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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

vonksbignose said:
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!!!

Quite. Nothing unintended at all. This Trojan horse locks in the very top earners, and theya re trying to remove us. We'll see whether they succeed.

Things is some of the turkeys on club boards that voted for this (eg Everton) are happy becuase it absolves them of spending any money.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

cibaman said:
SilverFox2 said:
Whilst FFP does not now seem to be a problem for City, I was wondering about the effect of player insurance on FFP if an event causes its payment.

In particular, the injury to Negrada will presumably have been covered by a key man type insurance policy which effectively means the premium paid will trigger a proportion if not all of his cost to City.

Presumably, the payment to him will be deducted from the cost side of the FFP equation ?

Do clubs insure players other than for career ending injuries? Given the number of injuries that routinely occur every year, wouldn't the premiums be prohibitive? Insurance is usually a waste of money if its for incidents that occur on a regular basis.

No experience of football players but I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that their assets would be insured.
Obviously not for having a cold or a strain but a 3 month injury or illness is not a regular occurrence during the season is it ?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Zabbasbeard said:
vonksbignose said:
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!!!

Quite. Nothing unintended at all. This Trojan horse locks in the very top earners, and theya re trying to remove us. We'll see whether they succeed.

Things is some of the turkeys on club boards that voted for this (eg Everton) are happy becuase it absolves them of spending any money.
Unfortunately for the turkeys, three of them will be relegated this season and these clubs supporters will not idly sit back and smugly see it as an ideal that they are playing it along with FFP. They will instead DEMAND that their owners open their chequebook and splash the cash, and although their managers will be thick skinned enough to justify their team selections, this can last only so long before owners themselves are made to suffer. Owners will then have a stark choice to make. Suffer a miserable life whilst keeping to FFP, or risk breaking restrictions in a desperate attempt to stay up with the big boys.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

The Premier League has spent a window record of £656m on new players this summer so far.

However, FFPR have taken a notable effect.

Of that, £443.7m was spent by the top 7 clubs from last season. which is 67.6% of the total money spent. So over 2/3rds of all the money this summer has been spent by 7 clubs. Furthermore, remove Everton and Spurs, and the other 5 members of the Top 7 have spent 59.1% of the total money spent in the Premier League this summer, so nearly 60% between 5 clubs.

Furthermore, Premier League clubs have made a combined transfer loss of £259m this window so far, the top 7 clubs have made a loss of £214.4m, which makes up 82.8% of the total losses made by Premier League clubs. The 5 clubs noted before, have lost 69.7% of the total lost by Premier League clubs this summer, demonstrating the disparity in revenues between the top and bottom and how FFPR constrains any form of investment from the smaller clubs.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

JoeMercer'sWay said:
The Premier League has spent a window record of £656m on new players this summer so far.

However, FFPR have taken a notable effect.

Of that, £443.7m was spent by the top 7 clubs from last season. which is 67.6% of the total money spent. So over 2/3rds of all the money this summer has been spent by 7 clubs. Furthermore, remove Everton and Spurs, and the other 5 members of the Top 7 have spent 59.1% of the total money spent in the Premier League this summer, so nearly 60% between 5 clubs.

Furthermore, Premier League clubs have made a combined transfer loss of £259m this window so far, the top 7 clubs have made a loss of £214.4m, which makes up 82.8% of the total losses made by Premier League clubs. The 5 clubs noted before, have lost 69.7% of the total lost by Premier League clubs this summer, demonstrating the disparity in revenues between the top and bottom and how FFPR constrains any form of investment from the smaller clubs.
Absolute horse shit. We all know that FFP was brought in to stop another Portsmouth happening. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

gordondaviesmoustache said:
JoeMercer'sWay said:
The Premier League has spent a window record of £656m on new players this summer so far.

However, FFPR have taken a notable effect.

Of that, £443.7m was spent by the top 7 clubs from last season. which is 67.6% of the total money spent. So over 2/3rds of all the money this summer has been spent by 7 clubs. Furthermore, remove Everton and Spurs, and the other 5 members of the Top 7 have spent 59.1% of the total money spent in the Premier League this summer, so nearly 60% between 5 clubs.

Furthermore, Premier League clubs have made a combined transfer loss of £259m this window so far, the top 7 clubs have made a loss of £214.4m, which makes up 82.8% of the total losses made by Premier League clubs. The 5 clubs noted before, have lost 69.7% of the total lost by Premier League clubs this summer, demonstrating the disparity in revenues between the top and bottom and how FFPR constrains any form of investment from the smaller clubs.
Absolute horse shit. We all know that FFP was brought in to stop another Portsmouth happening. Nothing more, nothing less.

Neeeey lad!! Surely not lol!!
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

The 'Pareto Principle' usually applies to many trading aspects of businesses irrespective of attempts to change its usual outcome.

For instance in the PL is 80% of the transfer value done by 20% of its clubs and is 80% of profits made by 20% of clubs.
I'm sure many other examples can be found for its application but it does seem to happen more often than not.

Secondly, has FFP reinforced or diluted the 80/20 effect?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just to help out with FFP we now have a new mobile phone provider in Cameroon.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2014/August/City-announce-new-partnership-with-MTN-Cameroon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/20 ... N-Cameroon</a>
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

cibaman said:
SilverFox2 said:
Whilst FFP does not now seem to be a problem for City, I was wondering about the effect of player insurance on FFP if an event causes its payment.

In particular, the injury to Negrada will presumably have been covered by a key man type insurance policy which effectively means the premium paid will trigger a proportion if not all of his cost to City.

Presumably, the payment to him will be deducted from the cost side of the FFP equation ?

Do clubs insure players other than for career ending injuries? Given the number of injuries that routinely occur every year, wouldn't the premiums be prohibitive? Insurance is usually a waste of money if its for incidents that occur on a regular basis.
Ashton got about 6 million off of west ham which im sure they would claim back off insurance. No way a club would spend £20 million on a player without some kind of insurance policy in place im sure the premiums are high but the risk money wise is huge
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Marvin said:
Blueparrot. Here's two relevant posts...........

mancity dan said:
St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:
Can somebody explain to me...With Kompany,Silva,Aguero signing new deals how does this work in relation to amortisation?

Kompany we are only talking about £400k a year saving, Silva was signed for £21m 4 years ago, so rather than £5.25m a year it would now be £2.33m a year, Aguero signed for £38m 3 years ago so rather than £9.5m a year would now be £4.75m a year.

So overall just over £8m a year.
Also from an Aguero topic I found this
Sergio Aguero's new deal reduces annual FFP hit from £16.1m to £11.2m. Great business by MCFC to not only lock Aguero up, but also save £'s. Calculation based on declining amortised xfer fee + reported weekly pay decreasing from £200k to £150k (took long-term security, it seems)


@JakeFCohen

lawyer, triple eagle, chelsea supporter. i write about legal, financial, and economic issues in football.
A positive side issue to this is that these contract extensions are to players with value and who we wish to keep. Had no extensions been agreed, there was always a possibility that these players could have been tempted away early, even with a Bosman departure, but this has avenue now been closed off and if any club should pursue one of our star names, it will cost them dear should we go so far as to accept a deal.
 

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.