Prestwich_Blue • 5 days ago −
Where do I start with this nonsense. "Experts" are supposed to know what they're talking about and Thompson clearly doesn't. Will Rickson has used comments I made in another forum on this rubbish.
You would have more credibility if you didn't make snide and misleading remarks about financial disclosures. No club has to disclose anything more than the law and accounting standards require them to. City, as has been pointed out, voluntarily publish accounts as though they are a public company, which other privately owned clubs like Chelsea & Liverpool don't do. United, with companies based in Delaware & the Cayman Islands, certainly wouldn't if it wasn't for the disclosure requirements of the 2010 bond issue. The accounts are on the website for everyone to see. Clubs don't have to disclose FFP related statements in the same way they don't have to disclose their tax returns. So having a go at City for somehow hiding this information is complete bullshit. You're not of the Red persuasion by any chance are you? How about you do some disclosure yourself and tell us who you support? At least be objective.
Do you understand the concept of "related party transactions"? These are accounting requirements that ALL companies have to report, not just new UEFA requirements. UEFA wording is exactly the same as the relevant accounting standard. Etihad IS NOT, repeat IS NOT a related party to Manchester City or its parent company. So UEFA have no say in the matter. It's part of a company's responsibility to declare a related party transaction in their accounts and any deviation from fair market value. The sale of IP rights, which was done in order to centralise those rights worldwide, was rightly declared as such, as it involved a sale to a connected entity.
You also don't understand the process. Clubs report their figures to their national licencing body who audit them, not to UEFA. UEFA can audit the process of the national body and, I believe, individual submissions. They do not and will not make any decision on fair value.
The wages paid under contracts signed prior to June 1st 2010 has been stated to be £80m by Manchester City when they released their 2011/12 accounts. As admirable as Swiss Ramble's blog is, why would you take a guess by him over what City have already stated? As has already been pointed out, you can deduct that from allowable expenses in the 2011/12 accounts only on two conditions.
The first is the one you highlighted of an improving trend. That will clearly be met, not least due to the BT Sports PL deal. The other condition, which you didn't mention, is that it can only be deducted if it makes the difference between passing and failing FFP. Let's look at that then.
As you say, City's allowable loss for 2011/12 will be £82m (97-15). In 2012/13, the £15m is likely to be higher due to work done on the new campus and remediation work on other areas around the stadium itself. Therefore it's a reasonable bet we'll be able to deduct at least £20m. Losses are actually forecast to be around the £50m mark (the CEO has said this previously) so that's an allowable loss for 2012/13 of £30m. You're wrong about the addback of impairment and almost certainly wrong about the sale of IP rights. I suspect your "source" is actually brown and in a bottle in the training ground restaurant.
So that's an aggregate loss of £112m, which is obviously way outside the £38m which is acceptable.
So can we use the wages deduction if this is the case? At £80m, it brings the loss down to £32m and therefore makes the difference between passing and failing. So it's allowable and it's likely that City will actually pass FFP, which will no doubt be to your intense disappointment. And even if they don't, they will be able to demonstrate a clear route to break-even, which should be enough to satisfy UEFA.
But of course you never admit to being wrong. I might have some respect for you if you had the humility to do so, instead of insisting that the bullshit you peddle as "expert opinion" is correct.
