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

[tonea2003]

Why would they fail?

It was an abstract example of any club in a position where they could make the money back but the fee exceeded ffp.

I get more and more concerned with your constant "puts downs" of my Club.

beat me to oakie, fanchester why are you so negative about my club? its no wonder your allegiance is being challenged by various posters.

all this constant "they'll fail" "wont happen"

if you are a blue i bet your the type to focus on for example one bad pass in a match winning man of the match david silva performance.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Its not your club, its our club.
If opinions on internet forums concern, try to control yourself.
'More and more concerned' indeed.

 

[oakiecokie]

Its not your club, its our club.
If opinions on internet forums concern, try to control yourself.
'More and more concerned' indeed.

Is it really ???

 

[IanBishopsHaircut]

Its not your club, its our club.
If opinions on internet forums concern, try to control yourself.
'More and more concerned' indeed.

To be fair...if you are indeed a blue...you're a bit of a tool

 

[Bluewonder]

Fanchester is definitely a blue: he knows far too much about City to not be. He is pretty negative, mind, but I guess that's what a few decades of false dawns will do to some!

 

[Chippy_boy]

Why would they fail?

It was an abstract example of any club in a position where they could make the money back but the fee exceeded ffp.

As I and others have explained numerous times, the outright fee itself is not a factor in FFP. It gets amortised (i.e. written off) over the life of the contract so paying £120m for Messi, on a 5-year contract, would incur a £24m a year charge in the accounts for each of those 5 years. From 2015/16 that will be easily affordable and won't affect our ability to meet FFP.

If we can attract £40m a year additional sponsorship on the back of signing Messi, then it actually increases our net profit, all other things remaining equal. There's his wages of course but if Milner and Jovetic leave then that'll release enough money for most of Messi's wages, which will probably be around £16m a year.

So if we buy him for £120m and pay him £16m a year, that equates to an annual cost of £40m. If we attract an additional £40m in commercial revenue, there's actually no net cost to the deal. The probelm with Messi would be finsing the cash in the first place, which really wouldn't represent much of a problem given who our owner is.

Agree with all of that mate, not least because it's pretty obviously a good idea as I know you think too.

My only question is, do you think £120 is reasonable? I would have thought it would take a lot more than 50% more than Gareth Bale!

Who knows.

 

[SilverFox2]

Now although I have introduced this concept in a column about Manchester City's FFP compliance, it must be underlined that there is absolutely nothing to suggest that City have used the offshore mechanism above. This goes way beyond paying a few directors or even dozens of football-analytics staff through off-balance-sheet entities.


So why the phuck did you not pick a club who Kook & run two different sets of books in the Cayman isles ?

matt.scott@insideworldfootball.com.

That's the second time a journo's done that in the last week or so... 'offshore accounts' diatribe, then say 'not suggesting City do this'.
So either he's stolen this from the other journo, or they are both morons.

It's not journalism, it's rumour mongering.

Tactically is this is the only way that the other clubs can infer that City are alone in making financial affairs suit their situation whether it be FFP or taxation?

They dare not complain directly (Wenger style) without self incrimination so they are perhaps encouraging articles to be written from whatever source to skew the perfectly legal business devices that larger companies use (including other clubs) to appear to be sneaky or even illegal.

I think we should see this as progress.

 

[FanchesterCity]

It was an abstract example of any club in a position where they could make the money back but the fee exceeded ffp.

As I and others have explained numerous times, the outright fee itself is not a factor in FFP. It gets amortised (i.e. written off) over the life of the contract so paying £120m for Messi, on a 5-year contract, would incur a £24m a year charge in the accounts for each of those 5 years. From 2015/16 that will be easily affordable and won't affect our ability to meet FFP.

If we can attract £40m a year additional sponsorship on the back of signing Messi, then it actually increases our net profit, all other things remaining equal. There's his wages of course but if Milner and Jovetic leave then that'll release enough money for most of Messi's wages, which will probably be around £16m a year.

So if we buy him for £120m and pay him £16m a year, that equates to an annual cost of £40m. If we attract an additional £40m in commercial revenue, there's actually no net cost to the deal. The probelm with Messi would be finsing the cash in the first place, which really wouldn't represent much of a problem given who our owner is.

Agree with all of that mate, not least because it's pretty obviously a good idea as I know you think too.

My only question is, do you think £120 is reasonable? I would have thought it would take a lot more than 50% more than Gareth Bale!

Who knows.

It's just a hypothetical figure somewhere between the Bale figure and the stupidly high price the press quote.
The 'problem' (for want of a better word) with the amortisation, is that yes, you can take a figure and divide it by the contract length and say 'it's only 1/43of the cost per annum' and that's true, and it all sounds hunky dory, but there are concurrent contracts overlapping with each other, so for instance, we'll be paying 1/3 of Mangala, 1/3 of Bony, 1/3 of Fernando etc.

But it's all a totally moot point based around the question of sponsors helping to fund transfers, not specifically for City but the principle in general for FFP.

FFP as it stands, presents a real obstacle for most clubs to conduct this sort of deal, where the business case is clear, but the upfront investment required falls foul for FFP.
The example someone gave before of Napoli buying Maradona couldn't happen now thanks to FFP.

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

As I and others have explained numerous times, the outright fee itself is not a factor in FFP. It gets amortised (i.e. written off) over the life of the contract so paying £120m for Messi, on a 5-year contract, would incur a £24m a year charge in the accounts for each of those 5 years. From 2015/16 that will be easily affordable and won't affect our ability to meet FFP.

If we can attract £40m a year additional sponsorship on the back of signing Messi, then it actually increases our net profit, all other things remaining equal. There's his wages of course but if Milner and Jovetic leave then that'll release enough money for most of Messi's wages, which will probably be around £16m a year.

So if we buy him for £120m and pay him £16m a year, that equates to an annual cost of £40m. If we attract an additional £40m in commercial revenue, there's actually no net cost to the deal. The probelm with Messi would be finsing the cash in the first place, which really wouldn't represent much of a problem given who our owner is.

Agree with all of that mate, not least because it's pretty obviously a good idea as I know you think too.

My only question is, do you think £120 is reasonable? I would have thought it would take a lot more than 50% more than Gareth Bale!

Who knows.

It's just a hypothetical figure somewhere between the Bale figure and the stupidly high price the press quote.
The 'problem' (for want of a better word) with the amortisation, is that yes, you can take a figure and divide it by the contract length and say 'it's only 1/43of the cost per annum' and that's true, and it all sounds hunky dory, but there are concurrent contracts overlapping with each other, so for instance, we'll be paying 1/3 of Mangala, 1/3 of Bony, 1/3 of Fernando etc.

But it's all a totally moot point based around the question of sponsors helping to fund transfers, not specifically for City but the principle in general for FFP.

FFP as it stands, presents a real obstacle for most clubs to conduct this sort of deal, where the business case is clear, but the upfront investment required falls foul for FFP.
The example someone gave before of Napoli buying Maradona couldn't happen now thanks to FFP.

Welcome back Pidge ;-)

 

[FanchesterCity]

Now although I have introduced this concept in a column about Manchester City's FFP compliance, it must be underlined that there is absolutely nothing to suggest that City have used the offshore mechanism above. This goes way beyond paying a few directors or even dozens of football-analytics staff through off-balance-sheet entities.


So why the phuck did you not pick a club who Kook & run two different sets of books in the Cayman isles ?

matt.scott@insideworldfootball.com.

That's the second time a journo's done that in the last week or so... 'offshore accounts' diatribe, then say 'not suggesting City do this'.
So either he's stolen this from the other journo, or they are both morons.

It's not journalism, it's rumour mongering.

Tactically is this is the only way that the other clubs can infer that City are alone in making financial affairs suit their situation whether it be FFP or taxation?

They dare not complain directly (Wenger style) without self incrimination so they are perhaps encouraging articles to be written from whatever source to skew the perfectly legal business devices that larger companies use (including other clubs) to appear to be sneaky or even illegal.

I think we should see this as progress.

I know what you mean about progress, but it's dangerous.
One journalist thinks he's got a whiff of scandal (but no proof) and he runs a story full of innuendo and implication.
Within a short space of time, others are running with essentially the same stuff (in a new guise) and seemingly adding to the credibility of it.
Moronic fans elsewhere all latch on to it and start spouting that everything City do is 'bent' is some way and undermines all the good stuff.

Of course 90% of it is pure BS, but some dirt ends up sticking and it affects our image.

We shouldn't be beyond criticism and scrutiny, I'm not saying that. But some of the insinuations are beyond the pale.