City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[Neville Kneville]

Re last para the majority of owners surely invested to get money out of their investment that they could use elsewhere?.

Our owner continues to invest because our business plan requires further topups until we reach the next phase whereas others in the G14 just want the global pot to be shared equally hence the FFP barrier to entry.
Unfortunately for them we continue to be successful both financially and on the field so we are forcing others to spend just to keep up which was not in the plan so few want this to happen because it reduces the dividends they can get and threatens everything they aspired to do via the cartel.

Currently the pot is biased towards PL clubs so they are redrafting it with equality for the top clubs to be the continuing aim. Still illegal in the real world but seemingly cartels of this nature are untouchable from a legal point of view.

Just my opinion as a non expert.

I think they are desperately trying to look after the 'great' clubs, & know deep down, that the only thing which makes 'great' clubs stay 'great' is money otherwise 'great' clubs just have their spell in the limelight & are replaced. We are a great club & it happened to us, same with Leeds. But now it's happening to the old European Cup winners.

When Kaka signed for AC Milan, they were a much bigger entity worldwide, than City. I would wager that in most countries of the world now, there would be more fans turn up to see City, than AC Milan.

Ten years from now, Liverpool are AC Milan, if things stay the same. But worse still, Real Madrid are in danger. A few shit years for them & it would all go tits up. They need to sign the biggest & best, just to tread water. At 200 million a pop, they can't afford it. At 90 mil, they can.

 

[Cobwebcat]

I'm more concerned what this will do to football, than what it will do to City.

I actually agree that transfer fees are reaching (have reached) the point where it has become utterly ridiculous and unsustainable, & I am also dead against City, Chelsea, Utd etc buying/enticing loads of kids to the clubs, with very little intention of playing them in the first team.

But the 'big' clubs have to have an advantage. That's the way football is.

So the 500k pw & ridiculous agent's fees which Utd are paying Sanchez, may just be the tip of the iceberg.

How do you get a player to sign for Real Madrid, when Everton can offer the same transfer fee ? Pay his agent 50 mil & give him 700k pw in wages.

All the money goes out of football. Which doesn't seem to bother UEFA, as they penalise Sheikh Mansour for putting money in, but help the Glazers stay in power at Utd.

Exactly what I was thinking. Which is why I think there must be more to this as, for the reason you outline, it's ridiculous. City's net average spend over the last 5 years is about £101 million but the market has zoomed up recently. Most of this is a reaction to the Neymar deal which was crazy, but FFP 2.0 is definitely not the answer and causes more problems than it solves.

Plus the arbitrary figure of 100 million euros would have to be continuously reviewed. It's such nonsense and will fail the first time anyone challenges it.

I don't think it's aimed at City like 1.0 was more the whole of the EPL. The EPL teams have the money now so it's an attempt to stop them spending the money they have earned which you would think most EPL clubs , including United, would not be happy about. It does, as a side issue, directly affect our business model particularly the number of players loaned out to other countries to develop as we have no b teams and complications from brexit.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Exactly what I was thinking. Which is why I think there must be more to this as, for the reason you outline, it's ridiculous. City's net average spend over the last 5 years is about £101 million but the market has zoomed up recently. Most of this is a reaction to the Neymar deal which was crazy, but FFP 2.0 is definitely not the answer and causes more problems than it solves.

Plus the arbitrary figure of 100 million euros would have to be continuously reviewed. It's such nonsense and will fail the first time anyone challenges it.

I don't think it's aimed at City like 1.0 was more the whole of the EPL. The EPL teams have the money now so it's an attempt to stop them spending the money they have earned which you would think most EPL clubs , including United, would not be happy about. It does, as a side issue, directly affect our business model particularly the number of players loaned out to other countries to develop as we have no b teams and complications from brexit.

If you look at it from the rags perspective though, they are already paying indecent money to agents & paying players much more than they are worth.

They wouldn't have to change. It's us that would have to change.

 

[Cobwebcat]

If you look at it from the rags perspective though, they are already paying indecent money to agents & paying players much more than they are worth.

They wouldn't have to change. It's us that would have to change.

That's true but United could afford to spend way in excess of 90 million per season net on attracting players while say Bayern probably couldn't or don't want to anyway. So they might want to bring in 4 players but only get 2 as they hit their allowed limit so the other two players go elsewhere.

This comes from Bayern have no doubt. Their business model is to get their targets to run their contracts down so there is no transfer fee. They call this honouring the players contract!

If 2.0 means transfer fees drop because of the amount clubs are allowed to spend that would be fair enough but its more likely players won't be able to move unless they run their contracts down which is what Bayern want. I think contracts would be shorter as a result.

 

[Neville Kneville]

That's true but United could afford to spend way in excess of 90 million per season net on attracting players while say Bayern probably couldn't or don't want to anyway. So they might want to bring in 4 players but only get 2 as they hit their allowed limit so the other two players go elsewhere.

This comes from Bayern have no doubt. Their business model is to get their targets to run their contracts down so there is no transfer fee. They call this honouring the players contract!

If 2.0 means transfer fees drop because of the amount clubs are allowed to spend that would be fair enough but its more likely players won't be able to move unless they run their contracts down which is what Bayern want. I think contracts would be shorter as a result.

I think it will create a nightmare for contracts & put agents in a ridiculously strong position. Then if contracts are short, loads of 'free' transfers.

I don't see that it particularly helps stop the Premier League, as you could imagine Liverpool's wage bill for example, increasing thanks to the tv money, in the same way that the two faced fucks have just shelled out 75 mil for Van Dijk. If the going rate for a genuine top player is 90 mil, then it puts them within the reaches of half the Premier League.

Sanchez has effectively just turned down a title medal & Pep Guardiola, for money. Five years from now, we could see players like him, signing for Everton, if the money goes on wages.

 

[willipp]

I think they are desperately trying to look after the 'great' clubs, & know deep down, that the only thing which makes 'great' clubs stay 'great' is money otherwise 'great' clubs just have their spell in the limelight & are replaced. We are a great club & it happened to us, same with Leeds. But now it's happening to the old European Cup winners.

When Kaka signed for AC Milan, they were a much bigger entity worldwide, than City. I would wager that in most countries of the world now, there would be more fans turn up to see City, than AC Milan.

Ten years from now, Liverpool are AC Milan, if things stay the same. But worse still, Real Madrid are in danger. A few shit years for them & it would all go tits up. They need to sign the biggest & best, just to tread water. At 200 million a pop, they can't afford it. At 90 mil, they can.

Thats a great point about Madrid and will be interesting to see how they react to this. They have an old squad with their galaticos losing any resale value quickly. Ronaldo is 32, Bale is 29, Benzema is 30, modric 32, Ramos 31. How the hell do they rebuild that squad with those limitations in place? You could say that with restrictions like this in pace on them they are in for a decade of struggling to compete. If this is coming in, this summer could be shit or bust for a few big clubs.

 

[Cobwebcat]

I think it will create a nightmare for contracts & put agents in a ridiculously strong position. Then if contracts are short, loads of 'free' transfers.

I don't see that it particularly helps stop the Premier League, as you could imagine Liverpool's wage bill for example, increasing thanks to the tv money, in the same way that the two faced fucks have just shelled out 75 mil for Van Dijk. If the going rate for a genuine top player is 90 mil, then it puts them within the reaches of half the Premier League.

Sanchez has effectively just turned down a title medal & Pep Guardiola, for money. Five years from now, we could see players like him, signing for Everton, if the money goes on wages.

It's not that they couldn't afford the wages or transfer fee it's that the EPL clubs are more likely to be in a position to afford more than a net transfer loss of 90 million per annum but are not allowed to spend their own money. 1.0 attempted to keep the old guard at the top with an emphasis on turnover...now that the EPL have good turnovers UEFA are changing it to limiting the money which can be spent on the transfer itself in an attempt to bring the EPL in line with say La Liga. So they now seem to be saying earn whatever you like but you can't spend it.

 

[Neville Kneville]

It's not that they couldn't afford the wages or transfer fee it's that the EPL clubs are more likely to be in a position to afford more than a net transfer loss of 90 million per annum but are not allowed to spend their own money. 1.0 attempted to keep the old guard at the top with an emphasis on turnover...now that the EPL have good turnovers UEFA are changing it to limiting the money which can be spent on the transfer itself in an attempt to bring the EPL in line with say La Liga. So they now seem to be saying earn whatever you like but you can't spend it.

I understand that, but if you look at recent transfer spending, Utd, PSG, Barca, they have all spent more on individual players than any Premier League club is willing to spend. And we know for sure Real Madrid would join in at that level & very soon, it would jump to 200 mil, which would probably just leave PSG & Utd.

If it's suddenly cropped at 90, well Liverpool are nearly there already & it looks like C ity may be about to hit 70 ish. Arse not far behind & Real Madrid are right in that bracket.

So you could end up with half the Prem, plus the top clubs in a few countries who can all afford to buy the world's most expensive players.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Thats a great point about Madrid and will be interesting to see how they react to this. They have an old squad with their galaticos losing any resale value quickly. Ronaldo is 32, Bale is 29, Benzema is 30, modric 32, Ramos 31. How the hell do they rebuild that squad with those limitations in place? You could say that with restrictions like this in pace on them they are in for a decade of struggling to compete. If this is coming in, this summer could be shit or bust for a few big clubs.

I think there is potential chaos ahead. And players/ agents will want to get their holidays done, around he world cup, then the transfer window shutting early here. Everyone trying to get in before ffp changes.

Which is why we are getting it done now & also seem to be hoovering up some kids. I'd be surprised if Fred isn't a done deal too.

 

[Cobwebcat]

I understand that, but if you look at recent transfer spending, Utd, PSG, Barca, they have all spent more on individual players than any Premier League club is willing to spend. And we know for sure Real Madrid would join in at that level & very soon, it would jump to 200 mil, which would probably just leave PSG & Utd.

If it's suddenly cropped at 90, well Liverpool are nearly there already & it looks like C ity may be about to hit 70 ish. Arse not far behind & Real Madrid are right in that bracket.

So you could end up with half the Prem, plus the top clubs in a few countries who can all afford to buy the world's most expensive players.

If the market falls as a result of 2.0 or there are more Bosmans then yes but I've no idea what will happen but as Martin Samuel points out clubs like AC Milan and Napoli are not too happy that Leicester have more money to spend and want to limit it.