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

[Chippy_boy]

It doesn't surprise me that so many journalists fell in line with Financial Fair Play. They never look that closely at anything after all. They are just there to print endless stories bigging up the most popular clubs so that they can sell papers and get interest to sell advertising.

It does surprise me that the football industry outside of Man Utd, Liverpool, and Arsenal etc got caught up with enthusiasm for Financial Fair Play. The end result is that the net worth of clubs like Newcastle and Villa have plummeted. There used to be a rush of hot money towards Premiership football with a takeover every other month, now no one can buy or sell a Premiership football club unless they are really desperate to sell.

The only clubs that have a chance of breaking the top 4 are the London clubs like Spurs and West Ham who sitting on the London gold mine could generate a lot of income with big stadia and sponsorships. Given good management, both those clubs could break the top 4 and Arsenal and Utd had better be very careful. West Ham and Spurs are both going to be playing in front of 50,000 plus crowds soon.

Spot on. That last paragraph echoes what I was discussing with a Gooner on that Untold Arsenal site a while back. Unlike most of the muppets on there, he was quite a good poster but somewhat laughably tried to claim any club, with good management and a good youth policy, could come from nowhere and smash the cartel of elite clubs without having to spend big money from a rich benefactor. I explained that what he was saying was a total pipe dream for the majority of clubs and the only clubs that could realistically do such a thing were West Ham and Spurs and that was primarily down to London weighting, whereas similar sized clubs in other areas of the country had next to no chance of "organically" growing to the point where they could seriously challenge for the league, etc.

Match-day income is a much smaller element of income than it used to be, but I wouldn't be surprised if Spurs and West Ham make a big effort at gate-crashing the top 4. That's how it should be, but now it will be fraught with problems, but if any clubs are going to do it in the foreseeable future I think it will be them

Another factor is that clubs like Southampton have been able to buy a lot of good players reasonably cheaply whilst clubs like Arsenal, and Liverpool have gone backwards. It's easier to remain in the top 4 once you are in there as it's not a level playing field, but if a club like AC Milan can cock it up, then it can happen to anyone

And also, in the UK, the TV money is vast and is well distributed down the table, so for example last season - even before the big BT money kicks in - the top club got £97m but even coming 6th or 7th would still have got you over £90m!

By contrast, the 7th club in La Liga got €21m (£16m). La Liga prize money is lower still.

So if the UK clubs are fucked, the European clubs are even more fucked!

 

[Bluewonder]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Spot on. That last paragraph echoes what I was discussing with a Gooner on that Untold Arsenal site a while back. Unlike most of the muppets on there, he was quite a good poster but somewhat laughably tried to claim any club, with good management and a good youth policy, could come from nowhere and smash the cartel of elite clubs without having to spend big money from a rich benefactor. I explained that what he was saying was a total pipe dream for the majority of clubs and the only clubs that could realistically do such a thing were West Ham and Spurs and that was primarily down to London weighting, whereas similar sized clubs in other areas of the country had next to no chance of "organically" growing to the point where they could seriously challenge for the league, etc.

Match-day income is a much smaller element of income than it used to be, but I wouldn't be surprised if Spurs and West Ham make a big effort at gate-crashing the top 4. That's how it should be, but now it will be fraught with problems, but if any clubs are going to do it in the foreseeable future I think it will be them

Another factor is that clubs like Southampton have been able to buy a lot of good players reasonably cheaply whilst clubs like Arsenal, and Liverpool have gone backwards. It's easier to remain in the top 4 once you are in there as it's not a level playing field, but if a club like AC Milan can cock it up, then it can happen to anyone

And also, in the UK, the TV money is vast and is well distributed down the table, so for example last season - even before the big BT money kicks in - the top club got £97m but even coming 6th or 7th would still have got you over £90m!

By contrast, the 7th club in La Liga got €21m (£16m). La Liga prize money is lower still.

So if the UK clubs are fucked, the European clubs are even more fucked!

I thought the forthcoming BT deal covered just the CL?

If so that will simply widen the gap even further.

 

[windie]

Fuck AC Milan.

That succinctly sums things up.

 

[SilverFox2]

Is it true that ADUG are simply no longer interested in FFP ?

Are they just interested observers now that its impact has been shown to boomerang on many of its supporters ?

Their business plan was not derailed by FFP merely pinched a little. In fact whilst others are still concerned about unintentional effects of its rules and ways to change it to refine its effects MCFC in the capable hands of Mr K and his ADUG officers will continue to show them all what a red herring it is to the main business of using CFG to maximum financial effect.

Sure they would like to recover the cost of the pinch but when chess is being played a pawn or two may have to be sacrificed if only to let your opponent ignore your real strategy and think that he has the upper hand.

I think that being magnanimous in financial victory is much more sweet than insisting on the recovery of an unjust parking fine.

 

[AntonDonJuan]

As much as I'd like to see the FFFP rules totally scrapped, if it was to happen then it would leave a bitter taste. They were modified to stop us, and we have been the only ones who have been really punished. Now that it looks like it will affect some of the old guard they want the rules changed. It just doesn't sit right.
I want to see the clubs who lobbied for these rules suffer. Chelsea in particular have been massive fucking hypocrites.
My biggest gripe is the lasting and negative effect these rules will have on our club long after they cease to relevant to us.
We have been labelled as cheats, and everything we do is seen as a dodge around the FFP rules. It has left a stain on the club that will take a long time to erase.

Completely agree, it's a bunch of rules that was created for us and only us. We have some smart operators that are getting us around them and i want them to stay in place while we sail through and watch other clubs suffer instead

 

[Supersonic68]

Swiss Ramble has posted his analysis of the latest accounts:

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/manchester-city-roll-with-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... th-it.html</a>


.

 

[Centurions]

Swiss Ramble has posted his analysis of the latest accounts:

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/manchester-city-roll-with-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... th-it.html</a>


.

Couple of interesting bits in there:

There has been press speculation that the Etihad sponsorship deal will be extended for a further five years, bringing in an additional £320 million. Given that three years of the deal have already elapsed, that would imply an annual payment of £50 million going forward.

In addition, it is understood that City will sign a further five-year deal with three partners for a total of £80 million to sponsor their new training complex, including the splendid new 7,000 capacity stadium for reserve and academy matches.

There is room for improvement with City’s kit supplier deal with Nike, which is worth £12 million a season. Although this six-year deal, signed in 2013, doubled City’s revenue compared to the previous Umbro agreement, it is now well behind other clubs’ latest deals: United £75 million (Adidas), Arsenal £30 million (PUMA) and Liverpool £25 million (Warrior).

So another £26 million a year with the extended Etihad deal and the campus sponsorships?

They agreed with UEFA that they would “significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/15 and 2015/16”, including a €60 million limit (net) for the 2014 summer transfer window.

Does he believe we have no limit (besides keeping to the normal FFP limits) this winter window?

 

[abu13]

Swiss Ramble has posted his analysis of the latest accounts:

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/manchester-city-roll-with-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... th-it.html</a>


.

Very interesting read.

 

[aguero93:20]

Swiss Ramble has posted his analysis of the latest accounts:

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/manchester-city-roll-with-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... th-it.html</a>


.

Obviously not a proper analysis, completely lacking in venom, bitterness and unfounded accusations and conjecture. :)

 

[bluechampion7891]

Swiss Ramble has posted his analysis of the latest accounts:

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/manchester-city-roll-with-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... th-it.html</a>


.

Couple of interesting bits in there:

There has been press speculation that the Etihad sponsorship deal will be extended for a further five years, bringing in an additional £320 million. Given that three years of the deal have already elapsed, that would imply an annual payment of £50 million going forward.

In addition, it is understood that City will sign a further five-year deal with three partners for a total of £80 million to sponsor their new training complex, including the splendid new 7,000 capacity stadium for reserve and academy matches.

There is room for improvement with City’s kit supplier deal with Nike, which is worth £12 million a season. Although this six-year deal, signed in 2013, doubled City’s revenue compared to the previous Umbro agreement, it is now well behind other clubs’ latest deals: United £75 million (Adidas), Arsenal £30 million (PUMA) and Liverpool £25 million (Warrior).

So another £26 million a year with the extended Etihad deal and the campus sponsorships?

They agreed with UEFA that they would “significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/15 and 2015/16”, including a €60 million limit (net) for the 2014 summer transfer window.

Does he believe we have no limit (besides keeping to the normal FFP limits) this winter window?

not to sound disappointed, but that does seem to be quite a low figure. 16M per year for academy and an additional 10M for the etihad deal, compared to the increase in rags new deals, seems very less. additionally, the goal.com report was suggesting like 50M from academy sponsorship alone

however, the report does say that sales have not been accounted for, does that mean we actually have more leeway than the reported 12M?