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

ManCityX said:
On what grounds were PSG's sanctions lifted?
Click to expand...

They must have increased their revenue by around 150m Euros in 1 year

Obviously they didn't so one has to wonder by how much UEFA actually downgraded their 200m Euros per year sponsorship. If it was downgraded to be in line with our £40m per year deal (a deal which encompasses more than their QTA sponsor) they would have needed to find £100m from somewhere

The lack of transparency on UEFAs end in terms of the sponsorship downgrade makes it impossible to know.
This is one of the reasons this new 'voluntary deal' feature of 'FFP 2.0' is BS. It's a corrupt ****'s dream
 
Silva_Spell said:
They must have increased their revenue by around 150m Euros in 1 year

Obviously they didn't so one has to wonder by how much UEFA actually downgraded their 200m Euros per year sponsorship. If it was downgraded to be in line with our £40m per year deal (a deal which encompasses more than their QTA sponsor) they would have needed to find £100m from somewhere

The lack of transparency on UEFAs end in terms of the sponsorship downgrade makes it impossible to know.
This is one of the reasons this new 'voluntary deal' feature of 'FFP 2.0' is BS. It's a corrupt ****'s dream
Click to expand...
"In this regard, PSG undertakes to report a maximum break-even deficit of EUR 30 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2015 and no break-even deficit for the financial year ending in 2016. In this context the contract between PSG and the Qatar Tourism Authority has been carefully considered and a fair value, significantly below that submitted by the club, has been assigned."

I reckon in the region of £2.50 and a packet of crisps was disallowed in order for the sanctions to be lifted. That's only a rough guesstimate mind.
 
its just bollocks that uefa are now saying we are lifting the FFP on man city but in real life Manchester city are now going to be making turnovers of £350million every year so its not going to be a big deal and just shows the real reason why they are changing the rules
the so called big clubs was sticking together when uefa come up with FFP they knew DEBT was not being put into and rule that could hurt them and on the field of play they had the ref in there pockets aswell they really have it in for Manchester city

but they forgot about Manchester city fc the little old club talk was city will not be around much longer without sheikh Mansour money so lets stop him putting money into the club and he will walk away but MANCHESTER CITY FOOTBALL CLUB WAS NEVER A SMALL CLUB its was a club that was being run like a school tuck shop

them first 5 years was a Rebuilding project both on and of the field of play and sheikh Mansour knew it would not be a long term investment and Manchester city just needed time and would start to payback and then some. Khaldoon said in this year end of interview that from now on Manchester city are in the black and will have over £350million turnover each season from now on

so uefa can go and fuck off and lets see next when the dodgy ref turns up at the Etihad we will not have to keep quiet anymore they will start to need Manchester city not the other way round we are now a big club with a club value of £1.5billion debt free how many of the old boys club can boast that
 
blue_sonic176 said:
Just saw this: http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2015/07/liverpool-the-model-of-the-model-owners/?wt=2

Looks like there are some level headed Dippers after all. Cheers to the blue presenting his argument in such a clear, eloquent manner!
Click to expand...

That's very well put and a good find blue-sonic..


by Rob Gutmann // 4 July 2015 // 29 Comments

130118-043-Liverpool_Aston_Villa-1024x736.jpg
I GOT myself into one of those ‘mini-wars’ on Twitter the other day. The type where you spew 140 characters quickly but are then forced to regret at leisure. My ire concerned news of further ‘reforms’ to UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regs, and was fuelled by the reading of a piece of transfer gossip that projected that Manchester City hoped to bag both Raheem Sterling AND Paul Pogba for about £120m. “How can those shameless fuckers be getting away with this profligacy again!” I railed. Something like that.

Anyway. I was taken to task by a Mr Ahsan Naeem — @ahsannaeem — an erudite Manchester City fan, who it transpires also really enjoys listening to The Anfield Wrap. Ahsan asked if he could make his counter case to my sophisticated dismissal of Man City’s reckless business plan and its relationship to FFP via a direct email, rather than within the constraints of Twitter. What followed was this: a thorough lecture that entirely contradicted my (and I suspect most lay) understanding of the Manchester City ownership model.

His case was something of a paradigm shift for me. Read it and see what you think. Then hassle John Henry on Twitter, and get him to have a look too. Cheers. Over to you Ahsan:

LAST summer City actually only made an operating loss of £7million. However, due to UEFA deciding that City had failed FFP with regards their 2013 accounts, they were fined £16m. This fine was ‘suspended’ in the sense that if City’s 2014-15 accounts showed that the club had turned a profit (which they will) the fine would be returned. The way in which the fines work is that UEFA simply withhold Champions League prize money. Effectively the sanctions were imposed based upon 2013, but implemented in 2014, when the club had already almost entirely wiped out their losses.

The effect of this is that as of this summer City are now free fromUEFA sanctions. At the same time their profits this summer will be significant due to the returned Champions League monies onto the books, plus the new television deal. Conservatively, before sales, City will have somewhere in the region of £75m to spend before any outgoings.

You asked the question on Twitter about how City square the circle of spending double that if not more this summer. Well, simply put, I would suggest that the club are confident that their revenues will continue to grow exponentially. If the club take the same approach as post 2011’s spending, i.e. the squad is complete so any movements with regards incoming players after this summer will be directly linked to players leaving, then it’s simply a matter of them being able to keep the wage bill steady, and then believing in their own ability to continue to grow revenues significantly enough to cover a heavy one summer outlay. As fees are amortised for accounting purposes, a heavy spend one summer is easily workable.

Our wage bill is already significantly less than it was in 2012, and with Dzeko, Jovetic and maybe another first teamer to leave on top of Milner and Lampard, that bill comes down even further. That leaves plenty of room for the wages of Sterling, Pogba, and one or two others. Even if the bill were to go up marginally from 2014 that is more than acceptable with regards to FFP because we’re a profitable business investing in it’s own future.

(All of this is of course premised on the notion that FFP will still exist in three years’ time, which judging by the recent Belgian court ruling is, in my opinion, unlikely.)

100823-017-Man_City_Liverpool-1024x682.jpg
On a more general note, I’m a long time listener and a subscriber to the TAW player shows. You have generally always been relatively fair to City, up to and including The Price of Sterling show where some of you guys were honest enough to say that a move to City might actually be good for Raheem.

However, the one misconception you guys have, which in many respects is understandable, is that the club is run in an ad-hoc manner when it comes to spending with no controls in place or no interest in being sustainable. The truth is quite the opposite. When the club was bought out the owners put forward a plan, and said that they expected the club to be relatively self sustaining by the end of their first five-year cycle. That has come to fruition and yet it’s something that the club rarely, if ever, gets any credit for. It was a bold plan which required heavy investment early on, but it has paid off as we have won two leagues and two domestic cups in five years, have established ourselves in the top four, and yet this summer will show a rather large profit.

This is from December when our accounts were released:

“We have moved beyond the period of heavy investment that was required to make the Club competitive again, it is commercial growth of the kind we are seeing today that will underpin and support our operations in the future.”

The Chairman concludes that today the Club “is where we hoped it would be when we began this transformation six years ago” and eagerly looks to what lies ahead for the Club and its supporters.

Chief Executive Officer Ferran Soriano, supporting the thoughts of the Chairman points to “a new level of financial sustainability” and outlines that not only has the Club halved losses for three consecutive years, but that it has budgeted for a profit in 2014-15 and the club expects to be entering the 2015-16 season with no outstanding sanctions or restrictions.


I can hear the cries now of “yeah, but he’s just using his own companies to sponsor the club”. The reality is that since Etihad sponsored City in 2011 their own market share as an airline has grown exponentially, as have their own revenues worldwide. It represents less than 10 per cent of our overall revenue now, and it is in fact something that UEFA went through with a fine toothcomb before signing off on because it’s clear that it benefits both parties as all these kinds of deals do.

Personally, I think FFP is a quagmire of bullshit which is awful for football. Our league has grown as has the money available from Premier League television rights precisely because of the investment of Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour. This has led to a far more competitive and interesting league than the one previously dominated by Liverpool, Manchester United, and latterly Arsenal. Although you might wish those days back, I think you can understand why the supporters of clubs outside of the traditional hegemony within European football would welcome anything that gives them a chance to compete.

It’ll be interesting to see what FSG do next. I don’t for one minute believe that you’ve spent hard this summer without banking on the Sterling money coming in. But lets imagine for one minute that they have. Is there really a plan there to aggressively get you back into the top four? As Neil Atkinson said on a show recently, you can’t buy players to finish fourth — you have to buy to try to win the league because ultimately that’s exactly how City, Arsenal, United and Chelsea are going to spend.

I don’t see FSG spending like that. I see them spending in exactly the same manner as Spurs, right up to and including the signing of Firmino which has all the echoes of Lamela joining Spurs after Bale left. Their trying to find a back door to the Champions League without committing anything like the wages required to do it. This is just my opinion, but that’s not good enough for where Liverpool should be. I don’t spend the hours I do listening to the Wrap and the TAW player stuff because I hate Liverpool, quite the opposite. I feel a real affinity with the supporters, not least because one of my best friends is a life-long Red. I’d love to see you guys usurp United, but to do that you need an owner committed to doing it, with a long-term plan.

FSG’s plan seems to be bank on UEFA and FFP doing them a favour, which is never going to happen. We all know in ANY walk of life money talks, especially when it’s cash money not loaned from a banking institution.

I hope you take this in the spirit intended. Just wanted to give you a City supporters’ perspective on your question, FFP, and generally how our club is run in comparison to others. It won’t surprise you to learn that I think we have the best owners in European football and the best executives making sure that we continue to grow in the right way. This isn’t about sugar daddies and whatever other cliché you want to throw at City or Chelsea. It’s about growing a business to challenge already established businesses.
 
@BluePhil8 said:
Shame about the comments under the article.
Click to expand...

Spot the Rag in the comments...

Nico Rjinders
4 July 2015 at 12:13 pm
The “it’s a business” argument is the weakest. FSG run Liverpool as a business. Even the Glazers run United as a business. The have to operate within normal financial constraints and may make investment or periodic losses to pursue a longer term investment. City spent a billion pounds as part of a PR exercise for a repressive regime. The people of south Manchester might be grateful to the Sheikh for their playing fields and leisure facilities but the people of the UAE and their migrant workers probably aren’t so grateful.
 
@BluePhil8 said:
Shame about the comments under the article.
Click to expand...
Aye. There's none so blind as those that do not want to see.
And as for the sanctimonious bollox about Abu Dhabi's human rights record (which isn't anywhere near as bad as the USA's, incidentally), it's funny how they weren't so worked up about Shinawatra's record, back when we were no threat to them?
Presumably, Dubai's would have been just dandy too, back in the days when they were waving SOS banners about?

Personally, I enjoyed those comments. A spot of schadenfreude is good for what ails ya.
 
Did I read right that our £16m fine from 13/14 gets returned to us if we meet targets?
 
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