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

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

since you've cast yourself in the role of agony aunt on this thread Colin, what's your take on how much more than £49m nett we could have safely spent this window using our rising revenues to keep within general FFP rules? (PB has maintained a dignified silence since I asked him this directly a few pages back.)

It's like measuring apples against oranges.
It would all depend upon the lengths of the contracts offered to the players. If we bought a player for £20m, and offered him a 4 year deal, we'd only be hit for £5m in this years accounts for his transfer, if he was offered a 5 year deal this would drop to £4m in this years accounts.What I'm trying to say is, we could possibly have spent £100m this summer, as long as when those transfers are amortised for this coming season their total, when combined with the total for players already at the club and in the process of being amortised, didn't exceed whatever amount our revenue was able to cover. We could have signed 3 £33m players, each to a 5 year contract. As far as amortisation is concerned that would be an additional £20m "cost" to our accounts for the 2014/15 accountancy period (£100m/15 years x 3 players). If we could cover this additional £20m cost by club revenue then we'd be fine. However this £100m spend wouldn't be possible, not because we can't cover the £20m cost per year, but because the £100m exceeds the £49m cap we've had put upon us. This is why I'm not 100% convinced by the assurances we've been given by City that the spending cap won;t affect our summer transfer planning/dealings. Unless of course we never planned to spend anything like £100m on strengthening the squad, or we assumed that we could spend £100m and recoop £50m from players sales?

It's simply impossible to answer that question accurately without knowing what our financial targets are or our cash flow position is. So we know that the amortisation & wages for Barry & Lescott, plus the wages for Pantilimon are off the books. That's probably a total of about £17.5m per annum off the books. If we're happy to spend all that then I'd guess that's about £35m in transfer fees. Any other revenue we bring in could increase that so I can well believe that the £49m is what we were possibly planning to spend anyway.

The increased revenues have to go towards breaking even, rather than supporting increasing expenses.

Thank you gentlemen, much appreciated. I knew it was a ropy question but even allowing for that it's interesting that your opinions on how much the UEFA attack has blunted our planned spend on squad improvement range between possibly 'not at all' to possibly an extra £50m on top of the £49m cap.

I find it hard to believe that if we had stayed within the FFP rules we would have only spent £49m net this summer. I think it's highly likely we'd have gone for a really big name such as Cavani, Sanchez or Di Maria

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

since you've cast yourself in the role of agony aunt on this thread Colin, what's your take on how much more than £49m nett we could have safely spent this window using our rising revenues to keep within general FFP rules? (PB has maintained a dignified silence since I asked him this directly a few pages back.)

It's like measuring apples against oranges.
It would all depend upon the lengths of the contracts offered to the players. If we bought a player for £20m, and offered him a 4 year deal, we'd only be hit for £5m in this years accounts for his transfer, if he was offered a 5 year deal this would drop to £4m in this years accounts.What I'm trying to say is, we could possibly have spent £100m this summer, as long as when those transfers are amortised for this coming season their total, when combined with the total for players already at the club and in the process of being amortised, didn't exceed whatever amount our revenue was able to cover. We could have signed 3 £33m players, each to a 5 year contract. As far as amortisation is concerned that would be an additional £20m "cost" to our accounts for the 2014/15 accountancy period (£100m/15 years x 3 players). If we could cover this additional £20m cost by club revenue then we'd be fine. However this £100m spend wouldn't be possible, not because we can't cover the £20m cost per year, but because the £100m exceeds the £49m cap we've had put upon us. This is why I'm not 100% convinced by the assurances we've been given by City that the spending cap won;t affect our summer transfer planning/dealings. Unless of course we never planned to spend anything like £100m on strengthening the squad, or we assumed that we could spend £100m and recoop £50m from players sales?

It's simply impossible to answer that question accurately without knowing what our financial targets are or our cash flow position is. So we know that the amortisation & wages for Barry & Lescott, plus the wages for Pantilimon are off the books. That's probably a total of about £17.5m per annum off the books. If we're happy to spend all that then I'd guess that's about £35m in transfer fees. Any other revenue we bring in could increase that so I can well believe that the £49m is what we were possibly planning to spend anyway.

The increased revenues have to go towards breaking even, rather than supporting increasing expenses.

Thank you gentlemen, much appreciated. I knew it was a ropy question but even allowing for that it's interesting that your opinions on how much the UEFA attack has blunted our planned spend on squad improvement range between possibly 'not at all' to possibly an extra £55m on top of the £49m cap.

I find it hard to believe that if we had stayed within the FFP rules we would have only spent £49m net this summer. I think it's highly likely we'd have gone for a really big name such as Cavani, Sanchez or Di Maria

At the end of the day only City really know what our transfer intentions were prior to to the transfer cap being imposed. I'm inclined to agree more with your assessment, that we would have signed a "big name" from somewhere, someone likely to cost in or around the £30m mark, or maybe a little more, and that the £49m cap makes that an unlikely proposition, unless someone of high value leaves to give us more money to spend. We all kind of knew we'd be getting a right back, a centre half, and a holding midfielder, and that's what we're being linked to, but you can't help but think there was the potential for someone else to arrive.

It's worth pointing out that I didn't say we would have spent £100m, just that if that had been our plan then the £49m cap would have likely scuppered that as an option (without serious selling of players). I would say that you'd suspect, if we'd wanted to spend £100m, that we could have affored to do so and still be more than FFP compliant when our future accounts are assessed.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thank you gentlemen, much appreciated. I knew it was a ropy question but even allowing for that it's interesting that your opinions on how much the UEFA attack has blunted our planned spend on squad improvement range between possibly 'not at all' to possibly an extra £55m on top of the £49m cap.

I find it hard to believe that if we had stayed within the FFP rules we would have only spent £49m net this summer. I think it's highly likely we'd have gone for a really big name such as Cavani, Sanchez or Di Maria

Why would we buy someone like Cavani when we already have Aguero, Dzeko, Jovetic & Negredo? We'd have to sell one of those at least meaning the net spend would be down. We don't or shouldn't need to be spending that much now compared to the last few years. We need an additional centre-back, defensive midfielder and cover at right-back. Possibly another left-back if we decide to replace Clichy but we're fine if not.

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thank you gentlemen, much appreciated. I knew it was a ropy question but even allowing for that it's interesting that your opinions on how much the UEFA attack has blunted our planned spend on squad improvement range between possibly 'not at all' to possibly an extra £55m on top of the £49m cap.

I find it hard to believe that if we had stayed within the FFP rules we would have only spent £49m net this summer. I think it's highly likely we'd have gone for a really big name such as Cavani, Sanchez or Di Maria

Why would we buy someone like Cavani when we already have Aguero, Dzeko, Jovetic & Negredo? We'd have to sell one of those at least meaning the net spend would be down. We don't or shouldn't need to be spending that much now compared to the last few years. We need an additional centre-back, defensive midfielder and cover at right-back. Possibly another left-back if we decide to replace Clichy but we're fine if not.

I assume Cavani was thrown in there as a "for example" rather than an actual target he felt we would go for. As for Sanchez or Di Maria, those are 2 players that would definitely strengthen our squad, and we could certainly find a place for one of them in our team without needed to sell off anyone of great value to us.

 

[andyhinch]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thank you gentlemen, much appreciated. I knew it was a ropy question but even allowing for that it's interesting that your opinions on how much the UEFA attack has blunted our planned spend on squad improvement range between possibly 'not at all' to possibly an extra £55m on top of the £49m cap.

I find it hard to believe that if we had stayed within the FFP rules we would have only spent £49m net this summer. I think it's highly likely we'd have gone for a really big name such as Cavani, Sanchez or Di Maria

Why would we buy someone like Cavani when we already have Aguero, Dzeko, Jovetic & Negredo? We'd have to sell one of those at least meaning the net spend would be down. We don't or shouldn't need ot be spensing that muich now compared to the last few years. We need an additional centre-back, defensive midfielder and cover at right-back. Possibly another left-back if we decide to replace Clichy but we're fine if not.

I assume Cavani was thrown in there as a "for example" rather than an actual target he felt we would go for. As for Sanchez or Di Maria, those are 2 players that would definitely strengthen our squad, and we could certainly find a place for one of them in our team without needed to sell off anyone of great value to us.

I just don't see any great need to strengthen the attack this window, it's always nice, but you can end up with to much of a good thing. I'm happy the way things seem to be panning out.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

£20m I'd have thought.

since you've cast yourself in the role of agony aunt on this thread Colin, what's your take on how much more than £49m nett we could have safely spent this window using our rising revenues to keep within general FFP rules? (PB has maintained a dignified silence since I asked him this directly a few pages back.)

Lol, agony aunt? If you've got an erectile dysfunction I'd suggest going to see your doctor.
Do you mean if we hadn't been sanctioned?
BTW the quote you decided to use was before a later one where I posted that PB was probably correct in saying that agents fees are probably included in transfer fees.

I defer of course to your obviously first-hand experience of correspondence with agony aunts. My quoting that particular post was simply to illustrate the increasing proliferation of your opinions on a wide variety of subjects. Which is of course wholly admirable and the point of a forum after all.
Anyway, the answer to your question is - yes. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[inbetween]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thank you gentlemen, much appreciated. I knew it was a ropy question but even allowing for that it's interesting that your opinions on how much the UEFA attack has blunted our planned spend on squad improvement range between possibly 'not at all' to possibly an extra £55m on top of the £49m cap.

I find it hard to believe that if we had stayed within the FFP rules we would have only spent £49m net this summer. I think it's highly likely we'd have gone for a really big name such as Cavani, Sanchez or Di Maria

Why would we buy someone like Cavani when we already have Aguero, Dzeko, Jovetic & Negredo? We'd have to sell one of those at least meaning the net spend would be down. We don't or shouldn't need to be spending that much now compared to the last few years. We need an additional centre-back, defensive midfielder and cover at right-back. Possibly another left-back if we decide to replace Clichy but we're fine if not.

I agree, I can't think of any players in the world right now I'd have over our current front players. The only ones obviously we would have is the big game changer like Ronaldo/Messi etc but realistically that will never happen regardless of FFP. We also already have Aguero who on his day is up there with Messi and Ronaldo, he just needs to stay fit. Jovetic was a fantastic buy, Dzeko is finally into his stride and Negredo has proven he can do it, he just needs a goal to break his current drought. I don't think we need another striker and Cavani is overrated anyway.

The major weaknesses last year were in the midfield area when Fernadinho or Yaya couldn't play which we appear to be solving. Garcia did a great job though in the latter part of the season and his form really contributed to winning the title. The form of Demichelis also did the same but I still think we need to solve that CB position for the next 5 years. We have solved the squad issue at RB, Sagna is a fantastic piece of business and Fernando appears to be a done deal which should fix our problem in midfield. I want to rely on Nasty coming back but something just doesn't seem quite right with him this year, I don't know what injury he picked up but he didn't appear to be 'injured' lets say. We just need Fernando to be confirmed and with the outgoings we should have 20-30M surely to spare to spend on a good CB....

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thank you gentlemen, much appreciated. I knew it was a ropy question but even allowing for that it's interesting that your opinions on how much the UEFA attack has blunted our planned spend on squad improvement range between possibly 'not at all' to possibly an extra £55m on top of the £49m cap.

I find it hard to believe that if we had stayed within the FFP rules we would have only spent £49m net this summer. I think it's highly likely we'd have gone for a really big name such as Cavani, Sanchez or Di Maria

Why would we buy someone like Cavani when we already have Aguero, Dzeko, Jovetic & Negredo? We'd have to sell one of those at least meaning the net spend would be down. We don't or shouldn't need to be spending that much now compared to the last few years. We need an additional centre-back, defensive midfielder and cover at right-back. Possibly another left-back if we decide to replace Clichy but we're fine if not.

I assume Cavani was thrown in there as a "for example" rather than an actual target he felt we would go for. As for Sanchez or Di Maria, those are 2 players that would definitely strengthen our squad, and we could certainly find a place for one of them in our team without needed to sell off anyone of great value to us.

The point I was trying to make was that there aren't many, if any, glaring weaknesses in the squad and our transfer business will be almost exclusively on a 'one in, one out' basis in future. Any weakness is in the depth of the defensive unit. We shouldn't need to be spending huge amounts of money regularly in that scenario.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

since you've cast yourself in the role of agony aunt on this thread Colin, what's your take on how much more than £49m nett we could have safely spent this window using our rising revenues to keep within general FFP rules? (PB has maintained a dignified silence since I asked him this directly a few pages back.)

Lol, agony aunt? If you've got an erectile dysfunction I'd suggest going to see your doctor.
Do you mean if we hadn't been sanctioned?
BTW the quote you decided to use was before a later one where I posted that PB was probably correct in saying that agents fees are probably included in transfer fees.

I defer of course to your obviously first-hand experience of correspondence with agony aunts. My quoting that particular post was simply to illustrate the increasing proliferation of your opinions on a wide variety of subjects. Which is of course wholly admirable and the point of a forum after all.
Anyway, the answer to your question is - yes. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

My quoting that particular post was simply to illustrate the increasing proliferation of your opinions on a wide variety of subjects

I wasn't aware I was being monitored.

Which is of course wholly admirable and the point of a forum after all

Ahh, that's OK then, as long as I now understand the point of a forum and have your confirmed approval I'll carry on then. Thank you.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

For continued success you need around 2 in and 2 out every season. The squad simply has to be freshened up every season.