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

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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. :)

He is one respectful motherfucker.

 

[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?

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?

Err, £80 million trumps £50 million where I come from. Or am I misreading your post?

 

[bluechampion7891]

Couple of interesting bits in there:



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



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?

Err, £80 million trumps £50 million where I come from. Or am I misreading your post?

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.

it says 80M over 5 years?

edit: if its 80M per year, then the rags can kiss good bye

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

http://www.goal.com/en/news/745/fifa/2014/12/29/7472922/financial-fair-play-prevents-new-investment-in-football-ac-milan-?ICID=HP_TS_4


so one of the instigators of FFP bitten by it. if only the rags and the german rags turn up like this in the end

What a total hypocrite. I hope they succumb to a lengthy period of absolute mediocrity.

'...believes the FFP rules prevent new investment in football' eh?

Must have a degree in the bleedin obvious.

Comical.

Obviously Milan (and many others) have got money lined up but the investors have told them to go and take a run and jump whilst they aren't allowed to invest meaningful amounts.

Could Berlusconi be thinking of selling up.
You do get the impression that there is a shift in attitude in Europe. Not just Italy.
I certainly don't think that It's because City have found friends and influence there. I think maybe, in light of their failure to protect what they thought they could keep forever, they have looked at City's business model and seen that despite their best underhanded efforts, they will not be able to compete with us.
I think some of the old guard are looking at us and "ping", the penny has dropped and the light bulb has come on and they are think..."f^ck that, we're going to get left behind". I think they are hastily trying to put a new strategy together, whereas The Sheik already has his 10 year plan in place and working quite nicely, despite their best efforts.

 

[stony]

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>


.

The bit which is worrying me slightly is this.

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.

Although there is no figure on what this "significant" figure for 2015/16 is. It could end up being the stick to beat us with.

Up until 2011/12, the club spent £415 million, averaging £83 million a season, but this has reduced to £128 million in the last three seasons, halving the average annual spend to £43 million.

So even in the days of our heaviest spending, we only averaged £83M a season and in the last three it was £43M per season, and we have agreed to "significantly reduce" this figure.

That sounds to me as though they have left things open to their own interpretation so they can fuck us over again.

 

[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>


.

The bit which is worrying me slightly is this.

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.

Although there is no figure on what this "significant" figure for 2015/16 is. It could end up being the stick to beat us with.

Up until 2011/12, the club spent £415 million, averaging £83 million a season, but this has reduced to £128 million in the last three seasons, halving the average annual spend to £43 million.

So even in the days of our heaviest spending, we only averaged £83M a season and in the last three it was £43M per season, and we have agreed to "significantly reduce" this figure.

That sounds to me as though they have left things open to their own interpretation so they can fuck us over again.

The original UEFA PDF seems to have dissappeared but are the 2015/16 sanctions not ignored as long as we comply meanwhile?

 

[stony]

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>


.

The bit which is worrying me slightly is this.

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.

Although there is no figure on what this "significant" figure for 2015/16 is. It could end up being the stick to beat us with.

Up until 2011/12, the club spent £415 million, averaging £83 million a season, but this has reduced to £128 million in the last three seasons, halving the average annual spend to £43 million.

So even in the days of our heaviest spending, we only averaged £83M a season and in the last three it was £43M per season, and we have agreed to "significantly reduce" this figure.

That sounds to me as though they have left things open to their own interpretation so they can fuck us over again.

The original UEFA PDF seems to have dissappeared but are the 2015/16 sanctions not ignored as long as we comply meanwhile?

That's not what that says. It would be nice if someone could clear it up.

 

[Centurions]

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?

Err, £80 million trumps £50 million where I come from. Or am I misreading your post?

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.

it says 80M over 5 years?

edit: if its 80M per year, then the rags can kiss good bye

Ahh, I didn't realise you were talking £50 million a year ;) , I can't see that being correct. Where did that quote come from by the way?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The bit which is worrying me slightly is this.



Although there is no figure on what this "significant" figure for 2015/16 is. It could end up being the stick to beat us with.

So even in the days of our heaviest spending, we only averaged £83M a season and in the last three it was £43M per season, and we have agreed to "significantly reduce" this figure.

That sounds to me as though they have left things open to their own interpretation so they can fuck us over again.

The original UEFA PDF seems to have dissappeared but are the 2015/16 sanctions not ignored as long as we comply meanwhile?

That's not what that says. It would be nice if someone could clear it up.

It does seem to have disappeared but I read it that some sanctions would be removed as long as we met the 2013/14 target,which we have. Those seemed to be the CL squad restriction and the wage bill one. However my impression was that the transfer spending restriction might be for two seasons, regardless of what happened in the last financial year. But the phrasing was so obtuse that I can't be sure.

 

[stony]

The original UEFA PDF seems to have dissappeared but are the 2015/16 sanctions not ignored as long as we comply meanwhile?

That's not what that says. It would be nice if someone could clear it up.

It does seem to have disappeared but I read it that some sanctions would be removed as long as we met the 2013/14 target,which we have. Those seemed to be the CL squad restriction and the wage bill one. However my impression was that the transfer spending restriction might be for two seasons, regardless of what happened in the last financial year. But the phrasing was so obtuse that I can't be sure.

If the transfer spending restriction is for two years and they use our last few years spending to judge things on. Then we could be looking at a lower figure to spend than the £50M we had last summer.
I really want to see the actual UEFA PDF now to clear this up. I wouldn't trust those fucking snakes in UEFA as far as I could throw them.