Why we haven't bought anyone yet

Now that FFP has been clarified and with the declaration that City are now free of all sanctions and can get back into the real world of building a football team that matches everyone's ambitions, perhaps we can now set about addressing the problems that have been aired on this thread, not least of all by me. If the boardroom members were only seeking clarification, then any deal we wish for should now be quickly settled.
 
Now that FFP has been clarified and with the declaration that City are now free of all sanctions and can get back into the real world of building a football team that matches everyone's ambitions, perhaps we can now set about addressing the problems that have been aired on this thread, not least of all by me. If the boardroom members were only seeking clarification, then any deal we wish for should now be quickly settled.

We've been declared free of sanctions, but UEFA have made it clear that because we have failed in the past we will be ineligible (at least in the short term, possibly forever) from requesting exemption from the breakeven requirements, which I presume UEFA intends to become a standard thing for clubs to request whenever they apply for a UEFA licence.

Thus, while we can effectively spend all we like without UEFA refusing to approve the transfer or their registration, as would've happened before, we still can't afford to produce a large deficit in next year's accounts or we're back to sanctionsville.
 
We've been declared free of sanctions, but UEFA have made it clear that because we have failed in the past we will be ineligible (at least in the short term, possibly forever) from requesting exemption from the breakeven requirements, which I presume UEFA intends to become a standard thing for clubs to request whenever they apply for a UEFA licence.

Thus, while we can effectively spend all we like without UEFA refusing to approve the transfer or their registration, as would've happened before, we still can't afford to produce a large deficit in next year's accounts or we're back to sanctionsville.
I did figure that. We have had to fall into line and it would anyway be absolutely stupid for City to get themselves into another FFP pickle but at least the club is now operating profitably [so I believe] unlike the early days when a loss in the hundreds of millions would have been seen as a minor inconvenience. Except in a few instances, City should now be able to compete in the market with anyone, the only drag being on how many shirts with a player's name on his back we are able to sell. For now, Real and Barca as obvious examples would exceed our kit sales and that would give them a huge advantage, not least towards any player who has a 200m fan ego, something that maybe Pogba is thinking of. But in three or four years time, just as we successfully defend the Champions League, those shirt sales of ours would become very strong and worldwide, and players with big ego's would likely see us as a perfect fit for them!
 
We've been declared free of sanctions, but UEFA have made it clear that because we have failed in the past we will be ineligible (at least in the short term, possibly forever) from requesting exemption from the breakeven requirements, which I presume UEFA intends to become a standard thing for clubs to request whenever they apply for a UEFA licence.

Thus, while we can effectively spend all we like without UEFA refusing to approve the transfer or their registration, as would've happened before, we still can't afford to produce a large deficit in next year's accounts or we're back to sanctionsville.
But surely if there is one aspect of FFP which the courts are going to throw out ( it is M. Duponts main target) then it is the ludicrous "break even" requirements?
 
I did figure that. We have had to fall into line and it would anyway be absolutely stupid for City to get themselves into another FFP pickle but at least the club is now operating profitably [so I believe] unlike the early days when a loss in the hundreds of millions would have been seen as a minor inconvenience. Except in a few instances, City should now be able to compete in the market with anyone, the only drag being on how many shirts with a player's name on his back we are able to sell. For now, Real and Barca as obvious examples would exceed our kit sales and that would give them a huge advantage, not least towards any player who has a 200m fan ego, something that maybe Pogba is thinking of. But in three or four years time, just as we successfully defend the Champions League, those shirt sales of ours would become very strong and worldwide, and players with big ego's would likely see us as a perfect fit for them!

Shirt sales are a vastly over-hyped source of revenue. I think when the last figures were announced, only two teams in the whole world sold more than 1 million shirts a year and even the likes of Arsenal and Chelsea barely sold 300-400k. We didn't even make it into the charts, with probably only around 200k sales worldwide. When you bear in mind that the manufacturer takes most of the profit rather than the team, I'd be surprised if clubs saw more than £10-15 of revenue per shirt, meaning perhaps £2-3m revenue tops. The club probably makes more money off stadium tours than shirts. Even signing the likes of Messi would probably not push our shirt revenue beyond £5m, largely because the vast majority of the shirts we would sell would be the Chinese sweatshop rip-offs sold in Asia from sources who give the club precisely zero cut of their profits.

But surely if there is one aspect of FFP which the courts are going to throw out ( it is M. Duponts main target) then it is the ludicrous "break even" requirements?

That would unfortunately be where you are wrong. Dupont only argued that UEFA's Fair Play restrictions in their current form were unfair, and the court banned UEFA from making the restrictions tighter and said that they must in future work towards making them less restrictive. There is nothing in the ruling that says UEFA has to drop the break-even requirement, and they've made it quite clear that they intend to hang onto it - they are presumably planning on observing to the court that the introduction of the exemption system is proof of their intention to make FFPR less restrictive, and the rules against previous offenders benefiting are simply good administration. It would require a second challenge from Dupont to get rid of break-even entirely, and since the first court case took two years, that's probably a fair estimate of how long a second would require.
 
Last edited:
Shirt sales are a vastly over-hyped source of revenue. I think when the last figures were announced, only two teams in the whole world sold more than 1 million shirts a year and even the likes of Arsenal and Chelsea barely sold 300-400k. We didn't even make it into the charts, with probably only around 200k sales worldwide. When you bear in mind that the manufacturer takes most of the profit rather than the team, I'd be surprised if clubs saw more than £10-15 of revenue per shirt, meaning perhaps £2-3m revenue tops. The club probably makes more money off stadium tours than shirts. Even signing the likes of Messi would probably not push our shirt revenue beyond £5m, largely because the vast majority of the shirts we would sell would be the Chinese sweatshop rip-offs sold in Asia from sources who give the club precisely zero cut of their profits.



That would unfortunately be where you are wrong. Dupont only argued that UEFA's Fair Play restrictions in their current form were unfair, and the court banned UEFA from making the restrictions tighter and said that they must in future work towards making them less restrictive. There is nothing in the ruling that says UEFA has to drop the break-even requirement, and they've made it quite clear that they intend to hang onto it - they are presumably planning on observing to the court that the introduction of the exemption system is proof of their intention to make FFPR less restrictive, and the rules against previous offenders benefiting are simply good administration. It would require a second challenge from Dupont to get rid of break-even entirely, and since the first court case took two years, that's probably a fair estimate of how long a second would require.
No. You're wrong Fal.

They've banned any further restriction and kicked it up the lines for a higher court to decide the legality of a break even requirement.
 
No. You're wrong Fal.

They've banned any further restriction and kicked it up the lines for a higher court to decide the legality of a break even requirement.
Hopefully the court can see their way clear to deciding whether UEFA are in a correct position to appoint themselves financial regulator as well.
 
That was funny last night on the Transfer Tavern on Talk Shite (Niel Ashton?). Him and his oppo discussed the transfer of Pogba for 5 minutes without mentioning Manchester City once.

OOPS think I should have put this in the Agenda thread.
 
Last edited:
Let's say we fail to sign quality players once again in this windows,I mean, apart from Fernandinho we haven't signed anyone decent since Agüero - do you think Khaldoon would consider replacing Txiki, or whoever is in charge for this lousy transfer committee?
 
Let's say we fail to sign quality players once again in this windows,I mean, apart from Fernandinho we haven't signed anyone decent since Agüero - do you think Khaldoon would consider replacing Txiki, or whoever is in charge for this lousy transfer committee?
Dont slag txiki off unless you wanna start a riot on here ;)

But in all seriousness, I think Khaldoon has clearly instructed our DOF to do the bizzo and give the squad a makeover with world class players regardless of cost (hence why we're reportedly lining up around 80 mil for pogba and supposedly 50 for sterling).

Remember, Khaldoon promised us there would be new faces in for next season...cant see him going against that tbh.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.