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

ancoats said:
so why didn't the so called elite bring in FFP when chelsea was sold to roman abramovich or was there threat to the elite not seen as a problem. there is no way anybody can whitewash the fact FFP was brought in to stop manchester city winning the champions league and nobody else

any other club would have won the champions league a couple of times in ten years with the squads we have had
aguero silva yaya kompany KDB sterling foden and many many more players have been good enough to win the champions league at city but stop one way or another

take aguero david silva kompay yaya and but them in a red top you can bet 2 or 3 times they would be champions league winners easy
Click to expand...
I thought ffp was actually introduced to stop Roman Abramovich but the g14 clubs(sorry uefa) couldn't enforce it in time & we were caught in the cross hairs.
 
KS55 said:
One aspect of value that is often overlooked is the tv audience. The sponsor of a PL shirt is getting far more value from the global tv audience than it could possibly get from the club itself alone.
On that score, City does remarkably well. Two years ago, we were the most watched club in the US, narrowly overtaking some poxy outfit from Stretford. I have not seen any up to date numbers, but "Etihad" appears on hundreds of millions of tv screens worldwide every week.
Click to expand...
"Exposure" is clearly an important consideration but one which the sponsor is entitled to consider but not the PL or UEFA. Value for money, when the money is that of a sponsor, is none of UEFA's or the PL's business and sponsorship income should never be a reward for fulfilling some formula of UEFA's or the PL's. So far UEFA have shown a marked reluctance to meddle with City's deals, but what the PL proposes to deal with Newcastle would be a marked escalation of the cartel's offensive. With potentially disastrous consequences.
 
ancoats said:
uefa are still digging into them accounts to find something ? the etihad 10 year deal was the last one they used to ban us but we took to court and won. many would have just walked away from the sport but not manchester city owners because we was innocent ? we was only fond guilty of holding onto our accounts and not letting the elite board of uefa members pass them around to the so called elite clubs ? but would they let manchester city go through there books not in a million years

manchester city don't fall under the FFP rules because we don't need the owners money and our turn over is one the best in the world ? even in covid-19 pandemic manchester city never furlough anybody unlike others that even took loans from the government to stop them going bust ?? (so called elite teams)
Click to expand...
It is the PL that are still digging. The UEFA ship has sunk. Mind you we are still waiting for the result of EUFA's investigation into the leaks of our confidential financial information from the UEFA Investigations Committee during their FFP probe. Don't hold your breath on that one though.
 
I think the motives of the cartel is a little ore complicated than we sometimes believe. I think it was fear of Abramovich which made them consider a system of financial regulation to deal with an owner far richer than others or far more prepared to use their wealth to win matches and trophies. Sheikh Mansour posed the same problem in much starker terms. But the problem was not simply that two other clubs would muscle in on the trophies and wolf the lion's (!) share of the CL revenue. Once it was clear that City could attract AND RETAIN players who were far from mercenaries the cartel had to try and compete and it is the cost of this which is crucifying them, because they have tried to compete. Any table of spending on players will show City and Chelsea at or near the top, but the cartel are never far behind. The cartel clubs are not the ever giving cash cows they promised to be and their (American) owners didn't intend to buy into a struggle like this. And so the aim of regulation changed. FFP might deal with most of the new owners buying clubs and it guarantees them a profit but City have already foiled it, so the aim of UEFA's action against the club following the email thefts was nothing less that the complete destruction of our club. And unless Newcastle react that club will be completely emasculated.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
"Exposure" is clearly an important consideration but one which the sponsor is entitled to consider but not the PL or UEFA. Value for money, when the money is that of a sponsor, is none of UEFA's or the PL's business and sponsorship income should never be a reward for fulfilling some formula of UEFA's or the PL's. So far UEFA have shown a marked reluctance to meddle with City's deals, but what the PL proposes to deal with Newcastle would be a marked escalation of the cartel's offensive. With potentially disastrous consequences.
Click to expand...
Quite; it all depends on the definition of value. I don't trust the PL to use a definition which is anything but harmful to us and Newcastle and helpful to the redshirts.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It is the PL that are still digging. The UEFA ship has sunk. Mind you we are still waiting for the result of EUFA's investigation into the leaks of our confidential financial information from the UEFA Investigations Committee during their FFP probe. Don't hold your breath on that one though.
Click to expand...
I emailed Ceferin enquiring about progess of their investigation. No reply.
 
I think you're all forgetting. Once Pep has gone, once the record breaking, b2b titles, CL finals, ruining utd/lfc, once we're not as dominant as we are now,. all the FFP stuff goes away.

I dont even think Newcastle will get it as bad. They will compete with the red/history clubs, they might even win a title or two but they're never going to achieve what we have, they're no threat, and neither were City until Pep made the club what it is right now.

And right now, if it were not for City Liverpool would be the dominant force in football for the last/next 10 years and we've fucked that up for lfc, for the PL sales, for Sky TV, for the media in general. In fact once City lose this dominance its clear the media are going to install utd/lfc/arsenal as PL champions for a generation like they did with Utd... Because its good for the product. I might even give up on football once we're back to being like the spanish and german leagues of two teams winning it every year.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
I think you're all forgetting. Once Pep has gone, once the record breaking, b2b titles, CL finals, ruining utd/lfc, once we're not as dominant as we are now,. all the FFP stuff goes away.

I dont even think Newcastle will get it as bad. They will compete with the red/history clubs, they might even win a title or two but they're never going to achieve what we have, they're no threat, and neither were City until Pep made the club what it is right now.

And right now, if it were not for City Liverpool would be the dominant force in football for the last/next 10 years and we've fucked that up for lfc, for the PL sales, for Sky TV, for the media in general. In fact once City lose this dominance its clear the media are going to install utd/lfc/arsenal as PL champions for a generation like they did with Utd... Because its good for the product. I might even give up on football once we're back to being like the spanish and german leagues of two teams winning it every year.
Click to expand...
Thing is, if Newcastle win a title or two, and we continue to win a title or two, and Chelsea continue to win a title or two, then the cartel are still greatly impacted
 
When pep does decide to part company do you really think we will go back to the dark days? Not a chance in hell our owners would stand for mediocrity. We are here for the long term. Don’t forget Mancini got the ball rolling then pellars kept the momentum going till pep rocked up and there will be another manager that will be instructed to play the city way. So all’s rosy in the garden blues.
Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going back to my beer.
 
Spanishbob said:
When pep does decide to part company do you really think we will go back to the dark days? Not a chance in hell our owners would stand for mediocrity. We are here for the long term. Don’t forget Mancini got the ball rolling then pellars kept the momentum going till pep rocked up and there will be another manager that will be instructed to play the city way. So all’s rosy in the garden blues.
Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going back to my beer.
Click to expand...
I dont consider 2008-2015 dark days. And I did say b2b titles and setting records etc would not be happening under someone else unless that someone else is very very good. As good as Pep.

Human rights, shit in the media, FFP it all started in 2015 for City, none of it mattered before that as much.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
I dont consider 2008-2015 dark days. And I did say b2b titles and setting records etc would not be happening under someone else unless that someone else is very very good. As good as Pep.

Human rights, shit in the media, FFP it all started in 2015 for City, none of it mattered before that as much.
Click to expand...
Sorry mate meant all the years before we were taken over.
 
Bodicoteblue said:
And still the deafening silence about the financial malfeasance at standard chartered bank.
Click to expand...
I've just been reading the recent press articles regarding the Bank of England's decision to impose a record fine on Standard Chartered for (a) its misreporting of its liquidity in recent years and (b) its non-cooperation with Financial Authorities when being investigated by said Authorities.

Apparently, Standard Chartered qualified for a 33% discount off the original fine (£66M) because it eventually copped a plea, resulting in a fine payment of £46M for its malfeasance.

I tell you what.. I'm SO glad that City and the wider football family has nothing to do with this shower of financial herberts! Can you imagine if the likes of Standard Chartered was a sponsor of our club, say, with its tawdry name emblazoned across our shirts? We'd never hear the last of it, what with front/back page press articles pointing the finger at us and sly mentions about our 'venality' shoehorned into other stories at every opportunity!

Let's hope City and our chums at other clubs in the football family continue to keep the likes of Standard Chartered and its grubby financial practices well away from our game and that all our English clubs remain unsullied by association with such discredited companies!
 
Now we are back at the top of the league i am expecting another airing of this subject over the next few weeks , they have tried Miss Whiplash in the Sun but couldnt name names so its a load of bullshit , some twat at the newspaper paid some slag to wear a City shirt and lie for few grand . Then there is Phil & Jack on a night out on the piss that will keep them busy for a few days , but fully expect the FFP malarkey to be resurrected just in time for the Chelski home game
 
johnevans said:
I've just been reading the recent press articles regarding the Bank of England's decision to impose a record fine on Standard Chartered for (a) its misreporting of its liquidity in recent years and (b) its non-cooperation with Financial Authorities when being investigated by said Authorities.

Apparently, Standard Chartered qualified for a 33% discount off the original fine (£66M) because it eventually copped a plea, resulting in a fine payment of £46M for its malfeasance.

I tell you what.. I'm SO glad that City and the wider football family has nothing to do with this shower of financial herberts! Can you imagine if the likes of Standard Chartered was a sponsor of our club, say, with its tawdry name emblazoned across our shirts? We'd never hear the last of it, what with front/back page press articles pointing the finger at us and sly mentions about our 'venality' shoehorned into other stories at every opportunity!

Let's hope City and our chums at other clubs in the football family continue to keep the likes of Standard Chartered and its grubby financial practices well away from our game and that all our English clubs remain unsullied by association with such discredited companies!
Click to expand...

City should propose a fit and proper sponsor test. See how that flies :)
 
Seems the PL have come up with a scheme to review sponsorships.

www.thetimes.co.uk

Premier League: Independent verification required on any sponsorship deal exceeding £1m

Every club sponsorship deal worth more than £1 million a year will have to be submitted to the Premier League to be checked that it is not an “associated party”
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk

Anything over £1m has to be reviewed by the PL, who can pass it to an "independent panel" for assessment if they feel it warrants it.

The new regulations state the league will judge an associated party on “the substance of the relationship” rather than only the legal form of the relationship.

This includes “material influence over the club or an entity in the same group of companies” and where the club is “directly or indirectly controlled, jointly controlled, or materially influenced by the same government, public or state-funded body or by the same party”.
Click to expand...
 
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