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

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I wasn't saying we have accepted its principles, merely that 2 or 3 years ago when it was first announced, we could have said to UEFA "you can fuck right off with that for a start" and launched a legal battle, and spent what we liked, unhindered. We chose not to do that, with the reasonable expectation that by us playing ball, we would not be shat upon. That's the extent to which I meant "we have accepted it".

Well, City's owner made it pretty clear he had no intention of permanently bankrolling the club, and wanted it to be profitable. To that extent FFP and his interests coincide. But it would have gone down that route even if FFP didn't exist.

See above.

Sure, but it doesn't alter the point that FFP and Sheikh Mansour's interests coincide on this point. Whether FFP existed or not, he wants to see the club financially viable and making a financial return to him. He's not a benefactor, he's a businessman. There are wider issues about the soft return from the halo effect of owning a successful football club too, but he still wants that return.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well, City's owner made it pretty clear he had no intention of permanently bankrolling the club, and wanted it to be profitable. To that extent FFP and his interests coincide. But it would have gone down that route even if FFP didn't exist.

See above.

Sure, but it doesn't alter the point that FFP and Sheikh Mansour's interests coincide on this point. Whether FFP existed or not, he wants to see the club financially viable and making a financial return to him. He's not a benefactor, he's a businessman. There are wider issues about the soft return from the halo effect of owning a successful football club too, but he still wants that return.

It's a flagship operation mate, he's not looking to make a profit, it's not a venture capitalism scheme ala FSG and Liverpool, he wants the Prestige from MCFC and CFG to reflect onto Abu Dhabi and his other businesses.

 

[moomba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Actually, it could be a masterstroke by UEFA.

Attempt to regulate clubs' debt.
Get knocked back by the cartel and have to change it to prevent other clubs spending in order to compete.
Go all out for marquee targets to undermine i.e. those who pose the biggest threat to the cartel.
End up in court.
Get laughed out and have to amend the rules back to regulating clubs in debt and such.
UEFA get what they wanted originally but can blame the court's ruling rather than themselves being the bad guys to the cartel.

Perhaps Napoleon is a little genius after all?

:D

it's why I reckon he's been happy to give so much authority to the likes of Gill and Rummenigge, let them dig their own graves.

Well Bayern are fairly debt-free so Rummenigge just has to worry about taxes, it's the 3 Spanish clubs and the Rags that will be digging. Oh and every Italian club apart from maybe Lazio.

Taxes can still cause the odd problem, as they will no doubt be aware of in the Munich boardroom.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well, City's owner made it pretty clear he had no intention of permanently bankrolling the club, and wanted it to be profitable. To that extent FFP and his interests coincide. But it would have gone down that route even if FFP didn't exist.

See above.

Sure, but it doesn't alter the point that FFP and Sheikh Mansour's interests coincide on this point. Whether FFP existed or not, he wants to see the club financially viable and making a financial return to him. He's not a benefactor, he's a businessman. There are wider issues about the soft return from the halo effect of owning a successful football club too, but he still wants that return.

Maybe in the very long term. Certainly Khaldoon has said what you suggest and whether it's a convenient cover story for a bigger Abu Dhabi promotion picture who knows. But look, I don't need to argue with you about this. That's really not the point.

All I was saying was that up until now, we have chosen to go along with the FFPR thing, making compromises to try to accommodate it/them. Doubtless there are transfers we have lost out on where we may not have done and would have splashed the cash in a more frivolous way, had we not felt it necessary to try to meet the break-even requirement in the short term.

To that extent, we have accepted it as part of the real world we live in. But we've presumably done this thinking we would not then have the book thrown at us in some punitive way anyway. If the book is now to be thrown anyway, we may chose to have a re-think.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

BoyBlue, in addition to the shares held in Bayern by those companies they're sponsored for the following amounts that I can confirm:
Deutsche Telekom: e33m per season
Allianz: e11m per season
Adidas: e30m per season
That's an injection of e73m per season by companies who have a vested interest in the club, at around 20% of their income and they criticise us. Hypocritical doesn't even cover it.

 

[ElanJo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So both us and PSG are facing a squad restriction, a CL salary restriction and a fine?

Shouldn't PSG be getting worse sanctions than us? I thought it was pretty well acknowledged that we were in a better situation with regards FFP than them?

 

[dario2739]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Etihad is not owned by Sheikh Mansour – however it is a business based in Abu Dhabi, they naturally want to invest in a Club owned by a member of their Royal Family for the prestige and global exposure it brings – let's face it, before our deal Etihad was pretty unknown – so the sponsorship deal has worked for them... in fact they got a pretty cheap deal if other clubs packages are anything to go by!

So an Abu Dhabi company investing in an Abu Dhabi owned football club – can anybody tell me how this is different from an American company (Chrysler) investing in an American owned football club (Rags), or an American based sportswear manufacturer (Warrior) paying vastly over-inflated rights to supply an American owned football club's kit (Dippers)???

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Etihad is not owned by Sheikh Mansour – however it is a business based in Abu Dhabi, they naturally want to invest in a Club owned by a member of their Royal Family for the prestige and global exposure it brings – let's face it, before our deal Etihad was pretty unknown – so the sponsorship deal has worked for them... in fact they got a pretty cheap deal if other clubs packages are anything to go by!

So an Abu Dhabi company investing in an Abu Dhabi owned football club – can anybody tell me how this is different from an American company (Chrysler) investing in an American owned football club (Rags), or an American based sportswear manufacturer (Warrior) paying vastly over-inflated rights to supply an American owned football club's kit (Dippers)???

See above posts on Bayern Munich and German Companies who do actually own a big enough shareholding to influence the management of the club and have representatives on the Club Board.

 

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

See above.

Sure, but it doesn't alter the point that FFP and Sheikh Mansour's interests coincide on this point. Whether FFP existed or not, he wants to see the club financially viable and making a financial return to him. He's not a benefactor, he's a businessman. There are wider issues about the soft return from the halo effect of owning a successful football club too, but he still wants that return.

It's a flagship operation mate, he's not looking to make a profit, it's not a venture capitalism scheme ala FSG and Liverpool, he wants the Prestige from MCFC and CFG to reflect onto Abu Dhabi and his other businesses.

Yep, that's part of it. But a return doesn't necessarily mean profits of £200 million a year, that's the soft return I talked about. It means that the sunk investment delivers an overall financial return and that the club itself is self-sustaining.<br /><br />-- Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:02 pm --<br /><br />

See above.

Sure, but it doesn't alter the point that FFP and Sheikh Mansour's interests coincide on this point. Whether FFP existed or not, he wants to see the club financially viable and making a financial return to him. He's not a benefactor, he's a businessman. There are wider issues about the soft return from the halo effect of owning a successful football club too, but he still wants that return.

Maybe in the very long term. Certainly Khaldoon has said what you suggest and whether it's a convenient cover story for a bigger Abu Dhabi promotion picture who knows. But look, I don't need to argue with you about this. That's really not the point.

All I was saying was that up until now, we have chosen to go along with the FFPR thing, making compromises to try to accommodate it/them. Doubtless there are transfers we have lost out on where we may not have done and would have splashed the cash in a more frivolous way, had we not felt it necessary to try to meet the break-even requirement in the short term.

To that extent, we have accepted it as part of the real world we live in. But we've presumably done this thinking we would not then have the book thrown at us in some punitive way anyway. If the book is now to be thrown anyway, we may chose to have a re-think.

We're not disagreeing! I was just saying that I don't think it was ever the intention for him to plough millions into City year after year forever more. So to that extent FFP suits him.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Etihad is not owned by Sheikh Mansour – however it is a business based in Abu Dhabi, they naturally want to invest in a Club owned by a member of their Royal Family for the prestige and global exposure it brings – let's face it, before our deal Etihad was pretty unknown – so the sponsorship deal has worked for them... in fact they got a pretty cheap deal if other clubs packages are anything to go by!

So an Abu Dhabi company investing in an Abu Dhabi owned football club – can anybody tell me how this is different from an American company (Chrysler) investing in an American owned football club (Rags), or an American based sportswear manufacturer (Warrior) paying vastly over-inflated rights to supply an American owned football club's kit (Dippers)???

It's pretty irrelevant whether it's similar to the scenarios you suggest or not.

Why? Because whether someone is, or is not, a related party is not determined on a whim by some prat at UEFA. There's a formal set of internationally agreed accounting principles that determine it. Whether transactions are related-party or not are then subject to audit by our auditors, who ultimately sign off our accounts. If they are not related-party transactions in our published accounts, then they are not related-party transactions, end of.

The more difficult area is where our auditors (and us) say a transaction IS a related-party transaction. For accounting purposes then we have to attribute a fair market value to it. That's where the room for disagreement comes in.<br /><br />-- Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:05 pm --<br /><br />

Sure, but it doesn't alter the point that FFP and Sheikh Mansour's interests coincide on this point. Whether FFP existed or not, he wants to see the club financially viable and making a financial return to him. He's not a benefactor, he's a businessman. There are wider issues about the soft return from the halo effect of owning a successful football club too, but he still wants that return.

It's a flagship operation mate, he's not looking to make a profit, it's not a venture capitalism scheme ala FSG and Liverpool, he wants the Prestige from MCFC and CFG to reflect onto Abu Dhabi and his other businesses.

Yep, that's part of it. But a return doesn't necessarily mean profits of £200 million a year, that's the soft return I talked about. It means that the sunk investment delivers an overall financial return and that the club itself is self-sustaining.

-- Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:02 pm --

Sure, but it doesn't alter the point that FFP and Sheikh Mansour's interests coincide on this point. Whether FFP existed or not, he wants to see the club financially viable and making a financial return to him. He's not a benefactor, he's a businessman. There are wider issues about the soft return from the halo effect of owning a successful football club too, but he still wants that return.

Maybe in the very long term. Certainly Khaldoon has said what you suggest and whether it's a convenient cover story for a bigger Abu Dhabi promotion picture who knows. But look, I don't need to argue with you about this. That's really not the point.

All I was saying was that up until now, we have chosen to go along with the FFPR thing, making compromises to try to accommodate it/them. Doubtless there are transfers we have lost out on where we may not have done and would have splashed the cash in a more frivolous way, had we not felt it necessary to try to meet the break-even requirement in the short term.

To that extent, we have accepted it as part of the real world we live in. But we've presumably done this thinking we would not then have the book thrown at us in some punitive way anyway. If the book is now to be thrown anyway, we may chose to have a re-think.

We're not disagreeing! I was just saying that I don't think it was ever the intention for him to plough millions into City year after year forever more. So to that extent FFP suits him.

In the long term, yes I agree. I said the very same a few pages back, but I would not expect you to have poured over my every word ;-)

 

[Anonymous]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

World Cup in Qatar.
PSG owned by Qatar.
Barca sponsored by Qatar Airways.
Barca transfer ban, suspended on appeal.
PSG sanctioned but negotiated down to a fine.
Napoleon Jr working for PSG
Napoleon's son in-law winning the contract to compose the UEFA Champs League music.


As The Smiths once sang in "Paint A Vulgar Picture":

And oh, the plans they weave
And oh, the sickening greed

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So if its all hot air by the telegraph...why havent the club took action etc.
Maybe jusy maybe that twat is correct?
I for one am worried...maybe most arent but we are being made to look like the bad guys and its fucking me off.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So if its all hot air by the telegraph...why havent the club took action etc.
Maybe jusy maybe that twat is correct?
I for one am worried...maybe most arent but we are being made to look like the bad guys and its fucking me off.

If we got confirmation tomorrow that we would face no punishment you'd still be worrying on Friday though.

 

[UlsterCitizen]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If the rumours are true and the PSG deal has been cut in half (MV 100m per year) I hope the AD tourist board match that deal

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If the rumours are true and the PSG deal has been cut in half (MV 100m per year) I hope the AD tourist board match that deal

Where are these rumours coming from? Btw they do have the excuse of a world cup coming up.

 

[UlsterCitizen]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If the rumours are true and the PSG deal has been cut in half (MV 100m per year) I hope the AD tourist board match that deal

Where are these rumours coming from? Btw they do have the excuse of a world cup coming up.

French press saying PSG will be allowed 100M in the accounts per year as that is the market value

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If the rumours are true and the PSG deal has been cut in half (MV 100m per year) I hope the AD tourist board match that deal

Where are these rumours coming from? Btw they do have the excuse of a world cup coming up.

French press saying PSG will be allowed 100M in the accounts per year as that is the market value

Any similar deal we could have would have a lower market value due to the lack of world cups in Abu Dhabi. Doesn't seem to me to be something the Sheikh would look at also as it doesn't go down the route of making the club self-financing. On the bright side, if that's true, our RPTs shouldn't be getting touched.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So if its all hot air by the telegraph...why havent the club took action etc.
Maybe jusy maybe that twat is correct?
I for one am worried...maybe most arent but we are being made to look like the bad guys and its fucking me off.

If we got confirmation tomorrow that we would face no punishment you'd still be worrying on Friday though.

just fucked off with it all pal.it stinks mate it really does.and if you are honest you know we will get punished

 

[sam-caddick]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I've just read we are likely to be getting a CL salary cap, surely that is going to cause unrest in the camp next season as some players will be forced to not play?

PSG are looki g at a tens of millions euros fine and if we get the same that is brutal.

Are UEFA going to be charging the debt ridden clubs? I doubt it!

 

[UlsterCitizen]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The PSG deal doesn't promote the world cup, just the venue