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

[mancity dan]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Martin Samuel
MOURINHO IS IN NO POSITION TO SCOFF AT CITY

Manchester City’s next financial figures are believed to show a loss of just over £20m. There will no doubt be the usual criticism from their rivals, not least Chelsea, who recently announced an £18m profit. Now his club complies, Jose Mourinho has been very vocal on the subject of City breaking financial fair play rules.

The fact Chelsea’s numbers include the sales of Juan Mata and David Luiz, but not the purchases of Diego Costa and Cesc Fabregas, however, rather puts into perspective the vagaries of financial results. In the 10 years building up to this momentous day of significant profit, Chelsea lost £600m.

Maybe much-maligned City could have turned it around given a decade to spend as they wanted, too — particularly as they expect to be in the black just over a year from now, a more significant achievement considering their humble starting point.


Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2849379/Liverpool-s-mistake-not-thinking-like-big-club-Luis-Suarez-left.html#ixzz3K9Y7j4zj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... z3K9Y7j4zj</a>
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Perhaps as a result of the CL revenue being robbed by Uefa?

Crazy. I thought we would have broken even this year.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well, Samuel will probably be in the know being City's leak target of choice these days - but it's not what I call "Breaking even" as Soriano said in March. Even if it includes the €10m fine from UEFA and will result in City's spending limits continuing for another season.

 

[cibaman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well, Samuel will probably be in the know being City's leak target of choice these days - but it's not what I call "Breaking even" as Soriano said in March. Even if it includes the €10m fine from UEFA and will result in City's spending limits continuing for another season.

Doesnt it depend on the exemptions, infrastructure, youth development etc?

 

[moomba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Wasnt the fine money withheld from this years tournament (and potentially next)?

If we lose £20m I reckon we'll pass FFP break even easy with all the exemptions.

 

[Damocles]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well, Samuel will probably be in the know being City's leak target of choice these days - but it's not what I call "Breaking even" as Soriano said in March. Even if it includes the €10m fine from UEFA and will result in City's spending limits continuing for another season.

Soriano was quoted as saying that we would "be close to breaking even point this year". These accounts arent for this year

 

[petrusha]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here's the club's statement from May regarding the FFP sanctions. I took it from the City official site, here:

The emphasis is mine:

Club statement: 16 May

16 May 2014 20:04
Posted by @MCFC

MCFC Financial Fair Play Statement:

Manchester City Football Club can confirm that at the end of the current financial year (May 31st) it is on course to financially break even, as planned.

Operating with no debt, the Club is realising its football and commercial opportunities whilst continuing unprecedented investments in both youth development and the local community

From the outset, the Club has engaged with UEFA in its introduction of the Financial Fair Play Regulations in good faith and without prejudice and in a transparent and collaborative manner. The Club’s position is that it is beholden upon UEFA and the European football establishment to ensure the same.

The Club can confirm that it has been in discussions with UEFA over the last month - in relation to the application of Financial Fair Play regulations - as has been widely reported and communicated by UEFA. At the heart of those discussions is a fundamental disagreement between the Club’s and UEFA’s respective interpretations of the FFP regulations on players purchased before 2010. The Club believes it has complied with the FFP regulations on this and all other matters.

In normal circumstances, the Club would wish to pursue its case and present its position through every avenue of recourse. However, our decision to do so must be balanced against the practical realities for our fans, for our partners and in the interests of the commercial operations of the Club.

As a result of these considerations and the fact that the Club is now break even in in its operations, the Club has decided to enter into a compromise agreement with UEFA with the following practical outcomes:

- MCFC will lose 10m Euros of its share of income from UEFA for competing in the Champions League completion in season 2013-14.

- MCFC will lose 10m Euros of its share of income from UEFA for competing in the Champions League for season 2014-15

- Rather than having an accumulative allowance of 30m Euros of losses over the next two reporting years (like all other clubs), MCFC will have specific stipulated allowances for 2013-14 and 2014-15 of 20m Euros and 10m Euros respectively. Significantly, MCFC plans to be profitable in 2014-15 and in the years that follow.

- The MCFC Champions League squad for the 2014-15 competition will be limited to 21 players. In 2013-14 the club registered 23 players for the competition and used 21.

- The Club’s expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros. This will have no material impact on the Club’s planned transfer activity.

- The wage bill of the whole club (playing and non-playing staff) for 2014-15 will need to remain at the same level as that of 2013-14 season. It is important to note that additional bonuses for performances can be paid outside this number. Importantly, in reality, the existing MCFC business plan sees a natural decline in that wage bill.

- Given the unique nature of the new City Football Group structure – which incorporates MCFC, New York City, Melbourne Heart and a number of other companies, the Club has agreed to certain non-material terms in order to make FFP reporting as easy as possible for UEFA to discern.

The nature of conditions that will result in the lifting of sanctions means that the Club expects to be operating without sanction or restriction at the commencement of the 2015-16 season.

Importantly all non-financial sanctions agreed to would have been complied with as a natural course of the Club’s planned business operations.

So an official club statement issued during (albeit very close to the end of) the financial year 2013/4 said that MCFC was "on course to financially break even, as planned" at the end of that financial year.

As far as the figures for the financial year 2013/4 are concerned, we have what the state ment calls a specific stipulated allowance for 2013-14 of 20m Euros. In any case, we lose 10m Euros from our CL revenues for season 2013/4. However, didn't UEFA say that we'd be allowed to count those revenues for FFP purposes? If so, then a GBP 20 million headline loss with EUR 10 million added back in for FFP should take us under the allowable loss figure, shouldn't it, and thus take the restrictions off the table as of summer 2015.

I may try and check that point about counting the withheld CL revenues for FFP purposes. However, I'm a bit busy right now and don't have time to dig for it.

 

[john@staustell]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If it's any help the Deloitte revenue league came out in mid-Jan and our official figures at the end of Jan last time.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well, Samuel will probably be in the know being City's leak target of choice these days - but it's not what I call "Breaking even" as Soriano said in March. Even if it includes the €10m fine from UEFA and will result in City's spending limits continuing for another season.

Soriano was quoted as saying that we would "be close to breaking even point this year". These accounts arent for this year

He said that we would break even for the 2013-14 season.

However, we may well have done so depending on the treatment of the UEFA CL income/ fines

And I'm pretty sure that as part of the settlement agreement, City and UEFA agreed that a loss of 20m Euros on heir breakeven terms would be acceptable. Clear as mud as per usual!

 

[Damocles]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well, Samuel will probably be in the know being City's leak target of choice these days - but it's not what I call "Breaking even" as Soriano said in March. Even if it includes the €10m fine from UEFA and will result in City's spending limits continuing for another season.

Soriano was quoted as saying that we would "be close to breaking even point this year". These accounts arent for this year

He said that we would break even for the 2013-14 season.

However, we may well have done so depending on the treatment of the UEFA CL income/ fines

And I'm pretty sure that as part of the settlement agreement, City and UEFA agreed that a loss of 20m Euros on heir breakeven terms would be acceptable. Clear as mud as per usual!

We're both a bit right and a bit wrong here!

He said it in Feb '14 which as you point out was last year and he said "this season".

However, he did say "we're working towards breaking even" rather than "we're going to break even"

<a class="postlink" href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/11/uk-soccer-england-city-finance-idUKBREA1A18220140211" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/1 ... 8220140211</a>

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

How does it work if we make a loss around the same amount as the prize money uefa have witheld