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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Marvin said:
SilverFox2 said:
Marvin said:
It's revenue versus expenses. That's the break-even calculation

Raising money through a share issue would not count as revenue, but you could use it to finance expenditure. Not sure if that's what you are asking

I think when a Company lists it's shares they have to state in their listing documents what the Capital Issue is for

I use MUFC as an example only but as I understand your answer the Glazers have recently sold about 5 or 7.5% of their stock exchange listed shares so I wondered if any portion of this could be used to for example to buy players without being subject to FFP rules ?
My understanding is that if they used the proceeds of the share issue to buy players, the costs of those would still feature under expenses, and they'd have to find revenue to net off against those expenses.

There is something in the regulations which allows for an increased loss where a club owner agrees to cover the loss by pumping money into a club and they could do that by issuing shares in the club if they so wished. Potentially that could help reduce FFP sanctions but that's a very roundabout way of trying to make a connection between issuing shares and beating FFP and I don't think it's what you were thinking of

Thanks for your patient replies.

My original thoughts were that even though MUFC are not likely to have any issues with FFP the vehicle that they are using to raise cash may have penalised owners compared with public owned companies.

By that I mean that the stock market reflects the current value of the club so shares can increase in value.
However the owners stake remains a fixed amount over time which by definition does not allow the equity increase of his investment to be measured.
Any potential or actual profit from share sale may then have been an FFP free investment tool was my reason to post.

Your view that there is probably no advantage re FFP purposes is reassuring.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

paul1894 said:
So just slightly changing the subject,if our owners and psg's owners got together and agreed to sponsor each others teams for say 1bn over whatever length of time for say training kit,or the car parks,would this not be a way round financial doping

I f we sponsored each other then the expenditure would cancel out the receipts. Anyway our owners aren't looking for any loopholes or ways round ffp . They are happy that they will comply easily doing what they are doing now in future years.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

blueparrot said:
paul1894 said:
So just slightly changing the subject,if our owners and psg's owners got together and agreed to sponsor each others teams for say 1bn over whatever length of time for say training kit,or the car parks,would this not be a way round financial doping

I f we sponsored each other then the expenditure would cancel out the receipts. Anyway our owners aren't looking for any loopholes or ways round ffp . They are happy that they will comply easily doing what they are doing now in future years.

Not strictly true, only if the football clubs sponsored each other. If Sheikh Mansour, or for that matter ADUG, sponsored PSG for £1b this wouldn't be an expense on Manchester City FC. If that were the case we'd have to cover the cost of buying NYCFC, as well as the Sheikh's tea for tonight.

In reality this will never happen, but as a hypothetical scenario there's would be nothing UEFA could do. We wouldn't be "related parties" so they couldn't adjust the value.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Marvin said:
aguero93:20 said:
SilverFox2 said:
I use MUFC as an example only but as I understand your answer the Glazers have recently sold about 5 or 7.5% of their stock exchange listed shares so I wondered if any portion of this could be used to for example to buy players without being subject to FFP rules ?
They could list it as club related income in the same way you'd use interest on a bank balance or charges on a loan adversely. However let me assure you, Uncle Malc left the shop in shit and they're scrambling to keep afloat. We should wish them every success, don't want them selling the club.
Not as far as UEFA's Fair Play Calculation is concerned

Allowable Revenue:

a) Revenue – Gate receipts
b) Revenue – Sponsorship and advertising
c) Revenue – Broadcasting rights
d) Revenue – Commercial activities
e) Revenue – Other operating income
f) Profit on disposal of player registrations (or income from disposal of player
registrations)
g) Excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets
h) Finance income
D, E and H Marvin. It's not going to happen though.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Matty said:
blueparrot said:
paul1894 said:
So just slightly changing the subject,if our owners and psg's owners got together and agreed to sponsor each others teams for say 1bn over whatever length of time for say training kit,or the car parks,would this not be a way round financial doping

I f we sponsored each other then the expenditure would cancel out the receipts. Anyway our owners aren't looking for any loopholes or ways round ffp . They are happy that they will comply easily doing what they are doing now in future years.

Not strictly true, only if the football clubs sponsored each other. If Sheikh Mansour, or for that matter ADUG, sponsored PSG for £1b this wouldn't be an expense on Manchester City FC. If that were the case we'd have to cover the cost of buying NYCFC, as well as the Sheikh's tea for tonight.

In reality this will never happen, but as a hypothetical scenario there's would be nothing UEFA could do. We wouldn't be "related parties" so in theory they couldn't adjust the value, but since they are corrupt as fuck and do what they like, no doubt they would shaft us.

Edited for accuracy
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

aguero93:20 said:
Marvin said:
aguero93:20 said:
They could list it as club related income in the same way you'd use interest on a bank balance or charges on a loan adversely. However let me assure you, Uncle Malc left the shop in shit and they're scrambling to keep afloat. We should wish them every success, don't want them selling the club.
Not as far as UEFA's Fair Play Calculation is concerned

Allowable Revenue:

a) Revenue – Gate receipts
b) Revenue – Sponsorship and advertising
c) Revenue – Broadcasting rights
d) Revenue – Commercial activities
e) Revenue – Other operating income
f) Profit on disposal of player registrations (or income from disposal of player
registrations)
g) Excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets
h) Finance income
D, E and H Marvin. It's not going to happen though.
Issuing Shares raises Capital not Income
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Marvin said:
aguero93:20 said:
Marvin said:
Not as far as UEFA's Fair Play Calculation is concerned

Allowable Revenue:
D, E and H Marvin. It's not going to happen though.
Issuing Shares raises Capital not Income
I'll get back to you on this later on but there's a loophole that would let them use it as income.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Article from Economia on FFP.

Financial Fair Play rules could have the unintended consequences of “locking in” wealth disparity between football clubs across the leagues this season

A BDO study on football finances and the impact of Financial Fair Play (FFP) has shown that 94% of club finance bosses believe the wealth disparity between larger and smaller clubs is growing. It revealed 64% of English Premier League (EPL) clubs and 76% of Football League Championship clubs report a widening gap within their leagues.

Polarisation of the industry has to be taken as a serious issue when considering sustainability and the long term health of the game as a whole
Trevor Birch
The major sponsors are focussing their efforts on only a “handful of clubs”, as a result, Football League clubs, and even Premier League clubs outside the Champions League positions are finding it increasingly difficult to attract sponsorship deals.

Trevor Birch, BDO partner and former Everton chairman, said that the success of the EPL has tended to concentrate its wealth in the hands of the few, at “the expense of the many”.

He said, “Polarisation of the industry has to be taken as a serious issue when considering sustainability and the long term health of the game as a whole.”

FFP rules, which were introduced to promote financial stability after a number of clubs overstretched their finances, will take time to take effect and “may lock in the existing differential”, the report claims.

Although 90% of clubs have complied with the rules, 44% said they need to be refined or changed while 61% think they do not yet meet the objective of promoting sustainability. Despite the rules, 57% of respondents were still not expecting to make a profit in their next accounting period, indicating that loss making is still rife.

Almost a quarter of clubs believe their finances need attention or are a cause for grave concern, and 21% of EPL respondents think their club’s owners could be considering a full or partial exit in the next 12-18 months, compare to none in the same survey last year.

Birch said, “The top six or seven clubs in the EPL will be able to consolidate their superiority with bigger and better global commercial deals. The rest of the league then struggles to grow revenues outside the central media deal and faces a perennial relegation battle, with the consequent uncertainty that brings for long term planning. FFP is unlikely to change this scenario.

“In the FL, clubs have historically made large losses as they compete to gain promotion and the introduction of FFP should go some way to assisting clubs reduce these losses and promoting sustainability.

However, the recent increase in parachute payments to FLC clubs relegated from the EPL, which are not included in FFP calculations, may start to have a greater distorting effect on competition in the future and effectively create a two-tier league.”

In his recent interview with economia, former FA chairman David Bernstein said he worried FFP will only serve to maintain the status quo among the very elite of the European game.



- See more at: <a class="postlink" href="http://economia.icaew.com/news/august-2014/uk-football-finances-increasingly-polarised?utm_source=economianews&utm_medium=articles&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=aug15#sthash.E9Yd4wa2.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://economia.icaew.com/news/august-2 ... d4wa2.dpuf</a>
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

OB1 said:
Article from Economia on FFP.

Financial Fair Play rules could have the unintended consequences of “locking in” wealth disparity between football clubs across the leagues this season

A BDO study on football finances and the impact of Financial Fair Play (FFP) has shown that 94% of club finance bosses believe the wealth disparity between larger and smaller clubs is growing. It revealed 64% of English Premier League (EPL) clubs and 76% of Football League Championship clubs report a widening gap within their leagues.

Polarisation of the industry has to be taken as a serious issue when considering sustainability and the long term health of the game as a whole
Trevor Birch
The major sponsors are focussing their efforts on only a “handful of clubs”, as a result, Football League clubs, and even Premier League clubs outside the Champions League positions are finding it increasingly difficult to attract sponsorship deals.

Trevor Birch, BDO partner and former Everton chairman, said that the success of the EPL has tended to concentrate its wealth in the hands of the few, at “the expense of the many”.

He said, “Polarisation of the industry has to be taken as a serious issue when considering sustainability and the long term health of the game as a whole.”

FFP rules, which were introduced to promote financial stability after a number of clubs overstretched their finances, will take time to take effect and “may lock in the existing differential”, the report claims.

Although 90% of clubs have complied with the rules, 44% said they need to be refined or changed while 61% think they do not yet meet the objective of promoting sustainability. Despite the rules, 57% of respondents were still not expecting to make a profit in their next accounting period, indicating that loss making is still rife.

Almost a quarter of clubs believe their finances need attention or are a cause for grave concern, and 21% of EPL respondents think their club’s owners could be considering a full or partial exit in the next 12-18 months, compare to none in the same survey last year.

Birch said, “The top six or seven clubs in the EPL will be able to consolidate their superiority with bigger and better global commercial deals. The rest of the league then struggles to grow revenues outside the central media deal and faces a perennial relegation battle, with the consequent uncertainty that brings for long term planning. FFP is unlikely to change this scenario.

“In the FL, clubs have historically made large losses as they compete to gain promotion and the introduction of FFP should go some way to assisting clubs reduce these losses and promoting sustainability.

However, the recent increase in parachute payments to FLC clubs relegated from the EPL, which are not included in FFP calculations, may start to have a greater distorting effect on competition in the future and effectively create a two-tier league.”

In his recent interview with economia, former FA chairman David Bernstein said he worried FFP will only serve to maintain the status quo among the very elite of the European game.



- See more at: <a class="postlink" href="http://economia.icaew.com/news/august-2014/uk-football-finances-increasingly-polarised?utm_source=economianews&utm_medium=articles&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=aug15#sthash.E9Yd4wa2.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://economia.icaew.com/news/august-2 ... d4wa2.dpuf</a>

Unintended? I think not!!!
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Does anyone have a rough idea of what we've knocked off or expenditure on amortised fees with all the new contracts (assuming Dzeko extends as well) ?
Plus I'm sure we 'll have cut our wage bill as well, especially if Richards, Guidetti and Sinclair can be moved on.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.