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

BerkshireBlue said:
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?
Click to expand...

Looks like net spend per season to investigate but they may not find any wrongdoing. It’s a bit weird I grant you.
 
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...

It's net spend, they can't justify a limit on gross spend.
 
I like these bits

He said these would be a "sustainable debt ratio" based on a club's net debt and earnings, and a maximum annual net transfer spend of €100m (Dh455.6m).

Verschueren also said the ECA wants Uefa to improve transparency by publishing more club data, including the amount paid to agents, and ensure that every club is using the same accounting methods.
 
pirate said:
but thats the point isnt it.
its not just accounts from the past,it includes plans and forecasts for the coming year.
So Gill passes the info onto his friends at Old Toilet and suddenly they know our transfer budget for the coming year. Think that would hand them an unfair advantage in the coming year.
Add in that the forecast would include proposed future sponsorship, including who the sponsor is so the UEFA can apply their bollocks fair market test. Thats more sensitive commercial information in the hands of our direct competitor, if Gill decides to pass that on to old toilet as well.

Hands up who thinks Gill will pass on the information to United?
Click to expand...

Me and that is basically what I was alluding to. 'You have spent xxxx, how are you going to balance the books?' then when he is sat next to pisscan at the Swamp............
 
Clearly the club association wants to stop PSG (and of course Manchester City spending) but they dont want to stop the usual suspects from spending!
Hillatious. By their ineptitude they lose.
If only they had tried to create true FFP they would be much better off than they are now.
 
Debt ratio.
Do we get banned because we have an infinite debt ratio? REVENUE/0 = INFINITY.
We have no debt so we must be cheating...
 
BlueAnorak said:
Debt ratio.
Do we get banned because we have an infinite debt ratio? REVENUE/0 = INFINITY.
We have no debt so we must be cheating...
Click to expand...
It’s all a load of bollocks,certain clubs squealing as they don’t like us and more so psg (after their huge Neymar outlay and loan deal for mbappe which if becomes permanent another huge outlay) as we have put noses out of joint ..
 
We don't actually have zero debt.
We've a liability for the stadium, money owing on future transfers and a few other bits n pieces. Nothing like most clubs but we do have debt
 
It's ridiculous and arbitrary. If any club can afford to spend x amount then they should be allowed. If a business had £20 billion to invest on its infrastructure it could, so why have this shitty ffp bollocks in football? If City, PSG, Madrid or (unfortunately) rags can afford to buy £300m of players in one month because of their vast income, why shouldn't they? If Barnsley or Watford or Anderlecht can't afford to, then tough shit. Just as UEFA and the FA thought it was tough shit on us when the filth were spending £30million on Rio Ferdinand and Veron and we didn't have a pot to piss in.

When will we make a proper legal challenge to this biased farce and kill ffp stone dead once and for all.
 
waspish said:
It’s there competition you get invited to so they can make what ever rules up as they want legally.
Click to expand...

the thing is our owners want success in europe and have to be yes men to uefa so we are just letting them wipe there feet on us and the rest are laughing at us. but the thing that really gets my goat up is clubs like united and real madrid and barca and munich think its there own competition and dare you take them on or ask questions. all of them 4 clubs have run up debts that will never get cleared and they just pipe on about fair play and its our own money HaHaHa

can uefa really stop a club from playing in there competitions and stop players from making a living and stopping the best club in england being shown on tv around the world and getting major sponsorship money for showing the best players in the world ???? also having zero debt and making profects every season how can that be bad for football ?????

just spend whatever you like and buy messi or ronaldo or both and see what happens????? if uefa stops us playing my bet is major sponsors will pull out and tv companies will demand they let man city play or they too will pull out it would make no sense at all to ban a club with the worlds best players in there team
 
aguero93:20 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that's called management - as you also know - but that's very different from describing budgets as guess work etc. Mind you, if you are a CIMA, it's probably how you prepare your budgets.
 
OB1 said:
And that's called management - as you also know - but that's very different from describing budgets as guess work etc. Mind you, if you are a CIMA, it's probably how you prepare your budgets.
Click to expand...
Haha no ACCA, but as you know it's a balance between prudent estimates and what the board want.
 
CharliesRightPeg said:
We don't actually have zero debt.
We've a liability for the stadium, money owing on future transfers and a few other bits n pieces. Nothing like most clubs but we do have debt
Click to expand...
It's working debt though, the players and stadium generate more revenue for the club than the payments on the debt. The rags and Madrid have legacy debt, a far worse issue.
 
City_Sean said:
I'd wager that they'd absolutely lob silly money over the next three windows to try and close the gap else they're fucked.
Click to expand...

And they still can under the original ffp rules. The 100 million net spend debt just triggers an investigation you can still pass via revenues.

Not much has changed.
 
I may be looking at this through rose-coloured specs but it might work in our favour in some ways. It might help get rid of the "City premium" that we seem to be asked to pay all the time. If we can say to selling clusb "Sorry chaps. Can't pay that as we've already spent €70m net and we aren't selling anyone else".
 
aguero93:20 said:
It's working debt though, the players and stadium generate more revenue for the club than the payments on the debt. The rags and Madrid have legacy debt, a far worse issue.
Click to expand...
Its no longer on the accounts as debt because its not a debt - it's a charge.
 
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