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

[MillionMilesAway]

I don't think that's a huge story.

Aside from putting a 5-year period to amortise transfer fees, it doesn't read to do anything - maybe it would introduce a UEFA amortisation standard. How it would affect contract extensions is likely to get complicated.

If City spend 200M on 5 years, it's 40M a year.
If City spend 200M on 8 years, it's 25M a year.

As @cleavers has just posted, 5 years is pretty standard.It doesn't seem a great basis for changing things.

 

[HelloCity]

It's a bit of a none story really, as we have hardly ever signed players on longer than 5 years (the young lad today is 5 1/2 years, but I think that is mainly down to it being January), it might bugger chelsea, who do it, but who cares on that ?

We extend contracts quite quickly though so it’s not a non story. It’ll have some sort of impact for sure.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Ha ha ha, another set of rules reported that would block another us and coming club in the PL?

Are we not the at the top of table … financially?

Flabagasted!

 

[Centurions]

6 year deals have been given by the club but not to new signings

That's true, is there any indication whether this would be only for new signings?

 

[Fuzzy80]

You could still sign for as long as you want, just the transfer fee amortised over max of 5 years at the time of signing.

Nothing stopping an extension after that.

Whilst I think any effect on City is minimum, the same with these levers Barca pulled, I don’t think UEFA should get involved unless someone fails.

They should be allowed to run their business as they wish and it is not an unfair advantage, anyone can do this.

I think City’s view would be quite relaxed, might help a bit with FFP short term but long term it will not, so whether the investment short term is worth it is that clubs choice.

Just strikes me as someone’s unhappy and ran off to UEFA to complain, I think they massively overstep their boundaries on what they should/ should not be doing.

 

[moomba]

Can't wait until clubs start crying that the profit on player sales is bigger because players are fully amortised after 5 years, not the term of their contract.

The clubs pushing this should just be honest. They don't want anyone to spend enough to compete with them. They don't give a toss about contract length, or amortisation, just their own self interest.

 

[Eds]

This is more to do with Chelsea who are signing players on a five year contract then with an extension clause of three years thus the transfer fee is spread over 8 years instead of five which is an FFP loophole. Spend £400m spread across 8 years in £50m per season rather than £80m. This is one reason why they are spending a fortune on players and keeping within FFP guidelines. They have found a loophole and exploited it. Imagine though if it was us and the column inches that would have been written, this seems to have passed off very quietly. Obviously USA money is ok

 

[117 M34]

6 year deals have been given by the club but not to new signings

Think grealish was a 6 year deal.

They won't / can't back date it though so won't affect us on that one.

 

[moomba]

Think it's a bit much calling it a loophole too. Part of the rules that have been in place for years with numerous clubs benefiting from. It's no more a loophole than contract extensions.

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

It makes no sense.
Amortisation / annualising of costs is standard accountancy practice and even if you were to deviate into financial fantasy and write say 6 years of known costs off in 5 years, you can’t count the costs twice so you’d then report nothing in the 6th year.