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

[Dribble]

In terms of what we can and can't actually spend, I don't think it's to our advantage to reveal our hand either way as any buying club would definitely seek to maximise our reported budget. If we approach all our business on the premise of 'This is our fair valuation of the player and what we can afford in wages after our FFP sanction, so I'm afraid you'll have to take it or we move on to other targets.'

IMO it plays right into our hands as other clubs know we have a sanction and will be less likely to apply the Manchester City levy against us as they used to. We've already started to refuse to pay ridiculously high fees and accept ridiculously low fees when buying or selling players and this could further underpin our stance that we're no longer willing to take one up the financial shitter in terms of transfers.

 

[fbloke]

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.

So effectively we can again spend what we like in terms of the fee for a player.

Here's what the UEFA statement said about the transfer budget restriction:

Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
Manchester City further accepts a calculated limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by this agreement.

I read that as we have a restriction on each registration period (summer and winter) whereas the City statement only mentioned a net €60m in the summer. So the implication is that we have some restriction in place for the January window, which could be part of that €60m, another €60m or a different figure altogether. So, for example, UEFA could have said a net €60m in the summer and €40m in January, possibly with anything we didn't spend in summer carried over. Or it could be that we can only spend what we didn't spend in the summer.

So I'm not as confident as you that there is no restriction in place in January.

I find it interesting that the UEFA language is not about whether City have a profit to spend or not.

Its specifically wooly and I think for good reason. City only accepted censure on the understanding that it would not impact beyond the period during which City were in a loss making position.

Other parts of UEFA's punishment around tier 2 sponsorships etc is similarly about not pushing the limits of FFP with clever tactics, something it could easily be argued only happened to fulfil the FFP rules for the one monitoring period we were bound to fail.

Again City conceded come ground for historical misdemeanours but made sure that the limitation would be less problematic for the club moving forwards.

I suspect that the January transfer window was always intended to be a quiet one for incoming players but the injury to Aguero has highlighted the need that would have been answered, ideally in Summer.

Taking on board what Khaldoon has said, how City framed their response at the time and the financial landscape the club now finds itself in I dont expect City to limit anything in Summer.

Also the number of fringe players that are being moved on is significant because iirc each of them had been moved to the first team squad which had the effect of bloating the wage bill. Selling players like Huws and Guidetti then has a double benefit of releasing room for wages and also generating cash for signings.

 

[SilverFox2]

In the light of the deceitful events last year by UEFA I think it it is extremely unlikely that ADUG will have uncertainty regarding the current accounts and particularly how they will be assessed by UEFA.

 

[Paul_Powers_Tash]

S04 Russia is wholly reliant on imports they only export oil.

The oil squeeze is seriously killing their economy.

The U.A.E, Saudi Arabia, The USA. A very clever plan to bring Russia to heel.

Seemingly to also apply the pressure on Iran/Syria, who have always had Russian support?

Let's see how much left that fucker Abramovich has managed to salt away before Putin decides to sacrifice his ally.

Shows you how much Sheikh Mansour and his like are really worth, willing to take a pinch of such magnitude in the short term.

From what I hear it's strictly a USA,/Saudi joint venture; effectively a declaration of economic war on Russia. Iran and Syria don't factor into the equation either, they've got ISIS taking care of that.

The UAE are not part of the plan although linked as one of the twelve members of OPEC.

 

[BillyShears]

So I'm not as confident as you that there is no restriction in place in January.

I'm actually more confident having seen the wording from UEFA. It's clear that they were desperate to not divulge the scope of the sanctions - as we saw with the homegrown player registration situation - it took ages for UEFA to clarify it because it was effectively a cop out. A real sanction would've been a squad limitation with the homegrown requirement remaining in place at the number of players it would normally be. They pro rata'ed it down then took ages to cop to it because they knew how it'd look.

I suspect the same is true in this case. For City's part they are happy to make bland statements about still being under sanction from UEFA. For UEFA's part they aren't going to come out and say "yes we limited their spend in the summer but they are now free to spend what they like".

The key in all of this for me is the wage bill. It's that which has put us in a position of strength. By slowly shaving millions off it over the last few years we've ended up in a position where in fact we could probably add as I said earlier 150/200k a week to the wage bill in January and as long as Nastasic gets fucked off we would be at the same level as last summer.

None of this means that City are going to go out and make a marquee signing in January, because lets face it, getting marquee players in January is nigh on impossible. However I saw something in Pellegrini's tone and manner in recent weeks and he repeated the same statement in two separate press conferences "yes if our rivals can buy players then so can we, even in January".

 

[George Hannah]

So I'm not as confident as you that there is no restriction in place in January.

I'm actually more confident having seen the wording from UEFA. It's clear that they were desperate to not divulge the scope of the sanctions - as we saw with the homegrown player registration situation - it took ages for UEFA to clarify it because it was effectively a cop out. A real sanction would've been a squad limitation with the homegrown requirement remaining in place at the number of players it would normally be. They pro rata'ed it down then took ages to cop to it because they knew how it'd look.

I suspect the same is true in this case. For City's part they are happy to make bland statements about still being under sanction from UEFA. For UEFA's part they aren't going to come out and say "yes we limited their spend in the summer but they are now free to spend what they like".

The key in all of this for me is the wage bill. It's that which has put us in a position of strength. By slowly shaving millions off it over the last few years we've ended up in a position where in fact we could probably add as I said earlier 150/200k a week to the wage bill in January and as long as Nastasic gets fucked off we would be at the same level as last summer.

None of this means that City are going to go out and make a marquee signing in January, because lets face it, getting marquee players in January is nigh on impossible. However I saw something in Pellegrini's tone and manner in recent weeks and he repeated the same statement in two separate press conferences "yes if our rivals can buy players then so can we, even in January".

it's just hard to imagine who we'd want

 

[BillyShears]

So I'm not as confident as you that there is no restriction in place in January.

I'm actually more confident having seen the wording from UEFA. It's clear that they were desperate to not divulge the scope of the sanctions - as we saw with the homegrown player registration situation - it took ages for UEFA to clarify it because it was effectively a cop out. A real sanction would've been a squad limitation with the homegrown requirement remaining in place at the number of players it would normally be. They pro rata'ed it down then took ages to cop to it because they knew how it'd look.

I suspect the same is true in this case. For City's part they are happy to make bland statements about still being under sanction from UEFA. For UEFA's part they aren't going to come out and say "yes we limited their spend in the summer but they are now free to spend what they like".

The key in all of this for me is the wage bill. It's that which has put us in a position of strength. By slowly shaving millions off it over the last few years we've ended up in a position where in fact we could probably add as I said earlier 150/200k a week to the wage bill in January and as long as Nastasic gets fucked off we would be at the same level as last summer.

None of this means that City are going to go out and make a marquee signing in January, because lets face it, getting marquee players in January is nigh on impossible. However I saw something in Pellegrini's tone and manner in recent weeks and he repeated the same statement in two separate press conferences "yes if our rivals can buy players then so can we, even in January".

it's just hard to imagine who we'd want

As I've said in the TF the only player who is viable is Barkley. He's eligible to play in the CL for us because he's English and because he has only played in the EUROPA league for Everton. If we believe the stories which have been around since the start of last summer he's clearly a big target of ours.

That's the thing - for me the spend isn't about signing a forward because Dzeko/Jovetic/Kun will all be back early Jan. It's about the Lampard/Toure situation. Even if we can keep Lampard until Toure comes back from the AFCON, it still leaves the business end of the season with one less major option in midfield, which is far from ideal. When you factor in the impact Frank has had it's pretty clear that he WILL be missed. Imagine going into the CL quarters, FA cup quarters, plus league games, with only Toure/Dinho/Nando as options.

My gut tells me we're going to sign another midfield player.

 

[George Hannah]

I'm actually more confident having seen the wording from UEFA. It's clear that they were desperate to not divulge the scope of the sanctions - as we saw with the homegrown player registration situation - it took ages for UEFA to clarify it because it was effectively a cop out. A real sanction would've been a squad limitation with the homegrown requirement remaining in place at the number of players it would normally be. They pro rata'ed it down then took ages to cop to it because they knew how it'd look.

I suspect the same is true in this case. For City's part they are happy to make bland statements about still being under sanction from UEFA. For UEFA's part they aren't going to come out and say "yes we limited their spend in the summer but they are now free to spend what they like".

The key in all of this for me is the wage bill. It's that which has put us in a position of strength. By slowly shaving millions off it over the last few years we've ended up in a position where in fact we could probably add as I said earlier 150/200k a week to the wage bill in January and as long as Nastasic gets fucked off we would be at the same level as last summer.

None of this means that City are going to go out and make a marquee signing in January, because lets face it, getting marquee players in January is nigh on impossible. However I saw something in Pellegrini's tone and manner in recent weeks and he repeated the same statement in two separate press conferences "yes if our rivals can buy players then so can we, even in January".

it's just hard to imagine who we'd want

As I've said in the TF the only player who is viable is Barkley. He's eligible to play in the CL for us because he's English and because he has only played in the EUROPA league for Everton. If we believe the stories which have been around since the start of last summer he's clearly a big target of ours.

That's the thing - for me the spend isn't about signing a forward because Dzeko/Jovetic/Kun will all be back early Jan. It's about the Lampard/Toure situation. Even if we can keep Lampard until Toure comes back from the AFCON, it still leaves the business end of the season with one less major option in midfield, which is far from ideal. When you factor in the impact Frank has had it's pretty clear that he WILL be missed. Imagine going into the CL quarters, FA cup quarters, plus league games, with only Toure/Dinho/Nando as options.

My gut tells me we're going to sign another midfield player.

yes, but there is no room in the CL squad for him unless he replaces Lampard and Manuel is saying we have options to replace Negredo in January

 

[coleridge]

From what I hear it's strictly a USA,/Saudi joint venture; effectively a declaration of economic war on Russia. Iran and Syria don't factor into the equation either, they've got ISIS taking care of that.

The UAE are not part of the plan although linked as one of the twelve members of OPEC.

Saudi are the big players in the Gulf, of course. The UAE, grudgingly, goes along with them, Saudi sent tanks in to Bahrain to sort out the Shi-ite uprising. UAE and Qatar had to send tanks in support. That's how it goes.

Yes, Daesh/IS are proving strangely useful for the US/Sunni cause, despicable as they are.

As someone else said, the current and future cash reserves of top GCC states like UAE is immense. So, no worries on that front. However, CFG will be wealthy enough [in footballing terms] in the not too distant future.

Which brings us back to FFP. I think that they'll be a decent spend next summer but nothing crazy. There's no need any more.

 

[BillyShears]

yes, but there is no room in the CL squad for him unless he replaces Lampard and Manuel is saying we have options to replace Negredo in January

Is that right? I thought we could register another English player without it effecting the squad. In any case my understanding is that Lampard even if his stay is extended, won't be extended beyond Toure's return from the AFCON. In which case he won't be available for the CL knock out rounds anyway.

In terms of options to replace Negredo, I see Barkley equally as that player as much as a midfield player. He can easily play the role which Jovetic/Nasri/Silva have played as a support striker.

I said when we let Negredo go, replacing him with another out and out forward like Falcao would be a mistake.