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

[Bewar3them00n]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness.

(3rd G&T)

more of a "Way of the Samurai " guy myself
Take a look at the men today. It seems that most of them have a woman’s heart. There are very few true men anymore. It is easy for a strong warrior to gain the advantage these days because so few have any courage at all."
"The secret to a happy marriage is this: Treat your spouse all of your life as you did when you first met and there will never be room for discord."
2nd beer ( rum chaser)

 

[silverback]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I wondered why after years of there being no value in the market suddenly the quiet neighbours splurge over the last three transfer windows. Did Gill get wind of an adverse result re FFP and they had to spend big before "the drawbridge" was raised.

oh you old cynic.



the answer is definitely yes funny how this year they all went mad eh

Less of the old, I'm only 68 :)

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I wondered why after years of there being no value in the market suddenly the quiet neighbours splurge over the last three transfer windows. Did Gill get wind of an adverse result re FFP and they had to spend big before "the drawbridge" was raised.

oh you old cynic.



the answer is definitely yes funny how this year they all went mad eh

Less of the old, I'm only 68 :)

Shit and I thought I was old !! ;)

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That depends on the reason for not breaking even Chippy. I get the point though, I just think that whatever sanction Uefa decide to put in should be dealt with on a case by case basis related to that individual club and the reasons for the situation.

I realise that is a pipe dream though!

I think that's the absolute worst scenario. Given how bent these bastards are, any "flexibility" in the rules gives them carte blanche to favour some clubs and not others. Whatever rules are in play need to be crystal clear and universally applied. Look at the utter bullshit we are having to put up with this season with spending limits and squad restrictions all because UEFA chose to interpret the current FFP rule differently to how their initial guidance notes suggested.

And just a quick word on debt. There's nothing wrong with debt as a vehicle to fuel investment. It's a perfectly normal way to run a business and stopping or severely restricting it would be detrimental to the game. We would not have such great stadiums and the rest of the infrastructure if we stopped clubs from borrowing.

The issue is irresponsible borrowing and dangerous levels of debt. So some restaint might be considered appropriate, but that's not easy to do because how do you set the levels fairly. And requiring the debt to be serviceable based on guaranteed incomes is an unrealistic idea, both in principle and in practice. The reality is very little in life is guaranteed. When you take out a 4 year loan to buy a car, it's not guaranteed you'll be in work in 2 years time.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That's weird. They say the 750 (average 75 a year) is a guaranteed minimum, but then go on to explain that the annual payments can be reduced 30% in certain circumstances. Not a guaranteed minimum then. Either there is more to it, or that is a pretty misleading statement in a prospectus ....

It's taken me a while to reply to this as I have been away from my computer with the relevant files. However, the above is incorrect.

The Adidas deal is £75m per year and may be increased if they win the PL, FA Cup or CL. They do not have to win any of these to get a steady £75m per year.

If they fail to get into the CL for 2 consecutive seasons, beginning with the 2015/16 season, then the £75m can be reduced. So they would have to not qualify now until 2017/18 in order to receive anything less than £75m/year. This is pretty bloody unlikely, unfortunately.

Wow, well I dont think i'm alone in having read numbers that said the exact opposite somewhere. I guess we can only hope LVG carries on in the same manner as Moyes did.

FYI I got the info from their October 30th 2013 prospectus pending the offering of 12,000,000 new shares. You can be 100% certain it's correct or they would have class action lawsuits all over the place.

The exact text is this:

"We have reached a 10-year agreement with adidas with respect to our global technical sponsorship and dual-branded licensing rights, beginning with the 2015/16 season. The minimum guarantee payable by adidas is equal to £750 million over the 10-year term of the agreement or an average of £75 million per year, though actual cash payments per year will vary, subject to certain adjustments including those described below.

Payments due in a particular year may increase if our first team wins the Premier League, FA Cup or Champions League, or decrease if our first team fails to participate in the Champions League for two or more consecutive seasons starting with the 2015/16 season, with the maximum possible increase being £4 million per year and the maximum possible reduction being 30% of the applicable payment for that year."


So, sadly I think their demise is not something that's going to happen in the forseeable. LVG will just keep spending until they start winning things again.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

AC Milan want to table a motion at the UEFA meeting on Monday that would see the introduction of wildcards for 'important teams with a rich history of winning trophies and with a large enough fanbase to support Champions League football', for those who don't qualify by proper means

Slowly but surely...

In other news...Sunderland (who were against the implementation of FFP in the Premier League?) have had a request granted by the Premier League to see how these rules may have impacted down on wages, having been heralded as one of the key reasons for its introduction...

A clever move by owner Ellis Short.

All the clubs have submitted the returns and we will know the findings next month.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That's weird. They say the 750 (average 75 a year) is a guaranteed minimum, but then go on to explain that the annual payments can be reduced 30% in certain circumstances. Not a guaranteed minimum then. Either there is more to it, or that is a pretty misleading statement in a prospectus ....

It's badly worded at best!

The opening sentence reads, "The minimum guarantee payable by adidas is equal to £750 million over the 10-year term of the agreement or an average of £75 million per year"

and the closing sentence reads,

"Any increase or decrease in a particular year would have the effect of increasing or decreasing the minimum guarantee amount of £750 million payable over the 10-year term of the agreement"

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

AC Milan want to table a motion at the UEFA meeting on Monday that would see the introduction of wildcards for 'important teams with a rich history of winning trophies and with a large enough fanbase to support Champions League football', for those who don't qualify by proper means

Slowly but surely...

In other news...Sunderland (who were against the implementation of FFP in the Premier League?) have had a request granted by the Premier League to see how these rules may have impacted down on wages, having been heralded as one of the key reasons for its introduction...

A clever move by owner Ellis Short.

All the clubs have submitted the returns and we will know the findings next month.

Is that serious about AC Milan? FFS you really couldn't make it up, could you.
As for the PL wages, what timeframe are they talking about? Would the rags be able to quietly forget about all their summer acquisitions?

 

[mancity dan]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

AC Milan want to table a motion at the UEFA meeting on Monday that would see the introduction of wildcards for 'important teams with a rich history of winning trophies and with a large enough fanbase to support Champions League football', for those who don't qualify by proper means

Slowly but surely...

In other news...Sunderland (who were against the implementation of FFP in the Premier League?) have had a request granted by the Premier League to see how these rules may have impacted down on wages, having been heralded as one of the key reasons for its introduction...

A clever move by owner Ellis Short.

All the clubs have submitted the returns and we will know the findings next month.

Ours would have come down a fair whack, whereas the quiet neighbours would have gone in the opposite direction.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Slightly off topic.

Can anyone explain what Business Tax Credits are?

The type of Tax Credits the Glazers have been using to make an operating loss, into an profit for United, over the last few years.(2/3?)

Before the tax credit the team had a little-changed loss of 6.1 million pounds for the first quarter. The team said the credit is related to a corporate restructuring

Manchester United said its 2013 net income was distorted by a one-off tax credit of £155.2m, which it received from “US deferred tax assets". Had it not received that, the club would have made a loss of £8.8m in 2013.

Why don't, or why haven't City used Business Tax Credits? Or do they?

Thanks.

I would love an answer to this as well, if anyone has a clue?
"Deferred Tax Assets"? Does that mean they still have to pay something in the future (thereby increasing their debt but in a sneaky fashion) or am I overthinking that?