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

If anything this will push down the crazy transfer prices. If there's a 'cap' to the spending limit for everybody then the selling club is at loss here.
 
aguero93:20 said:
Untrue. Their rules still have to be fit for the purpose of sporting competition and be applied correctly and fairly across the board as well as being in tandem with EU employment and commercial law. This isn't the NFL and the USA.
Click to expand...

Yep the word legally covers all that
 
aguero93:20 said:
It's a bit nonsensical really, if they're doing that, they'll essentially be examining a club on 2 years of accounts and a budget for the 3rd year, budgets are nothing more than guesswork and wishful thinking. You can't do that and apply a concrete number for loss limits. If City think they're going to fail by half a million on the budget they'll revise the budget by a couple of million, same goes for any other club.
Click to expand...

I could write an awful lot on budgets and forecasts and I will often point out that they will always be wrong (but that is a matter of degree and why you should, imo, always be re-forecasting); however, and I'm sure you know this, budgets prepared by businesses like MCFC should and will be far more than just guesswork and wishful thinking. For an established, stable football club, a large part of their budget should be forecast with a high degree of accuracy and the potential upsides and downsides to that core budget should be reasonably predictable.

That does not mean that any changes to FFP make sense.
 
If I read this correctly City are still bound by the original ffp rules it’s just that a large net spend will initiate a speedy investigation which we may still pass. It’s aimed at PSG this.
 
OB1 said:
I could write an awful lot on budgets and forecasts and I will often point out that they will always be wrong (but that is a matter of degree and why you should, imo, always be re-forecasting); however, and I'm sure you know this, budgets prepared by businesses like MCFC should and will be far more than just guesswork and wishful thinking. For an established, stable football club, a large part of their budget should be forecast with a high degree of accuracy and the potential upsides and downsides to that core budget should be reasonably predictable.

That does not mean that any changes to FFP make sense.
Click to expand...
I'm the management accountant for a company with revenues that might not be as high as the club's but are in a similar ballpark mate, I get it. But if a change of 0.4% to revenue and expenditure lets the business avoid sanctions that will affect them as a going concern the adjustments will be made.
 
Metalartin said:
To me that reads like a way for them to interfere with a club's recruitment process by slowing it down. So if you buy two players or one expensive one, unless you are Real or Barca they'll put the breaks on and take their sweet time "overseeing the financials", result = Certain clubs *cough*City*cough* not able to close any further deals until they give the go ahead.
Click to expand...

aguero93:20 said:
Wouldn't work like that. In practice it would allow them to discourage clubs from recklessly gambling on new signings boosting income by immediately placing them under sanction, interfering with an individual deal's completion would be in violation of freedom of movement and labour.
Click to expand...
@aguero93:20 - You may think it shouldn't work like @Metalartin said - but in practice it will. Only Utd, Real, Barca and the rest of the usual suspects can be allowed to spend big.
 
BlueAnorak said:
@aguero93:20 - You may think it shouldn't work like @Metalartin said - but in practice it will. Only Utd, Real, Barca and the rest of the usual suspects can be allowed to spend big.
Click to expand...
It’s too late to stop us.

Our revenues are now in the elite tier but our spending room is higher as we don’t have to pay interest or loans or dividends to share/bond holders.
 
aguero93:20 said:
Seems like they're bringing forward FFP assessments for anyone spending over 100m in a season to ensure they're not breaching the existing regs (as PSG may have done this season) instead of introducing a hard cap on spend.
Click to expand...

This. So no change to spending criteria. Not as bad as I thought. The Premier League clubs will still have the huge advantage of TV rights money.
 
SWP's back said:
It’s too late to stop us.

Our revenues are now in the elite tier but our spending room is higher as we don’t have to pay interest or loans or dividends to share/bond holders.
Click to expand...
My point was they might just use it to slow us down(some of our deals take ages as it is), since they can't stop us they can just act like they are doing something when in fact they are stalling(overseeing our financials could mean "wait a few weeks while we review things") which may scupper a few deals while other clubs move in on our targets.
 
Metalartin said:
My point was they will just use it to slow us down, since they can't stop us they can just act like they are doing something(overseeing our financials could mean "wait a few weeks while we review things") when in fact they are stalling which may scupper a few deals while other clubs move in on our targets.
Click to expand...

Surely they would have to wait until the end of the window to see who we sold in which case they couldn’t delay us for that window. (Net spend)

It’s to deter PSG like spending that may break the original FFP rules but by the time it’s investigated any punishment is delayed and in the meantime PSG has played in the CL.

Investigate away.
 
Cobwebcat said:
Surely they would have to wait until the end of the window to see who we sold in which case they couldn’t delay us for that window. (Net spend)

It’s to deter PSG like spending that may break the original FFP rules but by the time it’s investigated any punishment is delayed and in the meantime PSG has played in the CL.
Click to expand...
Hopefully they do have to wait until the end of the window to step in but it sounded like breaking the 100m mark triggers them into action at the first glance.
 
SWP's back said:
It’s too late to stop us.

Our revenues are now in the elite tier but our spending room is higher as we don’t have to pay interest or loans or dividends to share/bond holders.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they'll try and find a way.
I suspect that we'll be ready for them though.
 
Cobwebcat said:
But that figure is net spend and that can’t be known until the end of the window.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where it says net spend specifically but what I was referring to was this:

Anderlecht's director added: "In a season you may spend a maximum of €100m, if you go above this amount UEFA will be allowed to oversee the financials of the club to verify that they are in accordance with the rules. It will allow for a more timely verification with is good for everyone."
Click to expand...

No mention of net spend, an emphasis on verifying and a hint it will be done faster than what we have now(step in faster). Admittedly I haven't read up in depth on it, I just gave my initial concerns from the quotes floating around because I don't trust the fuckers.
 
Metalartin said:
I'm not sure where it says net spend specifically but what I was referring to was this:



No mention of net spend, an emphasis on verifying and a hint it will be done faster than what we have now(step in faster). Admittedly I haven't read up in depth on it, I just gave my initial concerns from the quotes floating around because I don't trust the fuckers.
Click to expand...

https://www.thenational.ae/sport/fo...ds-and-changes-to-ffp-investigations-1.716587


Net. If it wasn’t net then there would be a lot of investigations!
 
a weird rule. If psg bought dybala for £101m and then say to uefa that they plan to sell him for £110m in two years then what is there to investigate?
 
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