undislosed fees and fifa fair play.

[feedthegreek]

park ji sung from scum to qpr, undisclosed is this a way round fifa fair play, who actually gets to know how much?

[Ted Hughes]

No, they can see the books.

The real grey area to me is the one regarding 'sponsorship' deals though. I don't see how they can possibly ajudicate on that legally. How do they know what true value City are, to an airline in Abu Dhabi ?

I think we'll see quite a few such deals if needed & if UEFA start interfering, very very big time lawyers will appear.

[feedthegreek]

No, they can see the books.

The real grey area to me is the one regarding 'sponsorship' deals though. I don't see how they can possibly ajudicate on that legally. How do they know what true value City are, to an airline in Abu Dhabi ?

I think we'll see quite a few such deals if needed & if UEFA start interfering, very very big time lawyers will appear.

oh right i thought it seemed too easy a way round it.

[blues-clues]

Individual transactions are pretty much irrelevant. They will have to include the wages in the P&L and the purchase on the balance sheet even if the actual figures are never disclosed in detail.

[Socrates]

No, they can see the books.

The real grey area to me is the one regarding 'sponsorship' deals though. I don't see how they can possibly ajudicate on that legally. How do they know what true value City are, to an airline in Abu Dhabi ?

I think we'll see quite a few such deals if needed & if UEFA start interfering, very very big time lawyers will appear.

Not many clubs have owners with direct links to substantial potential sponsors so there isn't much to consider. As for the legality of the FFP's panels decision, if it is clearly stated in the competition rules then it is legal. The rules will be just as legal as the one that would have prevented Rangers from entry for three years if they hadn't gone bust anyway... The fact that City are trying so hard to comply with the rules should tell you all you need to know!

[BlueinBosnia]

As for the legality of the FFP's panels decision, if it is clearly stated in the competition rules then it is legal.

I don't think there's anything in the rules about how a 'fair market value' will be determined, though, so could there be any room for a lawyer to argue that such a valuation must be made out-of-house/independently, or is it simply a case of UEFA saying jump, and the clubs asking how high?

[Socrates]

As for the legality of the FFP's panels decision, if it is clearly stated in the competition rules then it is legal.

I don't think there's anything in the rules about how a 'fair market value' will be determined, though, so could there be any room for a lawyer to argue that such a valuation must be made out-of-house/independently, or is it simply a case of UEFA saying jump, and the clubs asking how high?

The panel is made up of accountants and lawyers and chaired by the ex-PM of an EU nation. It's pretty bomb proof. That said though, if they do cut the book valueof the Etihad deal then I will be surprised, other than by a token amount. Especially now we are CHAMPIONS. (*capitals not for emphasis, just because I still like saying it)

[Ted Hughes]

No, they can see the books.

The real grey area to me is the one regarding 'sponsorship' deals though. I don't see how they can possibly ajudicate on that legally. How do they know what true value City are, to an airline in Abu Dhabi ?

I think we'll see quite a few such deals if needed & if UEFA start interfering, very very big time lawyers will appear.

Not many clubs have owners with direct links to substantial potential sponsors so there isn't much to consider. As for the legality of the FFP's panels decision, if it is clearly stated in the competition rules then it is legal. The rules will be just as legal as the one that would have prevented Rangers from entry for three years if they hadn't gone bust anyway... The fact that City are trying so hard to comply with the rules should tell you all you need to know!

The rules aren't clearly stated. A group of individuals with dubious qualifications is set to decide on the validity of multi million pound sponsorship deals with no clear guidelines in place.

When have we tried [border]hard[/border] to comply with the rules by the way?

[Ted Hughes]

As for the legality of the FFP's panels decision, if it is clearly stated in the competition rules then it is legal.

I don't think there's anything in the rules about how a 'fair market value' will be determined, though, so could there be any room for a lawyer to argue that such a valuation must be made out-of-house/independently, or is it simply a case of UEFA saying jump, and the clubs asking how high?

The panel is made up of accountants and lawyers and chaired by the ex-PM of an EU nation. It's pretty bomb proof. That said though, if they do cut the book valueof the Etihad deal then I will be surprised, other than by a token amount. Especially now we are CHAMPIONS. (*capitals not for emphasis, just because I still like saying it)

It's a bunch of scoundrels with dubious business records & almost comical.

[Socrates]

You need to stop wasting your brain and breath trying to find ways round FFP Ted, UEFA can make the rules for their own competitions and they have the backing of the clubs. In any case, the club has absolutely no interest in challenging it as it can see the commercial advantage in the drawbridge being drawn up with us safely across it...

[Ted Hughes]

You need to stop wasting your brain and breath trying to find ways round FFP Ted, UEFA can make the rules for their own competitions and they have the backing of the clubs. In any case, the club has absolutely no interest in challenging it as it can see the commercial advantage in the drawbridge being drawn up with us safely across it...

I'm sure we have no interest in challenging it because we shouldn't need to.

If we had ten companies in Abu Dhabi each sponsoring a different area, nothing we would be doing re sponsorship would be illegal.

It would be UEFA who were acting wrongly if they sought to try & stop us by putting pressure on a dodgy bunch of individuals, to use artificial boundaries, to stop us from doing what other clubs do. If that happens, I have no doubt we will refuse to stand for it & have just introduced a specialist in that area onto the club board.

[Socrates]

You need to stop wasting your brain and breath trying to find ways round FFP Ted, UEFA can make the rules for their own competitions and they have the backing of the clubs. In any case, the club has absolutely no interest in challenging it as it can see the commercial advantage in the drawbridge being drawn up with us safely across it...

I'm sure we have no interest in challenging it because we shouldn't need to.

If we had ten companies in Abu Dhabi each sponsoring a different area, nothing we would be doing re sponsorship would be illegal.

It would be UEFA who were acting wrongly if they sought to try & stop us by putting pressure on a dodgy bunch of individuals, to use artificial boundaries, to stop us from doing what other clubs do. If that happens, I have no doubt we will refuse to stand for it & have just introduced a specialist in that area onto the club board.

Nothing to do with legality of sponsorship or blocking sponsorships. We can have as many sponsors as we like for as much as we like. It just won't count for the FFP calculation beyond the fair market value...

[Swales4ever]

As for the legality of the FFP's panels decision, if it is clearly stated in the competition rules then it is legal.

I don't think there's anything in the rules about how a 'fair market value' will be determined, though, so could there be any room for a lawyer to argue that such a valuation must be made out-of-house/independently, or is it simply a case of UEFA saying jump, and the clubs asking how high?

The panel is made up of accountants and lawyers and chaired by the ex-PM of an EU nation. It's pretty bomb proof. That said though, if they do cut the book valueof the Etihad deal then I will be surprised, other than by a token amount. Especially now we are CHAMPIONS. (*capitals not for emphasis, just because I still like saying it)

Agree about the bomb proof of the panel reputation.
But how they can assess and adjust that the "Standard Charthered"/Scouse1 sponsorship is worthier than the "Ethiad"/City and doing it so indisputably to deem a cut of book value is legally, commercially and more important, practically, not more thana joke.

the fact that the Club is trying so hard to comply means very much, but not necessarily that They feel binded to do it. Don't forget that the ADUG investment/project in MCFC is first and foremost designed to be a showcase of Abu Dhabi' potentials: the more the project means fairness the better for returns of the project itself, imho.

[Socrates]

As for the legality of the FFP's panels decision, if it is clearly stated in the competition rules then it is legal.

I don't think there's anything in the rules about how a 'fair market value' will be determined, though, so could there be any room for a lawyer to argue that such a valuation must be made out-of-house/independently, or is it simply a case of UEFA saying jump, and the clubs asking how high?

The panel is made up of accountants and lawyers and chaired by the ex-PM of an EU nation. It's pretty bomb proof. That said though, if they do cut the book valueof the Etihad deal then I will be surprised, other than by a token amount. Especially now we are CHAMPIONS. (*capitals not for emphasis, just because I still like saying it)

Agree about the bomb proof of the panel reputation.
But how they can assess and adjust that the "Standard Charthered"/Scouse1 sponsorship is worthier than the "Ethiad"/City and doing it so indisputably to deem a cut of book value is legally, commercially and more important, practically, not more thana joke.

the fact that the Club is trying so hard to comply means very much, but not necessarily that They feel binded to do it. Don't forget that the ADUG investment/project in MCFC is first and foremost designed to be a showcase of Abu Dhabi' potentials: the more the project means fairness the better for returns of the project itself, imho.

Not so much that they are binded to it, as a) they think it cannot be easily challenged and b) it protects their business interests by stopping other super rich owners from spending big and forcing them into much higher expenditure

[Ted Hughes]

You need to stop wasting your brain and breath trying to find ways round FFP Ted, UEFA can make the rules for their own competitions and they have the backing of the clubs. In any case, the club has absolutely no interest in challenging it as it can see the commercial advantage in the drawbridge being drawn up with us safely across it...

I'm sure we have no interest in challenging it because we shouldn't need to.

If we had ten companies in Abu Dhabi each sponsoring a different area, nothing we would be doing re sponsorship would be illegal.

It would be UEFA who were acting wrongly if they sought to try & stop us by putting pressure on a dodgy bunch of individuals, to use artificial boundaries, to stop us from doing what other clubs do. If that happens, I have no doubt we will refuse to stand for it & have just introduced a specialist in that area onto the club board.

Nothing to do with legality of sponsorship or blocking sponsorships. We can have as many sponsors as we like for as much as we like. It just won't count for the FFP calculation beyond the fair market value...

The fair market value is impossible for them to calculate unless we were to abuse it spectacularly. ( I recon Etihad, for example have actually got us on the cheap now anyway). But they have mentioned in the small print about 'arms lenth' sponsorship etc.

We could have ten companies sponsoring us for big money & they will come under pressure from people like Bayern & Utd, to try & stop it by declaring it unusable in the calculatons. If they succumb to that pressure, it is corruption.

[dario2739]

If Liverpool's kit deal isn't under scrutiny then neither should our Etihad sponsorship!

[BlueinBosnia]

Agree about the bomb proof of the panel reputation.
But how they can assess and adjust that the "Standard Charthered"/Scouse1 sponsorship is worthier than the "Ethiad"/City and doing it so indisputably to deem a cut of book value is legally, commercially and more important, practically, not more thana joke.

This is what I'd like to know, too.

If they take heritage/history/past success into account, then how can they claim their assessments (as a panel of financial experts) are fair?

If they stick to tangible qualities, such as league position, earnings from TV rights, competitions, etc., then we are a far more sponsor-worthy club in current market conditions, and therefore worthy of a higher 'fair market value'.

Plus, as a startup company, and one that needs to raise its profile among a large number of clients/households internationally (unlike a financial services company such as SC) Etihad may deem sponsorship of a global brand an integral part of their business strategy, rather than something to impress their clients with.

Maybe someone on here knows why companies such as SC and Eon sponsor clubs? Is it a successful and profitable venture, or just to get pats on backs from their old school chums?

[Ted Hughes]

Agree about the bomb proof of the panel reputation.
But how they can assess and adjust that the "Standard Charthered"/Scouse1 sponsorship is worthier than the "Ethiad"/City and doing it so indisputably to deem a cut of book value is legally, commercially and more important, practically, not more thana joke.

This is what I'd like to know, too.

If they take heritage/history/past success into account, then how can they claim their assessments (as a panel of financial experts) are fair?

If they stick to tangible qualities, such as league position, earnings from TV rights, competitions, etc., then we are a far more sponsor-worthy club in current market conditions, and therefore worthy of a higher 'fair market value'.

Plus, as a startup company, and one that needs to raise its profile among a large number of clients/households internationally (unlike a financial services company such as SC) Etihad may deem sponsorship of a global brand an integral part of their business strategy, rather than something to impress their clients with.

Maybe someone on here knows why companies such as SC and Eon sponsor clubs? Is it a successful and profitable venture, or just to get pats on backs from their old school chums?

There are examples of both I think.

Some clubs have been helped along by governments etc to get to the position which they now hold yet clubs who never had that advantage, are going to be prevented from doing the same in order to catch up.

They can't challenge our Etihad deal without being corrupt. There is nothing wrong with it. I fully expect more such deals to come though & each time, clubs will bleat about it (even if they then subsequently do the same).

[Ted Hughes]

The Panel, as of 12 Oct 2011.


Jean-Luc Dehaene, the man in charge of implementing UEFA’s financial fair play regulations, was due in London last week to speak at the Leaders in Football conference. Sadly, he had to cry off. The Franco-Belgian bank of which he is chairman was going skint. Again.

The Belgian arm of the total catastrophe that is Dexia, Dehaene’s bank, was nationalised on Monday. Prior to resigning — he will remain chairman of Dexia Group’s other interests — Dehaene announced a £3.45billion bailout by the Belgian government.

This is in addition to the £5.18bn Dexia needed to stay in business in 2008. Never forget, this is the man who could be banning your club from European competition if he thinks they are living beyond their means.

Imagine placing Sir Fred ‘the Shred’ Goodwin, former chief executive officer of the Royal Bank of Scotland, in charge of governance at the Football Association and you get the idea. That’s why you never get a good farce in the West End these days. Michel Platini and the boys at UEFA have nicked all the best plot lines.

Dexia was the result of a 1996 merger between Credit Local de France and Credit Communal de Belgique, the biggest municipal lenders in their respective countries.

‘Dexia accumulated the worst errors,’ says Francois Chaulet of Montsegur Finance in Paris. ‘They were the experts of municipal lending but by getting late into businesses they weren’t able to handle, like securitisation and bond insurance in the United States, they bought all that others didn’t want to buy.’

This isn’t the FT, I know, so I’ll keep it basic. In 2008, Dexia needed a gigantic bailout to remain in business, at which point Dehaene arrived.

Known as ‘the plumber’ during his time as Prime Minister of Belgium, due to his ability to resolve crises, this time he appears to have drilled through the main standpipe.

Dexia remains in danger of becoming the first European bank to fall victim to the Eurozone debt crisis and its stock is in freefall.

The man who will tell European football clubs how to run their businesses saw a share value drop of 42 per cent as concerns grew that his bank would be broken up in a final desperate attempt to keep it afloat. Since the 2008 bailout and Dehaene’s arrival, its stock has plunged more than 90 per cent.

The Belgian government picked up the tab second time around, paying £3.45bn for Dexia Banque Belgique’s consumer lending division. There remains all manner of speculation about who will pounce on other arms of the company, including a Qatari sovereign wealth fund, who bought Dexia Banque Internationale, a profitable retail and private banking unit based in Luxembourg.


How intriguing should Dehaene rule on Manchester City’s use of Arab wealth, which incurs no actual debt, while being happily party to investment from the region to help save Dexia’s skin.

The scale of this crisis cannot be overestimated. Bluntly, if Dexia goes down, so does Europe. Its balance sheet, with total assets of around £446.9bn in June, is roughly the size of the entire banking system in Greece, and larger than the combined assets of all financial institutions bailed out in Ireland.

Dexia has £2.9bn exposure to Greek government bonds and roughly four times that commitment in Italy. Dexia Credit Local’s portfolio includes £18.1bn in Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Irish sovereign debt, which has understandably caused widespread panic and the collapse of short-term funding.

Still, nobody can doubt Dehaene’s expertise in how not to run a business. There is most certainly a lot that football could learn from him on that.

It could be argued, of course, that Dehaene took on an impossible job; that Dexia was a basket case enterprise before he arrived and he merely failed to resolve its enormous difficulties.

Certainly, it is no easy task taking charge of a bank that has needed bailing out in the billions. Yet even in Belgium, Dehaene is not without his critics.

Paul de Grauwe, a member of the economic advisory group to Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said: ‘Jean-Luc Dehaene and Pierre Mariani, the chief executive officer, are responsible for the fiasco at Dexia and it is only logical that they will resign. It is dangerous to speculate, to gamble with the money of ordinary citizens. The big problem is that Dexia abandoned traditional banking and started speculating to earn more. That ended miserably.’

Speculating? Gambling? Taking a punt with money you haven’t really got? Not the bold champion of financial fair play, surely? Or maybe in banking different rules apply.

Still, never mind. When Platini’s committee to assess financial fairness meets, Dehaene, as a refugee from an economy that has gone melons up, will fit right in. Perhaps he could discuss those nasty Greek government bonds with Petros Mavroidis, a lawyer from Thessaloniki, who will also assess financial fair play. Powerful, wealthy, well-connected — often to each other — UEFA have chosen their club overseers well.

Take Johan Lokhorst, from Holland. He is currently a director of various food groups, including Lotus Bakeries (£22.9m in debt, but don’t let that stop him telling everybody else how to do it). Lotus are a Belgian-Dutch company specialising in caramelised and pepparkakor biscuits, gingerbread, cake specialties and waffles.

What does he know of football? Who can say, but he certainly knows his fellow board member, Jean-Luc Dehaene. So that’s nice.

Then there is Yves Wehrli from France, a managing partner on the media and entertainment team of global law firm Clifford Chance.

He recently advised the French Football Federation on their successful bid to host the 2016 European Championship (UEFA president when the bid was won, Michel Platini), this after doing six years of legal work for the organising committee of the 1998 World Cup (held in France, joint head of committee, Michel Platini) and aiding the Lagardere group with the £745.8m acquisition of Sportfive (legal adviser at Lagardere, Laurent Platini, son of Michel Platini).

It goes on. There are two men who helped author the Independent European Sport Review in 2006, which is seen as the precursor to financial fair play (page 83, paragraph 5.27, Cost Controls, if you’re interested). One is Jacobo Beltran, a right-wing politician from Madrid — so no big clubs that might need looking after there, thankfully — the other is Egon Franck, a German professor of economics at the University of Zurich, so at least he won’t have far to travel for meetings.

It must be hard getting nine people from a continent with a population of 731m that are not connected to Platini personally or in charge of a bank that’s gone bust, so UEFA have our sympathy there.

English football is represented by Brian Lomax OBE, former chairman of Supporters Direct and the man who helped form the first supporters trust, to help save his club, Northampton Town — but obviously the board cannot be made up purely of dedicated souls like that. Not when there are so many hard-up bankers with mates who sell biscuits that need to be involved.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... z20DSSXvTz

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

Half way through that piece I thought "this smacks of Mr Samuel"
Another good article.
Why does this stuff get ignored?
It stinks to high heaven.