Nothing is more certain.George Hannah said:Do you think they've got this thread open on their laptops in Nyon as we post?
It depends on a few factors but I suspect that we could support a regular net spend of somewhere around £70m. It's probably wages that are more important though in determining what we can spend.chris85mcfc said:Does anyone have an idea what our net spend could be next summer whilst still staying in line with FFP?
Mister Appointment said:Chippy_boy said:BlueAnorak said:I think you actually have a point PB.
I certainly think that City knew they would just fail FFP as they knew they would be unable to exclude pre June 2010 wages as a result of changes to the FFP submittal spreadsheet and framed subsequent accounts accordingly. My guess is to clarify the probable rules on City Group / MCFC interaction - but hey - why not also clarify rules on what existing sponsor income was Related Party/Fair Value and what was "unlimited" valid income.
Really? All in the indication at the time was that we were shocked to have be deemed to have failed. Of course that could be a bluff on our part, but it sure didn't look like it. The other thing is, if we were going to miss and we knew it, why on earth would we have been so careful as to only miss by a tiny amount? We might as well have gone down the PSG route if we knew we would miss.
I think because from the day Khaldoon came in the mantra has always been that he wanted City to be self sufficient and they had a plan on how to get us there.
It's slowly coming to fruition now and I suspect the new raft of sponsorship deals are going to put us in a position where FFP will never again be an issue. Hence Khaldoon referred to this summer's sanctions as a "pinch".
FanchesterCity said:I think City knew all along that FFP was coming in some form or other, and thus really had (and still have) to give out the impression that we are to become self sufficient. It may well be true, but even if it wasn't, that's the impression that has to be given out in order for us to claim our investment intentions are on a sound business footing and not a sugar daddy's folly.
But probably more important is that I don't think Abu Dhabi wants to be perceived as an oil rich nation who 'plays' at business abroad. It wants to be seen as having a formidable reputation for business. Given that, it's important that City are seen to be making genuine money on it's own merits, albeit after the initial heavy investment and turnaround. Under their stewardship, we're acting far more professionally than we've (arguably) ever done in our history (certainly recent history).
In truth, I think City are over egging the pudding a little bit with regard to how quickly we've been turned around - but that's partly because UEFA have forced a rapid growth upon us. The mantra of 'European Elite drawbridge being raised' was accurate, and we had no time to spare if we were to stand a chance of entering that elite.
The football landscape is changing, and UEFA are finding themselves coming unstuck. They've traditionally been at the mercy of the elite clubs, but now, sponsors and new money clubs are creating a very blurry landscape for UEFA. No longer are the big clubs the only real voice to be listened to, and the biggest influencer of all - money, is something UEFA don't want to lose out on by backing the wrong clubs. IF City and PSG are truly going to be part of a new wave of money in the game, then UEFA won't blink an eye about tossing (say) AC Milan overboard if they aren't bringing in the same amount of glamour to CL. At present though, UEFA aren't really sure City and PSG (and others) are the future, hence their tendency to back the old guard. Give it time though.... like any band of thieves, there's little honour amongst them. They'll turn on their own 'elite' clubs the moment those clubs can't offer much, and we can.
interesting transformation of FFP targets from "those with huge debts" to City Eh!SilverFox2 said:....
England
In an interview with the Independent, UEFA Chief Executive Lars-Christer Olsson has reaffirmed that clubs who fail to honour their financial commitments and build up huge debts will not be allowed to play in UEFA competitions. "In recent years, too many clubs have been indulging in, if you like, financial doping," said Mr Olsson. "Now, they will have to prove they have sound finances to play in our competitions. They won't be able to wriggle out because they will have to produce audited figures to show they have sound finances." Gerhard Aigner's successor has also reconfirmed his commitment to domestic leagues amid continual rumours about the formation of European super leagues. "I don't want to see American-style franchises or new European leagues infiltrating our game," he said. "There has to be some kind of bloodline, with promotion and relegation in the national leagues and qualification for Europe only being allowed through domestic club competitions. I'm of the firm belief that the top clubs have a responsibility when it comes to solidarity and the distribution of wealth downwards."
Prestwich_Blue said:Well we could presumably have got Etihad to pay us more, so we passed. But by doing that, UEFA might have taken a different view on the deal and asked more questions or declared it a related party transaction. But by not doing that, we didn't draw attention to the Etihad deal but got them so worked up about the IP sales and the calculation of the wages paid to players signed pre-June 2010 that they just waved it through. Having done that made it difficult for UEFA to go back on that decision and also, having seen what PSG were told was "fair value", it gave us a yardstick for our own deals.citizen_maine said:Prestwich_Blue said:Here's the key part:
Fill yer boots City. I'd even go so far as to speculate as to whether City deliberately set out to fail FFP in order to distract UEFA's attention, although that would be incredibly Machiavellian.
Explain please
Of course I could be completely overestimating the cunning and subtlety of our owners and we could just have failed FFP because we weren't clever enough.
George Hannah said:interesting transformation of FFP targets from "those with huge debts" to City Eh!SilverFox2 said:....
England
In an interview with the Independent, UEFA Chief Executive Lars-Christer Olsson has reaffirmed that clubs who fail to honour their financial commitments and build up huge debts will not be allowed to play in UEFA competitions. "In recent years, too many clubs have been indulging in, if you like, financial doping," said Mr Olsson. "Now, they will have to prove they have sound finances to play in our competitions. They won't be able to wriggle out because they will have to produce audited figures to show they have sound finances." Gerhard Aigner's successor has also reconfirmed his commitment to domestic leagues amid continual rumours about the formation of European super leagues. "I don't want to see American-style franchises or new European leagues infiltrating our game," he said. "There has to be some kind of bloodline, with promotion and relegation in the national leagues and qualification for Europe only being allowed through domestic club competitions. I'm of the firm belief that the top clubs have a responsibility when it comes to solidarity and the distribution of wealth downwards."
SilverFox2 said:George Hannah said:interesting transformation of FFP targets from "those with huge debts" to City Eh!SilverFox2 said:....
England
In an interview with the Independent, UEFA Chief Executive Lars-Christer Olsson has reaffirmed that clubs who fail to honour their financial commitments and build up huge debts will not be allowed to play in UEFA competitions. "In recent years, too many clubs have been indulging in, if you like, financial doping," said Mr Olsson. "Now, they will have to prove they have sound finances to play in our competitions. They won't be able to wriggle out because they will have to produce audited figures to show they have sound finances." Gerhard Aigner's successor has also reconfirmed his commitment to domestic leagues amid continual rumours about the formation of European super leagues. "I don't want to see American-style franchises or new European leagues infiltrating our game," he said. "There has to be some kind of bloodline, with promotion and relegation in the national leagues and qualification for Europe only being allowed through domestic club competitions. I'm of the firm belief that the top clubs have a responsibility when it comes to solidarity and the distribution of wealth downwards."
It has become slightly skewed away from its original intentions has it not.
Please note the last sentance on the same extract on my last post, I wonder how the intention to distribute wealth downwards has turned out ?
I've added a later (2007) UEFA news item that mentions FFP and monitoring as well so I feel ADUG were fully aware of its arrival at the time of purchase.