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.
City and FFP article
- Thread starter Cobwebcat
- Start date
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Looked at this now and compared it to my own figures (which, like his, are pure estimates but I think I understand our finances a bit better).
He's about right for the 2011/12 financial year just finished although I think his bonus figure is a little high. I have us showing a bottom line loss of £105m for this year. But he's way short on his exclusions, which I believe will be closer to £40-45m. So I have us showing an FFP-adjusted loss for this year of around £65m.
Next year (i.e. what is now the current financial year) I had predicted lower revenue but believe he's probably closer to the truth from the bits I've heard. Let's say revenue is around £270m. What he's not understood is how player amortisation works. This will start to reduce from this year on as we either tie expensive players to new contracts or get rid of them. So if we assume all other expenses are the same then I suggest a bottom line loss of some £30m. Adjusted for FFP, that becomes say £10m.
So for the first monitoring period we have a an aggregate £75m adjusted loss, which is a fail on the surface. However, if it makes the difference between passing and failing then we can add back the wages paid in 2011/12 for players signed prior to June 2010, which I think could be £40-45m. Even if it's the lower figure then that brings our adjusted loss down to £35m, which is within FFP guidelines. So we'll pass.
From 2013/14 onwards we'll show a bottom-line profit I believe so will be perfectly safe.
He also still peddles the line that UEFA can investigate the Etihad deal when this is not the case. They can audit our submission but for them to insist that the deal is a 'related party transaction' would be contrary to UK Company law, Accounting standards and probably European Law.
We also can't 'front load' the deal as far as I'm aware. If we do a deal for £400m over 10 years then, in theory, we have to show £40m a year, regardless of when we take the cash. That's a generally accepted accounting concept. The actual figure may depend on performance clauses so might be different but we have to be able to back that up if our FFP submission is audited (which UEFA can do).
He's vaguely right about the provision that if a club can show they are moving in the right direction then that isn't a 'get out of jail free' card but the ultimate purpose is to get a licence for European competition and UEFA have made it clear they can be lenient and grant that licence even if clubs fail FFP as long as they can convince UEFA they are moving to compliance. We are doing that so should have no problem even if we do fail the first licencing period.
He's about right for the 2011/12 financial year just finished although I think his bonus figure is a little high. I have us showing a bottom line loss of £105m for this year. But he's way short on his exclusions, which I believe will be closer to £40-45m. So I have us showing an FFP-adjusted loss for this year of around £65m.
Next year (i.e. what is now the current financial year) I had predicted lower revenue but believe he's probably closer to the truth from the bits I've heard. Let's say revenue is around £270m. What he's not understood is how player amortisation works. This will start to reduce from this year on as we either tie expensive players to new contracts or get rid of them. So if we assume all other expenses are the same then I suggest a bottom line loss of some £30m. Adjusted for FFP, that becomes say £10m.
So for the first monitoring period we have a an aggregate £75m adjusted loss, which is a fail on the surface. However, if it makes the difference between passing and failing then we can add back the wages paid in 2011/12 for players signed prior to June 2010, which I think could be £40-45m. Even if it's the lower figure then that brings our adjusted loss down to £35m, which is within FFP guidelines. So we'll pass.
From 2013/14 onwards we'll show a bottom-line profit I believe so will be perfectly safe.
He also still peddles the line that UEFA can investigate the Etihad deal when this is not the case. They can audit our submission but for them to insist that the deal is a 'related party transaction' would be contrary to UK Company law, Accounting standards and probably European Law.
We also can't 'front load' the deal as far as I'm aware. If we do a deal for £400m over 10 years then, in theory, we have to show £40m a year, regardless of when we take the cash. That's a generally accepted accounting concept. The actual figure may depend on performance clauses so might be different but we have to be able to back that up if our FFP submission is audited (which UEFA can do).
He's vaguely right about the provision that if a club can show they are moving in the right direction then that isn't a 'get out of jail free' card but the ultimate purpose is to get a licence for European competition and UEFA have made it clear they can be lenient and grant that licence even if clubs fail FFP as long as they can convince UEFA they are moving to compliance. We are doing that so should have no problem even if we do fail the first licencing period.
Rammyblues
Well-Known Member
Thanks PB.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Sterling work, as ever PB :)
sergiokun
Well-Known Member
What a load of bull Shit this rag loving twat claims. Not worth reading or giving this guy anytime blues
BluePurgatory
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 2,811
If our owners are not Bothered, then neither am I!
Mr Ed (The Stables)
Well-Known Member
Rammyblues said:Thanks PB.
Thanks seconded from me as well.
bluemoondays
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 2,435
I'm sure the PL Champions can scare up a few more sponsorship deals (worldwide audience record for a PL game for the derby and I'd love to see the figures for the last game of the season - sponsorship gold there) - not counting any sponsors bonus' kicking in from winning the PL. The rags got £40m for their training kit, that's just set the benchmark for sponsorship of training kits - thanks Agent Glazer :-)
The Nike deal coming up will be worth more than the Umbro one we are losing, I expect that to be pushing close to the Barca deal. We should poke MCC to kickback some of that £3m for the stadium rental, £500k for Manchester Tourism or something :p
As PB mentioned, expect some new long term deals for a lot of players driving down the amortisation plus, hopefully, offloading the likes of Adebayor, Bridge and a few others.
Then there's that recent potential tie up with rugby super league. Redevelopment of the area that isn't part of the training complex should generate £££'s depending what is decided/built and, finally (although I'm sure there is more I haven't mentioned), potential for a stadium expansion.
We'll be a bit close for the first measuring period (we'll be able to show a huge improvement which is one of the main tests) but as long as we continue to get CL and especially if we do better in it then after 2013/14 I expect us to be fairly safe.
The Nike deal coming up will be worth more than the Umbro one we are losing, I expect that to be pushing close to the Barca deal. We should poke MCC to kickback some of that £3m for the stadium rental, £500k for Manchester Tourism or something :p
As PB mentioned, expect some new long term deals for a lot of players driving down the amortisation plus, hopefully, offloading the likes of Adebayor, Bridge and a few others.
Then there's that recent potential tie up with rugby super league. Redevelopment of the area that isn't part of the training complex should generate £££'s depending what is decided/built and, finally (although I'm sure there is more I haven't mentioned), potential for a stadium expansion.
We'll be a bit close for the first measuring period (we'll be able to show a huge improvement which is one of the main tests) but as long as we continue to get CL and especially if we do better in it then after 2013/14 I expect us to be fairly safe.
harrogateblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 306
The first serious challenge in any court will deem it to be unworkable. So you win the league but UEFA say non because of your accounts.
When it gets to that stage the game is a bogey.
We are in debt to nobody so I don't see any issue with our club at all.
If this does happen and us, Rags or Madrid were to fail it, it would make a mockery of their competition.
Established CL teams fear us and this system was designed to stop us succeeding, it ain't gonny happen.
Italy has got more serious trouble within it's game other than FFP, are UEFA going to stop Italian teams playing in the CL because there is serious financial irregularites ongoing in that country.
Nah, no chance, FFP is a smokescreen for a competition that has become a closed shop, well, we have opened the door and are about to invade your house.
Put the tea on Platini, don't be rude to guests.
When it gets to that stage the game is a bogey.
We are in debt to nobody so I don't see any issue with our club at all.
If this does happen and us, Rags or Madrid were to fail it, it would make a mockery of their competition.
Established CL teams fear us and this system was designed to stop us succeeding, it ain't gonny happen.
Italy has got more serious trouble within it's game other than FFP, are UEFA going to stop Italian teams playing in the CL because there is serious financial irregularites ongoing in that country.
Nah, no chance, FFP is a smokescreen for a competition that has become a closed shop, well, we have opened the door and are about to invade your house.
Put the tea on Platini, don't be rude to guests.