PSG set to fail FFP again?

Blue Hefner said:
PSG have a load of players they could flog to raise funds if needed. Neymar being one and he would probably be first out the door. More trouble than he’s worth

Then you have Veratti. Add to that the 30-45mil players like Rabiot, Draxler and few more. They could still probably get a decent fee for Cavani

I imagine Mbappe is the last player they’d sell
Click to expand...
That leaves them with the cherry but no decent cake to sit on
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Which UEFA will struggle to do. Even in the extremely unlikely event they were to get access to Etihad’s books, they’d find that any funding supplied in respect of their sponsorship of City didn’t come from Sheikh Mansour. That’s why City’s set-up is so much cleverer than PSG’s. UEFA could tie themselves in knots for years and still find they were coming up against a brick wall.
Click to expand...
Well, imo, UEFA can't prove it in regards of the scheme in place at City.
However, i don't really see why City set-up is so much cleverer than PSG. PSG is not accused of not truthfull reporting. PSG is accused of inflated deals and the only reason they are inflated compared to City is because City gets PL money. PSG owners had to funnel more money to compensate with low L1 TV rights money.

As i said earlier, different contexts ask for different solutions.
Thnaks to those inflated contracts, we have been able to buy Neymar whose brand has helped improve our image and bag deals with Jordan, Accor and new Nike deal. Now, Nasser has said that they will keep running the QTA (renamed National Tourism Council) but with another value (supposedly a value that will be accepted by UEFA maybe around 50 M) and they are working on the stadium naming (City is getting 21 M a year right ?) so potential revenues to beat FFP.
 
Parisian said:
Well, imo, UEFA can't prove it in regards of the scheme in place at City.
However, i don't really see why City set-up is so much cleverer than PSG. PSG is not accused of not truthfull reporting. PSG is accused of inflated deals and the only reason they are inflated compared to City is because City gets PL money. PSG owners had to funnel more money to compensate with low L1 TV rights money.

As i said earlier, different contexts ask for different solutions.
Thnaks to those inflated contracts, we have been able to buy Neymar whose brand has helped improve our image and bag deals with Jordan, Accor and new Nike deal. Now, Nasser has said that they will keep running the QTA (renamed National Tourism Council) but with another value (supposedly a value that will be accepted by UEFA maybe around 50 M) and they are working on the stadium naming (City is getting 21 M a year right ?) so potential revenues to beat FFP.
Click to expand...
Who actually owns PSG? I always thought it was directly owned by the Qatari government.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Who actually owns PSG? I always thought it was directly owned by the Qatari government.
Click to expand...
QSI which is owned by QIA so you’re quite right. Was one of my clients that wrote the contract and still sits on the decision making board of Qatar Investment Authority.

He knows where all the bodies are buried and when he tried to quit so he could be near his kids in the UK (wife left him for another woman weirdly), they doubled his wage and allow him to work from the UK three weeks out of four. Not a bad job if you can get it.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Who actually owns PSG? I always thought it was directly owned by the Qatari government.
Click to expand...
Yup.
Your fellow forumer SWP's back explained the situation. Since the Emir is at the helm of the monarchy, you could say he is the owner via the sovereign fund.

Nasser is the trusted man who represents them on a lot of projects. He is the figurehead of Bein Sport, PSG, QSI, QTF etc.

However, the big decisions are always taken in Qatar. Neymar deal has been decided at Doha. Tuchel appointment has been decided at Doha.

In fact, Nasser is even less present this year at PSG because he has so much duties and has been elected recently by ECA to represent football clubs in UEFA commitee.
 
Parisian said:
Yup.
Your fellow forumer SWP's back explained the situation. Since the Emir is at the helm of the monarchy, you could say he is the owner via the sovereign fund.

Nasser is the trusted man who represent them on a lot of projects. He is the figurehead of Bein Sport, PSG, QSI, QTF etc.

However, the big decisions are always taken in Qatar. Neymar deal has been decided at Doha. Tuchel appointment has been decided at Doha.

In fact, Nasser is even less present this year at PSG because he has so much duties and has been elected recently by ECA to represent football clubs in UEFA commitee.
Click to expand...
That’s why City are cleverer in my opinion. By having an individual as the legal owner they can operate at arm’s length and claim with justification that Etihad and the other Abu Dhabi based companies are not related parties and therefore not subject to fair market value considerations. PSG can’t do that with your government-based sponsorships. Although you appear to be relying on those a lot less now.
 
Parisian said:
You mean Celtic or City ?

Btw, how are Weah and Edouard doing for you ?
Click to expand...

Celtic. And both are doing well. Eduoard has just come back from injury and hasn’t got up to match fitness yet. But he’s getting there. Weah has been good, a bit raw but has a great touch and movement and has scored a few goals. We will hopefully keep him another year.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That’s why City are cleverer in my opinion. By having an individual as the legal owner they can operate at arm’s length and claim with justification that Etihad and the other Abu Dhabi based companies are not related parties and therefore not subject to fair market value considerations. PSG can’t do that with your government-based sponsorships. Although you appear to be relying on those a lot less now.
Click to expand...
Not really.
As SWP's back explained PSG is owned by QSI that is a subsidiary of QIA. Of course, QIA will be under the supervision of the Emir and his close men but, as a company, it is not technically related with the companies that have sponsorship contracts with PSG, except for QNB.
However, UEFA aren't fools and they treat it all as related parties and it is the same for City : "If a club's owner injects money into the club through a sponsorship deal with a company to which he is related, then UEFA's competent bodies will investigate and, if necessary, adapt the calculations of the break-even result for the sponsorship revenues to the level which is appropriate ('fair value') according to market prices. Under the updated regulations, any entity that, alone or in aggregate together with other entities which are linked to the same owner or government, represent more than 30% of the club's total revenues is automatically considered a related party."

The important part here is the "fair value". PSG would have no problem with that if they were receiving PL money, they are just forced to funnel inflated deals to compete with that. So it is not a problem of structure per se, but more of the result of an economical context.
Also, you have to keep in mind that UEFA FFP is highly biased and manipulated according to lobbying. They had no problem with those values before the Neymar/Mbappé deal where Tebas and Barça/Madrid/Bayern started crying wolf. Then, the agreed by UEFA fair value went down from 100 M to 58 M. Then, they decided the 58 M value they chose after 1 year audit by 2 certified companies wasn't good anymore and they needed to put it down again.

So City was smarter than PSG to not piss off the big boys, in that way they were clever. Even then, i fully expect Qatar to have weigh in the aftermath of this action and maybe the improved brand was worth it. At a long term, PSG and L1 brand will grow and the club will receive revenue streams other than Qatar streams. The big problem is to tank the fall of QTA contract value in the short term (new TV rights kicking in 2020).
 
happyman said:
Haven't they got a man on the inside naow?
Click to expand...
No.
Nasser Al Khelaifi has been elected By the ECA (sort of Union of the European Clubs) to represent them at the UEFA executive commitee. But he is not a man on the inside, he has not that much power and will not be related to the FFP case, especially not the one linked with PSG.

In short, european football clubs president elected him. Since obvious guys like Bartomeu, Woodward wouldn't vote for him, you can expect the "medium" clubs to have voted for him.

The transitional ECA Board was Karl-Heinz Rummenigge (Chairman; Bayern Munich), Joan Laporta (Vice-Chairman; Barcelona), John McClelland (Vice-Chairman; Rangers), Umberto Gandini (Vice-Chairman; Milan), Peter Kenyon (Chelsea), Maarten Fontein (AZ) and Jean-Michel Aulas (Lyon).[3]

The ECA Executive Board (2017–2019) currently stands as such: Andrea Agnelli (Juventus), Pedro López Jiménez (Real Madrid), Edwin van der Sar (Ajax), Dariusz Mioduski (Legia Warsaw), Aki Riihilahti (HJK), Ed Woodward (Manchester United), Ivan Gazidis (Arsenal), Josep Maria Bartomeu (FC Barcelona), Nasser Al-Khelaifi (Paris Saint-Germain FC), Jean-Michel Aulas (Olympique Lyonnais), Domingos Soares de Oliveira (SL Benfica), Michael Gerlinger (FC Bayern München), Michael Verschueren (Anderlecht), Niclas Carlnén (Malmö FF) and Peter Lawwell (Celtic). Elections for the Executive Board for the 2017–2019 cycle took place at the General Assembly in Geneva in September 2017.
 
Parisian said:
However, UEFA aren't fools and they treat it all as related parties and it is the same for City : "If a club's owner injects money into the club through a sponsorship deal with a company to which he is related, then UEFA's competent bodies will investigate and, if necessary, adapt the calculations of the break-even result for the sponsorship revenues to the level which is appropriate ('fair value') according to market prices. Under the updated regulations, any entity that, alone or in aggregate together with other entities which are linked to the same owner or government, represent more than 30% of the club's total revenues is automatically considered a related party."
Click to expand...
I know you’re new to the City discussion of FFP but this has been done to death. Etihad has already been and will continue to be judged as a non-related party by our auditors and UEFA so ‘fair value’ doesn’t come into it with City.

That’s what PB is talking about when he says City have been smarter doing it our way. (Although Etihad don’t actually give City that much and I’m sure we could probably get more on the open market for stadium, shirt and campus).
 
SWP's back said:
I know you’re new to the City discussion of FFP but this has been done to death. Etihad has already been and will continue to be judged as a non-related party by our auditors and UEFA so ‘fair value’ doesn’t come into it with City.

That’s what PB is talking about when he says City have been smarter doing it our way. (Although Etihad don’t actually give City that much and I’m sure we could probably get more on the open market for stadium, shirt and campus).
Click to expand...
I stand corrected, just read Swiss Ramble and other articles talking about the controversial Etihad deal.

Does it mean that, with Football Leaks allegation, they could also try to tie those contracts as related parties on top of the untruthfull reporting ?
Not that i think they will succeed but do you think they could try that angle to try and shackle City ?
 
Parisian said:
I stand corrected, just read Swiss Ramble and other articles talking about the controversial Etihad deal.

Does it mean that, with Football Leaks allegation, they could also try to tie those contracts as related parties on top of the untruthfull reporting ?
Not that i think they will succeed but do you think they could try that angle to try and shackle City ?
Click to expand...
You’re still at it ffs. What is “controversial” about the Etihad deal? It’s just been pointed out to you that we would probably get more money for a shirt, stadium and campus deal than Etihad currently pay.
 
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