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

[LoveCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A member of UEFA's Financial Fair Play watchdog has told Le Parisien that nouveaux riche clubs "endanger the whole economy of professional football."

Lawyer Yves Wehrli warned that the approach of spending huge sums in an attempt to buy quick success created "systemic risks".

Wehrli, one of a seven-man UEFA panel on FFP, said: "Models of economic development, step by step, are still possible. There are cases of notable success -- the case of Borussia Dortmund, for example.

"Other clubs, by contrast, opt for ultra-quick models of growth. In those cases, the shareholders have to cover significant financial losses.

"By acting like that, these nouveaux riches endanger the whole economy of professional football. They create systemic risk."

He warned that such clubs "create artificial inflation on transfer fees and salaries."

And he said that often meant competitors felt they had to follow the trend in order to succeed, even at the risk of endangering their own economic structures, adding: "The risk of going under is enormous."

Last season's title-winners in England and France, Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain were given the biggest punishments when UEFA imposed its first sanctions to clubs that had infringed the Financial Fair Play regulations.

The FFP measures, aimed at restoring the health of European football's finances, have come under fire for holding back ultra-rich club owners who want to transform their teams, thereby maintaining the established elite.

-

What risk do City and PSG have of going under right now? City are about to break even! Just as Chelsea, another nouveaux riche club, have!

A better 'fit and proper persons test' system should be able to separate the legitimate rich owners vs. the stupid ones like Tan.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A member of UEFA's Financial Fair Play watchdog has told Le Parisien that nouveaux riche clubs "endanger the whole economy of professional football."

Lawyer Yves Wehrli warned that the approach of spending huge sums in an attempt to buy quick success created "systemic risks".

Wehrli, one of a seven-man UEFA panel on FFP, said: "Models of economic development, step by step, are still possible. There are cases of notable success -- the case of Borussia Dortmund, for example.

"Other clubs, by contrast, opt for ultra-quick models of growth. In those cases, the shareholders have to cover significant financial losses.

"By acting like that, these nouveaux riches endanger the whole economy of professional football. They create systemic risk."

He warned that such clubs "create artificial inflation on transfer fees and salaries."

And he said that often meant competitors felt they had to follow the trend in order to succeed, even at the risk of endangering their own economic structures, adding: "The risk of going under is enormous."

Last season's title-winners in England and France, Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain were given the biggest punishments when UEFA imposed its first sanctions to clubs that had infringed the Financial Fair Play regulations.

The FFP measures, aimed at restoring the health of European football's finances, have come under fire for holding back ultra-rich club owners who want to transform their teams, thereby maintaining the established elite.

-

What risk do City and PSG have of going under right now? City are about to break even! Just as Chelsea, another nouveaux riche club, have!

A better 'fit and proper persons test' system should be able to separate the legitimate rich owners vs. the stupid ones like Tan.

What a crock of shit. Dortmund have to sell or give their best players to Bayern in that one horse league. And didn't Real and United's spending always generate a financial arms race ? It shows you the sort of beliefs you need to hold to get onto one of their independent panels.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A member of UEFA's Financial Fair Play watchdog has told Le Parisien that nouveaux riche clubs "endanger the whole economy of professional football."

Lawyer Yves Wehrli warned that the approach of spending huge sums in an attempt to buy quick success created "systemic risks".

Wehrli, one of a seven-man UEFA panel on FFP, said: "Models of economic development, step by step, are still possible. There are cases of notable success -- the case of Borussia Dortmund, for example.

"Other clubs, by contrast, opt for ultra-quick models of growth. In those cases, the shareholders have to cover significant financial losses.

"By acting like that, these nouveaux riches endanger the whole economy of professional football. They create systemic risk."

He warned that such clubs "create artificial inflation on transfer fees and salaries."

And he said that often meant competitors felt they had to follow the trend in order to succeed, even at the risk of endangering their own economic structures, adding: "The risk of going under is enormous."

Last season's title-winners in England and France, Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain were given the biggest punishments when UEFA imposed its first sanctions to clubs that had infringed the Financial Fair Play regulations.

The FFP measures, aimed at restoring the health of European football's finances, have come under fire for holding back ultra-rich club owners who want to transform their teams, thereby maintaining the established elite.

-

What risk do City and PSG have of going under right now? City are about to break even! Just as Chelsea, another nouveaux riche club, have!

A better 'fit and proper persons test' system should be able to separate the legitimate rich owners vs. the stupid ones like Tan.

And all the while, the history of world record transfer fees is predominantly around the elite clubs. They were fees no other clubs could pay, and no other clubs attempted. The wages afforded by the elite clubs could also not be matched by the minnows.
Now there are some 'new money' clubs dining at the table - it is they, and they alone who threaten to change everything!

Nothing's changed. The haves have, and the have nots don't.

Was it not the case that before the the new money arrived, clubs in Italy (well established clubs at that) were bribing referees and players and posing a far larger threat to the entire integrity of the game, let alone the existence of some clubs?

The propaganda that's peddled about the sanctity of the elite clubs and the devil's spawn that is billionaire owners just beggars belief.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

In the last 40 years the british transfer fee has been broken by:

Manchester United: 5 times
Manchester City: 2 times (1 with new money)
Everton: 1 time
Wolves: 1 time
West Brom: 1 time
Nottingham Forest: 1 time
Arsenal: 1 time
Liverpool: 1 time
Chelsea: 1 time


In 1974 the fee was 350,000
In 1979 the fee was 1.5 million (almost x 5)
In 1984 the fee was 1.5 million ( x 0)
In 1989 the fee was 4.2 million ( almost x 3)
in 1995 the fee was 8.5 million (almost x 2)
In 2001 the fee was 28 million (almost x 4)
in 2006 the fee was 31 million (x 0)
in 2013 the fee was 85 million (almost x 3)

So... it's clear there's no obvious massive change in the way prices have inflated. You can generally say that fees at least double every five years, sometime a little more, sometimes a little less.

You could argue that the general costs of wages and transfer fees (rather than the specific records has risen too), but in relation to the revenue generated, it's not changed that dramatically either.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

In a way the insistence on City paying their way via the FFP has been helpful to confirming that the long term existence of City in its present form is more or less assured from a financial point of view.

We should get some reassurance that the Sheik's plans seem to have much permanency about them or there would have been a much larger disparity in the Accounts that City sent to UEFA.

I am sure UEFA did not expect this progress when they originally targeted City. In fact Rule changes were seemingly necessary to allow it to have its required effect.

This should be a warning to all the Elite Clubs that financial stability does not have to be gained by slowly but surely acquiring this desired financial equation.
I feel certain that they all are a little alarmed by the shrewd use of the Sheik's Petty Cash via his Team to fast track a business in the same sector they felt was surely theirs.

His Team have been well chosen and they deserve a massive pat on the back for not only building a Club that can challenge the best and win trophies but also concurrently building a financially sound business.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I suspect much of this is along the right lines, but it's hard to be certain precisely which parts.
Whatever new interpretations UEFA chose to put on things, they would have to be mindful of not dropping anybody body else (they didnt want to upset) in the myre.
And there's still the issue of why City didn't take account of any unfavourable interpretation that UEFA might put on matters.

But I still think the general gist is about right, and UEFA needed to show some teeth. They were unlikely to do it against the established elite clubs, and exercising sanctions against only clubs from the lesser nations would have been seen as running scared. City, Chelsea and PSG are the three obvious 'new money' clubs with high profile. Chelsea obviously benefitted from having most of their investment and growth prior to FFP being mooted, leaving City and PSG.

I don't think UEFA wanted a legal battle, and for that matter, why would City? it's bad PR all round, and even if City won, nobody would be applauding them. It would have been portrayed as having bought the best legal team too and sticking two fingers up to any notion of FFP.
The outcome (so far) seems decent. UEFA keep face, and City don't suffer especially, but just as importantly, City will then be deemed as having complied and 'put back on track' by UEFA, whilst City no longer look like flat track financial bullies riding roughshod over FFP.

If UEFA changed the guidance after City had submitted 2 years worth of accounts as Matty says (and it all looks plausible to me with no other 'facts' to go on) then there was not an awful lot they could have done. They would have known about the impending failure of course before anyone but UEFA and would have had to prepare for the worst. No doubt there was a lot of phone calls/faxes/letters and personal meetings long before the results were announced.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A member of UEFA's Financial Fair Play watchdog has told Le Parisien that nouveaux riche clubs "endanger the whole economy of professional football."

Lawyer Yves Wehrli warned that the approach of spending huge sums in an attempt to buy quick success created "systemic risks".

Wehrli, one of a seven-man UEFA panel on FFP, said: "Models of economic development, step by step, are still possible. There are cases of notable success -- the case of Borussia Dortmund, for example.

"Other clubs, by contrast, opt for ultra-quick models of growth. In those cases, the shareholders have to cover significant financial losses.

"By acting like that, these nouveaux riches endanger the whole economy of professional football. They create systemic risk."

He warned that such clubs "create artificial inflation on transfer fees and salaries."

And he said that often meant competitors felt they had to follow the trend in order to succeed, even at the risk of endangering their own economic structures, adding: "The risk of going under is enormous."

Last season's title-winners in England and France, Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain were given the biggest punishments when UEFA imposed its first sanctions to clubs that had infringed the Financial Fair Play regulations.

The FFP measures, aimed at restoring the health of European football's finances, have come under fire for holding back ultra-rich club owners who want to transform their teams, thereby maintaining the established elite.

-

What risk do City and PSG have of going under right now? City are about to break even! Just as Chelsea, another nouveaux riche club, have!

A better 'fit and proper persons test' system should be able to separate the legitimate rich owners vs. the stupid ones like Tan.

Yes, he's talking the usual rubbish.

The largest fees for a player, worldwide, was in the region of 100 million euros, paid by Real for Madrid for Gareth Bale. In England Arsenal paid £43 million for Ozil, United paid £38 million for Mata, both considerably higher fees than City paid for Fernandinho. None of these clubs are "nouveau riche" so maybe good old Yves can explain why this old money doesn't actually "endanger the whole economy of professional football" or "create systemic risks", especially as Real and United are heavily in debt and City aren't. I think that if he's worried about "artificial inflation on transfer fees and salaries" he might care to explain why these fees and Rooney's £300 000 per week don't have such inflationary effects. If what he means is that not very rich who try to compete are running an enormous risk of "going under" they should, surely, be the ones who should show greater financial prudence and be punished if they don't. Why don't we just make clubs pay full transfer fees straight away - that must really please UEFA and its friends at Old Trafford and the Allianz. As for City we're now worth more than Arsenal as a brand, and have a larger annual income.... Proof of the benefits of investment?

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I say let the UEFA muppets talk.

The more they do the more the world understands how unbelievably arrogant they are. Those implementing and defending FFP seem not to realise that they are digging a deeper hole from which they will, at some point have to extricate themselves.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I say let the UEFA muppets talk.

The more they do the more the world understands how unbelievably arrogant they are. Those implementing and defending FFP seem not to realise that they are digging a deeper hole from which they will, at some point have to extricate themselves.

I'm just looking forward to Liverpool's first assessment next year >:) "warrya mean we failed la, we've got loads of istreeeeee"

 

[BringBackSwales]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I say let the UEFA muppets talk.

The more they do the more the world understands how unbelievably arrogant they are. Those implementing and defending FFP seem not to realise that they are digging a deeper hole from which they will, at some point have to extricate themselves.

I'm just looking forward to Liverpool's first assessment next year >:) "warrya mean we failed la, we've got loads of istreeeeee"

they'll be ok, apparently candles are allowable expenditure under ffp