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

[MillionMilesAway]

I don't think that's a huge story.

Aside from putting a 5-year period to amortise transfer fees, it doesn't read to do anything - maybe it would introduce a UEFA amortisation standard. How it would affect contract extensions is likely to get complicated.

If City spend 200M on 5 years, it's 40M a year.
If City spend 200M on 8 years, it's 25M a year.

As @cleavers has just posted, 5 years is pretty standard.It doesn't seem a great basis for changing things.

 

[HelloCity]

It's a bit of a none story really, as we have hardly ever signed players on longer than 5 years (the young lad today is 5 1/2 years, but I think that is mainly down to it being January), it might bugger chelsea, who do it, but who cares on that ?

We extend contracts quite quickly though so it’s not a non story. It’ll have some sort of impact for sure.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Ha ha ha, another set of rules reported that would block another us and coming club in the PL?

Are we not the at the top of table … financially?

Flabagasted!

 

[Centurions]

6 year deals have been given by the club but not to new signings

That's true, is there any indication whether this would be only for new signings?

 

[Silva2021]

You could still sign for as long as you want, just the transfer fee amortised over max of 5 years at the time of signing.

Nothing stopping an extension after that.

Whilst I think any effect on City is minimum, the same with these levers Barca pulled, I don’t think UEFA should get involved unless someone fails.

They should be allowed to run their business as they wish and it is not an unfair advantage, anyone can do this.

I think City’s view would be quite relaxed, might help a bit with FFP short term but long term it will not, so whether the investment short term is worth it is that clubs choice.

Just strikes me as someone’s unhappy and ran off to UEFA to complain, I think they massively overstep their boundaries on what they should/ should not be doing.

 

[moomba]

Can't wait until clubs start crying that the profit on player sales is bigger because players are fully amortised after 5 years, not the term of their contract.

The clubs pushing this should just be honest. They don't want anyone to spend enough to compete with them. They don't give a toss about contract length, or amortisation, just their own self interest.

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

This is more to do with Chelsea who are signing players on a five year contract then with an extension clause of three years thus the transfer fee is spread over 8 years instead of five which is an FFP loophole. Spend £400m spread across 8 years in £50m per season rather than £80m. This is one reason why they are spending a fortune on players and keeping within FFP guidelines. They have found a loophole and exploited it. Imagine though if it was us and the column inches that would have been written, this seems to have passed off very quietly. Obviously USA money is ok

 

[117 M34]

6 year deals have been given by the club but not to new signings

Think grealish was a 6 year deal.

They won't / can't back date it though so won't affect us on that one.

 

[moomba]

Think it's a bit much calling it a loophole too. Part of the rules that have been in place for years with numerous clubs benefiting from. It's no more a loophole than contract extensions.

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

It makes no sense.
Amortisation / annualising of costs is standard accountancy practice and even if you were to deviate into financial fantasy and write say 6 years of known costs off in 5 years, you can’t count the costs twice so you’d then report nothing in the 6th year.

 

[Maly]

You could still sign for as long as you want, just the transfer fee amortised over max of 5 years at the time of signing.

Nothing stopping an extension after that.

Whilst I think any effect on City is minimum, the same with these levers Barca pulled, I don’t think UEFA should get involved unless someone fails.

They should be allowed to run their business as they wish and it is not an unfair advantage, anyone can do this.

I think City’s view would be quite relaxed, might help a bit with FFP short term but long term it will not, so whether the investment short term is worth it is that clubs choice.

Just strikes me as someone’s unhappy and ran off to UEFA to complain, I think they massively overstep their boundaries on what they should/ should not be doing.

I would imagine Arsenal aren’t too happy about it

 

[spiny]

It makes no sense.
Amortisation / annualising of costs is standard accountancy practice and even if you were to deviate into financial fantasy and write say 6 years of known costs off in 5 years, you can’t count the costs twice so you’d then report nothing in the 6th year.

You could always keep two sets of books. City have already been accused of dual accounting to get around FFP.

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

You could always keep two sets of books. City have already been accused of dual accounting to get around FFP.

I’m supposing that a requirement to, as example, write down 6 years of outgoings / losses in 5 years would also mean that you’d need to report 6 years of income / profits in the same 5 year period ;-)

 

[remember arthur mann]

Ha ha ha, another set of rules reported that would block another us and coming club in the PL?

Are we not the at the top of table … financially?

Flabagasted!

 

[CC1]

It's a bit of a none story really, as we have hardly ever signed players on longer than 5 years (the young lad today is 5 1/2 years, but I think that is mainly down to it being January), it might bugger chelsea, who do it, but who cares on that ?

It won’t affect us but what is annoying - to say the least - is that the rules won’t be applied retrospectively to punish the culprits - and so Chelsea benefit yet again (just as the did during the Abramovich era when they spent a fortune thus making UEFA bring in FFP to stop the new “rich” clubs spending big).

It won’t affect Chelsea at all because they’ll finish the big spending by end of Jan

Why can’t UEFA see that they are punishing the rest of Europe & not the perpetrators

 

[kun]

It won’t affect us but what is annoying - to say the least - is that the rules won’t be applied retrospectively to punish the culprits - and so Chelsea benefit yet again (just as the did during the Abramovich era when they spent a fortune thus making UEFA bring in FFP to stop the new “rich” clubs spending big).

It won’t affect Chelsea at all because they’ll finish the big spending by end of Jan

Why can’t UEFA see that they are punishing the rest of Europe & not the perpetrators

Happened to Chelsea twice.

They had no financial constraints at all during the original Abramovich splurge.

 

[ancoats]

This so-called new change in the rules in FFP is just going to do one thing ? make me laugh, hahahah
There is nothing within the powers of any governing bodies that can stop investment, and why would they,

It's an open market for clubs, it's modern day football even for United and Liverpool who are looking for new owners, because of the Modern game we have got the best league in the world, this week I was watching a live stream from the USA, it was presented from a fan's park at Disney World ? packed to the hills with fans, all sort of fans because of the Premier League having the best clubs and players,

 

[Prophet of Doom]

It won’t affect us but what is annoying - to say the least - is that the rules won’t be applied retrospectively to punish the culprits - and so Chelsea benefit yet again (just as the did during the Abramovich era when they spent a fortune thus making UEFA bring in FFP to stop the new “rich” clubs spending big).

It won’t affect Chelsea at all because they’ll finish the big spending by end of Jan

Why can’t UEFA see that they are punishing the rest of Europe & not the perpetrators

So what you are saying is that even though Chelsea haven’t broken any rules as they stand, because FIFA are changing the rules now they should go back and punish Chelsea cause they didn’t have a crystal ball and weren’t aware that the rules would change in the future ???

Genius !!

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

This so-called new change in the rules in FFP is just going to do one thing ? make me laugh, hahahah
There is nothing within the powers of any governing bodies that can stop investment, and why would they,

It's an open market for clubs, it's modern day football even for United and Liverpool who are looking for new owners, because of the Modern game we have got the best league in the world, this week I was watching a live stream from the USA, it was presented from a fan's park at Disney World ? packed to the hills with fans, all sort of fans because of the Premier League having the best clubs and players,

And a few clubs want to destroy it for their own agenda.

Football has never been better, City, Leicester, Arsenal (Maybe), lfc (Did they?), Chelsea, Utd have all won the PL since "Dirty oil money" came flowing in. Newcastle soon too.

It beats the days when it was ONLY utd or arsenal, for over a decade.

 

[CC1]

So what you are saying is that even though Chelsea haven’t broken any rules as they stand, because FIFA are changing the rules now they should go back and punish Chelsea cause they didn’t have a crystal ball and weren’t aware that the rules would change in the future ???

Genius !!

No. But maybe they should tell all clubs that in 2023/24 season (ie next season) these new rules will be brought in thus giving all other clubs the chance to do what Chelsea have done with no repercussions

However, using your comments - back in 2012ish UEFA had no qualms moving the goalposts to enable them to “investigate” City re wages & our accounts AFTER they had told us we would be within the new rules. The result was we fell foul of new rules AFTER they had been brought in & we all know what followed. So, whilst I don’t condone UEFA’s inability to run the game fairly, I just want consistency in their decisions