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

[Henkeman]

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.

ADUG's original business plan may very well have been similar to the one that we are currently following without it appearing to be forced on us by FFP.

UEFA's pathetically skewed FFP regs assumed that investment in football was dissimilar to investment in any other sector and their version of the need for a route to profitability would cripple the Sheik's intrusion into their elite closed shop.

Could have done without the outcome of their contrived judgement of course but self sufficiency has always been the objective of the Investment Group with City's timeline to the objective being a variable component in the grand scheme of things.

FFP was what forced them to adopt the kind of pebble dash spending approach that United are doing now - trying to get as much as possible in before the monitoring period started. I'm not for a second saying that without it City wouldn't have spent big, of course we would. But it meant it all had to be compacted into a much shorter period in order to get into the big league before the regulations took hold. I very much doubt it would have gone quite that way without FFP, it would have been a lot more measured.

 

[Kladze]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Question: What happens if the club is profitable this season? Didn't Khaldoon say that we most likely will be? Will the sanctions be lifted for next summer, and will UEFA pay the majority of the fine back?

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not to mention the world´s No 1 academy coming on stream next month, which will blow everyone away, including the FFP wallers
FFP could also be gone next year if the ruling does what it ought to and kick it unceremoniously into touch

These are indeed good times

Like I mentioned above though...I'm starting to think FFP is a good thing for us

If it gets scrapped the billionaires will be back and buying clubs

It will work in our favour going forward, that's for sure.

I still think the entire concept is flawed though, put simply why shouldn't other billionaires buy clubs and do for them what the Sheikh did for us?

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

FFP was what forced them to adopt the kind of pebble dash spending approach that United are doing now - trying to get as much as possible in before the monitoring period started. I'm not for a second saying that without it City wouldn't have spent big, of course we would. But it meant it all had to be compacted into a much shorter period in order to get into the big league before the regulations took hold. I very much doubt it would have gone quite that way without FFP, it would have been a lot more measured.

Really hadn't thought of it that way.

Certainly timelines have had to be adjusted but surely the ability to actually comply with the original FFP regs prior to rule adjustment shows the exact opposite of a 'scatter gun approach' ?
Perhaps the advance knowledge that it was to be applied compressed the timescale but without apparently needing to sacrifice profitability even in the short term.

Any business plan is exactly a plan for business so that a 5 or 10 year plan needs 'adjustment' every three months to maintain its focus on objectives because of potential changes in the many variables both known and unknown that will affect it.

My point is that the extent of the progress of ADUG's plan for City was underestimated by whoever drew up the UEFA version of a map for the future via FFP rules.

Regarding MUFC, I agree it does smack a little of desperation but what else can they do?
Doing nothing will destroy their image so buy whatever they can in the present window is an expensive gamble that at least gives them time to approach the problem with a decent business plan.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Question: What happens if the club is profitable this season? Didn't Khaldoon say that we most likely will be? Will the sanctions be lifted for next summer, and will UEFA pay the majority of the fine back?

This years accounts will be published around December and we should be more or less even, next years we should be in profit. UEFA actually gave us quite a bit of leeway on both accounting periods (I've always had the impression that we gave them no choice). They'll release the remainder of the withheld CL prize money when they're satisfied we've complied minus whatever the 'fine' was.

 

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

FFP was what forced them to adopt the kind of pebble dash spending approach that United are doing now - trying to get as much as possible in before the monitoring period started. I'm not for a second saying that without it City wouldn't have spent big, of course we would. But it meant it all had to be compacted into a much shorter period in order to get into the big league before the regulations took hold. I very much doubt it would have gone quite that way without FFP, it would have been a lot more measured.

Really hadn't thought of it that way.

Certainly timelines have had to be adjusted but surely the ability to actually comply with the original FFP regs prior to rule adjustment shows the exact opposite of a 'scatter gun approach' ?
Perhaps the advance knowledge that it was to be applied compressed the timescale but without apparently needing to sacrifice profitability even in the short term.

Any business plan is exactly a plan for business so that a 5 or 10 year plan needs 'adjustment' every three months to maintain its focus on objectives because of potential changes in the many variables both known and unknown that will affect it.

My point is that the extent of the progress of ADUG's plan for City was underestimated by whoever drew up the UEFA version of a map for the future.

Regarding MUFC, I agree it does smack a little of desperation but what else can they do?
Doing nothing will destroy their image so buy whatever they can in the present window is an expensive gamble that at least gives them time to approach the problem with a decent business plan.

FFP was coming, but not in place when ADUG bought City. At the time no one knew exactly how it would be framed, or when the impact from it would be felt. It meant that City couldn't take the risk of not being in the CL places before it started to take some kind of effect. So they needed a very quick fix, and then meant grabbing at anything that moved and worrying about the fall out in terms of the squad later. So City were left with the likes of Santa Cruz. The balance of risk was in not doing that, being left outside the CL places with a comparatively low revenue and unable to finance big deals because of the regulations. The forthcoming (at the time) FFP was a big danger - City had to get through the gate before the drawbridge was pulled up. And that's why (however wrong and unfair we might think it is) they regard the sanctions as a "pinch" and nothing more. The job was done, even if it cost more than they would have hoped and there were a few duds in the process.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

FFP was what forced them to adopt the kind of pebble dash spending approach that United are doing now - trying to get as much as possible in before the monitoring period started. I'm not for a second saying that without it City wouldn't have spent big, of course we would. But it meant it all had to be compacted into a much shorter period in order to get into the big league before the regulations took hold. I very much doubt it would have gone quite that way without FFP, it would have been a lot more measured.

Really hadn't thought of it that way.

Certainly timelines have had to be adjusted but surely the ability to actually comply with the original FFP regs prior to rule adjustment shows the exact opposite of a 'scatter gun approach' ?
Perhaps the advance knowledge that it was to be applied compressed the timescale but without apparently needing to sacrifice profitability even in the short term.

Any business plan is exactly a plan for business so that a 5 or 10 year plan needs 'adjustment' every three months to maintain its focus on objectives because of potential changes in the many variables both known and unknown that will affect it.

My point is that the extent of the progress of ADUG's plan for City was underestimated by whoever drew up the UEFA version of a map for the future via FFP rules.

Regarding MUFC, I agree it does smack a little of desperation but what else can they do?
Doing nothing will destroy their image so buy whatever they can in the present window is an expensive gamble that at least gives them time to approach the problem with a decent business plan.

I'd be interested in how their "decent business plan" works around these huge wages they're paying to the likes of Rooney, RVP, Di Maria and Falcao.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'd be interested in how their "decent business plan" works around these huge wages they're paying to the likes of Rooney, RVP, Di Maria and Falcao.

Agree entirely.

I'm surprised the Glazer nephews have allowed their inheritance to be 'dawn raided'.

As I said its a gamble and the only consolation they have for the Falcao loan is that they apparently have bypassed UK tax laws by paying the wage to Monaco. Buying him next year will cause all sorts of problems for them including parity claims from others.

 

[bluechampion7891]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Q1: When does our report comes out for the 2013-14 season, and if it does during or before Jan 2015, do we get the sanctions (partly or fully) lifted for the January 2015 window if we make a loss of less than 20 mil euro?
Q2: We have to show a net spend of less than 60 mil euro. For this window we are in profit, so will that affect be shown in the Jan 2015 window (no transfer restrictions)?
Q3: We are also monitored for the current season 2014-15 and are required to have a loss of less than 10 mil euro. If our financials come out like in early 2016 for this period, doesn't it mean that any decision on the overall sanctions will effectively take place after that?
Q4: What would it take for the rags to fail FFP if/when they are in europe (EL/CL)?

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think Utd had no choice but to spend as they have fallen behind several clubs not just City

But the signings don't look planned. They look like panicked knee-jerk reactions to a poor start, and they leave their squad seriously unbalanced