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

I can't see how this can affect City specifically and not other clubs that make up the so-called established elite.

100 million Euro net spend maximum - well United were the biggest net spenders last summer so that's them fucked
Salary caps - Alexis Sanchez anyone?
Strict limits on agent fees - that's United fucked again

If anything, it could be argued that these new proposed regs are less damaging to City than other clubs, and even if we are the target then I wouldn't mind betting that like with the original incarnation of the FFP regs there will be some unintended casualties who suffer far more than us

To me, this sounds like it's aimed at the English Premier League clubs in general because clubs in certain other countries are pissed off with the big money the PL clubs get from the TV deal. Well tough shit - I didn't see the Spanish and Italian clubs complaining 25-30 years ago when the money was swilling round their leagues and most of the world's best players were plying their trade in those countries
 
M18CTID said:
If anything, it could be argued that these new proposed regs are less damaging to City than other clubs, and even if we are the target then I wouldn't mind betting that like with the original incarnation of the FFP regs there will be some unintended casualties who suffer far more than us

To me, this sounds like it's aimed at the English Premier League clubs in general because clubs in certain other countries are pissed off with the big money the PL clubs get from the TV deal. Well tough shit - I didn't see the Spanish and Italian clubs complaining 25-30 years ago when the money was swilling round their leagues and most of the world's best players were plying their trade in those countries
Click to expand...
Spot on. It's not anti-City/PSG, more like anti-PL.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Not quite true as I understand it. They certainly breached FFP rules but were able to claim mitigation under Annex XI, which allowed them to take wages paid in 2012 under contracts signed prior to June 2010 into account. That’s the same provision where they changed the basis of calculation, from one where we could have done the same to one where we then couldn’t. We’d submitted accounts which met the original criteria, which was subsequently changed to a basis that ensured we failed.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. The rules allowed certain exemptions to failing on numbers alone.

The abuse that the LFC fan got will create a lovely image of us.
 
Andrew___K said:
Spot on. It's not anti-City/PSG, more like anti-PL.
Click to expand...

PL and PSG. How they will judge the Neymar transfer will be interesting to see.

I can see a value in having a more even European tournament - they've had to relax FFP to let Italian clubs be taken over and funded, but the pay off was to give a guaranteed 4th CL group place to Spain, England and Germany as well as Italy (bizarrely, as they were down to 2+1 playoff.
Then they've rearranged prize money and ranking to benefit past winners (City get a small benefit to ranking I think from the CWC win).

It does make sense to restrain unbalancing, but the PL haven't been any good for several years now; however it's done is going to annoy someone.
 
aguero93:20 said:
I see Madrid and Chelsea are still hiding theirs behind holding companies...

Ignore the stadia related debt, it's not unhealthy.
Click to expand...

This is the thing, isn't it? There's sustainable debt and unsustainable debt.

Chelsea's is all loans from Abramovic, and no-one seriously thinks he's going to call those in.
Utd's is from the buyout plan, is not caused by reckless spending by the club, and is obviously not a risk.
Madrid are not going to get closed down by the banks.

None of those are in any way a risk, and the first two aren't doing anything that needs regulating.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
This is the thing, isn't it? There's sustainable debt and unsustainable debt.

Chelsea's is all loans from Abramovic, and no-one seriously thinks he's going to call those in.
Utd's is from the buyout plan, is not caused by reckless spending by the club, and is obviously not a risk.
Madrid are not going to get closed down by the banks.

None of those are in any way a risk, and the first two aren't doing anything that needs regulating.
Click to expand...
Actually the rags is the least healthy as the club hasn't gained from generating it.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Thanks for that reply, presumably the Glazers feel that the cash is more valuable to them elsewhere rather than repaying debt.
Why would any Company prefer to keep debt when it is such a drain on outgoings ?
Click to expand...

Companies should only take on debt, if they believe the investment of that money will bring in a larger return than what has been borrowed and the interest incurred on that dept.
 
jonmcity said:
Companies should only take on debt, if they believe the investment of that money will bring in a larger return than what has been borrowed and the interest incurred on that dept.
Click to expand...

Ah I see so the United profit money is removed then invested for gain elsewhere or used to prop up an otherwise vulnerable part of their Organisation ?
 
SilverFox2 said:
Ah I see so the United profit money is removed then invested for gain elsewhere or used to prop up an otherwise vulnerable part of their Organisation ?
Click to expand...

Exactly. The Glazers have a failing real estate business in the US, they invested a lot in mini malls. It was failing anyway, not sure if it's recovered. But the income United generated was being used to prop up that other business I believe. Paying the debt off for United would make no commercial sense for them because borrowing is so cheap and United generate such a huge income.
 
Not sure the other shareholders will let them take out cash from the business. They have to sell shares to take money out these days.
 
jonmcity said:
Not sure the other shareholders will let them take out cash from the business. They have to sell shares to take money out these days.
Click to expand...
They take out huge salaries now instead. They also hold 100% of the voting shares so can approve whatever they want for board salaries.
 
aguero93:20 said:
England doesn't have B teams to get around any restrictions on registration and player loans.

English clubs have more net cash to spend.
Click to expand...

But it's 100 mil spending per team, so if you want to sell your 'B' team players off, instead of teams being able to take a chance on them, & loan them out if it fails, like they can do now, they have to buy them as part of their 100 mil budget, so only the best ones get bought (the ones you would prefer to keep) & your 'B' team is full of average players, you can't sell.
 
Neville Kneville said:
But it's 100 mil spending per team, so if you want to sell your 'B' team players off, instead of teams being able to take a chance on them, & loan them out if it fails, like they can do now, they have to buy them as part of their 100 mil budget, so only the best ones get bought (the ones you would prefer to keep) & your 'B' team is full of average players, you can't sell.
Click to expand...
The senior players at the B teams are the ones happy to stay around and guide younger players, the others don't get offered contracts or are released. Delefeou is the only player I can think of that's moved straight from the B team to a major club (Everton).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top