With regards to the Etihad sponsorship being "friendly", I'm sure that quite early in this thread @Prestwich_Blue has said that in one particular year (think it was the termination of Mancini's contract) that City asked for some of the following year's moneyI’m not stirring or indeed making much of a point, but just an interesting conversation last night with someone who works high up for one of our local rivals (not high, high but fairly high) who is interested in this.
He does not support the team he works for and is an intelligent, articulate guy.
We’ve spoken previously but this time was the first time we have had a real chat on it.
Firstly, I was struck by how much they believe we are guilty, he felt that it is widely considered City enhanced our revenues to comply with FFP. He listened to my argument around the damage reputation and the theory the process is the punishment and acknowledged there are 2 sides.
We pretty much agreed that we hear different things from both sides and in reality City being in a growth stage and needing to maximise revenue, whilst planning to be self sufficient long term where happy to invest in the short term.
He acknowledged Man City are considered very professional and probably took the best advise possible on how to spend the most, whilst keeping compliant. A conversation that now dominates most Board rooms in the PL as all clubs have this problem.
He knew about information and the detail, which I find to be rare. Spoke about the £8 million Etihad deal and agreed that it would be a lot below market value and would be a strange deal to do, not one he would expect our owners to do. He felt that it would be a friendly agreement where we back date sponsorship value to help us pass. Which he felt was not in the spirit of how sponsorship worked (likened it to a successful business man, sponsoring his Son’s grassroots team and getting a bill at the end of the season for whatever they have incurred). Felt it was not commercial reality. I kind of got him onboard with the fact FFP, football has always been short term, but these guys are long term and by supporting the team to grow the value comes in later years etc. He acknowledged that the Etihad deal has proved worthwhile and we agreed to disagree who paid, although acknowledged if Etihad paid then there should be no issue.
The Esislat deal I know less about, despite my time on here and the image rights is also a bit confusing, so I was not comfortable enough talking about that. We did touch on Mancini (he considered it a work around but not as clear). However, seemed to agree those contracts happen in the Middle East.
It was interesting I felt how there is such certainty around guilt, whereas a sensible conversation tended to find the middle ground that probably points to City not being charged.
It was also felt that clubs where getting very frustrated with Chelsea, so expect some pressure on them especially if they start to perform.
No.Not sure I agree. There would be no direct interference with the Panel but I would think the UK Govt would not want the UAE to be totally pissed off if for example we got a severe penalty resulting in relegation. I am coming around to the conclusion that we may face a 30 or 40 point penalty if the majority of the charges stick. This is not likely to be enough to relegate us but will of course put us out of Europe.
That wasn't specifically set out in black and white iirc but even if not, it's a pretty safe assumption. In their submission to CAS, City talked about the 'accruals basis' of accounting, which is separate to the cash payments. That means if Etihad contract to pay us £60m a year over 10 years, we'll record £60m a year in the accounts, regardless of whether the cashflow is £60m a year or not.With regards to the Etihad sponsorship being "friendly", I'm sure that quite early in this thread @Prestwich_Blue has said that in one particular year (think it was the termination of Mancini's contract) that City asked for some of the following year's money
It all worked out as the agreed amount over the period of the sponsorship, but City received something like £80m one season and a reduced amount the next
That's true.They do now but that is only based upon what is released. They only started to release their accounts in recent years in response to US pressure on anti-competition grounds, none of them are audited properly.
That wasn't specifically set out in black and white iirc but even if not, it's a pretty safe assumption. In their submission to CAS, City talked about the 'accruals basis' of accounting, which is separate to the cash payments. That means if Etihad contract to pay us £60m a year over 10 years, we'll record £60m a year in the accounts, regardless of whether the cashflow is £60m a year.
If Etihad paid us £200m in year one, we'd still show that as £60m revenue, with £140m as deferred revenue. If they paid us nothing the following year, we'd again show £60m revenue, but with deferred revenue of £80m.
So when Harris was going on about us under-declaring the Etihad revenue, when he added up three years cash receipts and divided by three, he clearly had no idea about accruals accounting. The timing of the cashflow is irrelevant.
What you mean a shoddy journalist has no idea about complex accounting practices, colour me shocked.That wasn't specifically set out in black and white iirc but even if not, it's a pretty safe assumption. In their submission to CAS, City talked about the 'accruals basis' of accounting, which is separate to the cash payments. That means if Etihad contract to pay us £60m a year over 10 years, we'll record £60m a year in the accounts, regardless of whether the cashflow is £60m a year.
If Etihad paid us £200m in year one, we'd still show that as £60m revenue, with £140m as deferred revenue. If they paid us nothing the following year, we'd again show £60m revenue, but with deferred revenue of £80m.
So when Harris was going on about us under-declaring the Etihad revenue, when he added up three years cash receipts and divided by three, he clearly had no idea about accruals accounting. The timing of the cashflow is irrelevant.
That wasn't specifically set out in black and white iirc but even if not, it's a pretty safe assumption. In their submission to CAS, City talked about the 'accruals basis' of accounting, which is separate to the cash payments. That means if Etihad contract to pay us £60m a year over 10 years, we'll record £60m a year in the accounts, regardless of whether the cashflow is £60m a year.
If Etihad paid us £200m in year one, we'd still show that as £60m revenue, with £140m as deferred revenue. If they paid us nothing the following year, we'd again show £60m revenue, but with deferred revenue of £80m.
So when Harris was going on about us under-declaring the Etihad revenue, when he added up three years cash receipts and divided by three, he clearly had no idea about accruals accounting. The timing of the cashflow is irrelevant.
Arsenal did the same thing with Emirates when they went short of cash, got 100% of the first Emirates deal upfront.With regards to the Etihad sponsorship being "friendly", I'm sure that quite early in this thread @Prestwich_Blue has said that in one particular year (think it was the termination of Mancini's contract) that City asked for some of the following year's money
It all worked out as the agreed amount over the period of the sponsorship, but City received something like £80m one season and a reduced amount the next