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

[ForzaMancini]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That's nonsense mate. How we pay for the transfers has no bearing on anything. The club statement said "The club's expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros."

So you are saying then that you know for sure that if we do a deal for say DiMaria for 50 mil payable over 5 years, that it will count as a full 50 mil in this summer transfer window ? And that if we sell Rodwell for 10 mil payable to us over 5 years, that it will count as 10 mil received in this transfer window ?

You have looked into it & discovered this to be the case ?

Give it up mate. Transfer expenditure, as the club's statement makes quite clear, is based on the top line fee, not instalments. I'm 100% sure of that. The only thing I'm not sure about is how any conditional fee would be dealt with. So if we bought him for £25m with up to £10m in add-ons depending on various factors, then it's not clear whether that counts as £25m or £35m.

I can't imagine they could count any conditional fees in it, how could we be charged for something that might never happen? I'd have thought they would simply exclude them or add on any fees that are met in the season he is signed but other than that they wouldn't be able to count them in our expenditure, surely?

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Give it up mate. Transfer expenditure, as the club's statement makes quite clear, is based on the top line fee, not instalments. I'm 100% sure of that. The only thing I'm not sure about is how any conditional fee would be dealt with. So if we bought him for £25m with up to £10m in add-ons depending on various factors, then it's not clear whether that counts as £25m or £35m.

What do you mean give it up ? I was asking you the question because I DON'T KNOW !

The club's statement doesn't make it clear to me at all ,but if you are used to dealing with such things & are 100% sure that's what they meant I'm fully willing to take your word for it.

Sorry then. It's just that we've covered this ground before a number of times. I've probably got a formal UEFA definition of transfer fee somewhere in all the FFP stuff I've got bookmarked so I'll dig it out later.

That would be a good find given the way that transfer payments are normally transacted. Apparently, according to today's rumours, Moreno's move to the dippers has hit a snag because Sevila want more money up front. It seems to me that FFP is redefining all sorts of processes at the moment without general agreement and what constitutes the 'headline transfer fee' is another example. Regarding conditional payments in future years as part of this year's spend is perverse.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What do you mean give it up ? I was asking you the question because I DON'T KNOW !

The club's statement doesn't make it clear to me at all ,but if you are used to dealing with such things & are 100% sure that's what they meant I'm fully willing to take your word for it.

Sorry then. It's just that we've covered this ground before a number of times. I've probably got a formal UEFA definition of transfer fee somewhere in all the FFP stuff I've got bookmarked so I'll dig it out later.

That would be a good find given the way that transfer payments are normally transacted. Apparently, according to today's rumours, Moreno's move to the dippers has hit a snag because Sevila want more money up front. It seems to me that FFP is redefining all sorts of processes at the moment without general agreement and what constitutes the 'headline transfer fee' is another example. Regarding conditional payments in future years as part of this year's spend is perverse.

Regarding any spend that you don't actually spend as money spent is pretty strange if you ask me !

But if ffp itself can be shown to be deterring clubs from doing deals, then it all gives ammo to Dupont's case as it's effectively interfering with trade & costing some people, ie agents etc, money.

 

[john@staustell]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Ultimately it will cost player jobs and I'm surprised the PFA and FIFAPRO haven't made much of a fuss.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That's nonsense mate. How we pay for the transfers has no bearing on anything. The club statement said "The club's expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros."

So you are saying then that you know for sure that if we do a deal for say DiMaria for 50 mil payable over 5 years, that it will count as a full 50 mil in this summer transfer window ? And that if we sell Rodwell for 10 mil payable to us over 5 years, that it will count as 10 mil received in this transfer window ?

You have looked into it & discovered this to be the case ?

Give it up mate. Transfer expenditure, as the club's statement makes quite clear, is based on the top line fee, not instalments. I'm 100% sure of that. The only thing I'm not sure about is how any conditional fee would be dealt with. So if we bought him for £25m with up to £10m in add-ons depending on various factors, then it's not clear whether that counts as £25m or £35m.

Didnt they make a particular point of excluding any bonus payments from FFP calcs for wages?

It would seem very odd, indeed counter intuitive to disregard bonus payments in wages but then include such escalator payments on the transfer fee for the self-same player.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So you are saying then that you know for sure that if we do a deal for say DiMaria for 50 mil payable over 5 years, that it will count as a full 50 mil in this summer transfer window ? And that if we sell Rodwell for 10 mil payable to us over 5 years, that it will count as 10 mil received in this transfer window ?

You have looked into it & discovered this to be the case ?

Give it up mate. Transfer expenditure, as the club's statement makes quite clear, is based on the top line fee, not instalments. I'm 100% sure of that. The only thing I'm not sure about is how any conditional fee would be dealt with. So if we bought him for £25m with up to £10m in add-ons depending on various factors, then it's not clear whether that counts as £25m or £35m.

Didnt they make a particular point of excluding any bonus payments from FFP calcs for wages?

It would seem very odd, indeed counter intuitive to disregard bonus payments in wages but then include such escalator payments on the transfer fee for the self-same player.

I'm pretty certain they wouldn't include them anyway as they are contingent liabilities and therefore not due until the conditions have been fulfilled.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Give it up mate. Transfer expenditure, as the club's statement makes quite clear, is based on the top line fee, not instalments. I'm 100% sure of that. The only thing I'm not sure about is how any conditional fee would be dealt with. So if we bought him for £25m with up to £10m in add-ons depending on various factors, then it's not clear whether that counts as £25m or £35m.

Didnt they make a particular point of excluding any bonus payments from FFP calcs for wages?

It would seem very odd, indeed counter intuitive to disregard bonus payments in wages but then include such escalator payments on the transfer fee for the self-same player.

I'm pretty certain they wouldn't include them anyway as they are contingent liabilities and therefore not due until the conditions have been fulfilled.

So it would be easier enough to structure a deal that limited the financial outlay in season 1 but still made certain that the selling club were confident that they would be paid what they agreed at the outset?

Any deal could be sweetened with the initial fee being paid in full, at the signing of the deal.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Didnt they make a particular point of excluding any bonus payments from FFP calcs for wages?

It would seem very odd, indeed counter intuitive to disregard bonus payments in wages but then include such escalator payments on the transfer fee for the self-same player.

I'm pretty certain they wouldn't include them anyway as they are contingent liabilities and therefore not due until the conditions have been fulfilled.

So it would be easier enough to structure a deal that limited the financial outlay in season 1 but still made certain that the selling club were confident that they would be paid what they agreed at the outset?

Any deal could be sweetened with the initial fee being paid in full, at the signing of the deal.

That's the way I'd see it, as long as it wasn't seen as an obvious dodge. So if we're offering £20m and the selling club want £25m, then we pay them the £20m upfront and offer them an extra £5m after two seasons as long as he's played 50 games or something. Or we could do a sell-on percentage.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm pretty certain they wouldn't include them anyway as they are contingent liabilities and therefore not due until the conditions have been fulfilled.

So it would be easier enough to structure a deal that limited the financial outlay in season 1 but still made certain that the selling club were confident that they would be paid what they agreed at the outset?

Any deal could be sweetened with the initial fee being paid in full, at the signing of the deal.

That's the way I'd see it, as long as it wasn't seen as an obvious dodge. So if we're offering £20m and the selling club want £25m, then we pay them the £20m upfront and offer them an extra £5m after two seasons as long as he's played 50 games or something. Or we could do a sell-on percentage.

It must be why MCFC accepted this 'limitation' as they already knew that who they wanted would fit into their budget.

It could ironically have helped deflate the expectations of some agents and clubs and saved MCFC some money.

Thanks UEFA ;-)

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So it would be easier enough to structure a deal that limited the financial outlay in season 1 but still made certain that the selling club were confident that they would be paid what they agreed at the outset?
Any deal could be sweetened with the initial fee being paid in full, at the signing of the deal.

That's the way I'd see it, as long as it wasn't seen as an obvious dodge. So if we're offering £20m and the selling club want £25m, then we pay them the £20m upfront and offer them an extra £5m after two seasons as long as he's played 50 games or something. Or we could do a sell-on percentage.

UEFA would probably regard anything we did as a dodge but if it is common practice to spread payments over several years, which it is, how could they object in terms of FFP?