Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

Manchester Dan said:
I would imagine it's more down to the fact he's just happy to take the pinch of punishment, and will probably establish more creative ways to create revenue anyway - given they've already agreed to a settlement that includes not surpassing a £25m loss in the season just passed, you can assume that they are on track to meet that criteria somehow - otherwise it would be pointless to agree on it. Maybe not and they don't care even still. Reactions so far certainly suggest that City are going to be more considering of the rules than PSG - there is time yet though.

The case will be interesting, while the news that the case has been rejected from the EC has broken and is true, the full response to the complainant suggests different - in essence they are rejecting the case because they feel that Brussels court can sufficiently handle the case, rather than judging the case to be insignificant. You can see their full response below in the spoiler, which indicates Sprint 2015 will be when we find out. I'd quite enjoy seeing PSG become everybody's biggest gripe, for a change.

Following reports from an unidentified source that the European Commission has decided to reject the complaint filed by Mr. Daniel STRIAN I against the UEFA rule imposing "the requirement of financial stability" (known as Financial Fair Play), Mr. STRIANI can confirm he has received a letter from the Commission's DG Competition in which it reports that it envisages rejecting the complaint. In essence, the response contains two reasons supporting this potential rejection:

First, the Commission has expressed doubts as to the legitimate interest of Mr. STRIANI since the impact to him is indirect (the UEFA rule is aimed primarily at clubs, and penalizes agents indirectly). Mr. STRIANI strongly disagrees with this analysis from the European Commission and shall have until June 16 to make submissions in this regard, which will provide a detailed response. Second, the European Commission intends to support its decision by means of another reason which has not been fully explained nor released to the press by the unidentified source. For the purpose of completeness, the letter Mr. STRIANI has received from the European Commission states the second reason as follows:

Re. :Complaint of Mr. Daniel STRIANI against the « FFP » UEFA regulation
« As you will appreciate, the Commission is unfortunately unable to pursue every alleged infringement of EU competition law that is brought to its attention. The Commission has limited resources and must therefore set priorities, in accordance with the principles set out at points 41 to 45 of the Notice on the handling of complaints. When deciding which cases to pursue, the Commission takes various factors into account and there is no fixed set of criteria.

For example, the Commission may take into account whether national courts are well-placed to examine the allegations made in a complaint. The Commission is entitled to decide not to pursue certain cases where national courts can protect the rights of a complainant in a satisfactory manner" (...). "The Brussels Court appears to be well-placed to handle the matters raised in your complaint:

On 20 June 2013 you lodged an application (citation) before the Brussels Court requesting it to establish that UEFA has infringed the same Treaty provisions as those set out in your complaint, and to award you damages for these infringements. In your application, you develop arguments virtually identical to those set out in the complaint. The Brussels Court requested, and on 12 February 2014 received, UEFA's observations on your application (citation). You provided your observations (conclusions) on UEFA's observations on 18 April 2014. An oral hearing is scheduled for 26 and 27 February 2015.

For the reasons set out below, the Brussels Court appears to be well-placed to handle the matters raised in your complaint as your rights will be protected by that court in a satisfactory manner.

First, as shown by its request to UEFA to submit observations on your application, and UEFA's response to that request of 12 February 2014, the Brussels Court is in a position to gather the factual information necessary to determine whether the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement, constitutes an infringement of Article 101 and 102 TFEU.

Second, the Brussels Court is able to examine whether the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement: (i) restricts competition within the meaning of Article 101 (1) TFEU; (ii) benefits from an exemption under Article 101 (3) TFEU; and (iii) infringes Article 102 TFEU. The Brussels court can a/so apply the nullity sanction provided for in Article 101(2) TFEU and award damages for breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

Third, the Brussels Court can make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 TFEU concerning the compatibility of the FFP, and in particular the break-even requirement, with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. You already made a request to this effect in your application of 20 June 2013, a request which you repeated in your observations of 18 April 2014.

Fourth, the Brussels Court can take effective action because of the sui generis system established by UEFA for the purpose of participation in pan-European club competitions. The FFP uniformly applies across the EU to all clubs that participate, or want to participate, in UEFA club competitions. If the Brussels Court were to consider the break-even requirement to be contrary to Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, such a ruling - even if limited to the facts of the case before the Brussels Court - is likely to have an impact on the operation of that requirement across the EU.

Fifth, if the Brussels Court were to consider the break-even requirement to be contrary to Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, you would not need to bring further actions before national courts in other Member States. This is because if the Brussels Court applied the nullity sanction provided for in Article 101(2) TFEU, the break-even requirement would also cease to produce effects in other Member States".

Mr. STRIANI therefore notes that, according to the European Commission, the Court of Brussels is well placed to decide the question of the EU legality of the UEFA rule, in particular since - according to the Commission - the national court may itself address the preliminary questions raised by Mr. STRIANI at the European Union Court of Justice and also because the Brussels Tribunal may nullify the UEFA rule, which would lead to is ceasing to exist all across the European Union. The Brussels Court is expected to rule in spring 2015.

Finally, for further background reading of the incompatibility of the UEFA rule with European competition law, please look at the recent article by Professor Nicolas Petit, entitled 'Financial Fair Play' or Rent-Seeking 'Oligopoleague'?: A Preliminary Analysis of the UEFA's Break Even Requirement Under the EU Competition Rules'. This item is available at the following:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2438399
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.
 
I've been following the discussion in this thread, and was pretty confused. Anyway-I found this article that seems pretty balanced.


http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/2/14/5408818/manchester-city-ffp-etihad-stadium

A couple of things I found interesting. Regarding the RPTs-under FFP the article says it's up to the clubs to self-identify such transactions. The Etihad deal was not reported by City as a RPT, and so was not subject to a fair value determination.

That City's owner is the half brother of Etihad's owner doesn't seem to matter in making a RPT determination. Ok-whatever.

However, the article goes on to benchmark the Etihad sponsorship funds-and makes (to me) a pretty convincing case that the the amount paid by Etihad for shirt sponsorship, stadium naming rights and training ground name represents fair value for the exposure.

Of course, it's pretty convenient for City's owner to find sponsors in his own back yard-certainly cuts down on search costs. But, from what I gather from the article, even if the Etihad deals been subject to fair value analysis, they likely would have passed muster.

The matchday and TV revenues seem pretty straightforward-hard to cook the books there.

So-I'm not 100% sure it's fair to characterize City's revenue streams as dodgy.
 
KeninDC said:
I've been following the discussion in this thread, and was pretty confused. Anyway-I found this article that seems pretty balanced.


http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/2/14/5408818/manchester-city-ffp-etihad-stadium

A couple of things I found interesting. Regarding the RPTs-under FFP the article says it's up to the clubs to self-identify such transactions. The Etihad deal was not reported by City as a RPT, and so was not subject to a fair value determination.

That City's owner is the half brother of Etihad's owner doesn't seem to matter in making a RPT determination. Ok-whatever.

However, the article goes on to benchmark the Etihad sponsorship funds-and makes (to me) a pretty convincing case that the the amount paid by Etihad for shirt sponsorship, stadium naming rights and training ground name represents fair value for the exposure.

Of course, it's pretty convenient for City's owner to find sponsors in his own back yard-certainly cuts down on search costs. But, from what I gather from the article, even if the Etihad deals been subject to fair value analysis, they likely would have passed muster.

The matchday and TV revenues seem pretty straightforward-hard to cook the books there.

So-I'm not 100% sure it's fair to characterize City's revenue streams as dodgy.
Click to expand...

This does a nice job of outlining the deals that are not necessarily dodgy, but will have been scrutinised for being unusual. Afaik there's been no specific word on what UEFA thought of the various sales of image rights and the like.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-uefas-financial-fair-play-rules-9097609.html

However its worth noting that since City failed the FFP test, and they were under the impression they were going to pass, something must have been made considered ineligible. Maybe a City fan can shed some light on that.
 
bishblaize said:
This does a nice job of outlining the deals that are not necessarily dodgy, but will have been scrutinised for being unusual. Afaik there's been no specific word on what UEFA thought of the various sales of image rights and the like.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-uefas-financial-fair-play-rules-9097609.html

However its worth noting that since City failed the FFP test, and they were under the impression they were going to pass, something must have been made considered ineligible. Maybe a City fan can shed some light on that.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain it was the sale of intellectual property to our other investments that UEFA had a problem with meaning £22m was discounted. They were fine with the Etihad deal but we agreed that we wouldn't renegotiate the deal.
 
KeninDC said:
A couple of things I found interesting. Regarding the RPTs-under FFP the article says it's up to the clubs to self-identify such transactions. The Etihad deal was not reported by City as a RPT, and so was not subject to a fair value determination.
Click to expand...

Reading that point specifically I think the OP misunderstood what the rule means. In any regulations, if it says that its up to you to self-disclose it doesn't mean its fine if you don't bother. It means you have the responsibility, and you face the consequences if you don't. Not just the consequences of breaching the rule, but also of failing to disclose.

There are numerous examples in law. It if you are self-employed its up to you to declare what you earn and pay the right tax. If you are disqualified from running a company you have to declare that when you try and take a directorship. If you enter the UK you must declare if you are carrying large amounts of cash. If you develop an illness you must tell the DVLA that it may affect your ability to drive. It doesn't mean the rules doesn't apply if you don't. It means its not up to the authorities to find you out. They just do checks, usually on random samples.

Besides, anything else would fail the common sense rule - it would basically be an opt-in rule, which pretty obviously no-one would bother with.

What the regs seem to say is that the RPTs are okay as long as they don't exceed market value. I would guess then that the Etihad deal was seen as okay market wise. To be honest anything else would be slightly perverse. If City have two deals on the table both worth X million, one from his half brother and one from a faceless corporation in America, would it be right to prevent the deal with the half brother?

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf - see Page 58
 
BobbyManc said:
To be fair he says "In terms of breaking even, I think it will be 2010-11" so he was only a year off if my memory is correct.
Click to expand...

Yeah they hit a one off break even in 12, but went back to a £50M loss in 13.

Anyway I was just pulling your leg.
 
bishblaize said:
Reading that point specifically I think the OP misunderstood what the rule means. In any regulations, if it says that its up to you to self-disclose it doesn't mean its fine if you don't bother. It means you have the responsibility, and you face the consequences if you don't. Not just the consequences of breaching the rule, but also of failing to disclose.

There are numerous examples in law. It if you are self-employed its up to you to declare what you earn and pay the right tax. If you are disqualified from running a company you have to declare that when you try and take a directorship. If you enter the UK you must declare if you are carrying large amounts of cash. If you develop an illness you must tell the DVLA that it may affect your ability to drive. It doesn't mean the rules doesn't apply if you don't. It means its not up to the authorities to find you out. They just do checks, usually on random samples.

Besides, anything else would fail the common sense rule - it would basically be an opt-in rule, which pretty obviously no-one would bother with.

What the regs seem to say is that the RPTs are okay as long as they don't exceed market value. I would guess then that the Etihad deal was seen as okay market wise. To be honest anything else would be slightly perverse. If City have two deals on the table both worth X million, one from his half brother and one from a faceless corporation in America, would it be right to prevent the deal with the half brother?

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf - see Page 58
Click to expand...
Thanks. I get that RPTs are subject to fair value. What I didn't understand is why the Etihad deal was not subject to fair value analysis. It appears the reason is that City did not define it as such, and so was beyond the purview of a fair value determination.

I assume, but don't know for sure whether or not City's classification of the Etihad deal as a non-RPT was subject to review. (Of course it had to be disclosed-the issue is whether or not it's done so as a RPT.)

On a go-forward basis, as I understand it City will not be able to book intellectual property sales as revenue-but from what some have posted here I gather that shortfall will be made up by lowering costs and increased TV revenues not reflected in most recent accounts.

Very complex financial/accounting stuff. If nothing else, FFP has created a nice gig for lawyers and accountants :)
 
Last edited:
bishblaize said:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/dec/02/chelsea-premierleague

Jus sayin :p
Click to expand...

In Sorianos defence, that's not him. Last year he said we'd record around a £50m losses this season, spot on - His track record is 100%. :D

KeninDC said:
I've been following the discussion in this thread, and was pretty confused. Anyway-I found this article that seems pretty balanced.

http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/2/14/5408818/manchester-city-ffp-etihad-stadium

A couple of things I found interesting. Regarding the RPTs-under FFP the article says it's up to the clubs to self-identify such transactions. The Etihad deal was not reported by City as a RPT, and so was not subject to a fair value determination.

That City's owner is the half brother of Etihad's owner doesn't seem to matter in making a RPT determination. Ok-whatever.
Click to expand...
Well UEFA cannot determine what is an RPT, simply because they didn't invent the term and they didn't make the criteria - it's an accounting standard that every business has to adhere to in their reporting (IAS24). Regardless of the FFP rules, if City's auditors felt it was an RPT they would have had to report it as so. It would only be for the auditors of the club to deem it otherwise, rather than UEFA. Like somebody above mentioned, you may wish to incorrectly record it and pay the consequences (both club and auditors), but you can be safe in assuming that it's sufficient to be recorded as a non RPT by the rules if it wasn't.
 
BobbyManc said:
Ok. But I'll prefer to believe the words of Soriano as opposed to yours.
Click to expand...
But you believed that Juventus get £35m a year for their shirt sponsorship so you'll believe anything that makes it look like City are balancing the books legitimately. You're not living in reality.
 
Manchester Dan said:
In Sorianos defence, that's not him. Last year he said we'd record around a £50m losses this season, spot on - His track record is 100%. :D


Well UEFA cannot determine what is an RPT, simply because they didn't invent the term and they didn't make the criteria - it's an accounting standard that every business has to adhere to in their reporting (IAS24). Regardless of the FFP rules, if City's auditors felt it was an RPT they would have had to report it as so. It would only be for the auditors of the club to deem it otherwise, rather than UEFA. Like somebody above mentioned, you may wish to incorrectly record it and pay the consequences (both club and auditors), but you can be safe in assuming that it's sufficient to be recorded as a non RPT by the rules if it wasn't.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's helpful. So what you're saying is that UEFA has no jurisdiction to question City's auditors? I would assume that classifying a transaction as a RPT has some ambiguities-and so Inland Revenue could scrutinize a transaction and see if it complied with English law. However, UEFA had no such authority-if I understand your point correctly.
 
bishblaize said:
Reading that point specifically I think the OP misunderstood what the rule means. In any regulations, if it says that its up to you to self-disclose it doesn't mean its fine if you don't bother. It means you have the responsibility, and you face the consequences if you don't. Not just the consequences of breaching the rule, but also of failing to disclose.

There are numerous examples in law. It if you are self-employed its up to you to declare what you earn and pay the right tax. If you are disqualified from running a company you have to declare that when you try and take a directorship. If you enter the UK you must declare if you are carrying large amounts of cash. If you develop an illness you must tell the DVLA that it may affect your ability to drive. It doesn't mean the rules doesn't apply if you don't. It means its not up to the authorities to find you out. They just do checks, usually on random samples.

Besides, anything else would fail the common sense rule - it would basically be an opt-in rule, which pretty obviously no-one would bother with.

What the regs seem to say is that the RPTs are okay as long as they don't exceed market value. I would guess then that the Etihad deal was seen as okay market wise. To be honest anything else would be slightly perverse. If City have two deals on the table both worth X million, one from his half brother and one from a faceless corporation in America, would it be right to prevent the deal with the half brother?

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf - see Page 58
Click to expand...
It would if the other deal on the table is worth far less. No way could City have got that deal elsewhere or anything remotely close to it. Otherwise they would not have signed it.
 
KeninDC said:
Thanks. That's helpful. So what you're saying is that UEFA has no jurisdiction to question City's auditors? I would assume that classifying a transaction as a RPT has some ambiguities-and so Inland Revenue could scrutinize a transaction and see if it complied with English law. However, UEFA had no such authority-if I understand your point correctly.
Click to expand...

Correct, it wouldn't be for UEFA to argue. It would be for the relevant people, including the Financial Reporting Council to deem that the financial statements follow the appropriate accounting standards, which includes IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures - UEFA's do disclose the criteria for RPT's in their documents, but it's a word for word replica of the actual standard. Here's a bit more about what the FRC do if it helps.

https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Codes-Standards/Accounting-and-Reporting-Policy.aspx
 
acnumber9 said:
But you believed that Juventus get £35m a year for their shirt sponsorship so you'll believe anything that makes it look like City are balancing the books legitimately. You're not living in reality.
Click to expand...

I read an article and mistakenly interpreted the Juventus deal as 35m a year and not over three seasons. No big deal.
 
Manchester Dan said:
Correct, it wouldn't be for UEFA to argue. It would be for the relevant people, including the Financial Reporting Council to deem that the financial statements follow the appropriate accounting standards, which includes IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures - UEFA's do disclose the criteria for RPT's in their documents, but it's a word for word replica of the actual standard. Here's a bit more about what the FRC do if it helps.

https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Codes-Standards/Accounting-and-Reporting-Policy.aspx
Click to expand...
Looks like FRC plays a similar role to FASB here in the states. Thanks for the link. This is stuff only an accountant could love.
 
BobbyManc said:
I read an article and mistakenly interpreted the Juventus deal as 35m a year and not over three seasons. No big deal.
Click to expand...
It's evidence of your desperation to paint City in a good light. City cannot break even with their current wage bill without sponsorship related to your owner. That's as clear as day.
 
acnumber9 said:
It would if the other deal on the table is worth far less. No way could City have got that deal elsewhere or anything remotely close to it. Otherwise they would not have signed it.
Click to expand...

Read the article here http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/2/14/5408818/manchester-city-ffp-etihad-stadium

The Etihad deal is fairly reasonable. Would City have got the deal if it wasn't for Mansour? No. But would Juventus have got their sponsorship with Jeep if it wasn't for their owners or the same for Stoke and their deal with Bet365? I imagine given the Glazers history with Chevrolet he has a good relationship with the relevant people there, would that not have played a part in United's record deal with them?
 
acnumber9 said:
But you believed that Juventus get £35m a year for their shirt sponsorship so you'll believe anything that makes it look like City are balancing the books legitimately. You're not living in reality.
Click to expand...

That is such a non-comment, given the two aren't exclusive - how does a misunderstanding of Juventus' shirt sponsorship have any impact on whether you have a better understanding of City finances than our CEO? Your lack of objectivity is astounding in this thread - everybody takes a side and shows a little bias, but at least try to take some other comments on board beyond your anti City agenda, which is pretty evident throughout the whole discussion.
 
acnumber9 said:
It's evidence of your desperation to paint City in a good light. City cannot break even with their current wage bill without sponsorship related to your owner. That's as clear as day.
Click to expand...

Right now no but maybe in future years we won't be dependent on the Etihad deal. And Etihad will only put money into the club if it benefits them. The sponsorship is a two-way thing.
 
Manchester Dan said:
That is such a non-comment, given the two aren't exclusive - how does a misunderstanding of Juventus' shirt sponsorship have any impact on whether you have a better understanding of City finances than our CEO? Your lack of objectivity is astounding in this thread - everybody takes a side and shows a little bias, but at least try to take some other comments on board beyond your anti City agenda, which is pretty evident throughout the whole discussion.
Click to expand...
It calls into question what he is willing to swallow to believe City are a functional business capable of breaking even. They aren't and that isn't a debate currently.
 
acnumber9 said:
It calls into question what he is willing to swallow to believe City are a functional business capable of breaking even. They aren't and that isn't a debate currently.
Click to expand...

I incorrectly recalled an article I read. Chill out. If an owner investing his own money into a business really aggravates you, that's your problem.
 
BobbyManc said:
Read the article here http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/2/14/5408818/manchester-city-ffp-etihad-stadium

The Etihad deal is fairly reasonable. Would City have got the deal if it wasn't for Mansour? No. But would Juventus have got their sponsorship with Jeep if it wasn't for their owners or the same for Stoke and their deal with Bet365? I imagine given the Glazers history with Chevrolet he has a good relationship with the relevant people there, would that not have played a part in United's record deal with them?
Click to expand...
What truth and impartiality am I to garner from something written on a Man City forum?

The sponsorship was at a ridiculous level for a club who had yet to play Champions League football. Barcelona get £30m a year now for their shirt sponsors in comparison and I don't believe for a second that company's would be willing to spend more than £10m a year to name City's stadium. Even less so at the time. Comparing business relationships to what City have done only further highlights how blinkered you are on this. Do you really think those companies are paying above market value because they're mates with the owners?
 
BobbyManc said:
I incorrectly recalled an article I read. Chill out. If an owner investing his own money into a business really aggravates you, that's your problem.
Click to expand...
And if you don't like people questioning it then it is your problem. You can't come in and state City are going to break even before Chelsea and not be questioned on it.
 
acnumber9 said:
What truth and impartiality am I to garner from something written on a Man City forum?

The sponsorship was at a ridiculous level for a club who had yet to play Champions League football. Barcelona get £30m a year now for their shirt sponsors in comparison and I don't believe for a second that company's would be willing to spend more than £10m a year to name City's stadium. Even less so at the time. Comparing business relationships to what City have done only further highlights how blinkered you are on this. Do you really think those companies are paying above market value because they're mates with the owners?
Click to expand...

Well if you are adopting such a childish attitude as that then I may as well discount anything you write given the fact you support Manchester United.
 
acnumber9 said:
And if you don't like people questioning it then it is your problem. You can't come in and state City are going to break even before Chelsea and not be questioned on it.
Click to expand...

...all of which has nothing to do with me making a mistake regards the Juventus sponsorship deal.
 
The opinion we've all been waiting for... Zlatan. :lol:

"The other big clubs are afraid of this huge project, that's why they use financial fair play to try to counter it. Some are perhaps jealous," the Sweden captain, who will lead his nation in Copenhagen on Wednesday, stated. "With the club, the value of the Champions League increases, the television rights increase. I hope that UEFA acknowledge that, because PSG works for UEFA. We work for French football, but also for European football."
 
BobbyManc said:
Well if you are adopting such a childish attitude as that then I may as well discount anything you write given the fact you support Manchester United.
Click to expand...
I'm not writing about how wonderful my club is and how we do no wrong. If the deal is as legitimate as you claim then I'm sure you can find an article not written by a Man City fan to back it up.
 
BobbyManc said:
...all of which has nothing to do with me making a mistake regards the Juventus sponsorship deal.
Click to expand...
No, it has everything to do with why we starting talking about these deals in the first place. I'm just pointing out your gullibility and desire to paint City in a good light.
 
acnumber9 said:
I'm not writing about how wonderful my club is and how we do no wrong. If the deal is as legitimate as you claim then I'm sure you can find an article not written by a Man City fan to back it up.
Click to expand...

Why do I need to find an article when UEFA had no problem concerning its legitimacy?
 
acnumber9 said:
No, it has everything to do with why we starting talking about these deals in the first place. I'm just pointing out your gullibility and desire to paint City in a good light.
Click to expand...

Gullibility? It would only be gullible if I read an article claiming Juve's deal was worth £35m a year and believed it. I didn't. I read an article and incorrectly recalled its details. It isn't relevant at all to the overall debate. I made a mistake, I accept it, we move on, but you seem a little obsessive about it.
 
BobbyManc said:
Why do I need to find an article when UEFA had no problem concerning its legitimacy?
Click to expand...
You're the one claiming it is reasonable. You could at least back it up with something not written by some random Man City fan. Going by what's posted above UEFA had no say in whether it was legitimate or fair value.
 
BobbyManc said:
Gullibility? It would only be gullible if I read an article claiming Juve's deal was worth £35m a year and believed it. I didn't. I read an article and incorrectly recalled its details. It isn't relevant at all to the overall debate. I made a mistake, I accept it, we move on, but you seem a little obsessive about it.
Click to expand...
You must've believed it to post it. You compared it to what City are making to show City's deal is perfectly reasonable in comparison. You even compared their marketability. Like I've said before and won't say again, I'm just pointing out you'll believe anything when it comes to City's finances so your opinion doesn't mean a lot.
 
acnumber9 said:
You're the one claiming it is reasonable. You could at least back it up with something not written by some random Man City fan. Going by what's posted above UEFA had no say in whether it was legitimate or fair value.
Click to expand...

1. UEFA had no say because it is not their call whether it was a RPT. It if it was it would have been flagged up by the relevant authorities. City and their auditors have to disclose it as a RPT if it is one. If they lied, they would face the consequences and not from UEFA.

2. UEFA did have a say over whether it was fair value, just as they did regards the PSG Qatari tourism (?) deal. They deemed it fair value :)
 
acnumber9 said:
You must've believed it to post it. You compared it to what City are making to show City's deal is perfectly reasonable in comparison. You even compared their marketability. Like I've said before and won't say again, I'm just pointing out you'll believe anything when it comes to City's finances so your opinion doesn't mean a lot.
Click to expand...

:boring:
 
The only difference between PSG and City is, that City is making a minimal effort to hide their investment, while PSG just doesnt give a feck. UEFA just cant do anything against it. It was exactly what I said before UEFA announced anything: there is no sensitive legal way to stop sugar daddies from putting money into the club, because there are a million different ways to do so. As long as you dont do it too obvious in a single over-the-top-deal, its impossible to prevent it.
City cant even cover their wages with their revenue. Considering that you need a significantly higher revenue than your expanses of wages and net-transfer-spening, City is miles away from this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.