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

UEFA. will keep on trying to find ways to punish the likes of PSG and MCFC., any way that they can. They are at it again with PSG, so wait for it we will be next in line. Instead of having FFP, there should be a new ruling and that is COP. In other words Can Owners Pay. Should a creditor coming calling for the money that is due to them, have the owner/s enough money in there bank account/s to pay of the debt of the club. If not the club should be sanctioned similar to the rules that apply to FFP.
 
Henkeman said:
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.
Click to expand...

i really think they all thought sheikh mansour would not last long AT LITTLE OLD CITY. ok maybe win the fa cup or league then walk away with his tail between his legs. only the people from manchester could see the vision from outside of the game sheikh mansour was not just pumping money into football in manchester city name but the whole of east manchester. everything has been covered and built for the future even the group holdings all working under the name of manchester city means that little old man city will become the empire and the power house club

looking back over the history of football in england you have your slot yes manchester city was a great club back in the mid 1900's even up to the the 1960s but we never conquer the game with setting the bar like a liverpool or united but this setup at manchester city is all working towards that level
 
waspish said:
Viewing figures not attendances was the question.
Click to expand...
BT or Sky wouldn't publish any figures that made City look good if we did top the list.

I've also often wondered how it's calculated/measured, they make it seem such an exact science when in reality all they do monitor some households that agree to it and then estimate off their sample data.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/how-are-tv-viewing-figures-calculated
http://www.barb.co.uk/about-us/how-we-do-what-we-do/

You just know BT and Sky are asking them to use known dipper and rag saturated areas haha. "Man Utd and Liverpool need to be back at the top for our viewing figures" more like you are rag and dipper infested organizations with too many people pushing their own narratives to suit their own agendas. It certainly doesn't ring true outside of the UK either with City looking like the most watched club right now. If youtube and social media are anything to go by most of the UK football scene are watching a lot of City games this season.
 
Last edited:
Henkeman said:
. 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.
Click to expand...

Arrogance leading to short sightedness. A lot of healthy organisations don't see the need to look to change, develop and grow. By standing still, you increase the risk of going backwards.
 
Fuzzy80 said:
I think what would be fairest is if each team got a net spend on historical success.
Click to expand...
Fuzzy80 said:
I think what would be fairest is if each team got a net spend on historical success.
Click to expand...
I think only rags, scouse and gunners should be allowed to purchase players under 33 years old . The rest of us over 33 because they will be cheaper and lower the risk of us all going bankrupt.
 
moomba said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interesting titbit this. In July last year we set up a new company, City Football UK Holdings Ltd, which is owned by CFG. I wonder if this is an attempt to ring-fence the UK part of the group from the other parts?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Interesting titbit this. In July last year we set up a new company, City Football UK Holdings Ltd, which is owned by CFG. I wonder if this is an attempt to ring-fence the UK part of the group from the other parts?
Click to expand...

Hi PW, are Holding Companies the usual way to transfer losses to a member Company that makes profits ?
In other words is it just to ensure that profits are retained within the Group whilst expansion occurs rather than be taxed for the profit ?

Apologies if I misunderstand the motives.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Hi PW, are Holding Companies the usual way to transfer losses to a member Company that makes profits ?
In other words is it just to ensure that profits are retained within the Group whilst expansion occurs rather than be taxed for the profit ?

Apologies if I misunderstand the motives.
Click to expand...
You don't need a holding company to do it. It's easier to just cross-charge. A holding company is just the legal entity over several related companies. This new company just looks like we're separating Mcfc by a further degree from the other clubs.
 
I have thought for a while that the football services and football club elements of City Group's UK business would have to be assembled into one UK based reporting entity to comply with probable additional FFP regulations.
 
BlueAnorak said:
I have thought for a while that the football services and football club elements of City Group's UK business would have to be assembled into one UK based reporting entity to comply with probable additional FFP regulations.
Click to expand...
FFP regulations already treat subsidiaries/associated companies as part of the reporting perimeter if they provide "football related services".
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
FFP regulations already treat subsidiaries/associated companies as part of the reporting perimeter if they provide "football related services".
Click to expand...
I know. But such a reorganisation makes it obvious to anyone - it also allows for other businesses to be attached to the same reporting entity. e.g. businesses operaring within 1.5m of our ground - including whatever attractiom is built behind the east stand.
 
BlueAnorak said:
I know. But such a reorganisation makes it obvious to anyone - it also allows for other businesses to be attached to the same reporting entity. e.g. businesses operaring within 1.5m of our ground - including whatever attractiom is built behind the east stand.
Click to expand...
All they have to do with any other business is stick our badge on it.
 
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