New “UEFA Financial Sustainability” rules

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Nope. CFG project, not City.

Thanks. Shame that.

 

[mac]

I presume the infrastructure thing will fuck Chelsea, Spurs, United and Liverpool more than us, their planned redevelopments or the ones they are already paying for will now directly affect FFP calcs.

Our training ground and Stadium is developed and paid for already, North Stand excluded.

The Youth Development thing is a worry though, seem to have been coining it in recently.

The Rags will be OK. I cannot see how a box of gaffa tape to patch the roof should mess with their expenditure.

 

[KS55]

Thanks. Shame that.

The whole campus site is jointly owned by CFG and Manchester City Council, as I understand it. So rents etc accrue to the group rather than the club. If shops etc are eventually built there, City attract people but CFG gets the benefit of rent etc.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Provided that UEFA rules allow this calculation. No idea if they do.

Its basic accounting - that is how it would work.

 

[wolviedinho]

The bottom tweet

Caught my eye.

I think it indicates that investing money in infrastructure isn’t ‘free’ anymore - ie it’s part of expenditure calculation for sustainability, rather than separate.

To me, that would seem to make infrastructure investment less attractive - ie if you haven’t got a decent academy, a state of the art stadium, training facilities and offices already… you are unlikely to be chucking wodges of cash at it?

So if you’ve got all those covered - which is almost all the top clubs, then it’s another drawbridge to any other club joining the ‘cartel’. A notable exception would seem to be United…

Thanks for posting. The cartel clearly don’t want Newcastle copying our successful model by including the academy/ infrastructure into ff thingy or what it’s called now. All the changes made will take note of city’s success and deem it illegal. Fucking cunts.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

A bit of a spanner in the NS expansion. Arrrgh!

Won't stop it.

United are f*cked for a new stadium.

Back to a sticking plaster on OT.

Real Madrid have timed the redevelopment of the Bernabéu perfectly.

Don’t think it will affect the NS expansion, we’ve obviously been waiting for the dust to settle on many variables such as new legislation, covid & the possibility of another global recession. Maybe we are still actively looking for a new stadium rights deal to underpin the costs, I know we renewed with Etihad but that deal is probably flexible. The rags will possibly do the same with the toilet

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I thought Ramble said somewhere that spend on womens football was included.

There are two separate things:

The wages rule: Mens senior players + Head coach wages to be sub 70~90% of total revenue (+ profit on player sales).

The profit rule: Max losses of £30~60m per annum (now including infastructure and all youth / womens football costs.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Is it still OK to be 600 million in debt

Uefa will never incorporate debt into any financial system. The 'industry' is awash with money, but the debt amongst some clubs is astronomical.

 

[wolviedinho]

The new name for ant-competition is misleading again. “ Uefa financial sustainability”. Just be honest you bunch of crooks and call it stop city with their Arab owner operation.

Can’t wait for them to apply the new rules to city dating back to 2008. I can smell Harris and the looney exclusive coming soon.

​

 

[KS55]

There are two separate things:

The wages rule: Mens senior players + Head coach wages to be sub 70~90% of total revenue (+ profit on player sales).

The profit rule: Max losses of £30~60m per annum (now including infastructure and all youth / womens football costs.

Ah, got it now. Thanks.
I think the losses allowance will help us in developing the business. A bit close on wages.

 

[mat]

They should be honest and call it the fuck new new money rule.

 

[M18CTID]

One point to note on infrastructure spending.

It is still a Profit/Loss calculation. So if you spend £100m on a stadium and add a £100m asset to the books the loss is £0. So no impact.

The issue as i see it is the risk of these projects, typically these big projects go wrong and you have to write of chunks of the value eventually. So you spend £150m as the first estimate was wrong - you add a £150 asset to the books but down the line you have to come clean that the asset is only worth £100m. That £50m write off is what will get you. All big infrastructure projects go like this.

Hopefully United's proposed development of Old Trafford goes exactly like this. And then some! How funny would that be that they end up falling foul of these new rules?

 

[Maly]

I presume the infrastructure thing will fuck Chelsea, Spurs, United and Liverpool more than us, their planned redevelopments or the ones they are already paying for will now directly affect FFP calcs.

Our training ground and Stadium is developed and paid for already, North Stand excluded.

The Youth Development thing is a worry though, seem to have been coining it in recently.

Pretty certain we could use CFG for any future infrastructure projects thus circumnavigating any new rules on investment?

 

[KS55]

Its basic accounting - that is how it would work.

Yes, but UEFA may not work to accounting standards for their calculation. Remember, in our case they tried to interpret IAS 24 in their own way but gave in after the 2014 pinch agreement.

 

[mattcity5]

They should be honest and call it the fuck new new money rule.

It does seem like it would make it harder for rich owners to come in and improve a club's facilities etc, which is slightly odd. Generally they seem an improvement, but I think we'll only properly know when we see them in use and applied.

Ps. Just about every team will need work on its stadium at some point, whether its building a new one or renovating it to stop it falling apart. I'm not sure if a few stadiums may become a bit old and decrepit because owners/clubs may be less willing to risk paying for the work that's needed.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

They should be honest and call it the fuck new new money rule.

In a way its spending any money that gets hit by this. Its basically a set of rules that compounds any misery and stops any speculation or investment.

Rule 1. You have some ambition - get back in your box.

Rule 2. Get your finances wrong and we will kick you when you are down.

 

[SWP's back]

I reckon that situations like we have with Sterling, or had with Milner, where players wind down their contracts looking to move on a free, will be less frequent under the new rules. Any player refusing to sign a new contract with 2 years left on their existing contract will be forced out in my opinion.

Yeah and I think the campus and EDS will continue to be very ample and very useful income generators which may upset some purists.

 

[KS55]

Pretty certain we could use CFG for any future infrastructure projects thus circumnavigating any new rules on investment?

The new PL rules attempt to catch group transactions as related City transactions.

 

[HelloCity]

Should have expanded the north stand earlier.

Clubs will get money towards stadium developments as part of the Euro 2028 bid. With the competition now expanded, I’d imagine the Etihad will be part of it.

 

[Maly]

The new PL rules attempt to catch group transactions as related City transactions.

Can you put a wee bit more meat on the bones please pal as I wasn’t aware of that?