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

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I know we should be fair and think of the poor members of say the Belgian League but because this thread is actually called 'City and FFP' may I be selfish and ask how the possible results of the FFP Court case will affect City's future business plans ?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

UEFA may claim that FFP allows investment but we're talking about a maximum of €40m over three years going down to €25m over three years from next year. That's €8m a year or one top class player's wages. That's not encouraging competition; it's stifling it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I know we should be fair and think of the poor members of say the Belgian League but because this thread is actually called 'City and FFP' may I be selfish and ask how the possible results of the FFP Court case will affect City's future business plans ?

As it stands, the rules are having a marginal impact at present, which will fade to minimal or no impact over the next few seasons. The only minor restriction might be if Messi came on the market and we really wanted to fork out £120m for him. We'd likely struggle with that under the current restrictions. But other than that, we are motoring off into the distance with open road ahead and the minor FFP speed bumps already in the rear view. As it stands.

If the FFP legal challenge fails, nothing changes and all is good. Opposed though we are in principle to the rules, they actually benefit us in that they restrict the spending of less well off clubs and we have likely the best academy in the world soon to be deilvering results.

The big question is what's Platini, Gill, Rummenigge et al's next move? What new obstacles might they dream up to try and hurt us? To be honest, I think there's little worry on this front too. The problem - for them, not us - is that whatever they come up with has to be credible and not an obvious anti-City move without justification. That's the first problem. The second is that new rules would have to not hurt their own clubs more than it hurt us. This is going to be very difficult for them to pull off. Without having a special "East Manchester" tax or something else overtly bent, I don't think there's anything they can do.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Imagine two firms:

Club A has 100 quid to start with and can invest 10% a year, and it's VERY well run so their owner gets the max from his 10%.

Club B has 500 quid to start with and can also invest 10% a year, only this owner is not very good and actually only gets 5% back on his 10% investment.


Over 10 years:

Club A Club B
100 500
110 525
121 551
133 578
146 607
161 638
177 670
194 703
214 738
235 775
259 814

Club A is worth 159 more
Club B is worth 314 more (not forgetting they were HALF as effective with their investment)

And this is going to help even things up how?
If anything, there's an argument to make investment INVERSELY proportional to revenue.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I know we should be fair and think of the poor members of say the Belgian League but because this thread is actually called 'City and FFP' may I be selfish and ask how the possible results of the FFP Court case will affect City's future business plans ?

As it stands, the rules are having a marginal impact at present, which will fade to minimal or no impact over the next few seasons. The only minor restriction might be if Messi came on the market and we really wanted to fork out £120m for him. We'd likely struggle with that under the current restrictions. But other than that, we are motoring off into the distance with open road ahead and the minor FFP speed bumps already in the rear view. As it stands.

If the FFP legal challenge fails, nothing changes and all is good. Opposed though we are in principle to the rules, they actually benefit us in that they restrict the spending of less well off clubs and we have likely the best academy in the world soon to be deilvering results.

The big question is what's Platini, Gill, Rummenigge et al's next move? What new obstacles might they dream up to try and hurt us? To be honest, I think there's little worry on this front too. The problem - for them, not us - is that whatever they come up with has to be credible and not an obvious anti-City move without justification. That's the first problem. The second is that new rules would have to not hurt their own clubs more than it hurt us. This is going to be very difficult for them to pull off. Without having a special "East Manchester" tax or something else overtly bent, I don't think there's anything they can do.

Many thanks for your take on my question Chippy_boy.

What happens if the legal challenge succeeds ie regarding City future plans ?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Of all the people in football for Platini to reach for as an endorsement/ instigator of FFP, Berlusconi seems to my mind, to be the most bizarre.
Isn't he a busted flush, politically, these days? Certainly, his international reputation is in tatters after the bunga bunga revelations (for starters).
The question is why did Platini quote Berlusconi and not say, Rumminege, Gill or Dein, whose international standing is still good (rightly or wrongly)?
Freudian slip, serious boob or subtle attempt to prepare an ecaspe hatch (I was only following orders, yer honour)?
My money is on the latter.

(Apologies for the gammy name spelling, by the way).

Barm.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I know we should be fair and think of the poor members of say the Belgian League but because this thread is actually called 'City and FFP' may I be selfish and ask how the possible results of the FFP Court case will affect City's future business plans ?

As it stands, the rules are having a marginal impact at present, which will fade to minimal or no impact over the next few seasons. The only minor restriction might be if Messi came on the market and we really wanted to fork out £120m for him. We'd likely struggle with that under the current restrictions. But other than that, we are motoring off into the distance with open road ahead and the minor FFP speed bumps already in the rear view. As it stands.

If the FFP legal challenge fails, nothing changes and all is good. Opposed though we are in principle to the rules, they actually benefit us in that they restrict the spending of less well off clubs and we have likely the best academy in the world soon to be deilvering results.

The big question is what's Platini, Gill, Rummenigge et al's next move? What new obstacles might they dream up to try and hurt us? To be honest, I think there's little worry on this front too. The problem - for them, not us - is that whatever they come up with has to be credible and not an obvious anti-City move without justification. That's the first problem. The second is that new rules would have to not hurt their own clubs more than it hurt us. This is going to be very difficult for them to pull off. Without having a special "East Manchester" tax or something else overtly bent, I don't think there's anything they can do.

Many thanks for your take on my question Chippy_boy.

What happens if the legal challenge succeeds ie regarding City future plans ?

Who knows mate. But "not much" would probably not be a bad guess. If FFP is thrown out, we are free to spend as we like, but the reality is we always planned on balancing the books in the medium term anyway, so it's not like we would think great the brakes are off let's go throwing money around. It might help us a bit in that we wouldn't have to worry about short term lumps in expenditure should a very expensive player or two become available.

A minor and in the scheme of things, pretty inconsequential consideration would be, do we get our fines back, and do we sue UEFA for damages. I very very very much doubt that we would. 3 very's.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

As it stands, the rules are having a marginal impact at present, which will fade to minimal or no impact over the next few seasons. The only minor restriction might be if Messi came on the market and we really wanted to fork out £120m for him. We'd likely struggle with that under the current restrictions. But other than that, we are motoring off into the distance with open road ahead and the minor FFP speed bumps already in the rear view. As it stands.

If the FFP legal challenge fails, nothing changes and all is good. Opposed though we are in principle to the rules, they actually benefit us in that they restrict the spending of less well off clubs and we have likely the best academy in the world soon to be deilvering results.

The big question is what's Platini, Gill, Rummenigge et al's next move? What new obstacles might they dream up to try and hurt us? To be honest, I think there's little worry on this front too. The problem - for them, not us - is that whatever they come up with has to be credible and not an obvious anti-City move without justification. That's the first problem. The second is that new rules would have to not hurt their own clubs more than it hurt us. This is going to be very difficult for them to pull off. Without having a special "East Manchester" tax or something else overtly bent, I don't think there's anything they can do.

Many thanks for your take on my question Chippy_boy.

What happens if the legal challenge succeeds ie regarding City future plans ?

Who knows mate. But "not much" would probably not be a bad guess. If FFP is thrown out, we are free to spend as we like, but the reality is we always planned on balancing the books in the medium term anyway, so it's not like we would think great the brakes are off let's go throwing money around. It might help us a bit in that we wouldn't have to worry about short term lumps in expenditure should a very expensive player or two become available.

A minor and in the scheme of things, pretty inconsequential consideration would be, do we get our fines back, and do we sue UEFA for damages. I very very very much doubt that we would. 3 very's.

Thanks once again.

I think what you say is sensible, after all ADUG are an investment company and will want to make profits rather than keep spending on players and their wages.
Perhaps the pinch has coincided with the natural pause in investment that any business plan is expected to have.

Maybe ADUG do not anticipate much more heavy investment with City and see the next stage with the other members of CFG to continue globalisation.

 

[nijinsky]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think it fair to remind Mr Platini of the experience of Real Madrid. The "greatest club in the world" did not win the European cup at all between 1966 and 1998. The won it again in that year and twice more in 2000 and 2002, but that was that until 2014.

In 2000 Real sold their old training ground in the centre of Madrid for the amazing sum of €480 million because the land had been reclassified and could now be used to build office blocks on.
[Yes, they sold off land that was RENTED from the council but which was re classified and then sold off in cahoots with said very obliging council allegedly]
This sum was actually more than 3.5 times Real's annual revenue, and represented an enormous injection of cash from outside football ie it was an astronomical sum from outside which was available for investment. The decision was taken to pay off the debt, build a new training facility but also to spend most of it on players - Figo, Zidane, Ronaldo, Beckham and Owen over the coming years. This was the policy of the galacticos and it is important to acknowledge that in Platini's eyes they were players Real could not afford and should not have been allowed to buy.

Now, many point out that the galacticos strategy (which Real have not abandoned since) was a failure.

In football terms that may be true - Real took 12 years to win la decima, so they may have only managed to buy mercenaries with a sugar daddy's money, but what no-one can question is the business success of the strategy. The policy of heavy investment paid off handsomely. Real did not become a Leeds or a Portsmouth. Throughout the 1990s the richest club in the world (ie the one with the biggest income) was Manchester United) with Real lagging some way behind. Two years after the beginning of the policy of heavy investment in players in 2000, Real had overtaken United and have had a bigger income by far than any other club - now well over €100 million a year bigger than United's!
[but RM are not spending big on the team only. When Perez won back the presidency it all started again only this time they WANT to pay huge fees. The amount they spend is irrelevant as long as it more than anyone else. The bigger the fee the more the aura around the brand. It's partly for the footballer but mostly for shock and awe marketing to keep the hordes that consume anything and everything form this particular circus slack jawed at their massiveness. And it has worked (so far) if you see the constant stream of people who traipse through the stadium EVERY DAY, never mind the pot noodle partners. Ronaldo, Bale, James were cheap all things considered]
Now, Real's approach was exactly the one City have followed. Heavy initial investment is the only way yet known to grow an enterprise quickly, even if the capital for the initial investment has to be borrowed. Indeed the only difference between City and Real is thar Real is heavily in debt because of subsequent borrowing. When asked about this Platini described Real's debt as"just another item on the balance sheet" which was no problem because they could easily make the interest payments. He also thought he was being perfectly fair giving City 4 years to reach break even point. From now on he doesn't intend to give any club the chance.

It's not the only thing that has resumed since Perez returned either. The building work that the .. ahem Building Magnet started should have been nearly finished now. Once they'd got the council to re-classify the council's prime forecourt on the prestigious thoroughfare passing right by the stadium in exchange for the small corner RM owned on the worthless side they should have cracked on with the hote... stadium.
Only it stalled as amongst other things the economic crisis has given voice to an otherwise passive opposition which means they may even considering moving out of the Bernabeu altogether. Now with the rising associated costs even RM could do with a hand building a new stadium right? And this is where the erstwhile stinking petrodollars from Abu Dhabi come in for naming rights. Oh, the beautiful irony!
And finally to get a measure of the current regime let's not forget the new rule Perez passed on re-election which now require any challenger to his presidency must have been a club member for more than twenty years - irrespective of how deep their pockets may be. And the members voted for it!
I bet it's Platini in shock and awe at these cheeky scamps.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Manchester City are really only the vehicle to showcase the ability of Abu Dhabi to represent and deliver commercial success. It could just have easily been dominance in Formula One for instance, but of course football is particularly popular and arguably better suited to rapid investment with almost immediate results (or so the theory goes).

I would expect our owners don't want to be seen as continuously throwing money at 'the problem' in order to gain success. I believe they accept it will be an accusation in the early years, but given time, and clearly visible improvements (like the infrastructure we're building), people will soon overlook the initial spending sprees. In time, people will (hopefully) interpret it as genuine investment that paid off, rather than Abramovich's image which is that he's propping up Chelsea.

With that in mind, I think the owners do want us to be a genuinely profitable business and operate well within any FFP rules. Our objection (as I see it) is we're hindered in our attempts to get to that position.

Despite all that, no matter how well run we eventually become, or how 'efficient' or 'profitable' a business we are, we will still be judged by our on field success, which ironically is the one aspect of the 'business' that's not very business like. There's no spreadsheet for winning football games, or mitigation for a dodgy penalty.

Imagine building a wonderful Manchester City brand (much like the Apple brand). Everything is right, all the business is logical and sustainable, all the marketing is in place, but there's just one catch.... your product design is partly based on the roll of the dice.

If Manchester City the team aren't successful, all the hard work behind the scenes will be overlooked. The image will be of a failed project. It must be very frustrating for the owners that a relatively minimal but hugely influential aspect of the business lies in part, to chance, and in part a clique called UEFA.
The whole brand rests on 11 players kicking a ball.

That academy we've built? it's beautiful, spectacular, impressive... but will only be deemed great business if we succeed domestically, and more importantly in CL.