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

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It strikes me that this debate is all too late however.

We have already suffered under these wretched rules. Goodness knows what players we would have bought if we didn't have FFP and struggling to balance the books hanging over our heads the last few transfer windows. And then the squad restriction and fines as well.

Now, with our soaring revenues FFP is largely behind us, and now - when it really is largely an irrelevance to us - there's the prospect of the rules being changed.

Whereas I am morally opposed to FFP as a matter of principle, should it stand up and no changes be made and as a consequence it fucks over Arsenal (especially) or Liverpool or any of the other turgid shits who were happy to put the knife in, I won't be shedding any tears.

Agree that the debate is all too late and no doubt it will take some time yet before there is shift in the rules.

But have we really suffered? Sure there has been an (unfair) restriction but we have dominated domestically for the last 3 years (as measured by trophy count) and we are in pole position to continue.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The original Rumsby article in the Telegraph has been edited slightly and it seems Soriano was arguing for up to a 7 year extention to take the monitoring period to 10 years.


Manchester City and PSG push for key extension to Uefa's Financial Fair Play monitoring period

Premier League champions lobby for extension to monitoring period from three to 10 years, to give clubs more time to balance finances

The likes of Roman Abramovich and Sheik Mansour could be given more leeway to spend big under Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations after Manchester City lobbied for rule changes that would allow billionaire benefactors extra time to balance a club’s books.

European football’s governing body is to consider proposals put forward by City and Paris Saint-Germain during what it revealed was a “full and frank” meeting to discuss the future of FFP on Monday, the first since both teams were fined a world-record £49 million for failing its break-even test.

City’s chief executive, Ferran Soriano, was among those to argue that Uefa’s current three-year monitoring period should be extended by up to 10 years to allow clubs to live the same rags-to-riches dream pursued by his side and Chelsea.

One of the major criticisms of FFP is that it may make it much more difficult for new teams to break into the elite of European football.

Yet, any extension of the monitoring period would have to be weighed against the risk that those without sufficient resources may resume the “reckless spending and financial insanity” that prompted Uefa to devise FFP in the first place.

Its president, Michel Platini, is understood to be open to exploring the matter as part of a planned evolution of the regulations from a cost-control measure towards a system that encourages growth.
Any immediate amendments were ruled out during Monday’s meeting of Uefa’s stakeholders, as was the introduction of debt-reduction into the FFP rules, something that would have brought Manchester United under greater scrutiny.

Platini said: “We have succeeded in reducing the cumulative losses of European clubs and in stabilising European football’s finances.

“We must now work together to ensure that clubs can grow and prosper in the future – and today’s discussions were an encouraging step in that direction.”

Monday's meeting was attended by representatives of the Football Association, European Club Association, European Professional Football Leagues, FIFPro, the German Football

There are some very interesting noises coming from that meeting, particularly that platini quote. It looks to me like he's paving the way for significant change...particularly the "we have succeeded" line. That's his lunge for the moral high ground and damage limitation line. He loses less face by claiming that FFP was a success and now needs modifying.

There can be no doubt that City and PSG made a watertight case for the ridiculousness of these rules. Anyone with any common sense knows an industry which bans investment is based on lunacy.

I would be interested to see the evidence that shows FFP's impact as the transfer spend and wages for most clubs has increased as per.

I suppose claiming FFP is successful at a time when inflation across Europe is very low ( heading towards deflation ) where earnings across Europe are taking a hit like never before and where fans are still being asked to pay more to watch football than you have to pay on average for theatre, ballet and music concerts is a typical UEFA boast.

I wonder why Platini didnt get the Nobel Prize for Economics?

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The key argument against FFP (and one I believe Dupont is using) is that it's not the principle itself which is a problem but the implementation of that principle which is faulty.

If your objective is to ensure sustainability then you can't just ban owner investment per se and ignore debt. Particularly when that debt is built up via excessive outgoings or is loaded onto the club as part of a buyout or takeover.

This is quite correct and one which many forget.
The principle of FFP is to be applauded, it's the implementation that is poorly considered (or deliberately abused).

UEFA have packaged FFP as a trojan horse to implement protectionism. The casual observer, aided by the media, is led to believe that PSG, Manchester City et al, are the root cause of football's monetary problems and should be curtailed. And since City and PSG have now started to have success, that's always going to garner support from other fans. 'We aren't winning because Manchester City are'. 'We can't attract players, because Manchester City can'. 'We can't afford to pay the wages that Manchester City pay'. All convenient excuses often touted by other fans, and sometimes rival club officials.

The spending capability of a club has demonstrated itself to be a massive factor in the success of a team. Like it or lump it, it's always been that way. The essential 'unfairness' there is that football isn't about who can get the best out of 11 fairly random players, but who can purchase the best 11. I don't like that. I don't like it at all. Fundamentally, 'who can spend the most' shouldn't be one of the main criteria for success, and FFP needs to address that.

I doubt that issue will ever be truly resolved. Rich clubs can buy better facilities, better facilities attract better players etc etc, but the prima facie ability to buy success through player purchases CAN and SHOULD be curtailed for ALL. I've said it for many years, and although now we are benefactors of that ability, that shouldn't chance my stance.

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Soriano pushing for an extension of the monitoring period from 3 to 7 years.

Article from the Telegraph:


The likes of Roman Abramovich and Sheik Mansour could be given more leeway to spend big under Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations after Manchester City lobbied for rule changes that would allow billionaire benefactors extra time to balance a club’s books. European football’s governing body is to consider proposals put forward by City and Paris Saint-Germain during what it revealed was a “full and frank” meeting to discuss the future of FFP on Monday, the first since both teams were fined a world-record £49 million for failing its break-even test.

City’s chief executive, Ferran Soriano, was among those to argue that Uefa’s current three-year monitoring period should be extended by up to seven years to allow clubs to live the same rags-to-riches dream pursued by his side and Chelsea. One of the major criticisms of FFP is that it may make it much more difficult for new teams to break into the elite of European football.
Yet, any extension of the monitoring period would have to be weighed against the risk that those without sufficient resources may resume the “reckless spending and financial insanity” that prompted Uefa to devise FFP in the first place. Its president, Michel Platini, is understood to be open to exploring the matter as part of a planned evolution of the regulations from a cost-control measure towards a system that encourages growth.

Any immediate amendments were ruled out during Monday’s meeting of Uefa’s stakeholders, as was the introduction of debt-reduction into the FFP rules, something that would have brought Manchester United under greater scrutiny.

Platini said: “We have succeeded in reducing the cumulative losses of European clubs and in stabilising European football’s finances.
“We must now work together to ensure that clubs can grow and prosper in the future – and today’s discussions were an encouraging step in that direction.”

Monday's meeting was attended by representatives of the Football Association, European Club Association, European Professional Football Leagues, FIFPro, the German Football League – as well as executives from Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, AC Milan, Juventus, Ajax, Lyon, Zenit St Petersburg and Olympiakos.

The chairman of the ECA and Bayern, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, said: “Financial Fair Play is a bonus for club football and helps ensure the future sustainable development of the game.
“Economic rationality must be top priority. ECA strongly welcomes Financial Fair Play and places significant trust in Uefa and its president, Michel Platini.”

Does the bolded part mean that debt is never going to be a part of ffp or just not yet?

 

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

There are some very interesting noises coming from that meeting, particularly that platini quote. It looks to me like he's paving the way for significant change...particularly the "we have succeeded" line. That's his lunge for the moral high ground and damage limitation line. He loses less face by claiming that FFP was a success and now needs modifying.

There can be no doubt that City and PSG made a watertight case for the ridiculousness of these rules. Anyone with any common sense knows an industry which bans investment is based on lunacy.

It's funny Platini already sees FFP as a success. I wonder if that's because privately he was under enormous pressure to sanction City and PSG, and that this summer's fines, transfer spend limits, squad limitations, etc have put him a position with strength with regards the rest of the cartel and what happens next.

What I mean by that is, is it inconceivable that he's now saying to the likes of Bayern that the "sugar daddies" now know they can't just spend without limits on players, and that dialling back the regulations having made the point to City and Paris is the right and proper thing to do. After all there are many practical realities to FFP which are a farce (leveraged buy outs, debt burdens etc). Clubs like United, Madrid, even Barcelona, who carry heavy debt burdens, are subject to illegal state aid, etc are the next logically on UEFA's list of "bad" clubs to go after.

Anyway what I'm saying in a convoluted way is that I'm not surprised that there will be a dialling back of FFP and i'm not surprised if they find ways to allow for people like Mansour to come in and invest over a longer period of time to challenge the elite.

Most importantly though for City, FFP has now become an irrelevance. I can see us being in a position where needing to spend even 200 million next summer won't be a problem.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It strikes me that this debate is all too late however.

We have already suffered under these wretched rules. Goodness knows what players we would have bought if we didn't have FFP and struggling to balance the books hanging over our heads the last few transfer windows. And then the squad restriction and fines as well.

Now, with our soaring revenues FFP is largely behind us, and now - when it really is largely an irrelevance to us - there's the prospect of the rules being changed.

Whereas I am morally opposed to FFP as a matter of principle, should it stand up and no changes be made and as a consequence it fucks over Arsenal (especially) or Liverpool or any of the other turgid shits who were happy to put the knife in, I won't be shedding any tears.

Agree that the debate is all too late and no doubt it will take some time yet before there is shift in the rules.

But have we really suffered? Sure there has been an (unfair) restriction but we have dominated domestically for the last 3 years (as measured by trophy count) and we are in pole position to continue.

We've done well I agree. But look at this season. We have 2 strikers only at the moment and are relying on Frank Lampard on loan from the US. It's hardly ideal is it, and I am CERTAIN we would be in a much stronger state were it not for FFP.

Who knows how much further we might have got in the CL if we hadn't missed out on Hazard, Isco etc. We would almost certainly have won the league 3 times in succession had we got RVP. And now we've had to let Negredo go and let the scum have Falcao.

It's definitely hurt us.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

FFP has more or less stopped the influx of overseas investors into the British game, and the peak of Billionaires created by the privatisation of Eastern European state assets has also passed, so the drive to reinforce FFP has gone. But they'll keep some form of it in place to ward off new clubs. What's the incentive or the Champions League clubs to lift the barrier to their private club? There's none. City will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of FFP if the reports on the healthy state of City's finances are true.

 

[coleridge]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I doubt that FFP can become an irrelevance, even if it is abandoned. A precedent has been set, and MCFC and PSG won't let anyone forget it, not now, not ever. The likes of the Rags and LFC should be careful what they have wished for. The issues of unsecured debt and state aid, for example, will now be under scrutiny forevermore.

I also noted the suggestion of a 10 year monitoring period and not 7. Again, I am not sure who that applied to, and from what date and for how long. However, as most of us seem to recognise, it's not MCFC/CFG/ADUG that need to be worrying about that. Quite to the contrary, in fact.

 

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It strikes me that this debate is all too late however.

We have already suffered under these wretched rules. Goodness knows what players we would have bought if we didn't have FFP and struggling to balance the books hanging over our heads the last few transfer windows. And then the squad restriction and fines as well.

Now, with our soaring revenues FFP is largely behind us, and now - when it really is largely an irrelevance to us - there's the prospect of the rules being changed.

Whereas I am morally opposed to FFP as a matter of principle, should it stand up and no changes be made and as a consequence it fucks over Arsenal (especially) or Liverpool or any of the other turgid shits who were happy to put the knife in, I won't be shedding any tears.

Agree that the debate is all too late and no doubt it will take some time yet before there is shift in the rules.

But have we really suffered? Sure there has been an (unfair) restriction but we have dominated domestically for the last 3 years (as measured by trophy count) and we are in pole position to continue.

We've done well I agree. But look at this season. We have 2 strikers only at the moment and are relying on Frank Lampard on loan from the US. It's hardly ideal is it, and I am CERTAIN we would be in a much stronger state were it not for FFP.

Who knows how much further we might have got in the CL is we hadn't missed out on Hazard, Isco etc. We would almost certainly have won the league 3 times in succession had we got RVP. And now we've had to let Negredo go and let the scum have Falcao.

It's definitely hurt us.

I'm not sure you can blame FFP for every player we haven't signed. Regardless of the regulations since the day Khaldoon came in, he's been consistent in that he said City would have a period of "accelerated spending", but after that they were working towards a business model which allows the club to become self sufficient.

I think getting into speculation about "3 titles in a row" if we'd signed Van Persie is also very problematic. We had four strikers that summer (Tevez, Dzeko, Balo, Kun) so signing another one was out of the question. The squad was for the most part complete by that point and as Khaldoon had said was only ever going to be tweaked rather than overhauled - which btw to me also equated to "we won't sign a big player unless a big player leaves".

Having said all that I do agree that this summer just gone would've been different without FFP.

 

[MeatHunterrr]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It strikes me that this debate is all too late however.

We have already suffered under these wretched rules. Goodness knows what players we would have bought if we didn't have FFP and struggling to balance the books hanging over our heads the last few transfer windows. And then the squad restriction and fines as well.

Now, with our soaring revenues FFP is largely behind us, and now - when it really is largely an irrelevance to us - there's the prospect of the rules being changed.

Whereas I am morally opposed to FFP as a matter of principle, should it stand up and no changes be made and as a consequence it fucks over Arsenal (especially) or Liverpool or any of the other turgid shits who were happy to put the knife in, I won't be shedding any tears.

Agree that the debate is all too late and no doubt it will take some time yet before there is shift in the rules.

But have we really suffered? Sure there has been an (unfair) restriction but we have dominated domestically for the last 3 years (as measured by trophy count) and we are in pole position to continue.

We've done well I agree. But look at this season. We have 2 strikers only at the moment and are relying on Frank Lampard on loan from the US. It's hardly ideal is it, and I am CERTAIN we would be in a much stronger state were it not for FFP.

Who knows how much further we might have got in the CL if we hadn't missed out on Hazard, Isco etc. We would almost certainly have won the league 3 times in succession had we got RVP. And now we've had to let Negredo go and let the scum have Falcao.

It's definitely hurt us.

Excuses and more excuses. This is not the reason for CL failures. this squad we have had for 3-4 years should be able to make minimum of QFs constantly.

Starting to sound like Mancini who always complained about that he didn't get new players and he was using that as a excuse.

Who says getting RVP was going to bring the title in 2012-13? We had 4 very good strikers that time. Tevez, Balotelli, Aguero & Dzeko was the best strikeforce in the league still in 2012-13.


We have failed in CL and that is not due to FFP.