Sorry ffpr again

[blue12]

I am just an ordinary everyday hard working proud mancunian bloke who follows his beloved club and has done for over 30 years now and I am loving every minute of what is going on at my city.
But I am just wondering why ffpr has not been challenged legally or have uefa got it watertight.
Like I say I am a simple man and don't profess to understand the ins and outs of ffpr but from what i see this is bullshit and has only been been brought in to stop our march to be the best,surely players not being able to earn more money with us because we can't bring them in because of these rules is legally wrong,or is I don't know but I wish somebody would put me right.

 

[Clevers]

I would guess that as UEFA run the CL that they make it a condition of entry that their rules are followed,

 

[TBooksbluearmy]

U.E.F.A. are still bound by the rules of the European Common Market. If the rules by U.E.F.A. are deemed to go against the rules of fair trade then the rules of the E.E.C. will apply and there is nothing that Michel Platini can say or do about it.

At the minute Platini is blowing hot air becaus ehe knows that if he applies those rules as stated then both Barcalona and Real Madrid will have to be kicked out of the Champions League becaus eboth clubs have more debt then what Man City have.

 

[Cobwebcat]

U.E.F.A. are still bound by the rules of the European Common Market. If the rules by U.E.F.A. are deemed to go against the rules of fair trade then the rules of the E.E.C. will apply and there is nothing that Michel Platini can say or do about it.

At the minute Platini is blowing hot air becaus ehe knows that if he applies those rules as stated then both Barcalona and Real Madrid will have to be kicked out of the Champions League becaus eboth clubs have more debt then what Man City have.

Except that's not how it works. How many more times? It's not to do with debt.

Ah well.

 

[Lordeffingham]

whilst we're on the subject many may have seen a recent article suggesting City may come unstuck with the ETIHAD Sponsorship deal, and that it when investigated will prove unrealistic when assessed in relation to market values.

The answer to all of those questioning the validity of this claim is that it's complete bullshit and here, plain and simple is why.

The deal has been stated by different sources at differing amounts, but the average seens to be in the region of £400m, which over ten years obviously equates to £40m per year. This includes Shirt sponsorship, Stadium naming rights and the Campus naming rights on all advertising within a mile or so of the Stadium.

If you look at the Rags current Shirt sponsorship, around £13m a year, it does seem a large amount in comparison, however and this is what will mean that Eufa won't have a leg to stand on when even thinking of challenging our deal, Liverpool have just signed a deal with an American Company, which is solely for their Shirt sponsorship, and is for £25m per year.

If you consider City's current standing in World Football and how far we have moved as a Global brand, if their Shirts alone are worth £25m of anybodies money, then the additional £15m we are set to be given, seems well within reason for the rights to our Stadiums name and also the further move to cover all of our Campus and the additional advertising potential, then our £40m cannot come even close to appearing anything but a fair market value.

I would guess that the Rags next shirt deal may well be worth in the region of £40m alone.

So relax, all the bullshit you keep hearing is just another toothless dig by Platini to try to kerb our spending and undermine our financial power, and will come to nothing.

 

[GXCity]

I would guess that as UEFA run the CL that they make it a condition of entry that their rules are followed,

And haven't the clubs all agreed to implement the rules suggested? A kind of self-regulation. For instance The Championship clubs have all agreed to go down the FFP route and the punishments of exclusion from European competion will never affect them.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Two things - first, the rules haven't actually been used to impose sanctions so won't be challenged until they do probably and that won't be until 2013/14.

Second, we don't have to justify one single penny of the Etihad deal as it's not considered a related party transaction.

 

[Project]

Two things - first, the rules haven't actually been used to impose sanctions so won't be challenged until they do probably and that won't be until 2013/14.

Second, we don't have to justify one single penny of the Etihad deal as it's not considered a related party transaction.

Is this based on your view of their definition of a related party, or is this something that has been confirmed?

 

[john@staustell]

What everyone (in the country) forgets when talking about FFP is that UEFA is just as corrupt, biased and bloated gravy-train-orientated as FIFA, and platini is supposed to take over from Blatter.

The issue is not what the rules are but how they will be applied, bearing in mind they can do what they want. Therefore they can apply harsh sanctions to English clubs (and Malaga) and ignore the likes of PSG, Inter and AC.

Legal action will have to be taken in the end.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Two things - first, the rules haven't actually been used to impose sanctions so won't be challenged until they do probably and that won't be until 2013/14.

Second, we don't have to justify one single penny of the Etihad deal as it's not considered a related party transaction.

Is this based on your view of their definition of a related party, or is this something that has been confirmed?

Their definition is exactly the same as that used in normal accounting conventions. It's a complete myth that this is somehow a new requirement brought in by UEFA.

Any related party transaction currently has to be declared by a company in that company's accounts and the Etihad deal wasn't declared as such in our 2009/10 accounts. So clearly we don't consider it to be one and I'd imagine that there's little to nothing that UEFA can do about that.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I would guess that as UEFA run the CL that they make it a condition of entry that their rules are followed,

Yer want to join the club - these are the rules. Funny though how the rules were never formulated when CFC had the cash injections. I suspect, also, that had we still been owned by Frank and were hanging on each season to PL status, the rules would have remained as they were when the OldTopFour were cemented into the CL with very little in the way of a serious challenge. I also believe that were we owned by Americans and not Arabs, there would be little problem.

 

[Damocles]

UEFA explicitly define a related party transaction within the guidelines as one done with a company that is owned, operated or is influenced by any family member.

 

[alky313]

How are UEFA going to deal with the Sheiks other companies. Last I checked they don't have shite to throw when it comes to the middle east.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Re: Sorry ffpr again

UEFA explicitly define a related party transaction within the guidelines as one done with a company that is owned, operated or is influenced by any family member.

That wording is directly lifted from something called IAS 24, which is an international accounting standard.

It has to be a "close" family member and half-brothers presumably aren't seen as such. It would have to be the case that Sheikh Mansour could be shown to have influenced Etihad's decision on this. However the half-brothers are non-executives and there are no Arabs, let alone Al Nayhans, on the executive board.

I'll repeat that the requirement to declare such transactions lies with the reporting entity (i.e. City). It's not UEFA that make the call.

In fact it will be the FA that carry out the licensing as UEFA delegate it to each national association.

 

[onceabluealways]

If you look at the top club earners in Europe - once you get down to about 10 they are bringing in about 100 mill.

If you search online you can find Citys accounts but try to get PSG / Roma or say a russian club then you have no chance.

PSG income must be less than 100 mill but they are now spending and paying top dollor as are Malaga and some Russian clubs.

I expect these clubs will be a better test before City in two years if they reach CL or UEFA cup qualification.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Sorry ffpr again

UEFA explicitly define a related party transaction within the guidelines as one done with a company that is owned, operated or is influenced by any family member.

That wording is directly lifted from something called IAS 24, which is an international accounting standard.

It has to be a "close" family member and half-brothers presumably aren't seen as such. It would have to be the case that Sheikh Mansour could be shown to have influenced Etihad's decision on this. However the half-brothers are non-executives and there are no Arabs, let alone Al Nayhans, on the executive board.

I'll repeat that the requirement to declare such transactions lies with the reporting entity (i.e. City). It's not UEFA that make the call.

In fact it will be the FA that carry out the licensing as UEFA delegate it to each national association.

Whilst not worried too much about FFPR - despite starting a couple of threads on it myself - I was surprised when you said there are no Arabs on the board. On the Etihad website it gives a list of Board Members and The Management Team; so I am assuming that's short hand for a Non Exec Board and an Exec Board?


Board of Directors

• HH Sheikh Hamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan
Chairman of the Board

• HH Sheikh Khaled bin Zayed Al Nahyan
Vice Chairman of the Board

• HE Ahmed Ali Al Sayegh
Board Member

• HE Mohamed Mubarak Fadel Al Mazrouie
Board Member

• HE Mubarak Hamad Al Muhairy
Board Member

• HE Hamad Abdullah Al Shamsi
Board Member

• HE Khalifa Sultan Al Suwaidi
Board Member



The Management Team

• James Hogan
Chief Executive Officer

• James Rigney
Chief Financial Officer

• Peter Baumgartner
Chief Commercial Officer

• Richard Hill
Chief Operations Officer

• Ray Gammell
Chief People and Performance Officer

 

[Skashion]

Re: Re: Sorry ffpr again

That wording is directly lifted from something called IAS 24, which is an international accounting standard.

It has to be a "close" family member and half-brothers presumably aren't seen as such. It would have to be the case that Sheikh Mansour could be shown to have influenced Etihad's decision on this. However the half-brothers are non-executives and there are no Arabs, let alone Al Nayhans, on the executive board.

I'll repeat that the requirement to declare such transactions lies with the reporting entity (i.e. City). It's not UEFA that make the call.

In fact it will be the FA that carry out the licensing as UEFA delegate it to each national association.

I think it's safe to say Prestwich_Blue has done his research on this one.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Re: Re: Sorry ffpr again

UEFA explicitly define a related party transaction within the guidelines as one done with a company that is owned, operated or is influenced by any family member.

That wording is directly lifted from something called IAS 24, which is an international accounting standard.

It has to be a "close" family member and half-brothers presumably aren't seen as such. It would have to be the case that Sheikh Mansour could be shown to have influenced Etihad's decision on this. However the half-brothers are non-executives and there are no Arabs, let alone Al Nayhans, on the executive board.

I'll repeat that the requirement to declare such transactions lies with the reporting entity (i.e. City). It's not UEFA that make the call.

In fact it will be the FA that carry out the licensing as UEFA delegate it to each national association.

Whilst not worried too much about FFPR - despite starting a couple of threads on it myself - I was surprised when you said there are no Arabs on the board. On the Etihad website it gives a list of Board Members and The Management Team; so I am assuming that's short hand for a Non Exec Board and an Exec Board?

Maybe I was a bit misleading. The directors are all described as non-executive and what I referred to as executive directors are referred to as the management team.

However it comes down to the one thing. City, their advisers and auditors have clearly decided that they and Etihad are not related parties under IAS24. So unless the FA or UEFA have definitive evidence to the contrary then whatever Arsene Wenger or John W Henry may say we are totally in the clear and Etihad can pay us £400m, £500m or whatever and we can use all that in our FFP calculation..