UEFA: City have exited FFP settlement regime

[hcblue95]

Just seen his other tweets and apparently it was a uefa auditor. It didn't seem to say that in the article though, or am I missing something?

 

[TheThirdDeano]

Is that an auditor of UEFA or an Auditor from UEFA?

Just how incensed should I be?

 

[hcblue95]

Just seen his other tweets and apparently it was a uefa auditor. It didn't seem to say that in the article though, or am I missing something?

Didn't expand it so I cut off the bottom, nevermind.

 

[aguero93:20]

I don't get it? All they said was we failed ffp, couldn't it have been anyone like a bitter United fan journalist?

Seeing as none of the many journalists in attendance have mentioned it, it was probably some random hanger on who had too much to drink.

 

[Chris in London]

[QUOTE="petrusha, post: 11179877, member: 42330"]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.[/QUOTE]

Maybe.

I tell you what though, P. Vicki will have reported that back to the board PDQ, and the board will have reported back to HHSM. So the Sheikh will have known that this was said within 12 hours of it being said, and my guess would be that by that time they had worked out exactly who it was that said it.

We might not know if this ‘Auditor’ is a bullshitter or the real McCoy, but as sure as eggs are eggs the club does.

 

[Blue Til Death]

Fuck UEFA I wouldn’t give a shit if we never entered another of their corrupt competitions ...!

 

[TCIB]

I hope it was Gill and he is shitting blood about it to this day.

 

[Paladin]

I hope it was Gill and he is shitting blood about it to this day.

It can't possibly be Gill. She wouldn't have needed to ask who he was.

 

[Daz_Blue]

It can't possibly be Gill. She wouldn't have needed to ask who he was.

Was it Brian Horton ?

 

[NorthamptonBlue]

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.

I used to work for BP. All numbers had to be quoted in pounds, dollars and euros. The only way we could do this was to decide on an exchange rate at the start of the financial year and stick with it for 12 months. Currency fluctuations were then ignored for budgets, projections etc. This might be something similar and would explain the discrepancies.