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

[oakiecokie]

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

Just like their brains.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

Thanks for the background on that, must admit my timeline on FFP was incorrect.
As you say mopping up the residue from a previous regime was part of ADUG's inheritance.

Just one point though, if you are correct and plans for FFP were on the 'to do' list for UEFA prior to Sheik M.'s purchase, then the notion that the G14 were reacting to ADUG's purchase of City via FFP is not strictly correct is it ?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

Thanks for the background on that, must admit my timeline on FFP was incorrect.
As you say mopping up the residue from a previous regime was part of ADUG's inheritance.

Just one point though, if you are correct and plans for FFP were on the 'to do' list for UEFA prior to Sheik M.'s purchase, then the notion that the G14 were reacting to ADUG's purchase of City via FFP is not strictly correct is it ?

That's when it changed from limits on club debt to limits on investment iirc.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

Thanks for the background on that, must admit my timeline on FFP was incorrect.
As you say mopping up the residue from a previous regime was part of ADUG's inheritance.

Just one point though, if you are correct and plans for FFP were on the 'to do' list for UEFA prior to Sheik M.'s purchase, then the notion that the G14 were reacting to ADUG's purchase of City via FFP is not strictly correct is it ?

That's when it changed from limits on club debt to limits on investment iirc.

Thanks again.

So really ADUG have done a magnificent job to not only overcome the FFP regs but also to compress their timescale on player purchase and some inherited errors into that restricted space whilst still maintaining somewhere near profitability.

 

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thanks for the background on that, must admit my timeline on FFP was incorrect.
As you say mopping up the residue from a previous regime was part of ADUG's inheritance.

Just one point though, if you are correct and plans for FFP were on the 'to do' list for UEFA prior to Sheik M.'s purchase, then the notion that the G14 were reacting to ADUG's purchase of City via FFP is not strictly correct is it ?

That's when it changed from limits on club debt to limits on investment iirc.

Thanks again.

So really ADUG have done a magnificent job to not only overcome the FFP regs but also to compress their timescale on player purchase and some inherited errors into that restricted space whilst still maintaining somewhere near profitability.

Well...I would think the scale of the losses was higher than they would have wanted - but that it was accepted as a distinctly possible outcome. I'm of the same view as others that their aim for the business is not greatly different to what FFP has pushed them to anyway.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well...I would think the scale of the losses was higher than they would have wanted - but that it was accepted as a distinctly possible outcome. I'm of the same view as others that their aim for the business is not greatly different to what FFP has pushed them to anyway.

Well that was my original point.
UEFA give the impression that profitability is something that City would not have achieved without their influence.

In fact, because City were bought by ADUG with investment in mind (not ownership for purely personal reasons) then surely they were preaching to the converted about profitability ?.

 

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well...I would think the scale of the losses was higher than they would have wanted - but that it was accepted as a distinctly possible outcome. I'm of the same view as others that their aim for the business is not greatly different to what FFP has pushed them to anyway.

Well that was my original point.
UEFA give the impression that profitability is something that City would not have achieved without their influence.

In fact, because City were bought by ADUG with investment in mind (not ownership for purely personal reasons) then surely they were preaching to the converted about profitability ?.

Yep. And they actually drove City's losses higher than they probably would have been. Thanks UEFA!

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just double checking. Anyone.

Did United splash £150mill because FFPR doesn't apply to them this season as they aren't in the CL? Meaning they may have to rein in their spending next Summer to comply with FFPR once again, if they get into the CL next season?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just double checking. Anyone.

Did United splash £150mill because FFPR doesn't apply to them this season as they aren't in the CL? Meaning they may have to rein in their spending next Summer to comply with FFPR once again, if they get into the CL next season?

Europa League you mean. ;)
It's probably CL or bust for them this year, if they get top 4 they'll be fine, if they don't they won't be able to finish the overhaul of their squad and will be in big trouble.

 

[blueparrot]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just double checking. Anyone.

Did United splash £150mill because FFPR doesn't apply to them this season as they aren't in the CL? Meaning they may have to rein in their spending next Summer to comply with FFPR once again, if they get into the CL next season?

As I understand it ( probably not that well ) it's not that FFP doesn't apply to them, but it is deferred. I think in the case of Liverpool they have to submit books this autumn and if they fail any punishment is applied next season. But I, not 100% sure I've got that right.