A Reply from Matt Scott

I don't see how UEFA could ignore it if we had several hundred million in the bank to cover any losses we made?

it's all ludicrous, and my point was, why not have ridiculous sponsorships which expire just before the UEFA rules come in?

And sorry, which independent financial experts are going to be the judges on "market value".
 
I sort of understand UEFA's stand point and wanting to make all of the clubs operate within their means in order to make it "fair". This will make it more "fair" to the French Clubs who already have similar rules in their own league, but we couldn't accuse certain members of the UEFA and FIFA hierarchy of showing favouritism towards the French can we?

Here's the problem:

Take a hypothetical situation that a club (English or otherwise) wins its domestic league. That club, for arguments sake lets call them “Team MC”, are deemed to have spent more than they have turned over in the three previous years.

Now, are UEFA seriously going to devalue their premier club competition, and source of massive revenue for the organisation, by not allowing Team MC to play in the Champions League?
Could the competition be taken seriously without the Champions of the English Premier League?

The answer you’re looking for is No.
 
I read a good blog on this a while ago which included this:

there is a section in the new guidelines that may well allow them to pass UEFA’s break-even test with flying colours.

As a rule, revenue from non-football operations is excluded from the break-even calculation, but clause B. (k) in Annex X allows you to included revenue from “Operations based at, or in close proximity to, a club’s stadium and training facilities such as a hotel, restaurant, conference centre, business premises (for rental), health-care centre, other sports teams.”

That sounds almost exactly like the £1 billion development that City are planning for the area around Eastlands stadium. Described as a world class sports and leisure complex, it will include a training facility, luxury hotel and restaurant and should provide a very healthy revenue stream. Bingo! Job done.

Of course, I may be a touch over-cynical here. An alternative scenario would have Manchester City cutting back on their investment after they reach the Champions League, replacing expensive imports with cheaper players developed by their academy, and reaching break-even that way.

This all makes sense if you believe Khaldoon, when he explained that the owners had two reasons for investing in Manchester City, “There is a pure football, emotional side to it and a big business side too. Sheikh Mansour is a huge football fan, but we can also create a franchise, a business which will create value over the years and reap a long term return.”

At the moment, the normal rules of business do not apply to City, but strange as it seems, they just might pass UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules.
 
bluenova said:
twinkletoes said:
Nor are we here to patronise people.

This is an attempt to undermine the club.

Clearly we're interested in this subject as it comes up again and again on the boards. We don't know the answer and the amortisation issue was one which was discussed recently. Maybe he's heard that we're doing something different and wants it confirmed?

We're a legitimate topic for articles, and as we're a good few years behind Chelsea, we're the club who have most questions to answer when it comes to balancing the books. I don't expect the club to hand over all our plans, but I also don't expect journalists not to want to know the answers.


There's a big difference between someone printing unsubstantiated claims on a forum and a professional journalist guessing things in order to give credence to a point of view he may have.
 
twinkletoes said:
There's a big difference between someone printing unsubstantiated claims on a forum and a professional journalist guessing things in order to give credence to a point of view he may have.

Sure, but the article is suggesting that with the usual accounting practice our major purchases this season and last will still be 'on the books' by the time the rules come in. There's no guesswork in the article - we've been 'guessing' that our owners might change the way they account for players (and I'm guessing this means taking a massive tax hit). The article pretty much states the current practice which most people won't be aware of.
 
bluenova said:
twinkletoes said:
There's a big difference between someone printing unsubstantiated claims on a forum and a professional journalist guessing things in order to give credence to a point of view he may have.

Sure, but the article is suggesting that with the usual accounting practice our major purchases this season and last will still be 'on the books' by the time the rules come in. There's no guesswork in the article - we've been 'guessing' that our owners might change the way they account for players (and I'm guessing this means taking a massive tax hit). The article pretty much states the current practice which most people won't be aware of.

It's an assumption based on an opinion.

It would be really stupid to be believe that they would do that and gamble with Champions League status.

What amount would you ascribe as a "massive" tax hit to our owner?

We currently have players which cost multi millions of pounds that may not and will not get in our 25 man PL squad.
 
twinkletoes said:
It's an assumption based on an opinion.

It would be really stupid to be believe that they would do that and gamble with Champions League status.

What amount would you ascribe as a "massive" tax hit to our owner?

We currently have players which cost multi millions of pounds that may not and will not get in our 25 man PL squad.

Not sure what the assumption is? The article is basically stating what clubs currently do and explaining how that will effect City.

I'm pretty sure that our owners could afford any massive tax hit, but if they are acting in a way that adds a £100m+ to their outlay then that's news -although nothing of the sort is suggested in the article, that's one idea that's been discussed on the forum.

The point about having expensive players who won't even get into the squad is relevant to the article as the quote from Wenger suggests we'll find it tricky to sell dur to our high wages. So a player like Bellamy can be at Cardiff, but his transfer fee and wages could still be in the accounts for a number of years.
 
bluenova said:
twinkletoes said:
It's an assumption based on an opinion.

It would be really stupid to be believe that they would do that and gamble with Champions League status.

What amount would you ascribe as a "massive" tax hit to our owner?

We currently have players which cost multi millions of pounds that may not and will not get in our 25 man PL squad.

Not sure what the assumption is? The article is basically stating what clubs currently do and explaining how that will effect City.

I'm pretty sure that our owners could afford any massive tax hit, but if they are acting in a way that adds a £100m+ to their outlay then that's news -although nothing of the sort is suggested in the article, that's one idea that's been discussed on the forum.

The point about having expensive players who won't even get into the squad is relevant to the article as the quote from Wenger suggests we'll find it tricky to sell dur to our high wages. So a player like Bellamy can be at Cardiff, but his transfer fee and wages could still be in the accounts for a number of years.


Under accounting rules we can right off the transfers of players straight away so the argument doesn't stand up.

So the premise of his article undermines what he is trying to say.
 
twinkletoes said:
Under accounting rules we can right off the transfers of players straight away so the argument doesn't stand up.

So the premise of his article undermines what he is trying to say.

I guess we're not going to agree on this one :)
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.