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

[meltonblue]

This coming summer window is still up in the air for me as there is a difference between the Uefa statement on it (saying we have agreed to limit it) and our own, which didn't even mention it. The limit is based on certain criteria being met though as stated above, so part of me thinks perhaps the club didn't mention it as they expect to meet the criteria and so have any restrictions lifted.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

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

An extra 80m per year of income? Hello Lionel.

 

[pardoeofftomexico]

When are the courts expected to give their judgement on M. Dupont's case?

I wouldn't hold your breath. The article for the link below provides a bit of a general update about the EU's acceptance of UEFA's aims.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014/october/does-eu-agreement-with-uefa-send-out-mixed-message-on-competition-law-scrutiny-in-football-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014 ... football-/</a>

 

[SilverFox2]

Like Stony I would not trust UEFA at any stage.

ADUG have very good reasons to feel exactly the same about them so I would be very surprised if the detail of the compromise they agreed has not been legally cast in stone with absolutely no room for last minute interpretation by UEFA.

Time to sack their legal department if this proves to be not the case and UEFA spring surprises again.

 

[aguero93:20]

When are the courts expected to give their judgement on M. Dupont's case?

I wouldn't hold your breath. The article for the link below provides a bit of a general update about the EU's acceptance of UEFA's aims.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014/october/does-eu-agreement-with-uefa-send-out-mixed-message-on-competition-law-scrutiny-in-football-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014 ... football-/</a>

Been over this before but that statement is from the EC, They won't be hearing Dupont's case, the European High Court (ECJ) will, so it's worthless. Even then, that statement still says that FFPR cannot be accepted by the EC unless it conforms with existing EU competition law (articles 101+102), although UEFA conveniently ignored that part when releasing their own statements on it.

 

[dom]

When are the courts expected to give their judgement on M. Dupont's case?

I wouldn't hold your breath. The article for the link below provides a bit of a general update about the EU's acceptance of UEFA's aims.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014/october/does-eu-agreement-with-uefa-send-out-mixed-message-on-competition-law-scrutiny-in-football-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014 ... football-/</a>

Been over this before but that statement is from the EC, They won't be hearing Dupont's case, the European High Court (ECJ) will, so it's worthless. Even then, that statement still says that FFPR cannot be accepted by the EC unless it conforms with existing EU competition law (articles 101+102), although UEFA conveniently ignored that part when releasing their own statements on it.

UEFA are a bunch of sad , needy , cynical tw@ts... I hope they have their noses rubbed in it in the long trem

 

[richards30]

Was told in November that suissegas were paying around £20m a year for the bridge and there would be a renegotiation on the nike shirt deal, etihad deal and every different part of the campus would be sponsored to the hilt by different companies. Figures mentioned said all in it could be worth £150m a year easily with more to come! Came from someone in a high admin role at city and for obvious reasons was embarrassed that after a few drinks couldn't hold the excitement in! Lol when you see the documents on the gov website there's even nike logos on the fencing around the pitches, goals etc and nike swooshes all around the CFA exterior and interior, bet they didn't come free!!!

 

[MeatHunterrr]

Was told in November that suissegas were paying around £20m a year for the bridge and there would be a renegotiation on the nike shirt deal, etihad deal and every different part of the campus would be sponsored to the hilt by different companies. Figures mentioned said all in it could be worth £150m a year easily with more to come! Came from someone in a high admin role at city and for obvious reasons was embarrassed that after a few drinks couldn't hold the excitement in! Lol when you see the documents on the gov website there's even nike logos on the fencing around the pitches, goals etc and nike swooshes all around the CFA exterior and interior, bet they didn't come free!!!

Hope so, as our Nike shirt deal is joke. £12 million per year is woeful, extremely good deal for Nike though, bad for City.

Even QPR get £9 milion.

 

[Centurions]

Was told in November that suissegas were paying around £20m a year for the bridge and there would be a renegotiation on the nike shirt deal, etihad deal and every different part of the campus would be sponsored to the hilt by different companies. Figures mentioned said all in it could be worth £150m a year easily with more to come! Came from someone in a high admin role at city and for obvious reasons was embarrassed that after a few drinks couldn't hold the excitement in! Lol when you see the documents on the gov website there's even nike logos on the fencing around the pitches, goals etc and nike swooshes all around the CFA exterior and interior, bet they didn't come free!!!

Extremely doubtful, I'd have thought.

 

[SilverFox2]

Was told in November that suissegas were paying around £20m a year for the bridge and there would be a renegotiation on the nike shirt deal, etihad deal and every different part of the campus would be sponsored to the hilt by different companies. Figures mentioned said all in it could be worth £150m a year easily with more to come! Came from someone in a high admin role at city and for obvious reasons was embarrassed that after a few drinks couldn't hold the excitement in! Lol when you see the documents on the gov website there's even nike logos on the fencing around the pitches, goals etc and nike swooshes all around the CFA exterior and interior, bet they didn't come free!!!

Hope so, as our Nike shirt deal is joke. £12 million per year is woeful, extremely good deal for Nike though, bad for City.

Even QPR get £9 milion.

Perhaps ADUG were happy to negotiate low to get the result they needed to ensure compliance with FFP ?

The longer the others maximise their deals to placate owners needs the better the real deal when the true value is negotiated.
We should remember that we fell foul of FFP because we were not making money ie outside investment by Sheik M. is seen as unfair to owners who rely on their Clubs to provide for them.
Long term investment does not always maximise its potential to provide part way through its long term cycle.