Citizen Green
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 7,267
Top stuffKeith Moon said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A Reply from Matt Scott
- Thread starter Ricster
- Start date
Rammyblues
Well-Known Member
Qualifying for CL next summer would put at least another 40m on turnover that is why the club need to get in there before the regulations really start to bite, for the same reason Liverpool will be fucked because by the time they get their ownership sorted they won't be able to invest big because next summers accounts will be used the following year, and that is why we have spent big this year.
S04
Well-Known Member
The financial regulations will only be a problem if you are skint and want to spend big...
If you got the money you can simply boost the turnover to a comfortable level in a lot of different ways.
Nothing to worry about really.
If you got the money you can simply boost the turnover to a comfortable level in a lot of different ways.
Nothing to worry about really.
ianw16
Well-Known Member
Here's an article by Martin Samuel in The Mail Online. Don't know if it made the paper edition, as I don't buy the fascist rag:
Don't mock Manchester City, they may not be as silly as you think...
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1305284/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Dont-mock-Manchester-City-silly-think-.html#ixzz0xb1YZHsd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z0xb1YZHsd</a>
Kamikaze spending, Sir Alex Ferguson called it, in one of those soundbites destined to pass into history judging by how widely it has been quoted this week. Yet what else are Manchester City to do? It is not their fault that a club with ambition has to approach the transfer market on the divine wind.
A ticking clock counts down the minutes to the end of this transfer window on the sports news channel, but there is a Doomsday scenario extending beyond that.
The next window, in January, is the last that will not feel the impact of the financial regulations imposed by Michel Platini, the UEFA president. By the time of the following financial year, April 2011 to April 2012, clubs must start to reduce losses and while there are four more seasons before the regulations properly take hold, the rules are complex and incorporate retrospective calculation.
In simple terms, after this year, all transfers will contribute in some way to UEFA's reckoning. City may not be getting the greatest value for money right now, but if there is an element of Supermarket Sweep about their behaviour, that is because Platini's legislation makes it now or never for big spenders.
The elite clubs, like Ferguson's Manchester United, can sit pretty knowing that once the controls are in place they will always have the largest budgets. It is the likes of City, desperately scrambling to get through the door before it shuts, who have been condemned to spend, spend, spend.
So, of course, the policy appears irrational. City have paid as much for James Milner, who had an erratic World Cup, as Real Madrid did combined for Mesut Ozil and Sami Khedira of Germany, two of the revelations of the tournament.
David Silva, who could not make the Spanish team, has come in at a price not far behind David Villa, arguably the most talented striker in the world. Yaya Toure cost £24million, at a time when Inter Milan have balked at paying a similar price for a better holding midfield player - the captain of Argentina, Javier Mascherano of Liverpool.
Manchester City's total transfer bill since Sheik Mansour's arrival is over £350m, but why the surprise? The moment Platini made his flawed theories a reality, there was always going to be a reckless, lastminute scramble. By spending now, City no doubt hope to buck the system, assembling a powerful squad and achieving success before it becomes almost impossible for the little guy to get ahead.
Depending on how City manage the accounts, there could be an even greater advantage. Transfer expenditure is listed in one of two ways: as an outgoing lump sum, or with the fee spread over the years of the contract. So payment for Milner could be shown as £24m now or, for instance, £4.8m over five years, a process known as amortisation.
If City choose this option, some of Milner's transfer money will eventually be part of UEFA's calculation of City's budget; but put wholly into this year's accounts will fall outside UEFA's remit. Then, if Milner is later sold, the fee received counts as money coming into the club and helps increase the size of the budget. City's owners, unlike most rivals, actually have the capital to do this. They may not be as silly as they look.
It is easy to mock City's pretensions and excesses, but harsh to hold them solely responsible. Yes, even without Platini's new rules they would have spent big in the hope of entering the Champions League next season; but the utter abandon of their activity this summer is another gift to football from UEFA.
Platini has been let off the hook repeatedly in interviews when asked how he is going to maintain competition and mobility while limiting the investment potential of ambitious smaller clubs. He has been allowed to blather that it is something UEFA will look at.
In doing so, he is carving out football's equivalent of the policy in Iraq: a hugely significant decision with no thought given to its consequences. Indeed, by forcing a club such as City into ever greater short-term spirals of recklessness and financial aggression, Platini hasn't even considered the potential for damage in the prelude, let alone the aftermath.
(End).
So, as I read it, there is absolutely no value in amortising any of our current transfer fees. We pay up front, and the whole fee goes into this years accounts. UEFA can't do anything about any of the money we spend in this window, or in the January window. Which rather makes a nonsense of the original piece by Matt Scott, as posted by Ric. That is, nothing we do now has any relevance to these regulations, except in terms of the wage bill from April 2011 onwards.
The benefits of amortisation will come into play for any subsequent transfers from summer 2011. For instance, we pay Madrid £60m for Kaka in that window, put him on a five year deal, and the fee is entered on the books as £12m for the next five seasons. Assuming our turnover by then is over £100m per season (not an unreasonable estimate), then we could still sign some very expensive players if we needed to. It would depend on how much we are shelling out on wages compared to income.
It would also make no sense to sell players this season, as the income wouldn't count under UEFA's regulations. So it makes more sense to loan players out until next season, and then capitalise on the income generated by their sale, as well as getting them off the payroll once the 2011/12 season starts.
I am absolutely certain that the Sheik has advisors who are far more financially aware than I am, but even I can see that this really isn't going to be that big a deal for us. It will, however, make things very difficult for any clubs who have the good fortune to find themselves the sudden recipients of shed loads of wonga in the way that we were when ADUG took over. 'Kamikaze' spending just won't be an option if they want to play in Europe. Looks to me like a rule designed to keep the Chumps league even more of a closed shop than it already is.
Conclusion:
Platini is a f*ckwit of the highest order.
Don't mock Manchester City, they may not be as silly as you think...
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1305284/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Dont-mock-Manchester-City-silly-think-.html#ixzz0xb1YZHsd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z0xb1YZHsd</a>
Kamikaze spending, Sir Alex Ferguson called it, in one of those soundbites destined to pass into history judging by how widely it has been quoted this week. Yet what else are Manchester City to do? It is not their fault that a club with ambition has to approach the transfer market on the divine wind.
A ticking clock counts down the minutes to the end of this transfer window on the sports news channel, but there is a Doomsday scenario extending beyond that.
The next window, in January, is the last that will not feel the impact of the financial regulations imposed by Michel Platini, the UEFA president. By the time of the following financial year, April 2011 to April 2012, clubs must start to reduce losses and while there are four more seasons before the regulations properly take hold, the rules are complex and incorporate retrospective calculation.
In simple terms, after this year, all transfers will contribute in some way to UEFA's reckoning. City may not be getting the greatest value for money right now, but if there is an element of Supermarket Sweep about their behaviour, that is because Platini's legislation makes it now or never for big spenders.
The elite clubs, like Ferguson's Manchester United, can sit pretty knowing that once the controls are in place they will always have the largest budgets. It is the likes of City, desperately scrambling to get through the door before it shuts, who have been condemned to spend, spend, spend.
So, of course, the policy appears irrational. City have paid as much for James Milner, who had an erratic World Cup, as Real Madrid did combined for Mesut Ozil and Sami Khedira of Germany, two of the revelations of the tournament.
David Silva, who could not make the Spanish team, has come in at a price not far behind David Villa, arguably the most talented striker in the world. Yaya Toure cost £24million, at a time when Inter Milan have balked at paying a similar price for a better holding midfield player - the captain of Argentina, Javier Mascherano of Liverpool.
Manchester City's total transfer bill since Sheik Mansour's arrival is over £350m, but why the surprise? The moment Platini made his flawed theories a reality, there was always going to be a reckless, lastminute scramble. By spending now, City no doubt hope to buck the system, assembling a powerful squad and achieving success before it becomes almost impossible for the little guy to get ahead.
Depending on how City manage the accounts, there could be an even greater advantage. Transfer expenditure is listed in one of two ways: as an outgoing lump sum, or with the fee spread over the years of the contract. So payment for Milner could be shown as £24m now or, for instance, £4.8m over five years, a process known as amortisation.
If City choose this option, some of Milner's transfer money will eventually be part of UEFA's calculation of City's budget; but put wholly into this year's accounts will fall outside UEFA's remit. Then, if Milner is later sold, the fee received counts as money coming into the club and helps increase the size of the budget. City's owners, unlike most rivals, actually have the capital to do this. They may not be as silly as they look.
It is easy to mock City's pretensions and excesses, but harsh to hold them solely responsible. Yes, even without Platini's new rules they would have spent big in the hope of entering the Champions League next season; but the utter abandon of their activity this summer is another gift to football from UEFA.
Platini has been let off the hook repeatedly in interviews when asked how he is going to maintain competition and mobility while limiting the investment potential of ambitious smaller clubs. He has been allowed to blather that it is something UEFA will look at.
In doing so, he is carving out football's equivalent of the policy in Iraq: a hugely significant decision with no thought given to its consequences. Indeed, by forcing a club such as City into ever greater short-term spirals of recklessness and financial aggression, Platini hasn't even considered the potential for damage in the prelude, let alone the aftermath.
(End).
So, as I read it, there is absolutely no value in amortising any of our current transfer fees. We pay up front, and the whole fee goes into this years accounts. UEFA can't do anything about any of the money we spend in this window, or in the January window. Which rather makes a nonsense of the original piece by Matt Scott, as posted by Ric. That is, nothing we do now has any relevance to these regulations, except in terms of the wage bill from April 2011 onwards.
The benefits of amortisation will come into play for any subsequent transfers from summer 2011. For instance, we pay Madrid £60m for Kaka in that window, put him on a five year deal, and the fee is entered on the books as £12m for the next five seasons. Assuming our turnover by then is over £100m per season (not an unreasonable estimate), then we could still sign some very expensive players if we needed to. It would depend on how much we are shelling out on wages compared to income.
It would also make no sense to sell players this season, as the income wouldn't count under UEFA's regulations. So it makes more sense to loan players out until next season, and then capitalise on the income generated by their sale, as well as getting them off the payroll once the 2011/12 season starts.
I am absolutely certain that the Sheik has advisors who are far more financially aware than I am, but even I can see that this really isn't going to be that big a deal for us. It will, however, make things very difficult for any clubs who have the good fortune to find themselves the sudden recipients of shed loads of wonga in the way that we were when ADUG took over. 'Kamikaze' spending just won't be an option if they want to play in Europe. Looks to me like a rule designed to keep the Chumps league even more of a closed shop than it already is.
Conclusion:
Platini is a f*ckwit of the highest order.
sam221985
Well-Known Member
Bilboblue said:i8rags said:or the sheik can simply be a match ball sponsor for 100 mill. no limits on sponsorship. get what you can. if someone wants to pay vast amounts to sponsor a stand etc, this too will be viable.
Unfortunately UEFA will not allow that.
They will count sponsorships etc. only if they are paid at market rates, any huge sponsorship will have be fully explained.
This is true but there is no cap, so far as I'm aware, on the NUMBER of sponsorships.
So far we have Etihad as the shirt sponsor, Malmaison as the ' official hotels partner', Adu Dhabi Tourism Authority as the 'official travel partner', Jaguar as the 'official automotive partner', Etisalat as official telecoms partner etc etc
This dynamic can go on pretty much indefinitely.
The rags also do this with Hublot, Audi, etc etc. We've just wised up to it and are suddenly a much bigger draw for such sponsors, with our stratospherically-raised profile of the last few years and the quality and potential we have now, they're a lot more keen then they once would have been, getting deals like this is now like shooting fish in a barrel.
I doubt we will ever see a club banned from playing Champions League football because their declared gross revenue fails to meet its expenditure on transfer fees to the tune of some arbitrary figure decided by FIFA over a given period of time.
Clubs have been banned and will continue to be banned for other reasons but not financial ones.
If FIFA are genuinely serious about the level of debt being carried by clubs they will start by abolishing transfer fees altogether and placing salary caps on each club.
The United States of America currently has debt to GDP ratio of approximately 94 per cent.
I think Platini should spend a number of years in the land of the brave and the free and study public policy and how continual low interest rate setting over a number of years by the FED and poor lending policy from both public and private sectors is inhibiting the economy to get a foothold to do sustained business with the rest of the world without going further into debt before he supports some half baked idea that he thinks will make the Chumps league a better product and more affordable product to put on each year for spectators , viewers and sponsors alike.
If it wasn't for the television networks and ridiculous amounts of money the advertisers are prepared to pay to see there name on the screens for a few minutes the Chumps League wouldn't exist.
Clubs have been banned and will continue to be banned for other reasons but not financial ones.
If FIFA are genuinely serious about the level of debt being carried by clubs they will start by abolishing transfer fees altogether and placing salary caps on each club.
The United States of America currently has debt to GDP ratio of approximately 94 per cent.
I think Platini should spend a number of years in the land of the brave and the free and study public policy and how continual low interest rate setting over a number of years by the FED and poor lending policy from both public and private sectors is inhibiting the economy to get a foothold to do sustained business with the rest of the world without going further into debt before he supports some half baked idea that he thinks will make the Chumps league a better product and more affordable product to put on each year for spectators , viewers and sponsors alike.
If it wasn't for the television networks and ridiculous amounts of money the advertisers are prepared to pay to see there name on the screens for a few minutes the Chumps League wouldn't exist.
Bilboblue said:i8rags said:or the sheik can simply be a match ball sponsor for 100 mill. no limits on sponsorship. get what you can. if someone wants to pay vast amounts to sponsor a stand etc, this too will be viable.
Unfortunately UEFA will not allow that.
They will count sponsorships etc. only if they are paid at market rates, any huge sponsorship will have be fully explained.
Get you're point, but how the hell can you define market rates, especially in europe. The premiership is the number one league in the world, so sponsorship will be a lot more expensive than it would be in France, or Holland. I always find it amusing that anyone thinks that our owner hasn't already dealt with the UEFA issues's.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
All clubs do that anyway. They list the player as an intangible asset and write off his purchase cost over the life of his contract. The write-off is known as Amortisation of Player Costs.Pounding said:Can't you list the player as an asset on the balance sheet and write off the value over a period of, say, 5 years?