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
Re: City & FFP (continued)
£57 adult tickets for City vs. Liverpool. Bloody hell. They're pricing out more and more salt of the earth fans every year and some people will defend them with the weak FFP argument, which has been blown to bits before (we already make more money than Arsenal and Chelsea).
£57 adult tickets for City vs. Liverpool. Bloody hell. They're pricing out more and more salt of the earth fans every year and some people will defend them with the weak FFP argument, which has been blown to bits before (we already make more money than Arsenal and Chelsea).
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
As long as you're out of the competition it doesn't matter (for UEFA FFP), but the moment you get back in, your books are back in the limelight. Which includes the year(s) you've been out. From memory it's a 3 year period that's looked at but it was only 2 years at the initial introduction (would have to confirm that).
Like I say, otherwise you may as well spend 1 billion when OUT of CL and come right in and win the thing.
I couldn't spot anything obvious about what happens if you drop out of for a year or so - and (tongue in cheek) it's arguably because it was designed to keep clubs IN the CL... not be dropping out of it due to pesky upstarts like City! ;-)
Can't really see LIverpool having too much a problem. They had some strange year a couple of years ago when they made a loss and put it down to a huge cost in a stadium expansion feasibility study, but they've not been spending in the manner we have and their wage bill is lower too. Still, would be nice if they felt the effects of FFP too....
Then again, we'd be to blame anyway.
jockblue said:FanchesterCity said:That's a bit misleading. They don't suddenly become exempt. They don't get checked this year because they aren't in Europe, but when they get back in, this years accounts will still count.
Otherwise, it would actually be beneficial to deliberate drop out of CL for a year, spend 200 million, then come back in the year after.
Just to pick up on that bit - are you sure ?- Liverpool's accounts haven't been scrutinised for the years they haven't been in Europe, so why would anyone else who "drops out" find their accounts suddenly scrutinised.
As long as you're out of the competition it doesn't matter (for UEFA FFP), but the moment you get back in, your books are back in the limelight. Which includes the year(s) you've been out. From memory it's a 3 year period that's looked at but it was only 2 years at the initial introduction (would have to confirm that).
Like I say, otherwise you may as well spend 1 billion when OUT of CL and come right in and win the thing.
I couldn't spot anything obvious about what happens if you drop out of for a year or so - and (tongue in cheek) it's arguably because it was designed to keep clubs IN the CL... not be dropping out of it due to pesky upstarts like City! ;-)
Can't really see LIverpool having too much a problem. They had some strange year a couple of years ago when they made a loss and put it down to a huge cost in a stadium expansion feasibility study, but they've not been spending in the manner we have and their wage bill is lower too. Still, would be nice if they felt the effects of FFP too....
Then again, we'd be to blame anyway.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
If you've ever wondered why fans of clubs like Everton are happy with FFP. This is what one of their fans thinks about it. This was a reply when someone had spelled out exactly what FFP meant for teams like them.
If you've ever wondered why fans of clubs like Everton are happy with FFP. This is what one of their fans thinks about it. This was a reply when someone had spelled out exactly what FFP meant for teams like them.
I actually agree with you in regards to FFP, but remember that Everton have been up for sale for over 10 years apparently and we are yet to get investment! So I think in regards to FFP our fans just don't want any other average mid table teams getting taken over that can push us further down the table due to oil money. So at the moment - as it stands, we are fine with the regulations.
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
The politics of despair I'm afraid. Doesn't mind being in a hopeless position as long as every one else is too. Sadly, I believe that sort of feudal thinking is ingrained in the game and the football media.
stony said:If you've ever wondered why fans of clubs like Everton are happy with FFP. This is what one of their fans thinks about it. This was a reply when someone had spelled out exactly what FFP meant for teams like them.
I actually agree with you in regards to FFP, but remember that Everton have been up for sale for over 10 years apparently and we are yet to get investment! So I think in regards to FFP our fans just don't want any other average mid table teams getting taken over that can push us further down the table due to oil money. So at the moment - as it stands, we are fine with the regulations.
The politics of despair I'm afraid. Doesn't mind being in a hopeless position as long as every one else is too. Sadly, I believe that sort of feudal thinking is ingrained in the game and the football media.
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Indeed.
Instead of seeing us a breaking up the top 4, they just see us as adding to the top and thus taking away their already slim hopes.
They aren't necessarily wrong in terms of what it means for them, but the PL i certainly no less competitive. It's arguable if it's more competitive, but definitely no worse.
I believe the majority of other fans just see City as pushing them further down the rankings. Initially, I think they welcomed us breaking into the top 4, but now they've come to realise we've not broken it up, we've just added to it. It always seemed to be a top 3 + one open slot. Now it's a top 4 + 1 open slot.
Wreckless Alec said:stony said:If you've ever wondered why fans of clubs like Everton are happy with FFP. This is what one of their fans thinks about it. This was a reply when someone had spelled out exactly what FFP meant for teams like them.
I actually agree with you in regards to FFP, but remember that Everton have been up for sale for over 10 years apparently and we are yet to get investment! So I think in regards to FFP our fans just don't want any other average mid table teams getting taken over that can push us further down the table due to oil money. So at the moment - as it stands, we are fine with the regulations.
The politics of despair I'm afraid. Doesn't mind being in a hopeless position as long as every one else is too. Sadly, I believe that sort of feudal thinking is ingrained in the game and the football media.
Indeed.
Instead of seeing us a breaking up the top 4, they just see us as adding to the top and thus taking away their already slim hopes.
They aren't necessarily wrong in terms of what it means for them, but the PL i certainly no less competitive. It's arguable if it's more competitive, but definitely no worse.
I believe the majority of other fans just see City as pushing them further down the rankings. Initially, I think they welcomed us breaking into the top 4, but now they've come to realise we've not broken it up, we've just added to it. It always seemed to be a top 3 + one open slot. Now it's a top 4 + 1 open slot.
allblues09
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
While I agree with the sentiment of the article, I am not sure it is accurate. Since Urfas FFP does not apply unless you are in a European competition, it should not hinder investment in clubs like Villa. Look at Liverpool. They spent heavily, are foul of FFP, but have no sanction.
A rich owner could buy villa. Invest heavily in the early years, and presumably turn a profit by moving into the top 4 (through tv money, etc).
St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:Martin Samuel at last saying it as it is...:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ir-Play-gift-club-owners-buy-Aston-Villa.html
While I agree with the sentiment of the article, I am not sure it is accurate. Since Urfas FFP does not apply unless you are in a European competition, it should not hinder investment in clubs like Villa. Look at Liverpool. They spent heavily, are foul of FFP, but have no sanction.
A rich owner could buy villa. Invest heavily in the early years, and presumably turn a profit by moving into the top 4 (through tv money, etc).
City Raider
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Don't the prem have their own ffp?
allblues09 said:St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:Martin Samuel at last saying it as it is...:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ir-Play-gift-club-owners-buy-Aston-Villa.html
While I agree with the sentiment of the article, I am not sure it is accurate. Since Urfas FFP does not apply unless you are in a European competition, it should not hinder investment in clubs like Villa. Look at Liverpool. They spent heavily, are foul of FFP, but have no sanction.
A rich owner could buy villa. Invest heavily in the early years, and presumably turn a profit by moving into the top 4 (through tv money, etc).
Don't the prem have their own ffp?
bluechampion7891
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 3,022
Re: City & FFP (continued)
By moving into top 4, they will be scrutinized by UEFA and fail on FFP. Then depending on the severity of the fine, they may not see top 4/rewards of top/Champions League, meaning no return on investment. Which means its a loss from an investor's point of view. Further, unless you cement top 4 or are regularly in and out, you won't be that attractive to sponsors and they make a major chunk of revenue apart from TV money.
So you can see how FFP limits investment as it basically ends any chance of a return on it.
Edit: further effects can be player's who sign up for CL demanding to leave for CL clubs. You can lose the core of a team. And so on
allblues09 said:St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:Martin Samuel at last saying it as it is...:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ir-Play-gift-club-owners-buy-Aston-Villa.html
While I agree with the sentiment of the article, I am not sure it is accurate. Since Urfas FFP does not apply unless you are in a European competition, it should not hinder investment in clubs like Villa. Look at Liverpool. They spent heavily, are foul of FFP, but have no sanction.
A rich owner could buy villa. Invest heavily in the early years, and presumably turn a profit by moving into the top 4 (through tv money, etc).
By moving into top 4, they will be scrutinized by UEFA and fail on FFP. Then depending on the severity of the fine, they may not see top 4/rewards of top/Champions League, meaning no return on investment. Which means its a loss from an investor's point of view. Further, unless you cement top 4 or are regularly in and out, you won't be that attractive to sponsors and they make a major chunk of revenue apart from TV money.
So you can see how FFP limits investment as it basically ends any chance of a return on it.
Edit: further effects can be player's who sign up for CL demanding to leave for CL clubs. You can lose the core of a team. And so on
Rammyblues
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
IMO FFP does not stop investment just means the returns on any investments are decades away. (Which probably means no one will want to invest) :-)
IMO FFP does not stop investment just means the returns on any investments are decades away. (Which probably means no one will want to invest) :-)