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 & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
mancity dan
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
We don't need to do any of the above as we will fully comply with any FFP regs from here on in anyway.
MrE said:Guys,
another thread on another forum has inspired this thought but please bear with me for a moment.
Scenario
CFG hold the contracts of all youth players on the group books.
CFG hold all the costs (coaches/ players/ etc)
CFG pay City a rental for use of there training facility.
CFG free transfer players (as required) into our squad, either for use or sale...
CFG we see a 16 year old has real potential... he comes onto Cities books and the club hold him for 2 years (meets homegrown criteria.)
The club reduce there overheads
The club get income for a facility.
Does anyone see a negative in this system.
Would it work, Would it improve our FFP standings
We don't need to do any of the above as we will fully comply with any FFP regs from here on in anyway.
Silva Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 784
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I accept that, I just want to know if the theory is sound ?
mancity dan said:MrE said:Guys,
another thread on another forum has inspired this thought but please bear with me for a moment.
Scenario
CFG hold the contracts of all youth players on the group books.
CFG hold all the costs (coaches/ players/ etc)
CFG pay City a rental for use of there training facility.
CFG free transfer players (as required) into our squad, either for use or sale...
CFG we see a 16 year old has real potential... he comes onto Cities books and the club hold him for 2 years (meets homegrown criteria.)
The club reduce there overheads
The club get income for a facility.
Does anyone see a negative in this system.
Would it work, Would it improve our FFP standings
We don't need to do any of the above as we will fully comply with any FFP regs from here on in anyway.
I accept that, I just want to know if the theory is sound ?
I'm no cynic but...
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 4,000
- Location
- True friends stab you in the front.
- Team supported
- The one and only City
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It's something I've thought about too, the only snag I can see [other than UEFA making up some rule in hindsight] is that CFG might be regarded as a 3rd party and could have an 'outside influence' on sporting affairs. PB might be the best person to ask.MrE said:mancity dan said:MrE said:Guys,
another thread on another forum has inspired this thought but please bear with me for a moment.
Scenario
CFG hold the contracts of all youth players on the group books.
CFG hold all the costs (coaches/ players/ etc)
CFG pay City a rental for use of there training facility.
CFG free transfer players (as required) into our squad, either for use or sale...
CFG we see a 16 year old has real potential... he comes onto Cities books and the club hold him for 2 years (meets homegrown criteria.)
The club reduce there overheads
The club get income for a facility.
Does anyone see a negative in this system.
Would it work, Would it improve our FFP standings
We don't need to do any of the above as we will fully comply with any FFP regs from here on in anyway.
I accept that, I just want to know if the theory is sound ?
mancity dan
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
PB would definitely be the man for this ^^^
I'm no cynic said:It's something I've thought about too, the only snag I can see [other than UEFA making up some rule in hindsight] is that CFG might be regarded as a 3rd party and could have an 'outside influence' on sporting affairs. PB might be the best person to ask.MrE said:mancity dan said:We don't need to do any of the above as we will fully comply with any FFP regs from here on in anyway.
I accept that, I just want to know if the theory is sound ?
PB would definitely be the man for this ^^^
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Yes. It's 'their' not 'there'. Plus we've agreed not to include any intra-group transactions in our FFP calculation.MrE said:Guys,
another thread on another forum has inspired this thought but please bear with me for a moment.
Scenario
CFG hold the contracts of all youth players on the group books.
CFG hold all the costs (coaches/ players/ etc)
CFG pay City a rental for use of there training facility.
CFG free transfer players (as required) into our squad, either for use or sale...
CFG we see a 16 year old has real potential... he comes onto Cities books and the club hold him for 2 years (meets homegrown criteria.)
The club reduce there overheads
The club get income for a facility.
Does anyone see a negative in this system.
King Geedorah
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 1,413
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Sanchez is the one I most want.
Fantastic little player.
We really should build into our transfer plans that Barca and Madrid buy fantastically talented players and get rid within 3 years. If we remained 3 years behind them at all times we'd do very well (Picking up players like Ibra, Robben, Ozil, Fabregas etc).
St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:So we are linked with Mangala,Barkley,Willy Callabero and Sanchez.
I would fucking love to sign all three of these,now I know it is doubtful but if we did how would we comply with FFP in the next set of accounts? No change out of what 100 plus million?
Sanchez is the one I most want.
Fantastic little player.
We really should build into our transfer plans that Barca and Madrid buy fantastically talented players and get rid within 3 years. If we remained 3 years behind them at all times we'd do very well (Picking up players like Ibra, Robben, Ozil, Fabregas etc).
OB1
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I don't comment on FFP a lot but now transfer season is getting underway for real, I find myself hugely irritated by this ridiculous piece of UEFA "legislation". I am not a violent person but I would have to work hard not to attempt to slap some sense into Platini in the unlikely evert that I bumped into him.
I suspect that we will see some club's make a mockery of the fact that we have a limit set on our transfer spending this summer. I am not one of those who thinks that we should go out and hijack every deal for a decent player that involves our rivals but we should be able to compete with whatever or rivals spend. They should not be allowed to spend more simply because they earn more. We should be allowed to compete by investing over whatever we choose to invest in the business.
The only time that there would be a need to reign City in is if we consistently spent way more money than the biggest clubs over an extended number of seasons: that is when what City are doing could be deemed anti-competitive.
At the moment, the rules are in danger of preventing City form being as competitive as they could be and that is wrong; but you do not need me to tell you that.
I don't comment on FFP a lot but now transfer season is getting underway for real, I find myself hugely irritated by this ridiculous piece of UEFA "legislation". I am not a violent person but I would have to work hard not to attempt to slap some sense into Platini in the unlikely evert that I bumped into him.
I suspect that we will see some club's make a mockery of the fact that we have a limit set on our transfer spending this summer. I am not one of those who thinks that we should go out and hijack every deal for a decent player that involves our rivals but we should be able to compete with whatever or rivals spend. They should not be allowed to spend more simply because they earn more. We should be allowed to compete by investing over whatever we choose to invest in the business.
The only time that there would be a need to reign City in is if we consistently spent way more money than the biggest clubs over an extended number of seasons: that is when what City are doing could be deemed anti-competitive.
At the moment, the rules are in danger of preventing City form being as competitive as they could be and that is wrong; but you do not need me to tell you that.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
According to some sages on here UEFA's attack has made absolutely no difference to anything! Priceless.OB1 said:I don't comment on FFP a lot but now transfer season is getting underway for real, I find myself hugely irritated by this ridiculous piece of UEFA "legislation". I am not a violent person but I would have to work hard not to attempt to slap some sense into Platini in the unlikely evert that I bumped into him.
I suspect that we will see some club's make a mockery of the fact that we have a limit set on our transfer spending this summer. I am not one of those who thinks that we should go out and hijack every deal for a decent player that involves our rivals but we should be able to compete with whatever or rivals spend. They should not be allowed to spend more simply because they earn more. We should be allowed to compete by investing over whatever we choose to invest in the business.
The only time that there would be a need to reign City in is if we consistently spent way more money than the biggest clubs over an extended number of seasons: that is when what City are doing could be deemed anti-competitive.
At the moment, the rules are in danger of preventing City form being as competitive as they could be and that is wrong; but you do not need me to tell you that.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
He also said there were WMD in Iraq.cibaman said:Tony Blair used to have a saying "Never underestimate the Tories, never over estimate the Lib Dems". I think you can substitute United and Liverpool.