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

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Who know what exactly transfer window sanction ? till next winter or next year summer ?

- Sorry for my English.

The £49 million cap is for this summer only, (I thought it was for the season but I was wrong happily). We may have one for January too, which may be dependant on this transfer window but TBH there's just no clarification out there.

Do you think this 'vagueness' is a deliberate ploy by UEFA ?

My worry is that the more specific they are the less room they have to tighten their grip on our responses.

Conversely we can use uncertainty to advantage but when they make and change the rules with skewed interpretation it may be a case of cat and mouse.

 

[baddddad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Do you think this 'vagueness' is a deliberate ploy by UEFA ?

Nope, they are completely making it up as they go along

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The settlement document can be found here:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/ClubFinancialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>

It's quite pitiful actually, which leads me to conclude this is actually just a summary of what was agreed (and possibly the actual agreement is subject to Non Disclosure).

It doesn't actually state the 60m transfer cap (which the press seem to have knowledge of). It only states that Manchester City have agreed to significantly reduce our transfer spending over the next two seasons. That's it. No amounts discussed.

The chairman used the phrase 'this summer transfer window' as have much of the press, which does indeed suggest it's just this summer, but reading between the lines, I suspect it's more than this summer. I think the 60m cap (not to be confused with the 60m 'fine') might be adjusted in accordance with our turnover, so I THINK UEFA might take another look during the season and say 'ok, you're now capped at 70m' for January. But I don't know this.

The whole document seems to suggest we're going to be continuously (or at least regularly monitored) and sanctions will be applied depending on how well we do (in lay terms).

I am truly shocked at how vague the wording is, and I can only assume it's deliberate. I can't believe City would accept that vagueness in a genuine agreement, so I assume they're ok with the vagueness because it's there to protect UEFA and City from the real detail of what's been agreed,

Just my opinion of course!

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think a lot of people on here are losing sight of the fact that all these restrictions on us are only there to protect the general good of football , and save other clubs from financial folly - and of course they also prevent the transfer and salary market from becoming over - inflated with ludicrous amounts of money being poured in through dodgy sponsorship deals, and consequently making football uncompetitive.
That's what it's all for ....... Isn't it?

 

[Damocles]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The settlement document can be found here:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/ClubFinancialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>

It's quite pitiful actually, which leads me to conclude this is actually just a summary of what was agreed (and possibly the actual agreement is subject to Non Disclosure).

It doesn't actually state the 60m transfer cap (which the press seem to have knowledge of). It only states that Manchester City have agreed to significantly reduce our transfer spending over the next two seasons. That's it. No amounts discussed.

The chairman used the phrase 'this summer transfer window' as have much of the press, which does indeed suggest it's just this summer, but reading between the lines, I suspect it's more than this summer. I think the 60m cap (not to be confused with the 60m 'fine') might be adjusted in accordance with our turnover, so I THINK UEFA might take another look during the season and say 'ok, you're now capped at 70m' for January. But I don't know this.

The whole document seems to suggest we're going to be continuously (or at least regularly monitored) and sanctions will be applied depending on how well we do (in lay terms).

I am truly shocked at how vague the wording is, and I can only assume it's deliberate. I can't believe City would accept that vagueness in a genuine agreement, so I assume they're ok with the vagueness because it's there to protect UEFA and City from the real detail of what's been agreed,

Just my opinion of course!

It was City's statement that confirmed a 60m cap for this transfer window. I presume that the cap either lasts only for this window or is different in every window given the language used

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think a lot of people on here are losing sight of the fact that all these restrictions on us are only there to protect the general good of football , and save other clubs from financial folly - and of course they also prevent the transfer and salary market from becoming over - inflated with ludicrous amounts of money being poured in through dodgy sponsorship deals, and consequently making football uncompetitive.
That's what it's all for ....... Isn't it?

*smirks*

Quite right. To be honest, I'm appalled that we don't pay respect to the football hierarchy, and we've been rightly punished. What good can come of breaking up a tried and tested formula of fans knowing what to expect and where trophies ought to go.
The upset at 'proper' clubs like United no longer winning the league has caused literally millions of complaints across Asia. For the good of football, noisy neighbours must be muzzled.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think a lot of people on here are losing sight of the fact that all these restrictions on us are only there to protect the general good of football , and save other clubs from financial folly - and of course they also prevent the transfer and salary market from becoming over - inflated with ludicrous amounts of money being poured in through dodgy sponsorship deals, and consequently making football uncompetitive.
That's what it's all for ....... Isn't it?

Quite right. To be honest, I'm appalled that we don't pay respect to the football hierarchy, and we've been rightly punished. What good can come of breaking up a tried and tested formula of fans knowing what to expect and where trophies ought to go.
The upset at 'proper' clubs like United no longer winning the league has caused literally millions of complaints across Asia. For the good of football, noisy neighbours must be muzzled.

Quite right, indeed! And, Messi was the best player at the World Cup! People have expectations, after all, as do major sponsors....or was that NOT Messi in every Pepsi and Adidas commercial during every commercial break! What next? UEFA signing a major beer sponsor and restricting beer sales at games? Come on people.....

Sometimes, even when you speak truth sarcastically, it just doesn't sound feasible, yet we have to live under these corrupt entities ALL IN THE NAME OF MAKING MONEY! Funny old world, isn't it?!

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thanks FanchesterCity, I see what you mean about the content of the document.

As you say it lacks detail which i suspect all the elite clubs will be privy to despite any non disclosure agreement.

Conjecture is easy but I suppose it suits both parties to try to keep a lid on this for the time being.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think a lot of people on here are losing sight of the fact that all these restrictions on us are only there to protect the general good of football , and save other clubs from financial folly - and of course they also prevent the transfer and salary market from becoming over - inflated with ludicrous amounts of money being poured in through dodgy sponsorship deals, and consequently making football uncompetitive.
That's what it's all for ....... Isn't it?

Quite right. To be honest, I'm appalled that we don't pay respect to the football hierarchy, and we've been rightly punished. What good can come of breaking up a tried and tested formula of fans knowing what to expect and where trophies ought to go.
The upset at 'proper' clubs like United no longer winning the league has caused literally millions of complaints across Asia. For the good of football, noisy neighbours must be muzzled.

Quite right, indeed! And, Messi was the best player at the World Cup! People have expectations, after all, as do major sponsors....or was that NOT Messi in every Pepsi and Adidas commercial during every commercial break! What next? UEFA signing a major beer sponsor and restricting beer sales at games? Come on people.....

Sometimes, even when you speak truth sarcastically, it just doesn't sound feasible, yet we have to live under these corrupt entities ALL IN THE NAME OF MAKING MONEY! Funny old world, isn't it?!

And that's the irony of all ironies in a nutshell. The entire industry is there to make money. Clubs are our to grab the biggest share of investment (in all forms) they possibly can. Only they don't want other clubs to be able to do that. The market was already carved up in nicely agreed proportions amongst the established elite, and now we've come and pee'd in their private pool they are NOT impressed.

They are like a gang of bullies at the local park. The park (the football market) is there for ALL to play in, only when you try to play in it, they get aggressive...

 

[Ric]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Instant FFP debate tool - a new free resource:

<a class="postlink" href="http://ffpstinks.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/instant-ffp-debate-tool-new-free.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://ffpstinks.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07 ... -free.html</a>