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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Chippy_boy said:
baldybouncer said:
What damage have we actually done to football? That's the bit I don't get!!

Disrupted the status quo of course.

Exactly. All you have to do is look at their argument to see it's based purely on self interests. It's OK for a club to spend 200m a year in transfers if they sell a shit load of shirts etc.. So they aren't bothered by the "Buying of the title" just who can "Buy the title". Loses all credibility with me. If they were calling for a salary cap or something I could respect that. Their whole argument against us is based on fantasy land. "What if they sold the club and they couldn't continue the spending? They would be in trouble financially." A: Why would they sell the club? Spend hundreds of millions to wipe out the debt and build of the facilities just to sell it on a whim? B: Anyone who could afford to buy they club would be able to afford to continue to run it. Not like some mom and pop would come in with a billion to buy the club and have nothing left to run it. If you have a billion to buy a club you have plenty of cash to run it.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

baldybouncer said:
What damage have we actually done to football? That's the bit I don't get!!
Cheated by spending too much money the gallery would say......but Real Madrid do it. Man Utd will do it. And it's OK because they have huge sponsorships. So how do you get in that position where you can create huge revenues? Answer you can't because of FFP. It's designed to restrict the growth of "new" clubs
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Mr. Aguia said:
Chippy_boy said:
baldybouncer said:
What damage have we actually done to football? That's the bit I don't get!!
Disrupted the status quo of course.
Exactly. All you have to do is look at their argument to see it's based purely on self interests. It's OK for a club to spend 200m a year in transfers if they sell a shit load of shirts etc.. So they aren't bothered by the "Buying of the title" just who can "Buy the title". Loses all credibility with me. If they were calling for a salary cap or something I could respect that. Their whole argument against us is based on fantasy land. "What if they sold the club and they couldn't continue the spending? They would be in trouble financially." A: Why would they sell the club? Spend hundreds of millions to wipe out the debt and build of the facilities just to sell it on a whim? B: Anyone who could afford to buy they club would be able to afford to continue to run it. Not like some mom and pop would come in with a billion to buy the club and have nothing left to run it. If you have a billion to buy a club you have plenty of cash to run it.
Selling their clubs on as a proposition that could be improved with a cash injection is what split the yanks in the PL FFP. Villa & Fulham US owners were looking for an immediate buyer and broke with the Glazer/Henry/Kroenke mob who are waiting for individual TV rights.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Marvin said:
baldybouncer said:
What damage have we actually done to football? That's the bit I don't get!!
Cheated by spending too much money the gallery would say......but Real Madrid do it. Man Utd will do it. And it's OK because they have huge sponsorships. So how do you get in that position where you can create huge revenues? Answer you can't because of FFP. It's designed to restrict the growth of "new" clubs
Cheated by spending money our owner has given us instead of spending money we've earned off manufacturers of savoury snacks in Mozambique, telecoms operators in Laos and airlines who don't actually fly to our home city.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Marvin said:
baldybouncer said:
What damage have we actually done to football? That's the bit I don't get!!
Cheated by spending too much money the gallery would say......but Real Madrid do it. Man Utd will do it. And it's OK because they have huge sponsorships. So how do you get in that position where you can create huge revenues? Answer you can't because of FFP. It's designed to restrict the growth of "new" clubs

...As Adam Smith (the economist, not to be confused with the many footballers called Alan Smith) once said "People of the same trade seldom meet together , even for merriment and diversion, [without] the conversation [ending] in a conspiracy against the public..." . Clearly a great man who anticipated UEFA meetings despite dying in 1790.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

That Ben Rumsby guy is saying we've been fined and had our CL squad cut from 25. I wonder, would the cuts include homegrown as we may not even be able to register a full quota of them.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

LoveCity said:
That Ben Rumsby guy is saying we've been fined and had our CL squad cut from 25. I wonder, would the cuts include homegrown as we may not even be able to register a full quota of them.

More bullshit from Rumsby and the Telegraph(has learnt)

How the f*** do they know the details of what UEFA have offered us?

Anyway, the said article.


Manchester City were on Tuesday night facing a cut in their Champions League squad size and a heavy fine for breaching Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations.


As revealed by the Telegraph, the investigatory chamber of the European game’s Club Financial Control Body has decided that City’s unprecedented £1 billion spending spree under the ownership of Sheikh Mansour did not comply with FFP rules.


The Telegraph has now learnt that City have been offered a punishment which includes a combination of financial and sporting sanctions – if they agree not to fight their guilty verdict.


The latter penalty would leave the club unable to register a full 25-man squad for the Champions League next season, potentially denying them use of millions of pounds worth of their own talent and hurting their ability to recruit players this summer.


City were given until Thursday to agree what is known as a “settlement” offer with the CFCB, a sanction which is open to negotiation but only to moderate effect.

So go on then Ben, go into more detail, and tell us exactly what the punishments are.

You haven't got a f***ing clue, otherwise you would have printed them as a World exclusive scoop.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thought for the day:
We are the only football club I am aware of where ALL player image rights are ceded to the club (one of the reasons our wages are so high). So it is unsurprising that City will start to sell them on en-masse?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

"As revealed by the Telegraph"

Wasn't the mythical transfer embargo also "revealed" by this greasy red twat, who has been retweeting Gary Neville's passionate tweets about United today?

a827d66abdc552534efdfefb34768567.jpeg
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

LoveCity said:
"As revealed by the Telegraph"

Wasn't the mythical transfer embargo also "revealed" by this greasy red twat, who has been retweeting Gary Neville's passionate tweets about United today?

a827d66abdc552534efdfefb34768567.jpeg

That's a pathetic excuse of a moustache.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

LoveCity said:
That Ben Rumsby guy is saying we've been fined and had our CL squad cut from 25. I wonder, would the cuts include homegrown as we may not even be able to register a full quota of them.
The CL squad cut/fine is just the starting point from UEFA for negotiations.

PSG got the same, but well-informed Le Parisien say that PSG have negotiated it down to a mere fine
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.leparisien.fr/psg-foot-paris-saint-germain/le-psg-se-prepare-a-payer-une-amende-29-04-2014-3803027.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.leparisien.fr/psg-foot-paris ... 803027.php</a>

No chance of us getting a harsher punishment than PSG.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Mr. Aguia said:
Chippy_boy said:
baldybouncer said:
What damage have we actually done to football? That's the bit I don't get!!

Disrupted the status quo of course.

Exactly. All you have to do is look at their argument to see it's based purely on self interests. It's OK for a club to spend 200m a year in transfers if they sell a shit load of shirts etc.. So they aren't bothered by the "Buying of the title" just who can "Buy the title". Loses all credibility with me. If they were calling for a salary cap or something I could respect that. Their whole argument against us is based on fantasy land. "What if they sold the club and they couldn't continue the spending? They would be in trouble financially." A: Why would they sell the club? Spend hundreds of millions to wipe out the debt and build of the facilities just to sell it on a whim? B: Anyone who could afford to buy they club would be able to afford to continue to run it. Not like some mom and pop would come in with a billion to buy the club and have nothing left to run it. If you have a billion to buy a club you have plenty of cash to run it.
The notion that there is some sort of moral currency in selling more shirts in Asia, than not, is too comical for words.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

baldybouncer said:
What damage have we actually done to football? That's the bit I don't get!!

All great answers people but Platini and his cohorts cannot, in my opinion anyway, highlight one action that MCFC has taken or implemented that has harmed or damaged anything to do with the domestic or European game.

It's not as if we've ripped up and dominated the Champions League. Nor have we secured the services of every top European or world footballing talent. We can't even claim to have dominated our own domestic competitions. One Prem title, one FA Cup trophy and one League Cup trophy. Hardly Barcelonaesque!!

It's not to say that we won't dominate the afore mentioned in the future. The development and progress we've made has been staggering. The money we've spent has also been staggering. But it's not only MCFC that benefits from all our spending. Other clubs reap the rewards from our transfer payments. Construction companies and their employees reap the rewards from our development plans. Manchester City Council, local businesses and residents will benefit from the redevelopment of the area. The City of Manchester will benefit from visiting fans. I could, tediously, go on and on!!

So Mr Platini, exactly what damage are we doing to football by not adhering to your fuckin FFP shit!!
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Bottomless_Sailor said:
LoveCity said:
That Ben Rumsby guy is saying we've been fined and had our CL squad cut from 25. I wonder, would the cuts include homegrown as we may not even be able to register a full quota of them.
The CL squad cut/fine is just the starting point from UEFA for negotiations.

PSG got the same, but well-informed Le Parisien say that PSG have negotiated it down to a mere fine
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.leparisien.fr/psg-foot-paris-saint-germain/le-psg-se-prepare-a-payer-une-amende-29-04-2014-3803027.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.leparisien.fr/psg-foot-paris ... 803027.php</a>

No chance of us getting a harsher punishment than PSG.

Poor Google translate, but.........

It is a long poker game that ends between the direction of PSG and UEFA. After several months of investigation punctuated hearings and audits, the instance of the Club Financial Control ( ICFC ), chaired by the Belgian Jean- Luc Dehaene , meets Thursday, May 1 in Nyon (Switzerland) . She will endorse sanctions for clubs in breach of the rules of financial fair play .

ON THE SAME TOPIC
Ibrahimovic smiling
Disappointed and tired of Players disappointed and tired players
Time communication will occur in the following days. One thing is certain , PSG will indeed part of the list of bad students.

A priori, however, the Parisian club has an ideal profile . He respects indeed the fundamental principle of the system , since manages to balance its revenues and expenditures. The income PSG the 2012-2013 season and showed an almost symbolic deficit of € 3.5 million . Problem: the means used by the PSG to achieve this balance are not mandated by the taste of UEFA experts. In their line of sight, the image contract between PSG and the Qatar Tourism Authority ( QTA ), the Office of Qatari tourism. Signed in 2012 , this partnership vaguely defined reported last approximately € 200 million , half of the revenue of the capital club season. Concluded between the parties related to the same ultimate shareholder , the State of Qatar, is believed to have been overstated and out of the market price.

Tens of millions of euros

It remains to know the severity and the more or less restrictive sanction awaits PSG. If the threat of exclusion from the next Champions League is already discounted, the Parisian club will he unable to align its potential recruits on European land ? He will be severely restricted its payroll ? These sanctions were actually considered (see our editions of April 22) by the supervisory clubs . However, PSG as for other European clubs concerned , the definitive sanctions are not imposed vertically. They are the result of negotiations. This is the strength and the weakness of the system of financial fair play .

According to our information , the Parisian club has just sealed with the supervisory principle to a fine of tens of millions of euros. This type of sanction , the third in ascending order of sanctions under the rules of fair play, would be a lesser evil for PSG . It would however be accompanied by financial objectives to be met within a year. Much time gained for the Parisians .
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Prestwich_Blue said:
LoveCity said:
"As revealed by the Telegraph"

Wasn't the mythical transfer embargo also "revealed" by this greasy red twat, who has been retweeting Gary Neville's passionate tweets about United today?

a827d66abdc552534efdfefb34768567.jpeg
PB can exclusively reveal that he's a Chelsea fan from Bristol.
A Chelsea fan? So he's like the woman who throws a hissy fit and goes home from a night out cause someone else is wearing the same top as her?
What a moany bitch.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top