UEFA: City have exited FFP settlement regime

Just been looking at this in more detail nd can't quite work it out. In 2013/14 UEFA said we were due €35.4m and we showed £31.3m in the accounts, which looks a bit high on our part as it should be about £28.8m based on relevant exchange rates at the time. But we definitely recognised the fixed element of the fine that year, with a £16m expense in the P&L account.

In the following year the final distribution was €45.9m according to UEFA and we showed £32.9m in the accounts so that's about right based on the exchange rate at the time. This last year we showed £61.2m against UEFA's €83.9m, which looks about £3m too low based on exchange rates. But even allowing for the vagaries of exchange rates, we seem to have recognised all the revenue from UEFA and I know that revenue is correct according to UEFA's standard formula as I've checked it previously. So it certainly doesn't appear that we've accounted for any provisional loss of revenue.

It would be odd if we recognised revenue that we could be potentially not receiving based on a later event and I can't see any specific mention of this in the financial statements. The settlement agreement did say that the €40m would be conditionally withheld so my best guess is that when UEFA lifted some of the restrictions in 2015, they didn't withhold that money. So I'm standing by my original statement that there will be no impact on the bottom line.
 
and united and the rest of the so called super clubs can rack up more debt and its about £450million for united how shocking is that

that would clear all the other clubs debt in the lower leagues and championship but uefa don't play fair like there banners says. only in football could somebody but his own money in and get stopped from playing with the big boys
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Just been looking at this in more detail nd can't quite work it out. In 2013/14 UEFA said we were due €35.4m and we showed £31.3m in the accounts, which looks a bit high on our part as it should be about £28.8m based on relevant exchange rates at the time. But we definitely recognised the fixed element of the fine that year, with a £16m expense in the P&L account.

In the following year the final distribution was €45.9m according to UEFA and we showed £32.9m in the accounts so that's about right based on the exchange rate at the time. This last year we showed £61.2m against UEFA's €83.9m, which looks about £3m too low based on exchange rates. But even allowing for the vagaries of exchange rates, we seem to have recognised all the revenue from UEFA and I know that revenue is correct according to UEFA's standard formula as I've checked it previously. So it certainly doesn't appear that we've accounted for any provisional loss of revenue.

It would be odd if we recognised revenue that we could be potentially not receiving based on a later event and I can't see any specific mention of this in the financial statements. The settlement agreement did say that the €40m would be conditionally withheld so my best guess is that when UEFA lifted some of the restrictions in 2015, they didn't withhold that money. So I'm standing by my original statement that there will be no impact on the bottom line.
Click to expand...
Thought not. Nice one, PB.
 
Fallingbostel Blue said:
Has any one seen this tweet from Prestwich_Blue quite disturbing really, shows what we have been up against and will continue to be.

Click to expand...


Hmmm, an auditor discussing private and confidential affairs at a public event? That's disqualification from his professional body, termination of employment, criminal proceedings and a large lawsuit then. Either that or it was someone talking shite, far more likely imo.
 
It would be pretty stupid on a number of levels. One of which being he'd not be considered an unbiased officer to do any audit. UEFA would find it rather difficult to try to punish City for anything financial with him doing the work, the lawyers would be all over it, presuming there were witnesses.
 
I agree that it's probably a bullshitter, but with an organisation as utterly fucking rancid as UEFA that's prepared to tolerate a conflict of interests as egregious as David Gill's, you can never be absolutely sure, I suppose.
 
petrusha said:
I agree that it's probably a bullshitter, but with an organisation as utterly fucking rancid as UEFA that's prepared to tolerate a conflict of interests as egregious as David Gill's, you can never be absolutely sure, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Yep, it probably was someone bullshitting, but reading further down the piece it states Vicky asked him who he was when she got back to the dinner so even if it wasn't a UEFA official, it had to be someone who was an invited guest.

She should've called the fucker's bluff and exposed his remarks to everyone in attendance. That would've had him squirming like fuck!
 
I don't get it? All they said was we failed ffp, couldn't it have been anyone like a bitter United fan journalist?
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.