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

[citytill1die84]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Arsenal, Bayern, Chelsea seem a pretty big week maybe that week is ideal to put the financial report of 13-14 out to the public. Especially if its a positive report with close to break even results and another record income.

Unless we opt to wait as long as we can an publish it in January only.

My only worry with this is Aguero won't play them all.

 

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I find it interesting to note that United saw it necessary to put the following statement in their 2013 annual report:

Recently approved UEFA restrictions could negatively affect our business.
As the primary governing body of European football, UEFA continually evaluates the dynamics in the football industry and considers changes to the regulatory framework governing European football clubs. As an example, UEFA recently approved certain financial monitoring rules on clubs participating in the Champions League and Europa League competitions, known as the financial fair play initiative. The rules, among other things, may result in withholding of prize money, transfer bans and ultimately disqualification from European competitions for clubs whose costs and capital expenditures on players exceed their revenue over a three year period. These rules are intended to discourage clubs from continually operating at a loss. However, the implementation of the financial fair play rules, and in particular the potential punishment for non-compliance, remains uncertain. There is a risk that application of the financial fair play initiative could have a material adverse effect on the performance of our first team and our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flow.


It is perfectly normal (a requirement in fact) for SEC reporting that businesses identify to investors potential risks. However, it is up to the business to decide what is a risk and whether to declare it and United decided that there is sufficient risk to the business here that they must put in this statement.

It's not a high hurdle to meet though. Most of these reports err on the side of disclosing potential risks due to just an insane amount of potential legal complications that could arise if things ended up going sideways.

A lot of it is liability/risk management bum-covering crap as well. Bolster their case against some shareholder lawsuit that comes along later if the stock performs badly and one could theoretically argue that FFP/performance of the club led to that.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I find it interesting to note that United saw it necessary to put the following statement in their 2013 annual report:

Recently approved UEFA restrictions could negatively affect our business.
As the primary governing body of European football, UEFA continually evaluates the dynamics in the football industry and considers changes to the regulatory framework governing European football clubs. As an example, UEFA recently approved certain financial monitoring rules on clubs participating in the Champions League and Europa League competitions, known as the financial fair play initiative. The rules, among other things, may result in withholding of prize money, transfer bans and ultimately disqualification from European competitions for clubs whose costs and capital expenditures on players exceed their revenue over a three year period. These rules are intended to discourage clubs from continually operating at a loss. However, the implementation of the financial fair play rules, and in particular the potential punishment for non-compliance, remains uncertain. There is a risk that application of the financial fair play initiative could have a material adverse effect on the performance of our first team and our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flow.


It is perfectly normal (a requirement in fact) for SEC reporting that businesses identify to investors potential risks. However, it is up to the business to decide what is a risk and whether to declare it and United decided that there is sufficient risk to the business here that they must put in this statement.

It's not a high hurdle to meet though. Most of these reports err on the side of disclosing potential risks due to just an insane amount of potential legal complications that could arise if things ended up going sideways.

A lot of it is liability/risk management bum-covering crap as well. Bolster their case against some shareholder lawsuit that comes along later if the stock performs badly and one could theoretically argue that FFP/performance of the club led to that.

I agree mate. It's a sort of "this product may contain nuts" statement. Still, I thought it interesting that they felt it necessary to put it in.

Back to the numbers, with all their spending, if they make 4th then I can't see how they will meet FFP without restructuring their debt again. Yes they have extra revenue coming in with sponsorship and BT money, but they were making pre-tax losses already and the level of spending is unprecedented.

Dirty, dirty rags and their bad spending ruining football :-)

 

[onceabluealways]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Even ifthey sign Falcao permenently their strike force average age is about 30/31 and thats the cream of their tea other than de maria

 

[Italian Manc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

City restrictions to be lifted
Manchester City will see their spending restrictions lifted by UEFA bosses after turning a transfer profit this summer.
The Citizens, who spent their entire cap of £49.9m bringing in the likes of Fernando, Eliaquim Mangala and Willy Caballero, were still able to balance their books in style.
Valencia agreed to pay the Premier League champions a £2m loan fee for striker Alvaro Negredo on deadline day, with a cast-iron guarantee of a further £23m to complete the purchase.
City will also pick up around £4.8m in total for a similar arrangement they struck with Fiorentina for defender Micah Richards. They were also able to sell young Welsh midfielder Emyr Hughes to Wigan for £3.5m.
It means City, who had previously sold Jack Rodwell, Gareth Barry and Javi Garcia for a combined £25m, will actually show a player trading profit of £9m.
UEFA chiefs slapped a two-year spending cap on the Manchester outfit for breaching their Financial Fair Play rules but with the promise the second year would be lifted if they toed the line.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sportinastorm.com/mobile//Premier-League/Manchester-City/City-restrictions-to-be-lifted/X1Y47Z1800013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sportinastorm.com/mobile//Pr ... 47Z1800013</a>

 

[kupest]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

City restrictions to be lifted
Manchester City will see their spending restrictions lifted by UEFA bosses after turning a transfer profit this summer.
The Citizens, who spent their entire cap of £49.9m bringing in the likes of Fernando, Eliaquim Mangala and Willy Caballero, were still able to balance their books in style.
Valencia agreed to pay the Premier League champions a £2m loan fee for striker Alvaro Negredo on deadline day, with a cast-iron guarantee of a further £23m to complete the purchase.
City will also pick up around £4.8m in total for a similar arrangement they struck with Fiorentina for defender Micah Richards. They were also able to sell young Welsh midfielder Emyr Hughes to Wigan for £3.5m.
It means City, who had previously sold Jack Rodwell, Gareth Barry and Javi Garcia for a combined £25m, will actually show a player trading profit of £9m.
UEFA chiefs slapped a two-year spending cap on the Manchester outfit for breaching their Financial Fair Play rules but with the promise the second year would be lifted if they toed the line.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sportinastorm.com/mobile//Premier-League/Manchester-City/City-restrictions-to-be-lifted/X1Y47Z1800013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sportinastorm.com/mobile//Pr ... 47Z1800013</a>

Yup, I don't expect the sanctions to be on us for the second year since we are complying with everything. We should be fine next summer.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

City restrictions to be lifted
Manchester City will see their spending restrictions lifted by UEFA bosses after turning a transfer profit this summer.
The Citizens, who spent their entire cap of £49.9m bringing in the likes of Fernando, Eliaquim Mangala and Willy Caballero, were still able to balance their books in style.
Valencia agreed to pay the Premier League champions a £2m loan fee for striker Alvaro Negredo on deadline day, with a cast-iron guarantee of a further £23m to complete the purchase.
City will also pick up around £4.8m in total for a similar arrangement they struck with Fiorentina for defender Micah Richards. They were also able to sell young Welsh midfielder Emyr Hughes to Wigan for £3.5m.
It means City, who had previously sold Jack Rodwell, Gareth Barry and Javi Garcia for a combined £25m, will actually show a player trading profit of £9m.
UEFA chiefs slapped a two-year spending cap on the Manchester outfit for breaching their Financial Fair Play rules but with the promise the second year would be lifted if they toed the line.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sportinastorm.com/mobile//Premier-League/Manchester-City/City-restrictions-to-be-lifted/X1Y47Z1800013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sportinastorm.com/mobile//Pr ... 47Z1800013</a>

Yup, I don't expect the sanctions to be on us for the second year since we are complying with everything. We should be fine next summer.

Fine in that we won't have these extra restrictions, but we will still be restricted by FFP normal requirements. It's not like we can just blow £100m and not worry about it.

 

[cleavers]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Fine in that we won't have these extra restrictions, but we will still be restricted by FFP normal requirements. It's not like we can just blow £100m and not worry about it.

We won't need to either, from now on we'll replace when we need, so money will always come in as well as go out.

We've built a very good squad, which if we plan well, will be self sustaining from now on, there should be no need for the sort of spending we had to make to get us to this point. I'm not saying we won't spend big now and then, or have a large net spend, but it will be carefully done, and our revenue will cover it.

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Fine in that we won't have these extra restrictions, but we will still be restricted by FFP normal requirements. It's not like we can just blow £100m and not worry about it.

We won't need to either, from now on we'll replace when we need, so money will always come in as well as go out.

We've built a very good squad, which if we plan well, will be self sustaining from now on, there should be no need for the sort of spending we had to make to get us to this point. I'm not saying we won't spend big now and then, or have a large net spend, but it will be carefully done, and our revenue will cover it.

This was always in the plans of HH right from the onset,that eventually we would have to become self sufficient.
UEFA wont knows whats hit them over the next few years,with constant monies coming in from every direction to boost our coffers.
Wonder if they`ve already been discussing what sort of additional sanctions they can impose on us ?
Aint life just grand nowadays being a Blue.

 

[City_Sean]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Does anyone have an idea on how much we'll be able to spend next summer?