This guy determined we will fail FFPR

[totalfootball]

Club revenue has gone up significantly + costs have fallen = we won't be punished by UEFA.

 

[oakiecokie]

Each club is required to complete an online form containing all their financial figure and submit details to UEFA and their licensing body. The figures need to be audited figures.

Then presumably UEFA use the UK's leading expert on FFP's shitty FFP calculator to work out who passes and fails?

Hahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.Very good LF.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Each club is required to complete an online form containing all their financial figure and submit details to UEFA and their licensing body. The figures need to be audited figures.

Then presumably UEFA use the UK's leading expert on FFP's shitty FFP calculator to work out who passes and fails?

Hahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.Very good LF.

We better hope Platini doesn't accidentally leave his default figure of -75000000 in there or we're fucked.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The government will not stop companies spending their own money on investing in their business but they will intervene if businesses do things that are anti-competitive.

Not totally convinced with that. It's true that supermarkets as an example will be limited in their applications to expand their businesses in certain areas, but unless their applications are opposed by other supermarkets, their plans will get the go-ahead on the basis they will bring jobs to an area. Unfortunately, smaller businesses in the locality will have their own objections brushed aside. Life isn't fair, never has been and never will be, and this will spread to the world of football. If City are the new power in the game, then the smaller clubs will be pushed aside in the same manner as the smaller business examples that I have illustrated.

I make no observation as to the moral argument here, only the practical one. It would be highly unlikely that UEFA could impose sanctions on City or any other club for carrying out what is normal business practice, and it wouldn't be in the interests of UEFA to act in a way that is contrary to accepted business practices that are normal throughout the EU.

Not totally convinced! We have competition laws in the UK and bodies like t he OFT and Competition Commission. My point was a broad one that goverments do not just let businesses do what they want and will legislate. Therefore, it is not anamalous for the governing body of a sport to have rules regarding competition. The rules may be different in how they go about achieving the desired end result.

But the point on which FFP is being challenged is that, unlike government competition legislation, which is designed to stop anti-competitive practice, FFP effectively limits competition. If Real Madrid and Barcelona were banks or supermarkets, they would be forced to sell some of their estate, as Lloyds Bank were. But FFP ensures that Atletico Madrid or Sevilla can't compete with them.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Then presumably UEFA use the UK's leading expert on FFP's shitty FFP calculator to work out who passes and fails?

Hahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.Very good LF.

We better hope Platini doesn't accidentally leave his default figure of -75000000 in there or we're fucked.

That "default figure" says all you need to know about his mindset, motives and....errr....agenda.

 

[OB1]

Prestwich's information on IAS is interesting. UEFA's RPT do appear to be the same (or at worse, almost the same) as International Accounting Standard 24. EU countries have been using IAS since 2002. Of course all countries in UEFA are not in the EU.

Accounting Standards do change so perhaps UEFA were keen to fix the position given that the rules applied to current and future seasons and perhaps that is why UEFA felt the need to spell out the rules in detail in their rule book. However part of the reason for spelling out the rules may be to ensure they have control over the application of the RPT rules. As we know, the ECA VP expressed concern expressed about 'tame' auditors in Russia.

Compliance with the FFP rules will judged by the independent CFCB panel (technically not part of UEFA). Each club is required to complete an online form containing all their financial figure and submit details to UEFA and their licensing body. The figures need to be audited figures.
The CFCB are able to make further enquiries and are able to discount or adjust some of figures supplied if they don’t comply with the rulebook or if a RPT isn't considered to be 'fair value'.

The CFCB are able to decided that an item that was originally not classified as not an RPT by the club and its auditors, is actually an RPT and requires an adjustment. Clearly that would rather contentious but the CFCB have the power to interpret the rules as they seem fit.
The independence of the CFCB was established for this very purpose - UEFA itself is much less exposed to legal action.

There is an interesting precedent here. As many will recall, in the Tevez case, an independent panel set up by the FA decided that West Ham would be fined for failing to disclose a third party ownership contract - no points were deducted. An appeal was lodged and this second panel essentially said that although they would have imposed a more severe punishment, due process had been followed by the first independent panel and the decision wasn't so 'perverse' that it had to be overruled. The FA were protected from any legal action by use of the independent panel.

The point here is that the CFCB are able to make their own interpretation (using the rule-book) and that might be different to one the club's auditors have come up with.

This link is interesting.
<a class="postlink" href="http://m.espn.go.com/soccer/story?storyId=1632748&src=desktop&wjb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://m.espn.go.com/soccer/story?story ... esktop&wjb</a>

PSG's accountants have said their huge QTA sponsorship is not a RPT. However UEFA have called them in to ask about the transaction. If the CFCB are not happy with the interpretation used by the club accountants, under the FFP rules they are able to make their own interpretation. As long as it isn't a 'perverse' interpretation, it should (in theory) withstand the inevitable challenge.

So what you're saying is that even though IAS and Uefa's RPT rules are exactly the same, almost word for word, they could both come to different conclusions on RPT. How does that work then?

I covered this point earlier. If UEFA try to disagree with City and their auditors on Etihad not being a related party, they will end up in court and UEFA will lose.

 

[chesterguy]

Compliance with the FFP rules will judged by the independent CFCB panel (technically not part of UEFA). Each club is required to complete an online form containing all their financial figure and submit details to UEFA and their licensing body. The figures need to be audited figures. The CFCB are able to make further enquiries and are able to discount or adjust some of figures supplied if they don’t comply with the rulebook or if a RPT isn't considered to be 'fair value'.

This is completely untrue and shows once again your lack of knowledge.

When a licensee (the club) submits its figures the club has bear in mind in relation to Related Party Transactions "it is not sufficient for a licensee to rely on what, if anything, may have been disclosed in respect of related party transactions in its audited annual financial statements"

The point is these rules were adopted so that all clubs no matter the individual accounting standards in the different countries. City already adhere to IAS24 therefore the CFCB will do nothing

Before coming on here you really really really ought to know what you are talking

 

[OB1]

Not totally convinced with that. It's true that supermarkets as an example will be limited in their applications to expand their businesses in certain areas, but unless their applications are opposed by other supermarkets, their plans will get the go-ahead on the basis they will bring jobs to an area. Unfortunately, smaller businesses in the locality will have their own objections brushed aside. Life isn't fair, never has been and never will be, and this will spread to the world of football. If City are the new power in the game, then the smaller clubs will be pushed aside in the same manner as the smaller business examples that I have illustrated.

I make no observation as to the moral argument here, only the practical one. It would be highly unlikely that UEFA could impose sanctions on City or any other club for carrying out what is normal business practice, and it wouldn't be in the interests of UEFA to act in a way that is contrary to accepted business practices that are normal throughout the EU.

Not totally convinced! We have competition laws in the UK and bodies like t he OFT and Competition Commission. My point was a broad one that goverments do not just let businesses do what they want and will legislate. Therefore, it is not anamalous for the governing body of a sport to have rules regarding competition. The rules may be different in how they go about achieving the desired end result.

But the point on which FFP is being challenged is that, unlike government competition legislation, which is designed to stop anti-competitive practice, FFP effectively limits competition. If Real Madrid and Barcelona were banks or supermarkets, they would be forced to sell some of their estate, as Lloyds Bank were. But FFP ensures that Atletico Madrid or Sevilla can't compete with them.

Exactly. FFPR are imo anti- competitive, as drafted. That does not mean that football governing bodies should not be able to bring in rules that actually encourage competition. Obviously, they cannot introduce rules that contradict the laws of the land and expect to go unchallenged...

Fair play rules need to start in the domestic games, imo; not at UEFA level.

 

[bluemonkey71]

ffplay - canon fodder.

 

[jrb]

At least City haven't moved lock, stock and barrel to the Cayman islands. ;-)

United's F-1 filing with the SEC describes its real corporate structure. United is now officially based in the Cayman Islands, and the football club itself is a shell corporation. Technically, United's new address is c/o Walkers Corporate Services, Walker House, 87 Mary Street, George Town, Grand Cayman, KY 1-9001, Cayman Islands.

Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/manchester-united-cayman-islands-shell-corporation-structure-2012-8#ixzz2mDgSUnYl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.businessinsider.com/manchest ... z2mDgSUnYl</a>

As a vegetable, perhaps you could tell me how that ties in with FFPR? And what UEFA should do about it, if they can do anything about it at all?

Not that it's any of their business. Or is it?