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

[IanBishopsHaircut]

But we are still subject to FFP1 rules so there is a restriction on our spending. That restriction is now lifted for other new owners who want to invest. They can spend big regardless of income. We can spend within our means.

 

[oakiecokie]

Conn seems to be remarkably misinformed in that conversation

Wasn`t it Conn who claimed we had "sold our soul" when HH took over ?

 

[ardwickboy]

Lol.....this place is full of clowns each and every transfer window.

Now I know why my friends call me CoCo.

 

[dasblues]

What about the PL FFP?

Its more lenient that the Uefa version, so if we pass the Uefa version , we pass PL FFP

The only caveat is that salary cost are only permitted to increased in line with the new TV deal, any incremental increase has to be funded out of an increase to commercial revenue.

 

[willipp]

But we are still subject to FFP1 rules so there is a restriction on our spending. That restriction is now lifted for other new owners who want to invest. They can spend big regardless of income. We can spend within our means.

Seriously???????? I'm sure somewhere in the 900 pages of this thread you will find the right answer. Good job we dont get much of this nice weather, think we'd all explode.

 

[ardwickboy]

We are no longer under the specific restriction imposed upon us because of our settlement. This was confirmed when the new raft of settlements were announce back in May. (JMW linked to Uefa's press release confirming the fact within this thread)

The specific restriction on transfers was to significantly restrict spending for 2014/15 & 2015/16 (net spend of £49m each season). There was a clause, which if we broke even during this period then the specific spending limit would be removed (which we are assumed to have done in 2014/15, confirmed by KAM in his end of season speech.

We are however still under the restrictions imposed by FFP in general terms, that is to limit losses over a three year rolling period to £45m. Seeing as we have already broken even in 2014/15 , we will easily pass this test due to expected increases in revenue over couple of years (with just the TV deals alone)

If you assume that every £50m player we buy would cost us £20m per annum (£10m ammortisation & £10m wages - 5 Year contract on £200k per week) we would have to find £5m extra revenue / cost savings per annum to offset (£20m x 3 = £60m - £45m (allowed loss) = £15m (over three years)

We can also offset the cost by selling players , both in wages saved and any profits on disposal

eg If we sell Jovetic for £16m

He signed a contract for 5 years on £120k per week and cost £22m ,

Thats £4.4m ammortisation per annum and he has been here 2 years , meaning his book value is £13.2m (£22m - 2 x £4.4m ). This means we make a prodit of £2.8m on disposal.

We also save £6m in wages per annum in wages (plus a further £4.4m ammortisation in future years)

So if we seel Dzeko, Nasri & Jovetic in this window we could be looking at at least £18m in saved wage cost and a profit on disposal of £20m (roughly)

The new BT CL deal is worth £20m-£30m extra per season form 2015/16

The new SKY PL deal is worth £40-£50m extra per season from 2016/17

So from 2016/17 we will have c£80m more revenue , which will pay for 4 £50m players without factoring in any other increase in commercial deals , the revised foreign broadcast PL deal

In other words we will be fine to spend what we like this summer even if that is £150m-£200m

Can you say all that again because you lost me after We are no longer.

 

[dasblues]

Can you say all that again because you lost after We no longer.

In other words we will be fine to spend what we like this summer even if that is £150m-£200m

 

[Andy Conway]

Reaction to UEFA’s changes to Financial Fair Play


Our clients (Mr. Daniel Striani, Manchester Football Club Supporters Club and supporters of Paris St Germain) have been informed of the amendments to the Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations adopted yesterday by UEFA.


First, they find the crucial measure taken, namely to allow a degree of over-spending (as long as this over-spending is guaranteed by shareholders of the club), to be precisely oneof the measures they had requested before the courts. Before the judges, UEFA nevertheless argued during 2 years that such an alternative was totally incompatible with the objectives of FFP. Good to know that UEFA has finally updated its software…


UEFA says that with these amendments, FFP is evolving from a "period of austerity to a sustainable growth period." In more direct terms, UEFA is simply moving from an entirely illegal rule to a rule that becomes a little bit less illegal.


Indeed, in competition law, any excessive restriction of the freedom of enterprise is by definition illegal. With these amendments yesterday, UEFA is therefore fully confessing that the previous version of the rule was excessive and therefore illegal under competition law.


The questions referred by the Court of First Instance in Brussels to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have now been registered with the European Supreme Court under the case number C-299/15.


UEFA has appealed to the Brussels Court of Appeal of the decision of the trial judge, while stating publicly that it is fully convinced that the ECJ will confirm the legality of the regulation. If this is the case, one wonders why the UEFA makes every effort to try to delay this necessary "European game"? Why is it "playing the clock"? And why is it so desperate to avoid playing that game on its natural pitch, i.e. before the ECJ? To ask the question is, in effect, to answer it.


The questions currently before the ECJ are clearly more relevant than ever since, on the one hand, the ECJ will judge the legality of the rules that UEFA has applied to all European clubs for several years (until today) and, on the other hand, it will - by contrast - assess the legality of the new version of the regulation.


Finally, we are particularly puzzled about the fact that, according to UEFA. some clubs (those already sanctioned or under agreement procedure) will not immediately benefit from the adopted amendments. At first sight, this is absolutely discriminatory. Our clients reserve the right to inject this issue into the proceedings.


Jean-Louis DUPONT Martin HISSEL

Seriously???????? I'm sure somewhere in the 900 pages of this thread you will find the right answer. Good job we dont get much of this nice weather, think we'd all explode.

page 501

 

[Hart of the Matter]

We are no longer under the specific restriction imposed upon us because of our settlement. This was confirmed when the new raft of settlements were announce back in May. (JMW linked to Uefa's press release confirming the fact within this thread)

The specific restriction on transfers was to significantly restrict spending for 2014/15 & 2015/16 (net spend of £49m each season). There was a clause, which if we broke even during this period then the specific spending limit would be removed (which we are assumed to have done in 2014/15, confirmed by KAM in his end of season speech.

We are however still under the restrictions imposed by FFP in general terms, that is to limit losses over a three year rolling period to £45m. Seeing as we have already broken even in 2014/15 , we will easily pass this test due to expected increases in revenue over couple of years (with just the TV deals alone)

If you assume that every £50m player we buy would cost us £20m per annum (£10m ammortisation & £10m wages - 5 Year contract on £200k per week) we would have to find £5m extra revenue / cost savings per annum to offset (£20m x 3 = £60m - £45m (allowed loss) = £15m (over three years)

We can also offset the cost by selling players , both in wages saved and any profits on disposal

eg If we sell Jovetic for £16m

He signed a contract for 5 years on £120k per week and cost £22m ,

Thats £4.4m ammortisation per annum and he has been here 2 years , meaning his book value is £13.2m (£22m - 2 x £4.4m ). This means we make a prodit of £2.8m on disposal.

We also save £6m in wages per annum in wages (plus a further £4.4m ammortisation in future years)

So if we seel Dzeko, Nasri & Jovetic in this window we could be looking at at least £18m in saved wage cost and a profit on disposal of £20m (roughly)

The new BT CL deal is worth £20m-£30m extra per season form 2015/16

The new SKY PL deal is worth £40-£50m extra per season from 2016/17

So from 2016/17 we will have c£80m more revenue , which will pay for 4 £50m players without factoring in any other increase in commercial deals , the revised foreign broadcast PL deal

In other words we will be fine to spend what we like this summer even if that is £150m-£200m

James Milner leaving is also a factor. His 6m amortised transfer is now off the books along with his 5m wages. Micha 4m wages also off the books and bits and pieces of other low level transfers and money back in from sell on clauses gives us a try sum. I reckon that if we attract all our main targets our net annual spend on amortised fees and wages increases by about 30m (assuming we sell Dzeko and jovetic and get 30m the pair.

One last factor that troubles me is the deficit allowable is always quoted in Euros. Recent currency rates have impacted that badly. Does that mean our allowable deficit has declined as a result?

 

[Daz_Blue]

Breath .... :)

He has spoken

Anonymous ‏@Anonymous0211 4m4 minutes ago
FFP is no longer a problem for Manchester City Football Club,their spending this summer is unrestricted.

 

[willipp]

Reaction to UEFA’s changes to Financial Fair Play


Our clients (Mr. Daniel Striani, Manchester Football Club Supporters Club and supporters of Paris St Germain) have been informed of the amendments to the Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations adopted yesterday by UEFA.


First, they find the crucial measure taken, namely to allow a degree of over-spending (as long as this over-spending is guaranteed by shareholders of the club), to be precisely oneof the measures they had requested before the courts. Before the judges, UEFA nevertheless argued during 2 years that such an alternative was totally incompatible with the objectives of FFP. Good to know that UEFA has finally updated its software…


UEFA says that with these amendments, FFP is evolving from a "period of austerity to a sustainable growth period." In more direct terms, UEFA is simply moving from an entirely illegal rule to a rule that becomes a little bit less illegal.


Indeed, in competition law, any excessive restriction of the freedom of enterprise is by definition illegal. With these amendments yesterday, UEFA is therefore fully confessing that the previous version of the rule was excessive and therefore illegal under competition law.


The questions referred by the Court of First Instance in Brussels to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have now been registered with the European Supreme Court under the case number C-299/15.


UEFA has appealed to the Brussels Court of Appeal of the decision of the trial judge, while stating publicly that it is fully convinced that the ECJ will confirm the legality of the regulation. If this is the case, one wonders why the UEFA makes every effort to try to delay this necessary "European game"? Why is it "playing the clock"? And why is it so desperate to avoid playing that game on its natural pitch, i.e. before the ECJ? To ask the question is, in effect, to answer it.


The questions currently before the ECJ are clearly more relevant than ever since, on the one hand, the ECJ will judge the legality of the rules that UEFA has applied to all European clubs for several years (until today) and, on the other hand, it will - by contrast - assess the legality of the new version of the regulation.


Finally, we are particularly puzzled about the fact that, according to UEFA. some clubs (those already sanctioned or under agreement procedure) will not immediately benefit from the adopted amendments. At first sight, this is absolutely discriminatory. Our clients reserve the right to inject this issue into the proceedings.


Jean-Louis DUPONT Martin HISSEL

page 501

As i understand it we are not under spending restrictions any more. The fact they say we cannot have this added investment is irrelevant as we don't need that. We will spend exactly what we planned to spend this summer and these changes make no difference to our transfer budget. We are now at a sustainable level where we can buy out transfer targets and still make money.

 

[dasblues]

James Milner leaving is also a factor. His 6m amortised transfer is now off the books along with his 5m wages. Micha 4m wages also off the books and bits and pieces of other low level transfers and money back in from sell on clauses gives us a try sum. I reckon that if we attract all our main targets our net annual spend on amortised fees and wages increases by about 30m (assuming we sell Dzeko and jovetic and get 30m the pair.

One last factor that troubles me is the deficit allowable is always quoted in Euros. Recent currency rates have impacted that badly. Does that mean our allowable deficit has declined as a result?

I would imagine so, the allowable losses would be restated into average exchange rate for that financial year, otherwise clubs could fail because of exchange rate movements!

 

[Silva_Spell]

Only way I can see us being excluded from "FFP 2.0" is if we fail to abide by the 2 year settlement we agreed to 12 months ago, a settlement which stated the terms of the settlement would no longer apply if we broke even half way through said settlement.
That would be 'fair' (in a way) as we're still under sanctions.

If we have broken even, which every bit of evidence strongly suggests, then there's no way they can even attempt to justify such an exclusion.

But this is UEFA, an organisation which will be just as corrupt as FIFA.


The whole thing stinks regardless of whether we're excluded or not. The Italian clubs are obviously heavily behind this but no doubt the Spanish duo as well, given that they're going to be getting less of the LL TV money whilst the PL TV money is just going to continue to boom.

On top of being discriminatory with regards to which clubs it excludes from 'FFP 2.0', the fact that UEFA are going to treat clubs from different leagues differently in terms of punishment is another joke, and another aspect which screams 'Italian Job'

 

[supercity88]

We are no longer under the specific restriction imposed upon us because of our settlement. This was confirmed when the new raft of settlements were announce back in May. (JMW linked to Uefa's press release confirming the fact within this thread)

The specific restriction on transfers was to significantly restrict spending for 2014/15 & 2015/16 (net spend of £49m each season). There was a clause, which if we broke even during this period then the specific spending limit would be removed (which we are assumed to have done in 2014/15, confirmed by KAM in his end of season speech.

We are however still under the restrictions imposed by FFP in general terms, that is to limit losses over a three year rolling period to £45m. Seeing as we have already broken even in 2014/15 , we will easily pass this test due to expected increases in revenue over couple of years (with just the TV deals alone)

If you assume that every £50m player we buy would cost us £20m per annum (£10m ammortisation & £10m wages - 5 Year contract on £200k per week) we would have to find £5m extra revenue / cost savings per annum to offset (£20m x 3 = £60m - £45m (allowed loss) = £15m (over three years)

We can also offset the cost by selling players , both in wages saved and any profits on disposal

eg If we sell Jovetic for £16m

He signed a contract for 5 years on £120k per week and cost £22m ,

Thats £4.4m ammortisation per annum and he has been here 2 years , meaning his book value is £13.2m (£22m - 2 x £4.4m ). This means we make a prodit of £2.8m on disposal.

We also save £6m in wages per annum in wages (plus a further £4.4m ammortisation in future years)

So if we seel Dzeko, Nasri & Jovetic in this window we could be looking at at least £18m in saved wage cost and a profit on disposal of £20m (roughly)

The new BT CL deal is worth £20m-£30m extra per season form 2015/16

The new SKY PL deal is worth £40-£50m extra per season from 2016/17

So from 2016/17 we will have c£80m more revenue , which will pay for 4 £50m players without factoring in any other increase in commercial deals , the revised foreign broadcast PL deal

In other words we will be fine to spend what we like this summer even if that is £150m-£200m

That's a brilliant post and will help calm down the FFP flappers!
It's crazy just how big those TV deals are and combined with our rapidly increasing commercial revenue we're in a good position.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

There's no a cat in hell's chance City have been going balls out on these huge contracts with potential signings without knowing exactly where this will end up. Relax.

 

[The_Maverick]

I have only a general understanding of FFP as a whole so thanks to the contributers on this thread who have explained the finer details.

What I was wondering though, through all the talk of amortization, etc, what happens if we sign a young player say 19/20 on a 4 year contract for £20m.

Second year at the club at 21 has a blinder so the club offer hin a new contract. He readily signs and then has another great season. Suddenly The Spanish/Italian twats are circling around a 21/22 year old offering £80/£90/£100m for him.

If the player was sold could we use that appreciation in the players value against the depreciation on other assets?

Also how would it affect loans/sales of players from the Academy?

Sorry if this sound simplistic or used the wrong terminology.

 

[Blue Haze]

Breath .... :)

He has spoken

Anonymous ‏@Anonymous0211 4m4 minutes ago
FFP is no longer a problem for Manchester City Football Club,their spending this summer is unrestricted.

Why do we need UEFA's permission? They've been forced to publicly admit that FFP is illegal. They used an illegal law to steal tv money that is rightfully ours.

Demand that all tournament funds withheld be returned immediately or we take them to court.

 

[aguero93:20]

I think its PMT mate.

Think Yaya needs to share some of that chocolate cake with the forum.

 

[bluestevei]

tell twatini that if he still comes after us, we will take the **** to the law courts and bring him down and make millions doing so

 

[themanc]

they are making these rules up as they go along.

bunch of crooks.