SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
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.
Marvin said: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.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 ?
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.