You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Possibly, (but without looking it up and reading the fine detail I am not sure when the 10 years starts and finishes), but I think you are broadly correct. The other thing is the -30% reduction is stated as being a maximum, not one that automatically applies.
But the point is, all they have to do to get the full £75m per year is not miss out on CL in consecutive years. They don't need to do particularly well in any other competitions. If they do miss for 2 years and get back in year 3, it's back to £75m again. So it's not a massive hurdle unfortunately. If they win anything, then it's £79m per year.
For all intents and purposes, we can expect them to be getting a minimum of £75m/year from the Adidas deal.
fbloke said:Chippy_boy said:I didn't copy all of it since it went on a bit.
The final sentence says (forgive me I can't be arsed looking it up again) that if they do take a hit in any one year, whatever that reduction is, comes off the £750m total. (So say the only get £60m one year, then they total for the 10 years is reduced by £15m to £735m).
Right, so the minimum guaranteed is 2 x £75 and 8 x £52.5m = £570m over 10 years.
And by year 10 of that deal City will be looking at £100m per season, per club in the CFG ;-)
Possibly, (but without looking it up and reading the fine detail I am not sure when the 10 years starts and finishes), but I think you are broadly correct. The other thing is the -30% reduction is stated as being a maximum, not one that automatically applies.
But the point is, all they have to do to get the full £75m per year is not miss out on CL in consecutive years. They don't need to do particularly well in any other competitions. If they do miss for 2 years and get back in year 3, it's back to £75m again. So it's not a massive hurdle unfortunately. If they win anything, then it's £79m per year.
For all intents and purposes, we can expect them to be getting a minimum of £75m/year from the Adidas deal.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It might be worthwhile looking at it as I do. By the time they get into the 2nd half of that contract their deal will be lagging way behind most top clubs in terms of value. A ten year deal with no chance of renegotiation (unlike City's Etihad deal) is bad business IMHO. They could win the quadruple every year for ten years and they only get £79m per year.
Chippy_boy said:fbloke said:Chippy_boy said:I didn't copy all of it since it went on a bit.
The final sentence says (forgive me I can't be arsed looking it up again) that if they do take a hit in any one year, whatever that reduction is, comes off the £750m total. (So say the only get £60m one year, then they total for the 10 years is reduced by £15m to £735m).
Right, so the minimum guaranteed is 2 x £75 and 8 x £52.5m = £570m over 10 years.
And by year 10 of that deal City will be looking at £100m per season, per club in the CFG ;-)
Possibly, (but without looking it up and reading the fine detail I am not sure when the 10 years starts and finishes), but I think you are broadly correct. The other thing is the -30% reduction is stated as being a maximum, not one that automatically applies.
But the point is, all they have to do to get the full £75m per year is not miss out on CL in consecutive years. They don't need to do particularly well in any other competitions. It's not a massive hurdle unfortunately. If they win anything, then it's £79m per year.
It might be worthwhile looking at it as I do. By the time they get into the 2nd half of that contract their deal will be lagging way behind most top clubs in terms of value. A ten year deal with no chance of renegotiation (unlike City's Etihad deal) is bad business IMHO. They could win the quadruple every year for ten years and they only get £79m per year.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Whilst I like your blue-tinted glasses and I hope what you say is true, what makes you say that their deal is less "re-negotiatable" than our Etihad deal? I don't remember (although I am fully prepared to be corrected) any re-negotiation clause in our contract.
fbloke said:Chippy_boy said:fbloke said:Right, so the minimum guaranteed is 2 x £75 and 8 x £52.5m = £570m over 10 years.
And by year 10 of that deal City will be looking at £100m per season, per club in the CFG ;-)
Possibly, (but without looking it up and reading the fine detail I am not sure when the 10 years starts and finishes), but I think you are broadly correct. The other thing is the -30% reduction is stated as being a maximum, not one that automatically applies.
But the point is, all they have to do to get the full £75m per year is not miss out on CL in consecutive years. They don't need to do particularly well in any other competitions. It's not a massive hurdle unfortunately. If they win anything, then it's £79m per year.
It might be worthwhile looking at it as I do. By the time they get into the 2nd half of that contract their deal will be lagging way behind most top clubs in terms of value. A ten year deal with no chance of renegotiation (unlike City's Etihad deal) is bad business IMHO. They could win the quadruple every year for ten years and they only get £79m per year.
Whilst I like your blue-tinted glasses and I hope what you say is true, what makes you say that their deal is less "re-negotiatable" than our Etihad deal? I don't remember (although I am fully prepared to be corrected) any re-negotiation clause in our contract.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
The deal was done on the premise that it would be renegotiated. I will try and dig out the Garry Cook comments when I get a chance.
Chippy_boy said:fbloke said:Chippy_boy said:Possibly, (but without looking it up and reading the fine detail I am not sure when the 10 years starts and finishes), but I think you are broadly correct. The other thing is the -30% reduction is stated as being a maximum, not one that automatically applies.
But the point is, all they have to do to get the full £75m per year is not miss out on CL in consecutive years. They don't need to do particularly well in any other competitions. It's not a massive hurdle unfortunately. If they win anything, then it's £79m per year.
It might be worthwhile looking at it as I do. By the time they get into the 2nd half of that contract their deal will be lagging way behind most top clubs in terms of value. A ten year deal with no chance of renegotiation (unlike City's Etihad deal) is bad business IMHO. They could win the quadruple every year for ten years and they only get £79m per year.
Whilst I like your blue-tinted glasses and I hope what you say is true, what makes you say that their deal is less "re-negotiatable" than our Etihad deal? I don't remember (although I am fully prepared to be corrected) any re-negotiation clause in our contract.
The deal was done on the premise that it would be renegotiated. I will try and dig out the Garry Cook comments when I get a chance.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
The Adidas deal might also include sales of branded leisurewear. Warrior pay Liverpool £25m a year but Liverpool retain the rights to their non-playing kit branded clothing.
The Adidas deal might also include sales of branded leisurewear. Warrior pay Liverpool £25m a year but Liverpool retain the rights to their non-playing kit branded clothing.
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
A 10 year deal is like taking out a fixed rate mortgage... you might win, you might lose, but you know what you're getting. Who's to say where City will be in 5 years time.
However, you'd imagine that there are sensible clauses from both parties - City can argue they intend to be in a much stronger position in 5 years and would expect an improved deal. By the same token, the sponsor could argue that it's placing a lot of faith early on, and shouldn't be held to ransom once City make it big.
I would imagine it's more prudent to have some parameters in place on both sides, akin to a performance bonus. If we're doing well, I'd imagine the sponsor has envisaged that and laid out some semblance of improved deal based on performance. By the same token, I'd expect them to have plenty of clauses to get out, or reduce the deal if we take a nose dive.
I'm not privvy to the deals and could be completely wrong of course. Maybe a sponsor DOES just agree to the a 10 year deal... I just can't really believe any commercial contract worth 10s of millions (possibly hundreds of millions) isn't going to seek some form of protection.
A 10 year deal is like taking out a fixed rate mortgage... you might win, you might lose, but you know what you're getting. Who's to say where City will be in 5 years time.
However, you'd imagine that there are sensible clauses from both parties - City can argue they intend to be in a much stronger position in 5 years and would expect an improved deal. By the same token, the sponsor could argue that it's placing a lot of faith early on, and shouldn't be held to ransom once City make it big.
I would imagine it's more prudent to have some parameters in place on both sides, akin to a performance bonus. If we're doing well, I'd imagine the sponsor has envisaged that and laid out some semblance of improved deal based on performance. By the same token, I'd expect them to have plenty of clauses to get out, or reduce the deal if we take a nose dive.
I'm not privvy to the deals and could be completely wrong of course. Maybe a sponsor DOES just agree to the a 10 year deal... I just can't really believe any commercial contract worth 10s of millions (possibly hundreds of millions) isn't going to seek some form of protection.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
BOOM.
-
Manchester United could become the next target of Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations after the governing body confirmed it would consider making debt reduction part of any change to the rules.
United have sailed through Uefa’s existing FFP tests, which focus exclusively on preventing clubs recording annual losses. But European football’s governing body has arranged a meeting on Monday to discuss potential tweaks to the regulations, amid criticisms it punishes over-investment but not the accumulation of debt.
United are £350 million in debt, having been saddled with a £790 million burden by the Glazers when they took over the club in 2005.
Gianni Infantino, Uefa’s general secretary, said: “We’re now focused on losses and to repay the debt is part of the loss that the club can make at the end of the season. But, certainly, the question of debt is something that can be put on the table.”
Manchester City will attend Monday’s meeting following their world-record £49 million fine for breaching FFP regulations. City have been vocal in their opposition to the rules, insisting they should not have been penalised for making losses when they are debt free.
Their chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak, told the club’s official website in May: “We have zero debt. We don’t pay a penny to service any debt. For me, that is a sustainable model. However, our friends at Uefa seem to believe otherwise. They have their view, we have ours.”
City’s views have not changed, which they will make clear if their opinion is sought at Monday’s meeting, which will be chaired by Uefa’s president, Michel Platini, and include representatives from other clubs.
There was some potentially good news for City regarding the Champions League on Thursday after Infantino confirmed Uefa would implement a radical shake-up to the draw for next season’s competition.
The change would guarantee the winners of the Premier League would be placed automatically among the top seeds, with no place for any side finishing second, third and fourth.
The current coefficient system rewards teams who consistently qualify for the competition – like Arsenal – regardless of how they do so, and penalises those who are relatively new to it – like City.
Under the new proposals, the top eight seeds would comprise of the Champions League holders and seven domestic league winners of the top-ranked Uefa nations, currently Spain, England, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Russia and France.
This season’s group-stage draw, which lumbered City with Bayern Munich, CSKA Moscow and Roma, but paired Chelsea with Schalke, Sporting Lisbon and Maribor, could have been radically different as a result.
City’s manager, Manuel Pellegrini, last month hit out at the way Arsenal remained seeded in the Champions League despite having finished only fourth in the Premier League.
Pellegrini said it was “not good that the teams who play qualification because they finished fourth in their domestic leagues are in Pot One [seeded], where the strongest teams should be”.
He added: “Our group seems unbalanced. In our group, we have three domestic champions – the English champions, the German champions and the Russian champions.”
On Thursday Infantino also reiterated Uefa’s opposition to the Premier League staging competitive matches overseas, although he would only have the power to stop that happening in Europe.
Such games would be far more likely to take place in Asia or the United States.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/11152844/Manchester-United-could-face-Uefa-Financial-Fair-Play-sanction-for-350m-debt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... -debt.html</a>
BOOM.
-
Manchester United could become the next target of Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations after the governing body confirmed it would consider making debt reduction part of any change to the rules.
United have sailed through Uefa’s existing FFP tests, which focus exclusively on preventing clubs recording annual losses. But European football’s governing body has arranged a meeting on Monday to discuss potential tweaks to the regulations, amid criticisms it punishes over-investment but not the accumulation of debt.
United are £350 million in debt, having been saddled with a £790 million burden by the Glazers when they took over the club in 2005.
Gianni Infantino, Uefa’s general secretary, said: “We’re now focused on losses and to repay the debt is part of the loss that the club can make at the end of the season. But, certainly, the question of debt is something that can be put on the table.”
Manchester City will attend Monday’s meeting following their world-record £49 million fine for breaching FFP regulations. City have been vocal in their opposition to the rules, insisting they should not have been penalised for making losses when they are debt free.
Their chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak, told the club’s official website in May: “We have zero debt. We don’t pay a penny to service any debt. For me, that is a sustainable model. However, our friends at Uefa seem to believe otherwise. They have their view, we have ours.”
City’s views have not changed, which they will make clear if their opinion is sought at Monday’s meeting, which will be chaired by Uefa’s president, Michel Platini, and include representatives from other clubs.
There was some potentially good news for City regarding the Champions League on Thursday after Infantino confirmed Uefa would implement a radical shake-up to the draw for next season’s competition.
The change would guarantee the winners of the Premier League would be placed automatically among the top seeds, with no place for any side finishing second, third and fourth.
The current coefficient system rewards teams who consistently qualify for the competition – like Arsenal – regardless of how they do so, and penalises those who are relatively new to it – like City.
Under the new proposals, the top eight seeds would comprise of the Champions League holders and seven domestic league winners of the top-ranked Uefa nations, currently Spain, England, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Russia and France.
This season’s group-stage draw, which lumbered City with Bayern Munich, CSKA Moscow and Roma, but paired Chelsea with Schalke, Sporting Lisbon and Maribor, could have been radically different as a result.
City’s manager, Manuel Pellegrini, last month hit out at the way Arsenal remained seeded in the Champions League despite having finished only fourth in the Premier League.
Pellegrini said it was “not good that the teams who play qualification because they finished fourth in their domestic leagues are in Pot One [seeded], where the strongest teams should be”.
He added: “Our group seems unbalanced. In our group, we have three domestic champions – the English champions, the German champions and the Russian champions.”
On Thursday Infantino also reiterated Uefa’s opposition to the Premier League staging competitive matches overseas, although he would only have the power to stop that happening in Europe.
Such games would be far more likely to take place in Asia or the United States.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/11152844/Manchester-United-could-face-Uefa-Financial-Fair-Play-sanction-for-350m-debt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... -debt.html</a>
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
if UEFA actually bring indebtedness into the FFP framework I think we can allow ourselves a very broad smile!
if UEFA actually bring indebtedness into the FFP framework I think we can allow ourselves a very broad smile!
Bluewonder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 3,444
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I have three questions about these new proposals:
1. Has Platini ultimately played a blinder by wrestling power away from the old G14?
2. Has Platini recognised the shift in the balance of power in football, as the real businessmen at clubs such as City and PSG are set to dominate with their debt free model? Surely he would rather cosy up with Khaldoon than Ed Woodward?
3. Is Platini a bumbling idiot who is hopelessly bouncing from one rule change to the next?
I have three questions about these new proposals:
1. Has Platini ultimately played a blinder by wrestling power away from the old G14?
2. Has Platini recognised the shift in the balance of power in football, as the real businessmen at clubs such as City and PSG are set to dominate with their debt free model? Surely he would rather cosy up with Khaldoon than Ed Woodward?
3. Is Platini a bumbling idiot who is hopelessly bouncing from one rule change to the next?