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

[kiam06]

Real Madrid, The Rags, Munich etc should be stripped of all their trophies as clearly they were winning them with a leg up.

That's the one thing FFPR has done for me its made me realise that I no longer acknowledge any trophies the established cartel won it has all been a farce and carved up between 'friend's'.

Extremely corrupt.

 

[City & Blue Brazil]

This could actually end up shooting clubs in Europe in the foot. Many of them depend on PL clubs raiding them for players to get a big payout (think Monaco). If the PL clubs are restricted in their spend then the 'trickle down' of the PL money could disappear.

Be careful what you wish for....

When did trickle down ever happen?

 

[gh_mcfc]

The case goes to Brussels for appeal in spring. Msr DuPont still expects to win.

 

[sweenyuk]

@Prestwich_Blue given we were cutting it fine last season in terms of making a small profit and we appear to be spending a small fortune this window, how much d you think we've reduced our amortisation down by in extending the contracts of KDB, Dinho and Otta?

(or does it not really matter as we sold a load of players in the summer 2017 after the accounting period already released had finished.)

We can simply make a profit every year through clever accounting. Using the same method used by amazon and coffee shops to remove all their profits from the UK to avoid paying tax. Their international HQ's charge a branding fee to the UK business equal to their profits, they then make zero profit in the uk so pay zero tax. We do the opposite, we are the international HQ and we charge our international teams a branding fee equal to our losses, that way all losses are reported outside the UK on teams not involved in UEFA competitions

 

[aguero93:20]

We can simply make a profit every year through clever accounting. Using the same method used by amazon and coffee shops to remove all their profits from the UK to avoid paying tax. Their international HQ's charge a branding fee to the UK business equal to their profits, they then make zero profit in the uk so pay zero tax. We do the opposite, we are the international HQ and we charge our international teams a branding fee equal to our losses, that way all losses are reported outside the UK on teams not involved in UEFA competitions

UEFA have already put measures in place to stop us transferring costs to CFG.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

We can simply make a profit every year through clever accounting. Using the same method used by amazon and coffee shops to remove all their profits from the UK to avoid paying tax. Their international HQ's charge a branding fee to the UK business equal to their profits, they then make zero profit in the uk so pay zero tax. We do the opposite, we are the international HQ and we charge our international teams a branding fee equal to our losses, that way all losses are reported outside the UK on teams not involved in UEFA competitions

Do you know that for sure or is that a guess?

As far as I'm aware we charge the other clubs via the two companies (City Football Services & City Football Marketing) that we set up to handle central services such as marketing and technical matters. However those two companies are included within our FFP reporting perimeter according to the regulations, plus they charge back their services.

And, as pointed out by Aguero93:20, there is an agreement (rather than a formal mechanism I think) that we won't include inter-company revenue in FFP calculations.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I think what would be fairest is if each team got a net spend on historical success.

Your English is much better than last time Mr Rummenigge.

 

[aguero93:20]

Do you know that for sure or is that a guess?

As far as I'm aware we charge the other clubs via the two companies (City Football Services & City Football Marketing) that we set up to handle central services such as marketing and technical matters. However those two companies are included within our FFP reporting perimeter according to the regulations, plus they charge back their services.

And, as pointed out by Aguero93:20, there is an agreement (rather than a formal mechanism I think) that we won't include inter-company revenue in FFP calculations.

I think it was a formal mechanism as part of our settlement and has since shifted to an agreement. Don't think it was something we wanted to do anyway as it goes against the ethos of the investment.

 

[Silva2021]

Your English is much better than last time Mr Rummenigge.

Never put it past them.

Find this from Redcafe of all places, thought I would get there educated views

For all the sugar money in football (that mostly means in England with Chelsea and City) have destroyed football and make it less competitive, I have some stats for you.

In the 11 golden years of EPL when there were not sugar daddies *, only 3 clubs won the league with United winning 8 out of 11 titles (72%). In the next 14 years when the sugar daddy money came, 5 clubs won the league, with United and Chelsea winning it 5 times (36%). So, two most successful clubs in this non-competitive era together win as much as the most successful club in that mythical competitive era.

So, let's be fair. You're either total hypocrites who don't care about competition and just want United to monopolise trophies, or you are mistaking the pre-Abramovich era with pre-EPL year. Because the league before Abramovich was as competitive as Bundesliga is nowadays.

* A lot of people would argue that Blackburn was actually the original sugar daddy club, so if it wasn't for them United would have won 9/11 titles (82%). Since Abramovich, if you don't count Chelsea/City titles, we would have likely won 8/14 titles, all of them in a row. That is something that would make Bayern and Celtics proud.

EPL in particular has benefitted from outside money, and that is one of the reasons why the league is so good and so competitive

Seems very impartial and probably not a United fan, but it is an interesting point that this has created competition that has increased the value of the TV deal. The Aguerooo moment is pure box office.

The rest is the usual drival that considers FFP to be a joke because City are doing well. The whole concept of sponsors etc. it is as if we are still the same club before the takeover just with extra players, little or no credit is ever mentioned that sponsors might what to be associated with a club that is probably the most watched by neutrals, on TV a lot in Champions League. No all of our market value should be similar to that of Everton/ Newcastle and anything above that is just a dodgy deal.

I always wonder are PSG good for us or bad, they don't seem to care to the same extent (they still have this huge sponsorship tourism deal which gives £200 million pound, although book value was reduced to £100 million), spend HUGE sums and don't care who they upset. We on the otherhand seem to have invested in infrastructure, our highest transfer fee is £55 million and we have not took anyone away from the European elite. However it is always oil clubs PSG and City when FFP is mentioned.

 

[moomba]

We can simply make a profit every year through clever accounting. Using the same method used by amazon and coffee shops to remove all their profits from the UK to avoid paying tax. Their international HQ's charge a branding fee to the UK business equal to their profits, they then make zero profit in the uk so pay zero tax. We do the opposite, we are the international HQ and we charge our international teams a branding fee equal to our losses, that way all losses are reported outside the UK on teams not involved in UEFA competitions

That would have to be reported in our accounts as a related party transaction would it not?

Just had a look, the only transaction in our accounts between us and one of the other clubs is a small loan to NYCFC.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Never put it past them.

Find this from Redcafe of all places, thought I would get there educated views

For all the sugar money in football (that mostly means in England with Chelsea and City) have destroyed football and make it less competitive, I have some stats for you.

In the 11 golden years of EPL when there were not sugar daddies *, only 3 clubs won the league with United winning 8 out of 11 titles (72%). In the next 14 years when the sugar daddy money came, 5 clubs won the league, with United and Chelsea winning it 5 times (36%). So, two most successful clubs in this non-competitive era together win as much as the most successful club in that mythical competitive era.

So, let's be fair. You're either total hypocrites who don't care about competition and just want United to monopolise trophies, or you are mistaking the pre-Abramovich era with pre-EPL year. Because the league before Abramovich was as competitive as Bundesliga is nowadays.

* A lot of people would argue that Blackburn was actually the original sugar daddy club, so if it wasn't for them United would have won 9/11 titles (82%). Since Abramovich, if you don't count Chelsea/City titles, we would have likely won 8/14 titles, all of them in a row. That is something that would make Bayern and Celtics proud.

EPL in particular has benefitted from outside money, and that is one of the reasons why the league is so good and so competitive

Seems very impartial and probably not a United fan, but it is an interesting point that this has created competition that has increased the value of the TV deal. The Aguerooo moment is pure box office.

The rest is the usual drival that considers FFP to be a joke because City are doing well. The whole concept of sponsors etc. it is as if we are still the same club before the takeover just with extra players, little or no credit is ever mentioned that sponsors might what to be associated with a club that is probably the most watched by neutrals, on TV a lot in Champions League. No all of our market value should be similar to that of Everton/ Newcastle and anything above that is just a dodgy deal.

I always wonder are PSG good for us or bad, they don't seem to care to the same extent (they still have this huge sponsorship tourism deal which gives £200 million pound, although book value was reduced to £100 million), spend HUGE sums and don't care who they upset. We on the otherhand seem to have invested in infrastructure, our highest transfer fee is £55 million and we have not took anyone away from the European elite. However it is always oil clubs PSG and City when FFP is mentioned.

Excellent post mate.

You have clubs like Bayern winning the league 99 times out of 100 and then UEFA has the temerity to suggest that new money coming into football is damaging competition????! You really could not make it up.

 

[Andrew___K]

The next TV deal for PL is expected to be even richer than the current one. No way English clubs would agree with any spending cap.

With a new estimated value of almost £6 billion, the English Premier League football rights are some of the most expensive in the world.
A new report by Ampere Analysis has valued the UK rights between £5.5 billion and £5.9 billion for domestic three-year ‘live’ television rights.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/premier-league-tv-rights-estimated-11899415

 

[Jazzman]

Excellent post mate.

You have clubs like Bayern winning the league 99 times out of 100 and then UEFA has the temerity to suggest that new money coming into football is damaging competition????! You really could not make it up.

Remember that the conflict here really is one of business and not sports. What we have is a kartell of companies who had carved the market up between them. In recent years new competition has shown up and taken part of the market away from them, and they don't like it at all, so they try to manipulate the rules governing the market in order to prevent competition. For the Premier League essentially it is the American owners of what used to be the biggest businesses playing dirty to prevent competition, and thus remain in the nice spot of having companies producing a guaranteed yearly profit.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Remember that the conflict here really is one of business and not sports. What we have is a kartell of companies who had carved the market up between them. In recent years new competition has shown up and taken part of the market away from them, and they don't like it at all, so they try to manipulate the rules governing the market in order to prevent competition. For the Premier League essentially it is the American owners of what used to be the biggest businesses playing dirty to prevent competition, and thus remain in the nice spot of having companies producing a guaranteed yearly profit.

Of course. It's obvious and plain to see.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Never put it past them.

Find this from Redcafe of all places, thought I would get there educated views

For all the sugar money in football (that mostly means in England with Chelsea and City) have destroyed football and make it less competitive, I have some stats for you.

In the 11 golden years of EPL when there were not sugar daddies *, only 3 clubs won the league with United winning 8 out of 11 titles (72%). In the next 14 years when the sugar daddy money came, 5 clubs won the league, with United and Chelsea winning it 5 times (36%). So, two most successful clubs in this non-competitive era together win as much as the most successful club in that mythical competitive era.

So, let's be fair. You're either total hypocrites who don't care about competition and just want United to monopolise trophies, or you are mistaking the pre-Abramovich era with pre-EPL year. Because the league before Abramovich was as competitive as Bundesliga is nowadays.

* A lot of people would argue that Blackburn was actually the original sugar daddy club, so if it wasn't for them United would have won 9/11 titles (82%). Since Abramovich, if you don't count Chelsea/City titles, we would have likely won 8/14 titles, all of them in a row. That is something that would make Bayern and Celtics proud.

EPL in particular has benefitted from outside money, and that is one of the reasons why the league is so good and so competitive

Seems very impartial and probably not a United fan, but it is an interesting point that this has created competition that has increased the value of the TV deal. The Aguerooo moment is pure box office.

The rest is the usual drival that considers FFP to be a joke because City are doing well. The whole concept of sponsors etc. it is as if we are still the same club before the takeover just with extra players, little or no credit is ever mentioned that sponsors might what to be associated with a club that is probably the most watched by neutrals, on TV a lot in Champions League. No all of our market value should be similar to that of Everton/ Newcastle and anything above that is just a dodgy deal.

I always wonder are PSG good for us or bad, they don't seem to care to the same extent (they still have this huge sponsorship tourism deal which gives £200 million pound, although book value was reduced to £100 million), spend HUGE sums and don't care who they upset. We on the otherhand seem to have invested in infrastructure, our highest transfer fee is £55 million and we have not took anyone away from the European elite. However it is always oil clubs PSG and City when FFP is mentioned.

Thanks for that. Saves me having to conduct the research but it confirms what I've always suspected. It also illustrates that the Pisscan wasn't the brilliant manager he was held up to be.

 

[ancoats]

spending caps don't work and clubs can get around them with so called gift's like houses cars watches rings even family can become a major factor

uefa are daft if they don't want the money men and clubs in football and like many have said its a money go round and good for football and clubs and players. football clubs find new ways to rise from the monopoly setup by the so called power clubs in europe and premier league and when somebody finds a winning formula why should it be wrong

its just lazy by the power clubs they don't want change and dare you challenge them its not football. people get sick of the same old winners just like the premier league at the start united won it most years until somebody invested money into blackburn. all the people in football and in england wanted more and more money men to come to the game. people wanted teams to stand up to united and take them on they said it will make them a better club in the long run

but the one thing united and the so called power clubs in europe did not see coming was sheikh mansour and his investment and vision for manchester city. its change the game in a flash not only did football think little old manchester city will never be a power club both in england and europe and sheikh mansour money will run out soon. the thing they missed was the size of manchester city becoming a empire both on and off the field. the foundations sheikh mansour built means whatever rules they make up like FFP manchester city are always one set ahead. the turn over of manchester city is right on course and debt free a winning clubs on the field banking millions and millions and silverware and titles and finals champions league football and tv money just about everything is all adding up to the best run football club in the world

 

[Henkeman]

but the one thing united and the so called power clubs in europe did not see coming was sheikh mansour and his investment and vision for manchester city.

I suspect you're right, but they really should have done. Quite why it is that people happily coining it in never seem to grasp that someone else might want to muscle in is always extraordinary, just as it was for football. That's why the bleating and whining about it is so amusing and hypocritical - they only wanted it to the point it was them getting all the benefit.

Always bear one thing in mind when they propose variations on FFP, and that's that never do they actually put forward something that would genuinely equalise the game. Not even something as small and relatively unimportant as a return to gate sharing.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks for that. Saves me having to conduct the research but it confirms what I've always suspected. It also illustrates that the Pisscan wasn't the brilliant manager he was held up to be.

It goes back further actually. 10 years before the PL came along there was a major change in the way ticket money was shared between the clubs. Essentially, prior to 1981 the home club would give 25% of the gate to the away club & keep 75% themselves. So smaller clubs would benefit financially from the higher crowds at clubs like Liverpool, the rags, etc.

From 1981, that was stopped after the usual suspects (Rags, Liverpool, Arsenal plus Spurs & Everton) threatened a breakaway league. As ticket money was virtually the sole source of revenue for all clubs in those days this had a huge impact on the finances of big and small clubs, giving the former more money and the latter a lot less. Villa won the league in 1981 but after that it was Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal, with just Leeds breaking the cartel in 1992 (although they'd be classed as a "big" club in terms of attendances). Then the PL came along & that was dominated by United & Arsenal, with Blackburn (funded by Jack Walker), Chelsea (Abramovich), us (Sheikh Mansour) and of course Leicester.

 

[Newman Noggs]

It goes back further actually. 10 years before the PL came along there was a major change in the way ticket money was shared between the clubs. Essentially, prior to 1981 the home club would give 25% of the gate to the away club & keep 75% themselves. So smaller clubs would benefit financially from the higher crowds at clubs like Liverpool, the rags, etc.

From 1981, that was stopped after the usual suspects (Rags, Liverpool, Arsenal plus Spurs & Everton) threatened a breakaway league. As ticket money was virtually the sole source of revenue for all clubs in those days this had a huge impact on the finances of big and small clubs, giving the former more money and the latter a lot less. Villa won the league in 1981 but after that it was Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal, with just Leeds breaking the cartel in 1992 (although they'd be classed as a "big" club in terms of attendances). Then the PL came along & that was dominated by United & Arsenal, with Blackburn (funded by Jack Walker), Chelsea (Abramovich), us (Sheikh Mansour) and of course Leicester.

And am I right in thinking that the two games with the highest viewing figures in PL history involved the rags ? Presumably they were their games against Liverpool.

 

[waspish]

And am I right in thinking that the two games with the highest viewing figures in PL history involved the rags ? Presumably they were their games against Liverpool.

Nope Man City has that.