UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[nellyonthewing]

Trouble is I think we expect Justice but the corruption of the cartel goes very deep. I expect them to screw us over.

 

[IcriedwhenTueartleft]

I think there is very little chance they invested at a $5bn value factoring in a 2 year ban. Safe to say, their due diligence and advice was that a 1 year ban worst case and probably unlikely. In short they probably underestimated the risk.

Is there not the possibility that the contract contains a break clause for them that will allow them to walk away should any adverse publicity/actions on City’s part arise? Us getting this ban and fine not overturned would certainly fall into that sort of category.
I’d have thought such clauses would be standard practice these days? It’s odd they have been so quiet since UEFA announced the ban in Feb. My fear is they are saying nothing because they know they can walk away should CAS not overturn the ban.

 

[ancoats]

United and Liverpool are 2 of the biggest half dozen clubs in the world and the principal agitators behind all of this shit

when football fans are back in stadiums a big fucking counter banner with the so called elite debt should be made UEFA FOOTBALL CLUBS DEBT . LETS START TO RUB THEIR FUCKING NOISES IN MUD manchester united 3 times winners total debt £550 million barcelona madrid munich liverpool get them on the banner of debt

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

To add to Stefan's reply to you, if we receive money from a sponsorship contract, that's revenue so goes into the Profit and Loss Account. We've received money (income) in consideration of an agreement to provide something, which in this case is publicity/advertising. In accounting terms, you debit the bank account (which is a balance sheet item) and credit the commercial revenue account (a P&L account item) with the cash received.

If we receive money from a loan, that's a balance sheet transaction. We've received an asset (cash) in return for accepting a liability to the lender. So in accounting terms we debit cash again but this time we credit a loan account. Both of these are on the balance sheet so the money received doesn't go into the P&L account (although any interest we pay will).

That, to me, shows the weakness of FFP as it stands. At the end of the day it's cash in the bank which you can spend the cash on players however it comes in, via a loan, sponsorship or the sale of a player. Obviously, if it's from the latter two, it's money that's been "earned" - money in, money out - whereas if that's a loan, it's not "earned" money and you've increased your liabilities. But FFP doesn't look at liabilities, just income and expenses. What UEFA should be doing is asking the likes of Chelsea and United how they would repay the debts they have (Chelsea's £1.4bn debt to Abramovich and United's now £650m debt to their lenders) if they needed

FFP, if it was seriously concerned with the fininacial sustainability of clubs, should be insisting that any debt is repayable over a given period, say 10 years for debt like United's or Chelsea's and maybe 20-25 years for infrastructure-related debt. Or else the notional repayment figure that would be required to settle that debt should be added to allowable FFP expenses. So if a club's notional debt repayment schedule under current interest rates would involve paying back £50m a year for a number of years, that £50m should be added to expenses for FFP purposes so the club can't spend that. That, to me, would level the playing field for clubs that don't have huge debts.

Hi @PB - do you think that UEFA will need to reform the basis of FFP as a consequence of covid 19 and the financial impact on all clubs ?

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

You are confusing cash flow with the profit and loss as adjusted for FFP rules.

We believe that the Etihad deal is at the heart of our case and that UEFA believe that we received more from Etihad than their contractual obligation? No. Etihad could be the key issue but it is probably UEFA's case not that we got more than the contractual obligation rather the contract was a sham.

We also believe that a large proportion of the money came from Sheikh Mansour? The leaked emails speak of "alternative" sources from HH (I know there is some debate from PB as to who HH actually is)

So, am I correct in thinking that City would still have been in breach of FFP had Sheikh Mansour made an interest free loan to the club, and that we would have failed because of the spending on transfers in 2014?
A massive loan wouldn't have made any difference aside from more debt cost (I can't recall how its included in the FFP calculation). But its irrelevant yes - we would still have failed (according to UEFA).

So, you believe that UEFA's case is that there was a contract with Etihad but that Etihad never met its contractual obligations? That's one hell of a claim, isn't it? How would they prove this, even on the balance of probabilities? And if they could what would the consequences for the club's finance dep't, the accountants etc be?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I still speak with those 3, great lads

I know! You lived the next street up from me!

 

[BringBackSwales]

In retrospect Cult was maybe a bad choice.Seeing as the Candle waivers have a trademark on that word.

My point was we are more than just a Football Club.

I supported City through the most turmoil period of our recent history.A season Ticket holder who moved over to the North Stand from the Kippax during the renovation,fell in love with the North stand and never went back.Back then the Football was more hit than miss.We had to have thick skin.Never stopped hundreds of us meeting every Saturday in the Parkside on Home games or doing those mid week away trips to the back and beyond.There was no entitled fans back then.Just ordinary working class supporters,good lads,and women, who bled blue.When i think back all of us pissed up moaning bastards i have a laugh.I think we are all Sadomasochistic manic depressives.The Beer helped i suppose

Younger fans have only ever known success.If what our Club is going through now,will determine some fans future as fans.Then for me they can fuck off I would say the same thing to any player that docent want to be with us if we end up with a worst case scenario.

No point stressing about that we have no control over,hypothesizing every worst case scenario under the Sun.

Best thing to do if you are an older City fan like me.

Think back to those dark days,and put shit in to perspective.

Think the worst case scenario is the most likely .Which as a City fan you should already be doing.

Then anything else is a huge bonus.

I am sorry if this offends one or two.

Like i said i will be there no matter what.

Sure it will affect our income and fan Base.Let us not forget though when we were in Division 2 and pulling in 30,000 fans.Some achievement.I am not concerned.Old timers will snap up tourists Seats.

All stressing does is make you ill.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, I am 61 and for me when Sergio scored that goal that was enough for me. Everything since then has been a bonus, stuff I could never have imagined. Like you I have supported City for decades when the football was shite, but the fun was amazing. Still is for me. But not every is like that. The passion of the 80’s and 90’s just isn’t there from the average fan base, at any club, it’s what it is. Old fuckers like you and I will enjoy whatever City do. I also don’t think the outcome of this uefa shit will be that bad - won’t stop the cheating racist cunnts from keep trying to screw us over though

 

[slbsn]

So, you believe that UEFA's case is that there was a contract with Etihad but that Etihad never met its contractual obligations? That's one hell of a claim, isn't it? How would they prove this, even on the balance of probabilities? And if they could what would the consequences for the club's finance dep't, the accountants etc be?

Not quite - more that Etihad's obligations were not as great as stated. I've touched on this before. UEFA's claim may be, in effect, that City have false accounts and mislead auditors. As you say a massive (and unprovable by UEFA) claim. If proved in the UK, its very serious for the lead accountants and auditors (see any number of FRC (Financial Reporting Council) reprimands).

 

[BringBackSwales]

Mate of mine lived on Lowthorpe Street,liked to spray his name on the walls around the area,not called Banksy btw

I have a great mate who used to live on Lowthorpe Street. He was a fucking red, still is, but one of the best blokes I ever met (in truth the only united fan I ever really liked). He used to sometimes come to City away games with us in the 80’s and 90’s when we were shit, he always said it was a far better laugh and booze than united away games

 

[slbsn]

Is there not the possibility that the contract contains a break clause for them that will allow them to walk away should any adverse publicity/actions on City’s part arise? Us getting this ban and fine not overturned would certainly fall into that sort of category.
I’d have thought such clauses would be standard practice these days? It’s odd they have been so quiet since UEFA announced the ban in Feb. My fear is they are saying nothing because they know they can walk away should CAS not overturn the ban.

No a break clause no. They are shareholders - that is public https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08355862/filing-history

They will have probably have a warranty that City were in compliance with all UEFA laws and a finding against them could give Silverlake a claim. They wouldn't say anything about City so don't read anything into that.