This guy determined we will fail FFPR

[I'm With Stupid]

I dont think you have much to go on with the complaint mate. Mainly because its his opinion and he hasn't stated it as fact. He has been quite clever with his wording, its a dig with no way of it putting him in to trouble

my complaint is in two parts. one that they've consulted a financial expert with no knowledge who's exposed himself as such with his comments (income is only income in the reporting period in which it is earned, loan capital is not income) the other is that he has insinuated/suggested that the club have violated UK GAAP, UK law, EU directives and IASB standards by deliberately including loan capital as income, which would be fraudulent financial reporting, a very serious crime and if his insinuation cannot be proved as fact, than putting it into print in a national newspaper is libel under UK law and since he's proclaimed himself as a financial expert, he cannot claim ignorance as a defence.
Look, I might not get anywhere but I'm not sitting back and letting it slide.

I got no issue with you having a go and by sounds of it you know your onions. Although he isnt presented as a financial expert but an FFP commentator and analyst.

If nothing else, it will hopefully at least make sure he isn't asked for his opinion again. What happened to the Swiss Ramble btw? His last blog post was in August. Does he have a new website?

 

[Anonymous]

my complaint is in two parts. one that they've consulted a financial expert with no knowledge who's exposed himself as such with his comments (income is only income in the reporting period in which it is earned, loan capital is not income) the other is that he has insinuated/suggested that the club have violated UK GAAP, UK law, EU directives and IASB standards by deliberately including loan capital as income, which would be fraudulent financial reporting, a very serious crime and if his insinuation cannot be proved as fact, than putting it into print in a national newspaper is libel under UK law and since he's proclaimed himself as a financial expert, he cannot claim ignorance as a defence.
Look, I might not get anywhere but I'm not sitting back and letting it slide.

I got no issue with you having a go and by sounds of it you know your onions. Although he isnt presented as a financial expert but an FFP commentator and analyst.

If nothing else, it will hopefully at least make sure he isn't asked for his opinion again. What happened to the Swiss Ramble btw? His last blog post was in August. Does he have a new website?

He joined in the debate on this thread a number of pages back when Presuming Ed was being taken to task. His website is still the same, just not updated since August. I guess he must be busy with his day job :)

 

[Didsbury Dave]

He joined in the debate on this thread a number of pages back when Presuming Ed was being taken to task. His website is still the same, just not updated since August. I guess he must be busy with his day job :)

"Presuming Ed". Brilliant.

Always a gold star for a gratuitous Withnail reference, even though 99.9% will have missed it.

I once put "His head must weigh 50lbs on it's own" when I saw a picture of Negredo and not a single one of these philistines got it.

 

[Anonymous]

He joined in the debate on this thread a number of pages back when Presuming Ed was being taken to task. His website is still the same, just not updated since August. I guess he must be busy with his day job :)

"Presuming Ed". Brilliant.

Always a gold star for a gratuitous Withnail reference, even though 99.9% will have missed it.

I once put "His head must weigh 50lbs on it's own" when I saw a picture of Negredo and not a single one of these philistines got it.

If I'd have seen it, I'd have responded with "imagine the balls on the fucker!"

 

[aguero93:20]

I got no issue with you having a go and by sounds of it you know your onions. Although he isnt presented as a financial expert but an FFP commentator and analyst.

If nothing else, it will hopefully at least make sure he isn't asked for his opinion again. What happened to the Swiss Ramble btw? His last blog post was in August. Does he have a new website?

He joined in the debate on this thread a number of pages back when Presuming Ed was being taken to task. His website is still the same, just not updated since August. I guess he must be busy with his day job :)

unlike ed(case). if there's anyone on this forum with substantial business interests with his bank (HSBC?) they should complain too.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

He joined in the debate on this thread a number of pages back when Presuming Ed was being taken to task. His website is still the same, just not updated since August. I guess he must be busy with his day job :)

"Presuming Ed". Brilliant.

Always a gold star for a gratuitous Withnail reference, even though 99.9% will have missed it.

I once put "His head must weigh 50lbs on it's own" when I saw a picture of Negredo and not a single one of these philistines got it.

Most tiresome and overrated film in Christendom.

 

[Anonymous]

He joined in the debate on this thread a number of pages back when Presuming Ed was being taken to task. His website is still the same, just not updated since August. I guess he must be busy with his day job :)

"Presuming Ed". Brilliant.

Always a gold star for a gratuitous Withnail reference, even though 99.9% will have missed it.

I once put "His head must weigh 50lbs on it's own" when I saw a picture of Negredo and not a single one of these philistines got it.

Most tiresome and overrated film in Christendom.

You terrible ****.

 

[Joycee Banercheck]

Ed Thompson, soon to be eating the world's biggest slice of humble pie, with lashings of revenge sauce, in a very, very cold dish.

All provided, gratis, by MCFC and Bluemoon.

Now make sure you finish ALL of it, Ed.

The thing is, he won't. He'll just claim, as he's already trying, that City have done some sort of "creative accountancy" to include revenue in this years accounts that shouldn't really be there. He's got a history of never admitting his wrong, even when he's force-fed the facts to prove he's wrong, this will be no exception.

Can't we give him the figures etc when the financial report for the year is released and ask him to Sherlock his way into finding out where this creative accountancy lies? Or is he not up to the task, with him being a bit of a lemon on the things he professes to know about.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Ed Thompson, the FFP commentator and analyst, said: ‘It could be that they have taken out a mortgage against one year’s advance match day income. It is certainly a baffling figure.’

This sums up Ed Thompson in a nutshell. Everything he says when stating as a fact that City will fail FFP is based on flawed knowledge, misinformation, incorrect assumptions, nonsensical conclusions, wild conjecture, unrepentant bullshit and an overriding compulsion to put the boot in on our club. He was exposed as the total fucking charlatan he is on here particularly by Prestwich Blue and aguero93:20.

But apart from that he's spot on...

I'm out and about in Geordie-land today so haven't seen the article. I have to confess that the £271m was about £20m higher than I was expecting. I did originally expect something like that but revised it downwards when we fucked up the CL last season.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

He joined in the debate on this thread a number of pages back when Presuming Ed was being taken to task. His website is still the same, just not updated since August. I guess he must be busy with his day job :)

"Presuming Ed". Brilliant.

Always a gold star for a gratuitous Withnail reference, even though 99.9% will have missed it.

I once put "His head must weigh 50lbs on it's own" when I saw a picture of Negredo and not a single one of these philistines got it.

Most tiresome and overrated film in Christendom.

Are you the farmer?

 

[aguero93:20]

Ed Thompson, the FFP commentator and analyst, said: ‘It could be that they have taken out a mortgage against one year’s advance match day income. It is certainly a baffling figure.’

This sums up Ed Thompson in a nutshell. Everything he says when stating as a fact that City will fail FFP is based on flawed knowledge, misinformation, incorrect assumptions, nonsensical conclusions, wild conjecture, unrepentant bullshit and an overriding compulsion to put the boot in on our club. He was exposed as the total fucking charlatan he is on here particularly by Prestwich Blue and aguero93:20.

But apart from that he's spot on...

I'm out and about in Geordie-land today so haven't seen the article. I have to confess that the £271m was about £20m higher than I was expecting. I did originally expect something like that but revised it downwards when we fucked up the CL last season.

he's far from spot on when he insinuates that we've mortgaged future season ticket income to generate cash and then broken every finance/accountancy standard to dress it up and sneak it into our statement of comprehensive income as income instead of having it in our s.o.f.p. pb. in a national newspaper as well, even if it is a shit one.

 

[TFC]

Think I have a bit of a man crush on PB ;)

Seriously, its very refreshing to have someone who knows his onions on such a complex subject and can break it down for thick ***** like myself.

Kudos sir, kudos.

 

[bluwes]

His website has just been updated with this, I copy and pasted to try and prevent hits on his site, however I am not computer savvy enough to copy the figures he talks about, so unfortunately here is the link .

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/deloitte-s-rich-list-gives-sneak-preview-of-man-city-s-accounts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/late ... s-accounts</a>

The annual Deloitte's Rich List reveals some interesting information about Man City's income - figures that have not yet been published owing to delays publishing the club accounts.

Before we look at the figures, I should point out that the income catergorisation used by Deloitte in their report is different to the one used by the Club accountants - however it does include all club income. Deloitte catergorise some of the club's revenue as 'Match Day Income' whereas the club put more of their income under the 'Commercial Income' heading. However, all the income is showing, just the catergorisation needs some reworking.


Once we have sorted that out we can then look at the changes from the previous year:


The interesting thing to see here is the amount the Commercial Income has increased by - a huge £37m over one season. It is rather hard to work out where this huge uplift has come from (the Etihad deal was announced in the previous year so this increase is on top of that figure). City have signed a new kit deal (reportedly around £12m) and have signed a host of small deals such as battery and drink partnerships. However the £37m uplift is huge - to put it into context, in revenue terms it is about the same size as the Etihad deal. In 2009/10, Man City's entire Commercial income was just £53m.

It is interesting to see what these figures do to City's accounts and the FFP test:


Manchester City appear to have been briefing journalists that they are on track to pass the FFP test. Assuming that is correct (and they are unlikely to be mistaken), by my calculations they need to find around £11.5m to nominally pass the test. Last year the accounts included a figure of £12.8m which City received from the club owners in return for some 'Intellectual Property and Know How'. It is possible that they trimmed their expenses more than I predict - however I think it is more likely that we can expect some similar, rather baffling, one-off item in their accounts

 

[aguero93:20]

baffling items like financial reports to that ****.

 

[Matty]

His website has just been updated with this, I copy and pasted to try and prevent hits on his site, however I am not computer savvy enough to copy the figures he talks about, so unfortunately here is the link .

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/deloitte-s-rich-list-gives-sneak-preview-of-man-city-s-accounts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/late ... s-accounts</a>

The annual Deloitte's Rich List reveals some interesting information about Man City's income - figures that have not yet been published owing to delays publishing the club accounts.

Before we look at the figures, I should point out that the income catergorisation used by Deloitte in their report is different to the one used by the Club accountants - however it does include all club income. Deloitte catergorise some of the club's revenue as 'Match Day Income' whereas the club put more of their income under the 'Commercial Income' heading. However, all the income is showing, just the catergorisation needs some reworking.


Once we have sorted that out we can then look at the changes from the previous year:


The interesting thing to see here is the amount the Commercial Income has increased by - a huge £37m over one season. It is rather hard to work out where this huge uplift has come from (the Etihad deal was announced in the previous year so this increase is on top of that figure). City have signed a new kit deal (reportedly around £12m) and have signed a host of small deals such as battery and drink partnerships. However the £37m uplift is huge - to put it into context, in revenue terms it is about the same size as the Etihad deal. In 2009/10, Man City's entire Commercial income was just £53m.

It is interesting to see what these figures do to City's accounts and the FFP test:


Manchester City appear to have been briefing journalists that they are on track to pass the FFP test. Assuming that is correct (and they are unlikely to be mistaken), by my calculations they need to find around £11.5m to nominally pass the test. Last year the accounts included a figure of £12.8m which City received from the club owners in return for some 'Intellectual Property and Know How'. It is possible that they trimmed their expenses more than I predict - however I think it is more likely that we can expect some similar, rather baffling, one-off item in their accounts

There is nothing remotely baffling about the £12.8m figure for 'Intellectual Property and Know How'. Manchester City own the name, and club related "intellectual property". In order for ADUG to use this with ease in their other endeavours (specifically for things like New York City FC) it made more business, and financial sense, for these 'Intellectual Property' rights to be owned centrally by ADUG as opposed to owning them individually at one of their many assets, namely Manchester City Football Club. It's only baffling if you either don't understand what Intellectual property actually is or if you don't know how ADUG intend to use this intellectual property. I'd suggest this clown falls into both categories.

 

[moomba]

Poor old Ed seems to get baffled quite a lot.

 

[blueparrot]

His website has just been updated with this, I copy and pasted to try and prevent hits on his site, however I am not computer savvy enough to copy the figures he talks about, so unfortunately here is the link .

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/deloitte-s-rich-list-gives-sneak-preview-of-man-city-s-accounts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/late ... s-accounts</a>

The annual Deloitte's Rich List reveals some interesting information about Man City's income - figures that have not yet been published owing to delays publishing the club accounts.

Before we look at the figures, I should point out that the income catergorisation used by Deloitte in their report is different to the one used by the Club accountants - however it does include all club income. Deloitte catergorise some of the club's revenue as 'Match Day Income' whereas the club put more of their income under the 'Commercial Income' heading. However, all the income is showing, just the catergorisation needs some reworking.


Once we have sorted that out we can then look at the changes from the previous year:



The interesting thing to see here is the amount the Commercial Income has increased by - a huge £37m over one season. It is rather hard to work out where this huge uplift has come from (the Etihad deal was announced in the previous year so this increase is on top of that figure). City have signed a new kit deal (reportedly around £12m) and have signed a host of small deals such as battery and drink partnerships. However the £37m uplift is huge - to put it into context, in revenue terms it is about the same size as the Etihad deal. In 2009/10, Man City's entire Commercial income was just £53m.

It is interesting to see what these figures do to City's accounts and the FFP test:


Manchester City appear to have been briefing journalists that they are on track to pass the FFP test. Assuming that is correct (and they are unlikely to be mistaken), by my calculations they need to find around £11.5m to nominally pass the test. Last year the accounts included a figure of £12.8m which City received from the club owners in return for some 'Intellectual Property and Know How'. It is possible that they trimmed their expenses more than I predict - however I think it is more likely that we can expect some similar, rather baffling, one-off item in their accounts

There is nothing remotely baffling about the £12.8m figure for 'Intellectual Property and Know How'. Manchester City own the name, and club related "intellectual property". In order for ADUG to use this with ease in their other endeavours (specifically for things like New York City FC) it made more business, and financial sense, for these 'Intellectual Property' rights to be owned centrally by ADUG as opposed to owning them individually at one of their many assets, namely Manchester City Football Club. It's only baffling if you either don't understand what Intellectual property actually is or if you don't know how ADUG intend to use this intellectual property. I'd suggest this clown falls into both categories.

I assume the " know how " is things like allowing ADUG to use MCFC employees in helping to set up NYCFC. As in things like the American coaches shadowing at City until they are ready to go ?

 

[onceabluealways]

I think it is quite interesting that the owners are buying other clubs worlwide and linking them to City.

I expect this will be a major bargaining tool for new contracts - City negotiate the deal for say Nike shirts which all owned clubs will wear. Similar type deals for Sponsers - therefore hey are getting more worlwide coverage than just the prem league.

Just my guess

 

[blueparrot]

I think it is quite interesting that the owners are buying other clubs worlwide and linking them to City.

I expect this will be a major bargaining tool for new contracts - City negotiate the deal for say Nike shirts which all owned clubs will wear. Similar type deals for Sponsers - therefore hey are getting more worlwide coverage than just the prem league.

Just my guess

You may be right although I think all MSL clubs have to use Adidas

 

[Rammy Blue]

"Presuming Ed". Brilliant.

Always a gold star for a gratuitous Withnail reference, even though 99.9% will have missed it.

I once put "His head must weigh 50lbs on it's own" when I saw a picture of Negredo and not a single one of these philistines got it.

Most tiresome and overrated film in Christendom.

Are you the farmer?

Of course he's the fucking farmer.