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

[fbloke]

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

Perhaps City included a figure in order to make any early business cheaper to conduct knowing that there was mor leeway than that allowed?

 

[waspish]

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>

Very good article

 

[SilverFox2]

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>

Thanks for the 'Tool', it makes a lot of sense.

The arguments for any control on funding any business in any sector that involves the potential to make money is likely to involve some sort of cartel.
Football is no exception except that it has found a way to be legally unaccountable for its global actions via a Swiss .org.

 

[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!

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

Perhaps City included a figure in order to make any early business cheaper to conduct knowing that there was mor leeway than that allowed?

Oh now THAT's an interesting theory! I doubt that is the case, but it would have been one hell of a stunt.

Sadly, if we'd said the limit was 60m (lying) and spent 80m, we' just end up with being accused of managing to be in cahoots with UEFA and fiddling the system.

Interestingly though, many have speculated about FSG 'ignoring' the limit - but nobody's provided proof of what that limit is! (and besides, so far they've only bought Luiz circa 43-49 million.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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

Perhaps City included a figure in order to make any early business cheaper to conduct knowing that there was mor leeway than that allowed?

Oh now THAT's an interesting theory! I doubt that is the case, but it would have been one hell of a stunt.

Sadly, if we'd said the limit was 60m (lying) and spent 80m, we' just end up with being accused of managing to be in cahoots with UEFA and fiddling the system.

Interestingly though, many have speculated about FSG 'ignoring' the limit - but nobody's provided proof of what that limit is! (and besides, so far they've only bought Luiz circa 43-49 million.

Once the deals are done and the admission that the City press release accidentally contained an error has blown over what would be the down side?

Remembering that we should be clear of any FFP restrictions by then as well what would be the problem other than the same sort of mudslinging that we have aimed at cartel?

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Whilst it is wise to be cautious when the detail is so vague I do feel that as time progresses City get further along their Business Plan timeline anyway so we are currently experiencing the worst FFP can throw at us.
Full impact of its potential sanctions has been avoided.

Agreement to the current FFP compromise was acceptance of a short term setback to achieve its long term objectives.

Being monitored will have its nuisance value of course but new sanctions seem unlikely.

OK others now have a 'window of opportunity' to do the thing they critised MCFC for but surely City have enough talent in its backroom staff to Team Build rather than concentrating on Star acquisition.

At least one of our 'Stars' seems determined to be awkward but this will always happen as Agents churn, however this may not be a totally bad thing especially if PSG buy because that would give PSG an extremely large FFP headache at the same time as alleviating City's .

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Perhaps City included a figure in order to make any early business cheaper to conduct knowing that there was mor leeway than that allowed?

Oh now THAT's an interesting theory! I doubt that is the case, but it would have been one hell of a stunt.

Sadly, if we'd said the limit was 60m (lying) and spent 80m, we' just end up with being accused of managing to be in cahoots with UEFA and fiddling the system.

Interestingly though, many have speculated about FSG 'ignoring' the limit - but nobody's provided proof of what that limit is! (and besides, so far they've only bought Luiz circa 43-49 million.

Once the deals are done and the admission that the City press release accidentally contained an error has blown over what would be the down side?

Remembering that we should be clear of any FFP restrictions by then as well what would be the problem other than the same sort of mudslinging that we have aimed at cartel?

I think too many people on here (not you) underestimate the Machiavellian nature of FFP. If the rules are vague, then they are vague at the behest of UEFA, and I hope City are not so foolish as to believe that that vagueness will be of benefit to us as well, cos it won't be. These are absolute c*nts we're dealing with and this is their last chance to nobble us before the BT money kicks in. Even if City comply in this window I do not expect the suspended sanctions to be lifted, nor if we break even. UEFA will simply re-arrange the qualification criteria to suit its own agenda.

We are in a unique situation in that our involvement in the Chimps League, necessarily means that one of G14 old guard has to miss out, and the financial rewards are simply too great for them to stomach such a scenario, which therefore means stopping City by fair means or foul. If an oil baron took over Vfb Stuttgart or Bordeaux, it wouldn't matter a shit, cos Paris and Munich (and clubs like them in other leagues) will qualify in one of the other slots without any bother, but in the Premier League it's a different story.

My ambitions for the season ahead extend no further than a top 4 finish for that very reason, and anything else is a bonus. The £49m spending cap is already having an effect, and whilst we have bought a decent defensive midfielder (but not so decent as to have made the World Cup) and hopefully a promising centre half, who, and I'll be blunt, is not a significant upgrade on DiMichelis, based on the former's indifferent performances in the Europa League last season and the latter's excellent form post-January (although Mangala's pace would be a welcome bonus given our high defensive line), there are some serious hitters being lined up by our competitors. Fabregas, Costa, Lallana, Sanchez and prospectively Vidal and Khaderia, strengthen our rivals to a far greater degree IMO. If we miss out on the Chimps League spots this season, we will have a pig of a job to get back in.

I'm an acknowledged glass half empty merchant, but I don't think I'm wrong about the depths of spite UEFA will plumb if they have to. My hope is that City's legal team, having had one taste of what these bent fuckers are like, will not let their guard down for a second again

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Oh now THAT's an interesting theory! I doubt that is the case, but it would have been one hell of a stunt.

Sadly, if we'd said the limit was 60m (lying) and spent 80m, we' just end up with being accused of managing to be in cahoots with UEFA and fiddling the system.

Interestingly though, many have speculated about FSG 'ignoring' the limit - but nobody's provided proof of what that limit is! (and besides, so far they've only bought Luiz circa 43-49 million.

Once the deals are done and the admission that the City press release accidentally contained an error has blown over what would be the down side?

Remembering that we should be clear of any FFP restrictions by then as well what would be the problem other than the same sort of mudslinging that we have aimed at cartel?

I think too many people on here (not you) underestimate the Machiavellian nature of FFP. If the rules are vague, then they are vague at the behest of UEFA, and I hope City are not so foolish as to believe that that vagueness will be of benefit to us as well, cos it won't be. These are absolute c*nts we're dealing with and this is their last chance to nobble us before the BT money kicks in. Even if City comply in this window I do not expect the suspended sanctions to be lifted, nor if we break even. UEFA will simply re-arrange the qualification criteria to suit its own agenda.

We are in a unique situation in that our involvement in the Chimps League, necessarily means that one of G14 old guard has to miss out, and the financial rewards are simply too great for them to stomach such a scenario, which therefore means stopping City by fair means or foul. If an oil baron took over Vfb Stuttgart or Bordeaux, it wouldn't matter a shit, cos Paris and Munich (and clubs like them in other leagues) will qualify in one of the other slots without any bother, but in the Premier League it's a different story.

My ambitions for the season ahead extend no further than a top 4 finish for that very reason, and anything else is a bonus. The £49m spending cap is already having an effect, and whilst we have bought a decent defensive midfielder (but not so decent as to have made the World Cup) and hopefully a promising centre half, who, and I'll be blunt, is not a significant upgrade on DiMichelis, based on the former's indifferent performances in the Europa League last season and the latter's excellent form post-January (although Mangala's pace would be a welcome bonus given our high defensive line), there are some serious hitters being lined up by our competitors. Fabregas, Costa, Lallana, Sanchez and prospectively Vidal and Khaderia, strengthen our rivals to a far greater degree IMO. If we miss out on the Chimps League spots this season, we will have a pig of a job to get back in.

I'm an acknowledged glass half empty merchant, but I don't think I'm wrong about the depths of spite UEFA will plumb if they have to. My hope is that City's legal team, having had one taste of what these bent fuckers are like, will not let their guard down for a second again

"glass half empty"??? Jeez, this reads like the glass was knocked over and then stamped on.
It is vague as hell to us because no information has really been released but I refuse to believe City have accepted anything as half assed as that statement put out by UEFA.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If we miss out on the Chimps League spots this season, we will have a pig of a job to get back in.

I'm an acknowledged glass half empty merchant, but I don't think I'm wrong about the depths of spite UEFA will plumb if they have to. My hope is that City's legal team, having had one taste of what these bent fuckers are like, will not let their guard down for a second again

I can't imagine any scenario whatsoever where we finish outside the top 4. Liverpool will struggle to stay in the top 4 this season, which makes our failure to qualify for the CL even more unlikely.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Once the deals are done and the admission that the City press release accidentally contained an error has blown over what would be the down side?

Remembering that we should be clear of any FFP restrictions by then as well what would be the problem other than the same sort of mudslinging that we have aimed at cartel?

I think too many people on here (not you) underestimate the Machiavellian nature of FFP. If the rules are vague, then they are vague at the behest of UEFA, and I hope City are not so foolish as to believe that that vagueness will be of benefit to us as well, cos it won't be. These are absolute c*nts we're dealing with and this is their last chance to nobble us before the BT money kicks in. Even if City comply in this window I do not expect the suspended sanctions to be lifted, nor if we break even. UEFA will simply re-arrange the qualification criteria to suit its own agenda.

We are in a unique situation in that our involvement in the Chimps League, necessarily means that one of G14 old guard has to miss out, and the financial rewards are simply too great for them to stomach such a scenario, which therefore means stopping City by fair means or foul. If an oil baron took over Vfb Stuttgart or Bordeaux, it wouldn't matter a shit, cos Paris and Munich (and clubs like them in other leagues) will qualify in one of the other slots without any bother, but in the Premier League it's a different story.

My ambitions for the season ahead extend no further than a top 4 finish for that very reason, and anything else is a bonus. The £49m spending cap is already having an effect, and whilst we have bought a decent defensive midfielder (but not so decent as to have made the World Cup) and hopefully a promising centre half, who, and I'll be blunt, is not a significant upgrade on DiMichelis, based on the former's indifferent performances in the Europa League last season and the latter's excellent form post-January (although Mangala's pace would be a welcome bonus given our high defensive line), there are some serious hitters being lined up by our competitors. Fabregas, Costa, Lallana, Sanchez and prospectively Vidal and Khaderia, strengthen our rivals to a far greater degree IMO. If we miss out on the Chimps League spots this season, we will have a pig of a job to get back in.

I'm an acknowledged glass half empty merchant, but I don't think I'm wrong about the depths of spite UEFA will plumb if they have to. My hope is that City's legal team, having had one taste of what these bent fuckers are like, will not let their guard down for a second again

"glass half empty"??? Jeez, this reads like the glass was knocked over and then stamped on.
It is vague as hell to us because no information has really been released but I refuse to believe City have accepted anything as half assed as that statement put out by UEFA.

There were plenty on here thought we had nothing to worry about before the FFP decisions were announced, and presumably the club were confident of passing themselves. The fact is though, we didn't. All I'm saying is that I hope we are now fully aware of the nature of the beast. These people are there to hinder us, not assist us.