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

Regarding amortisation as mentioned by aguero93:20, I can understand the principle in that fees and wages are spread over the length of contract and thus give us a lower annual cost of a transfer window, but surely if it means costs being spread over several seasons then won't amortizations from previous years be added to the current window, giving us a high loss to carry forward for some years yet?
 
I'm no cynic but... said:
Regarding amortisation as mentioned by aguero93:20, I can understand the principle in that fees and wages are spread over the length of contract and thus give us a lower annual cost of a transfer window, but surely if it means costs being spread over several seasons then won't amortizations from previous years be added to the current window, giving us a high loss to carry forward for some years yet?
Click to expand...
Depends on how we manage it and which players leave, for how much, who signs new contracts etc and of course revenue growth.
 
bluekeith said:
If some of the smart people on the site can give this the once over

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymc...ctually-improve-man-citys-financial-position/
Click to expand...
Didn't read it fully but he's coming from the angle that the big amortisation bills from signings 4/5 years ago are now no longer going to hit the P+L, and so they are giving us more than enough room to fund the amortisation of this summers signings. Hence if salary is broadly in line between the ins/outs then we should be more profitable this year.
 
A question for the experts in this sort of thing...

Regarding amortisation, the cost of a player can be spread over the length of his contract, so if he signs a five year contract then his cost [transfer fee + salary] can be spread over five years too and this makes his cost much more reasonable, but what happens if he signs an extension of, say, two years? Can we 'backtrack' over our audited accounts and declare his amortisation as seven years, or are we only able to declare his salary over the two years instead with no mention of his transfer fee?
 
I'm no cynic but... said:
A question for the experts in this sort of thing...

Regarding amortisation, the cost of a player can be spread over the length of his contract, so if he signs a five year contract then his cost [transfer fee + salary] can be spread over five years too and this makes his cost much more reasonable, but what happens if he signs an extension of, say, two years? Can we 'backtrack' over our audited accounts and declare his amortisation as seven years, or are we only able to declare his salary over the two years instead with no mention of his transfer fee?
Click to expand...
I think whatever residual notional amortised value is left at the point the new contract is signed, is amortised over the length of the new contract.
 
I'm no cynic but... said:
A question for the experts in this sort of thing...

Regarding amortisation, the cost of a player can be spread over the length of his contract, so if he signs a five year contract then his cost [transfer fee + salary] can be spread over five years too and this makes his cost much more reasonable, but what happens if he signs an extension of, say, two years? Can we 'backtrack' over our audited accounts and declare his amortisation as seven years, or are we only able to declare his salary over the two years instead with no mention of his transfer fee?
Click to expand...

Not quite. KDB has just signed a 6 year contract with a fee of £55m so his amortization will be £9.18m per annum. What that means is his value on our books is £55m but will decrease by £9.18m p.a. Now say after 3 years and roughly £27.5m of amortization he signs a new 5 year contract (taking him up to 8 years at the club in total). Rather than dividing the original £55m over an 8 year period we divide the remaining £27.5m over the remaining 5 years giving him a yearly amortization charge to the accounts of £5.5m (so in effect he's costing us nearly £4m less every year).
 
gman07 said:
Is there any site that compares PL teams salary for an easy view?
Click to expand...

Not really. Forbes do a decent yearly report and the newspapers/media like to speculate but in reality too many PL clubs are private companies and don't have to reveal their costs to anyone but HMRC. Try googling Forbes Premier League wage bills though.
 
I think the people in charge at City know full well what they're doing with regards our finances. I don't know why it worries people so much on how much we're spending, wages etc. Just let the other nineteen prem clubs fret at our amazingly strong squad.
 
i dont pretend to know the insides and outs of football finance (and i think anyone truly does) but the gulf between what really happens and how it is reported in the contemporary media is vast. I think i only ever see the word amortisation (or the practice of) mentioned in more finance-based sites or cerebral websites such as sporting intelligence etc. The way the media portrays A + B - C = FFP simplifies the thing dangerously so that nothing else in the world matters apart from a couple of transfers of a summer.

i mean the british public are pretty stupid but we still need the facts. who am i kidding, it'll never happen.
 
shemnel said:
cerebral websites such as sporting intelligence
Click to expand...
Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg
 
We can be absolutely certain that whatever we have spent, is within the FFP boundaries & have no worries on that score. No way would they risk that, at this stage.

What I would be interested to know, is if City have benefitted from the new 'relaxation' of rules which has been brought in to help Berlusconi & Co. UEFA originally said that City would not be allowed any 'relaxation' but the media & that bitter fucking twat at Arsenal, keep claiming we have. City should clarify this & rub their noses in it, if it's not true.

It would also be interesting to have some idea of just how much money City could have spent. Whether we are close to the limit, or whether we could have also bought Pogba for instance. Don't suppose we will find that out in a hurry though.

Hopefully for some years now, we will mainly only need to strengthen 'cheaper' positions, bring through a few kids & sign one 'big' player every few seasons on average. We will need to splash out on gradually replacing/reinforcing Yaya & Fernandinho's positions over the coming years but we should have time now to pick & chose targets.

Eventually DS,VK & Aguero will need to be replaced but again we should be in a comfortable position to find the exact players to do that, in the future, rather than being in a huge hurry. We may be able to actually build a large fund, to be in the bidding should a new Messi come along.

What we must do, is 'freshen up' the attack regularly, even if it's just with kids. That keeps the 'buzz' going & stops things from getting stale.
 
it is useful to know the concepts by way which City "get away with spending all this cash" under FFP so as to rebuff all the crap that comes from supporters of other teams about City trampling all over FFP - if I have this right then:-

- amortization of transfer fees across 5 year contract periods
- the dropping off of huge chunks of amortized fees from 2009/2010/2011
- huge TV money increases
- massively increasing sponsor revenue

are the key to our success in this1
 
Neville Kneville said:
It would also be interesting to have some idea of just how much money City could have spent. Whether we are close to the limit, or whether we could have also bought Pogba for instance. Don't suppose we will find that out in a hurry though.
Click to expand...
November 2017. If we turn a profit of £20m or more we could have signed him instead of Otamendi.
 
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