it and they might not be the shite they are now. The Joke element seems to have been an afterthought when they realised their was a risk to the status quo that the champions league had so firmly established.
 
It's very sad that PB is prepared to promote this odious hater and even the likes of Castles- actually that's bad enough but he ends up actually attacking the club himself on all fronts. His good mate Conn will be very pleased with the anti Arab jibes in particular. With blue friends like these etc etc
 
PB had him twisted up in knots at some points. But credit it too Norcroft he seemed to take it on board.

Life isn't perfect and sometimes you just listen
 
George Hannah said:
It's very sad that PB is prepared to promote this odious hater and even the likes of Castles- actually that's bad enough but he ends up actually attacking the club himself on all fronts. His good mate Conn will be very pleased with the anti Arab jibes in particular. With blue friends like these etc etc
Click to expand...
Slowly slowly catchy monkey. I'm sure you will be brilliant when you defend the club
 
fallowfield said:
Maybe Colin or someone else can clarify this...but I don't think it was highlighted sufficiently....

My main takeaway from watching this was re the point made around the sponsorship funding from Etihad, Aabar that Colin referred to being revealed up in a US court case.
I understood it to mean that it's OK & allowed if 'other sources' from within Abu Dhabi or elsewhere actually contribute the money that Eithad, Aabar sponsor City with.
But it's not OK if money towards these sponsorships comes from ADUG or Mansoor himself - and if that's what happened we will be punished.
Click to expand...
Simplistically yes but I think it's a little more complicated than that.

Sheikh Mansour is the legal owner of City, via ADUG. ADUG appear to have advanced the money for Laporte's transfer, and that's OK at it's not classed as revenue. Owners can also currrently put in up to €30m over 3 seasons to cover losses. Related parties can also contribute to revenue as long as their sponsorship is deemed to be fair market value but the definition of a "related party" is part of accountancy standards although it can be a little subjective.

So even if Sheikh Mansour was the person who controlled Etihad, it still should be quite legitimate for them to sponsor us, as Qatar did with PSG, as long as it was deemed to be commensurate with the market rate (which it is). However the amount PSG were sponsored by Qatar was reduced by UEFA as it wasn't deemed to be fair market value. On that basis then I believe that the Etihad deal is probably fireproof, regardless of who pays it. Even if UEFA took the view that it was disuised owner investment, they'd have to prove that the money came from ADUG directly and they have no jurisdiction over a foreign entity and can't force them to open their books to scrutiny.

Where the potential issue could be is the other sponsorships, which were agreed at £m per annum but were actually paying us £15m. But again, it's open to interpretation as they would have to be deemed as related parties to impact FFP and this was one of the grounds for dispute back in 2014. We (and our auditors) said they weren't whereas UEFA's auditors said they felt they were. That would almost certainly have been one of the issues tested in court had it got to that. If not related parties then they could do what they want and even if UEFA took the view that the additional £12m was disguised owner-investment, they'd still have to prove that, which would be nigh-on impossible without access to the sponsoring companies' books.

And, as I've pointed out before, these issues all relate to the 2013 financial year, we were increasing revenue because we thought we could escape punishment under section 2 of Annex XI. But these accounts formed part of the assessment period in which we were punished, after UEFA changed the basis of calculation slightly. Since then our other revenue streams from non-Abu Dhabi companies has increased dramatically so we should have no need to "pad" these sponsorships out.
 
Last edited:
morleyswife said:
I dont get your angle... Sorry
Click to expand...
Our resident FFP expert (and on much else besides) would be a better witness for the prosecution. In short as far as PB is concerned we're guilty as charged - breaking rules on FFP, third party ownership, payments in respect of minors etc etc - not to mention of sportswashing the many shortcomings of the UAE as he sees them.
 
George Hannah said:
Our resident FFP expert (and on much else besides) would be a better witness for the prosecution. In short as far as PB is concerned we're guilty as charged - breaking rules on FFP, third party ownership, payments in respect of minors etc etc - not to mention of sportswashing the many shortcomings of the UAE as he sees them.
Click to expand...
I think he pointed it out quite clearly. You seem to be ommiting the positives and concentrating on the negatives

Should we get PJ back who put the money straight in his pocket from city fans?

What's you agenda and vision.....
 
morleyswife said:
I think he pointed it out quite clearly. You seem to be ommiting the positives and concentrating on the negativeShould we get PJ back who put the money straight in his pocket from city fans?
What's you agenda and vision.....
Click to expand...
don't understand you friend - but just for the avoidance of doubt I think we have the best team, best club and best owners in the world (and even on some days the best manager.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top