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

Prestwich_Blue said:
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".
Click to expand...

Pretty much any feasible FFP rule is going to protect us more than harm us now. Anything based on revenue, avoiding losses or a spending cap is only ever going to benefit the team with the 5th highest revenue in the world, virtually 0 debt, with one of the best squads and infrastructures, playing the best football and winning trophies.

The new FFP will be pushing to level the European playing field and let Germany and Italy keep up with the Premier League, not stop us specifically. United and Spurs made a bit of a mockery of it, but 4/5 English teams in the last 16 should be standard now and that'll start turning into 3/4 in the last 8.

People like Agnelli and Rummenigge have been waiting for the English to work out how to use their disproportionate wealth properly and now they're worried it's happened.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
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".
Click to expand...
Never works that way Colin, you can't apply artificial deflation to an inflationary market without severe checks and balances that do more harm than good.
 
Not sure what the big issue is. We got in before the door "shut". UEFA watered down FFP rules because they knew they were fundamentally anti-competitive. Although we think football clubs as football clubs - at the end of the day, whether you like it or not they are limited companies - City included. If it was tested in court they would rule in favour of the claimant who argued it was anti-competitive on the basis competing companies are coercing others into spending less, whether through investment or salaries.

It never got that far because clubs like City were willing to work with UEFA to reduce their bills and gradually comply. domalino hit the nail on the head a few posts back by saying: "any feasible FFP rule is going to protect us more than harm us now". City knew this in 2012 and could become an established top European club as the drawbridge was closing.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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".
Click to expand...

Not really as it seems the original ffp rules still apply. 100 mill net is just one of the two new triggers to investigate. You can still spend what your revenue allows you to and presumably we could always have said to selling clubs we are at our revenue limit for ffp.
 
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...

Not quite right I'm afraid (from someone who knows these things!)

We don't have any long term debt, but we do have current liabilities (sometimes called upcoming liabilities)

http://www.investinganswers.com/financial-dictionary/businesses-corporations/current-liability-5247

The key line being..."It is important to note here that although debt commonly comes to mind when one considers liabilities, not all liabilities are debt."
 
Clearly the €100m rule was floated and knocked back by Real and Manure as they have to spend really big to catch up ( with Barca and ourselves).
They're clearly finding it a bit difficult to formulate a rule that says: "You can only spend if you have 'Istory"
 
Last edited:
Cobwebcat said:
Not really as it seems the original ffp rules still apply. 100 mill net is just one of the two new triggers to investigate. You can still spend what your revenue allows you to and presumably we could always have said to selling clubs we are at our revenue limit for ffp.
Click to expand...

What he's outlined is actually deregulation of smaller clubs.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Clearly the €100m rule was floated and knocked back by Real and Manure as they have to spend really big to catch up ( with Barca and ourselves).
They're clearly finding it a bit difficult to formulate a rule that says: "You can only spend if you have 'Istory"
Click to expand...

They've introduced one for coefficient points, so it can't be long before "historic" or "heritage" is used in regards to how much a club can spend
 
I'm wondering about the line regarding 'everyone using the same accounting methods' & exactly what that means.

We have the CFG, which is consolidating City's strength around the world & threatening all kinds of nighmares for these ****s (who can't afford to set up their own similar organisation) & I'm pretty sure that these fuckers are absolutely desperate to put a stop to it, if they can find a way.
 
Whilst new FFP regs are being prepared is it likely that our success in improving players within our successful team will have a big impact on our player salaries?
We rightly pulled out of the Sanchez deal for financial reasons but will renegotiation of existing player contracts force us to sell, indeed will it become part of our commercial success to say sell Jesus or Sterling who seem to be stalling regarding contract renegotiation thus improving our income side of the business ?

Currently we appear to have happy players but are their agents happy ? They see us improving their value but they get no share unless we sell.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Its no longer on the accounts as debt because its not a debt - it's a charge.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that?

City's last set of accounts refer to net borrowings of £66 million at the balance sheet date.

Do you think net borrowings are something different to debt?

The financial statements also show net debt of £47.6 million (i.e. net borrowings less cash on hand).

I've not read it yet but I'm pretty sure IFRS16 is not doing away with finance leases.

The point about City's borrowings is that they relate primarily to the lease for the stadium rather than, say, cash borrowed to buy players. Practically speaking they are rather different because we have not actually borrowed money to buy the stadium: we are renting it; however, the accounting treatment is that we have to treat the stadium as if we had bought it. Of course, if City were allowed to buy the stadium, they would presumably fund the purchase through the issue of share capital rather than by borrowing but you cannot present accounts on the basis of what you would do if...
 
Neville Kneville said:
I'm wondering about the line regarding 'everyone using the same accounting methods' & exactly what that means.

We have the CFG, which is consolidating City's strength around the world & threatening all kinds of nighmares for these ****s (who can't afford to set up their own similar organisation) & I'm pretty sure that these fuckers are absolutely desperate to put a stop to it, if they can find a way.
Click to expand...

UEFA have no power to dictate accounting standards or company law. I suppose they could try and insist on all clubs in European competition using IFRS but GAAP's are generally converging anyway. However, they can ask clubs to show them adjusted profit / loss figures for FFP purposes. Indeed, isn't that already what happens? IIRC, you can exclude certain expenditures from the FFP profit figure.
 
I think it's in the rear view mirror this one, whilst it has certainly been relevant we have passed it and the squad does not need major investment as it once did.

I loved the line someone put you can only spend if you have history (as that seems exactly what they would do, everyone there is self-serving). However, it cannot.

For the good of ourselves we need to align with the other English teams as other teams are scared of our wealth (something stupid like all 20 PL teams are in the highest 30 turnover). We need to ensure nothing is done to change this, Real and Barca have had their huge independent deals for years.

PSG is who this is aimed at, we are yet to take a real star of the golden boys in their prime and that stung, the loan for Mbappe (only not payable if PSG go down, I believe) added salt to the wound. I still think they do very well getting their £100 million tourism partnership put through the books for FFP.

I do think lessons have been learnt by the establishment and if for example Everton owners wanted to mirror what we did (which has proved a commercially viable business in the medium term) they would not stand a chance.

Good for City but not great for the sport as a whole in my view!
 
OB1 said:
UEFA have no power to dictate accounting standards or company law. I suppose they could try and insist on all clubs in European competition using IFRS but GAAP's are generally converging anyway. However, they can ask clubs to show them adjusted profit / loss figures for FFP purposes. Indeed, isn't that already what happens? IIRC, you can exclude certain expenditures from the FFP profit figure.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if they will try to interfere with us paying money to the CFG for various services etc & find a way of making that & some of our other dealings with the cfg into a breach of future rules.

Bringing in unique artificial restrictions which you don't see outside UEFA, hasn't been a problem for them so far & the CFG is unique to City, so something they could shit on, without it touching Utd or Bayern Munich etc.
 
Neville Kneville said:
I'm wondering if they will try to interfere with us paying money to the CFG for various services etc & find a way of making that & some of our other dealings with the cfg into a breach of future rules.

Bringing in unique artificial restrictions which you don't see outside UEFA, hasn't been a problem for them so far & the CFG is unique to City, so something they could shit on, without it touching Utd or Bayern Munich etc.
Click to expand...
They can't do that either, intercompany charges are normal and defined in IAS 21,24,27,28 and IFRS 2 quite clearly (iirc the individual standard numericals), all of which have been adopted by the the EC.
 
Fuzzy80 said:
I still think they do very well getting their £100 million tourism partnership put through the books for FFP.
Click to expand...
£200m, £100m allowed. We got interrogated over <£50m in Abu Dhabi related deals including stadium, shirt and campus sponsorship, but then again, we didn't have Platini's backing.
 
Neville Kneville said:
Surely they couldn't do any of the stuff they have already done either ?
Click to expand...
They pushed their luck. The rags have a holding company, as do Bayern, every Italian club, Atleti, PSG, Chelsea, Liverpool etc etc. Those transactional charges will be regular in all of them. We didn't create that company to dodge costs, we created it as best possible practise for a unit of staff that are used by multiple companies under the same entity. We still shoulder the majority of costs for it as we're the primary users.
 
aguero93:20 said:
They pushed their luck. The rags have a holding company, as do Bayern, every Italian club, Atleti, PSG, Chelsea, Liverpool etc etc. Those transactional charges will be regular in all of them. We didn't create that company to dodge costs, we created it as best possible practise for a unit of staff that are used by multiple companies under the same entity. We still shoulder the majority of costs for it as we're the primary users.
Click to expand...
Is the ability to transfer profits to loss making cos useful as well particularly when we do not need to continue our max investment policy ?
 
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