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

[HelloCity]

So lets clear this up once and for all ..IF we need or IF we wanted to spend ( lets joke here) 70 or 100 million on a player to help us with the EPL . we can do ...........and uefa/ FFP can do NothinG about it!

Well we dont need to worry !then.


See NYC will buy snider hehe.. they may lend him to us... hahaha if Frank has an injury

We can't increase our overall wages bill until next season at the earliest.

The other clause in the Settlement Agreement that should not be overlooked is "Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016."

I know this would seem at odds with our statement saying we expect to be operating without restriction in the 2015/16 season, but one interpretation of that might be that we were not planning on spending big anyway and therefore we are not being restricted in practice.

This is the one concern that I have, it's in there as a statement. There must be some agreement in place but nobody seems to know what.
obviously the club know and will be planning for it but I suspect we wont be able to go throwing money at the top targets next year either.

From the official statement released by the club:

"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."

Seems like the 'conditions' were that if we passed this year than the sanctions would be lifted for next season.

 

[Chippy_boy]

We can't increase our overall wages bill until next season at the earliest.

The other clause in the Settlement Agreement that should not be overlooked is "Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016."

I know this would seem at odds with our statement saying we expect to be operating without restriction in the 2015/16 season, but one interpretation of that might be that we were not planning on spending big anyway and therefore we are not being restricted in practice.

This is the one concern that I have, it's in there as a statement. There must be some agreement in place but nobody seems to know what.
obviously the club know and will be planning for it but I suspect we wont be able to go throwing money at the top targets next year either.

From the official statement released by the club:

"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."

Seems like the 'conditions' were that if we passed this year than the sanctions would be lifted for next season.

We've had this debate before.

Yes, the club statement would imply that. But the UEFA statement says the exact opposite. A number of the sanctions are lifted in the second year if we meet certain targets, but - according to UEFA - this is specifically not the case with the transfer spending cap. So it sould seem one of them is wrong - and who knows which - but to just choose the City version would seem somewhat arbitrary.

Or as I said above, a 3rd plausible explanation is that they are both correct and perhaps what the club means is that we weren't planning on spending much anyway and therefore we are unaffected?

None of the three possibilities above are obviously correct IMHO, and it's difficult to know exactly what the truth is. The clubs' statement and the UEFA statement are both quite clear but say contradictory things.

 

[GSW Blue]

Any trophy won by other teams whilst we continue to work under these restrictions is tainted as far as I'm concerned and should have an asterisk against it in the record books with the comment "won whilst City were playing with restrictions".

 

[BlueRockape]

No Messi then ? :(

 

[Marvin]

Remember the Negredo deal should go through in the Summer. That was around £30m. Solves the problem

 

[Newman Noggs]

Any trophy won by other teams whilst we continue to work under these restrictions is tainted as far as I'm concerned and should have an asterisk against it in the record books with the comment "won whilst City were playing with restrictions".

Absolutely. I have been saying this to my colleagues at work all season though they pointed out that there is no longer a Rothman's Yearbook which is where I suggested the asterisk should appear. I would, however, change the word "City" to "the reigning Champions".

 

[EalingBlue2]

To be honest though the reality is we could sign messi on a one year loan for a 40m fee with an obligatory buy out a year later for 100m - having a limit of 50m doesn't necesarrily restrict U.S. much before. Also what if city are profitable and said they would break the agreement and take it to arbitration .... I think we are in the clear and know it and I suspect Uefa irrelevant to whether we sign messi only he will decide if he moves in and to whom.

 

[unexpected item]

Is "significantly less" defined anywhere? 75% less than say 12/13 spending say? Or is it open to the interpretation of our judge and jury on FFP matters, UEFA's very own David Gill?

 

[Marvin]

Is "significantly less" defined anywhere? 75% less than say 12/13 spending say? Or is it open to the interpretation of our judge and jury on FFP matters, UEFA's very own David Gill?

If the Negredo money materialises we could buy a £60m player and still spend significantly less than we were. No issue

 

[PrestwichPeteMcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Quick question, apologies if it's already been answered:

Are transfer fees amortised only over the length of the initial contract, or is the annual amortisation adjusted (reduced) when a contract is extended?