Financial Fair Play

[mediator 2,026]

Decision of the Chief Investigator of the CFCB Investigatory Chamber: Settlement Agreement with Manchester City Football Club Limited

Following an investigation under the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (“CLFFPR”) a settlement agreement was concluded between the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (“CFCB”) Chief Investigator and Manchester City Football Club Limited ("Manchester City") on the basis of Article 14 (1)( and Article 15 of the Procedural Rules governing the CFCB.

The settlement was concluded on 16 May 2014 and covers the three sporting seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. For the duration of the settlement, Manchester City will be subject to on-going restrictions which have been agreed by the club and which are described further below.

A central purpose of the settlement is to ensure that Manchester City becomes break- even compliant within the meaning of the CLFFPR in a short space of time.

• In this regard, Manchester City undertakes to report a maximum break-even deficit of EUR 20 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2014 and a maximum break- even deficit of EUR 10 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2015. In this context certain commercial partnerships were subject to examination. In order to avoid dispute and for the avoidance of doubt, Manchester City has agreed that for the period of the settlement it will not seek to improve the financial terms of two second tier commercial partnerships.

• Furthermore Manchester City agrees that revenues from the sale of assets within their group structure will not be included in future break-even calculations.

• Manchester City accepts that employee benefit expenses cannot be increased during the next two financial periods (2015 & 2016). If Manchester City meets the annual break-even requirements outlined above, this spending limit will be removed for the 2016 financial period.

• Manchester City accepts that for the duration of the settlement it will be subject to a limitation on the number of players that it may include on the “A” list for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. Specifically, for season 2014/15 Manchester City may only register a potential maximum of 21 players on the “A” list, instead of the potential maximum of 25 as foreseen in the relevant competition regulations. If MC manages to comply with the annual break-even target the club shall be released from the restriction as regards the registration of players in UEFA club competitions for the 2015/16 season.

• Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Manchester City further accepts a calculated limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by this agreement.

• Manchester City agrees to pay a total amount of EUR 60 Mio. which will be withheld from any revenues it earns from participating in UEFA competitions commencing in season 2013/14. Of this EUR 60 Mio. an amount of EUR 40 Mio. will be withheld conditionally and will be returned to Manchester City if the club fulfills the operational and financial measures agreed with the UEFA CFCB.

The compliance with the Settlement Agreement will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules. In this connection, Manchester City also undertakes to provide the CFCB with a Progress Report evidencing its compliance with all relevant conditions agreed on a six monthly basis.

In case Manchester City fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, the UEFA CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the Adjudicatory Chamber, as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) of the Procedural Rules.

Nyon, 16 May 2014

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/ClubFinancialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf

[Madmax 9,219]

Great news. The fine was never going to be an issue for them but reduced roster spots goes down well with me. Also reassuring to see UEFA anticipating some of the get-arounds and extracting an undertaking in those aspects.

[Thendo 1,088]

Guess city won't be very active in the coming transfer windows then. A fine might seem abit ridiculous as a punishment for a club that has overspent, but ffp will still be there next season with probably more hefty punishments (maybe CL ban etc) if a team is charged again. Not sure how much this 21 man squad limit for cl will effect them tough.

Any news about PSG yet?

[Pizy 18,846]

So now City will spend only £85m per window instead of £100m?

[mediator 2,026]

Statement on Official site

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2014/May/Club-statement-16-May

[iseah100 5,612]

Guess city won't be very active in the coming transfer windows then. A fine might seem abit ridiculous as a punishment for a club that has overspent, but ffp will still be there next season with probably more hefty punishments (maybe CL ban etc) if a team is charged again. Not sure how much this 21 man squad limit for cl will effect them tough.

Any news about PSG yet?

PSG gave their roster for CL reduced to 21, idk about any fines or anything against them.

[mediator 2,026]

PSG gave their roster for CL reduced to 21, idk about any fines or anything against them.

same fine, 60M €

[Fernando 6,585]

Does it also include a salary cap right?

They can't increase their wages more then what they currently have?

[mediator 2,026]

So now City will spend only £85m per window instead of £100m?

Jake Cohen ‏@JakeFCohen 30 s

Manchester City is only allowed to spend £49m during the summer's transfer window (in addition to any £ earned from player sales) #mcfc #ffp

[Pizy 18,846]

Does it also include a salary cap right?

They can't increase their wages more then what they currently have?

I believe so.

Also say they must limit their net spend to ~£50m in addition to whatever they make via player sales. So they won't be able to spend a ludicrous amount like they usually do but still should be able to buy all of their targets.

This will have no noticeable effect on them at all really in my eyes. Slap on the wrist for them.

[iseah100 5,612]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA , that's what they get. Maybe they'll sell now. Can they still spend more if they sell? They can spend £49m if they sell Dzeko for £15m can they then spend £64m?

Edit: Nevermind, I see now.

[mediator 2,026]

Others clubs are Galatasaray, le Zénith Saint-Pétersbourg, Bursaspor, Anzhi Makhatchkala, Rubin Kazan, Trabzonspor et Levski Sofia.

[Jype 6,398]

Does it also include a salary cap right?

They can't increase their wages more then what they currently have?

Yeah, they have to keep their wages at the level of 13/14.

However, some journo just said they included Mancini's big pay-off in their wage bill instead of putting it in the 'excludable' category. I suppose that's smart, now they can even increase their total wage bill for next season by getting another few players in but their total wages will still be smaller than this year when Mancini's pay-off is not there anymore. The excludable items are ignored by the FFP so if they'd done like we always do and exclude it, their FFP loss would have been a little smaller but now they'd have to get creative with the wage bill and they probably knew they won't pass FFP anyway so it didn't matter if the loss was £5m more or not.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Aren't these sanctions just for their champions league squad? As in the squad they submit? Wage & transfer cap..

[Madmax 9,219]

^Yes.

[Ze Mario 638]

Yeah, they have to keep their wages at the level of 13/14.

However, some journo just said they included Mancini's big pay-off in their wage bill instead of putting it in the 'excludable' category. I suppose that's smart, now they can even increase their total wage bill for next season by getting another few players in but their total wages will still be smaller than this year when Mancini's pay-off is not there anymore. The excludable items are ignored by the FFP so if they'd done like we always do and exclude it, their FFP loss would have been a little smaller but now they'd have to get creative with the wage bill and they probably knew they won't pass FFP anyway so it didn't matter if the loss was £5m more or not.

more than that

booo

so actually they can trick wage issue with increase bonuses for the players

[xPetrCechx 13,570]

What's the punishment to Zenit/ Rubin?

[Barbara 15,149]

I think it's a great thing what UEFA did. It's not only about the sanctions (fine, limited squad, frozen wages), but about following up to.

Basically the club has to stay within a loss margin that decreases every season, so not only City and PSG have to fulfill all the sanctions they got, but they also have to reduce even more their losses. I don't remember City's loss - I do remember it was astonishing - and it wasn't caused only because of insane high and many new signings. The Empthad is always that... empty. They aren't that much marketable as other clubs, so they don't have much revenue coming from their fans.

If UEFA continue to investigate how the sheiks inject money through those ridiculous sponsorship endorsements (it's one thing to directly inject money and it's another completely different to make it look like a sponsor did), they can make those losses look even bigger.

I don't know how those investors launder their money (because it's clear the only reason why they would accept having loss after loss some of which astronomical numbers has to be money laundering) and I'm sure they don't enjoy losing huge amounts of money every year, but this makes things harder for them.

So the thing about all of those clubs being punished now (not only City and PSG) is that they have to fulfill with those sanctions AND with the reduced loss accepted for this season and the following. City can also risk face a three strike punishment down the line (don't know about PSG). But then again I wonder if they'll mind that much really. They're Champions League biggest clowns with their shameful campaigns every year.

Also for those defending that any of this clubs could sue UEFA, please, don't be naive. The moment one of those clubs interject to a regular tribunal they're getting their ban earlier and longer. UEFA is a private organization that can have whoever they want in their tournaments and they can create whatever rules they want. The moment a club goes to regular justice system they're out of the equation and UEFA can definitely work around anything a regular tribunal decides. Nobody will ever resort to that because they know is suicide. UEFA doesn't oblige clubs to play their competitions. They are free to disagree with the rules and jump off the moment they want, so a legal mitigation will not going to happen at all because this isn't about a citizen universal right. This is business.