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

[Petrovs left peg]

Not sure why everyone gets so riled by these imbeciles. They are journalists and get paid for creating traffic /clicks / sales etc, or whatever you wish to call it. City and FFP is the biggest story in football for those gloryhunting fucks that follow the historical four - they sit in bed at night dreaming of city being expelled from Europe and the Sheikh leaving us deep in the mire, and so feed their need from shit like this - "they'll have to sell Aguero, Silva and Toure, replacing them with the new Dickov, Pollock and Horlock" is what they go to sleep thinking. For me the more they hope the harder they will fall and these clowns writing these stories are getting the hopes of all of them to wonderful proportions. How satisfying it will be when we start making profit and ripping them a new one again in the transfer market?!

I now see a sea change in opinion starting to come through. Only last night on Talksport drive Durham and Gough were saying what a load of bollocks FFP is and the likes of Collymore are of the same opinion. The last ones to roll will be these moronic hacks who will suddenly realise they are in the minority. Once that happens they will be up our arses but some will find the door slammed in their faces.

In the meantime we have to take the shit on the chin and remain dignified in our silence, which the club are quite rightly doing. If they aren't going to take UEFA on they are certainly not going to worry about the like of Ogden and Jackson. By the time the rest of the world wakes up to it we'll be so far down the track that people like Ogden and Jackson will probably end up in institutes.

Relax and enjoy the ride!!!!

#Champions

 

[mancity dan]

Not sure why everyone gets so riled by these imbeciles. They are journalists and get paid for creating traffic /clicks / sales etc, or whatever you wish to call it. City and FFP is the biggest story in football for those gloryhunting fucks that follow the historical four - they sit in bed at night dreaming of city being expelled from Europe and the Sheikh leaving us deep in the mire and feed there need from shit like this - "they'll have to sell Aguero, Silva and Toure, replacing them with the new Dickov, Pollock and Horlock" is what they go to sleep thinking. For me the more they hope the harder they will fall and these clowns writing these stories are getting the hopes of all of them to wonderful proportions. How satisfying it will be when we start making profit and ripping them a new one again in the transfer market?!

I now see a sea change in opinion starting to come through. Only last night on Talksport drive Durham and Gough were saying what a load of bollocks FFP is and the likes of Collymore are of the same opinion. The last ones to roll will be these moronic hacks who will suddenly realise they are in the minority. Once that happens they will be up our arses but some will find the door slammed in their faces.

In the meantime we have to take the shit on the chin and remain dignified in our silence, which the club are quite rightly doing. If they aren't going to take UEFA on they are certainly not going to worry about the like of Ogden and Jackson. By the time the rest of the world wakes up to it we'll be so far down the track that people like Ogden and Jackson will probably end up in institutes.

Relax and enjoy the ride!!!!

#Champions

Couldn't have put it better myself. ^

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Not sure why everyone gets so riled by these imbeciles. They are journalists and get paid for creating traffic /clicks / sales etc, or whatever you wish to call it. City and FFP is the biggest story in football for those gloryhunting fucks that follow the historical four - they sit in bed at night dreaming of city being expelled from Europe and the Sheikh leaving us deep in the mire, and so feed their need from shit like this - "they'll have to sell Aguero, Silva and Toure, replacing them with the new Dickov, Pollock and Horlock" is what they go to sleep thinking. For me the more they hope the harder they will fall and these clowns writing these stories are getting the hopes of all of them to wonderful proportions. How satisfying it will be when we start making profit and ripping them a new one again in the transfer market?!

I now see a sea change in opinion starting to come through. Only last night on Talksport drive Durham and Gough were saying what a load of bollocks FFP is and the likes of Collymore are of the same opinion. The last ones to roll will be these moronic hacks who will suddenly realise they are in the minority. Once that happens they will be up our arses but some will find the door slammed in their faces.

In the meantime we have to take the shit on the chin and remain dignified in our silence, which the club are quite rightly doing. If they aren't going to take UEFA on they are certainly not going to worry about the like of Ogden and Jackson. By the time the rest of the world wakes up to it we'll be so far down the track that people like Ogden and Jackson will probably end up in institutes.

Relax and enjoy the ride!!!!

#Champions

Words out of my mouth.

 

[moomba]

Not sure why anyone expects us to bear the costs of work carried out for NYCFC, Melbourne City and YF Marinos. We don't earn any income from those clubs so why should we pay their expenses?

 

[Chippy_boy]

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.

I think "problem" is a very inappropriate word, since it's not a problem at all. Of course when you amortise intangible fixed assets, you have to consider historially acquired assets and their cost in the current P&L. But that does not change the fact that buying Messi for £120m on a 5 year contract only increases our costs by £24m/year plus wages. It's no more complicated than that, and is not "a problem".

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.

I have plenty of issues with FFP, but honestly FFP is not in itself a barrier to acquiring Messi for any profitable, or close to profitable club. It's hard to imagine that the promotional benefits would not contribute sigificantly to his £24m/year costs plus wages. And they can offload a player or two as well, you would suppose.

The big obstacle is the cash. How many clubs can find £120m lying around to actually pay for the deal. This is not an FFP issue. We of course have no problem in the cash department.

 

[oakiecokie]

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 ;-)

You may well have hit the nail on the head there mate.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Two issues appear to dominate this thread at the moment: whether City can buy Messi and the reluctance of certain parties to accept that City can (ever be allowed to) comply with FFPR.

I think it only fair to state loud and clear that there is no truth at all in the assertion that Manchester City cannot afford to buy Messi. City could afford to buy him without any problem at all. That isn't the same as asserting that City will buy him because that depends on Messi deciding that he reall wants to leave Barcelona and that City is the club he wants to join, but finance would not be an obstacle.

Secondly there is the article Matt Scott wrote last December to show what a very clever chap he is by by linking Alice in Wonderland with City's accounts. He's such a clever chap that he knows that very rich people employ very clever people to make their money go further, and that Manchester City could actually do this without telling UEFA, so that the nasty Frenchman gets an impression of the club's finances which isn't necessarily accurate! "The purpose of the above images is merely to illustrate how the clubs with the richest benefactors might be tempted to use perfectly legal offshore mechanisms (provided the requisite taxes are paid) to avoid the scrutiny of UEFA's licensing body altogether" forces him to admit that the club would actually be doing nothing it was not entitled to do and "There really would be nothing UEFA could do about it because they could never know if this sort of thing is going on. The licensor relies on the timely and honest provision of clubs' annual reports and accounts. Clubs or their parents making payments through structures using the tax-haven secrecy of offshore entities could never be found out, because UEFA cannot look into cash movements through tax havens in the way that some tax authorities can" really takes the whole matter into the circumstantial ether swirling around somewhere in Noyon or Strasbourg or Brussels or even east Manchester. So, City could be doing this as could any other club but we'll never know so we'd better single out the richest, most influential owners in world football and deal with them for the "off-balance-sheet activity" which we can't prove. I'll say this loud and clear too, Even UEFA aren't that daft!

 

[lazza]

Not sure why everyone gets so riled by these imbeciles. They are journalists and get paid for creating traffic /clicks / sales etc, or whatever you wish to call it. City and FFP is the biggest story in football for those gloryhunting fucks that follow the historical four - they sit in bed at night dreaming of city being expelled from Europe and the Sheikh leaving us deep in the mire, and so feed their need from shit like this - "they'll have to sell Aguero, Silva and Toure, replacing them with the new Dickov, Pollock and Horlock" is what they go to sleep thinking. For me the more they hope the harder they will fall and these clowns writing these stories are getting the hopes of all of them to wonderful proportions. How satisfying it will be when we start making profit and ripping them a new one again in the transfer market?!

I now see a sea change in opinion starting to come through. Only last night on Talksport drive Durham and Gough were saying what a load of bollocks FFP is and the likes of Collymore are of the same opinion. The last ones to roll will be these moronic hacks who will suddenly realise they are in the minority. Once that happens they will be up our arses but some will find the door slammed in their faces.

In the meantime we have to take the shit on the chin and remain dignified in our silence, which the club are quite rightly doing. If they aren't going to take UEFA on they are certainly not going to worry about the like of Ogden and Jackson. By the time the rest of the world wakes up to it we'll be so far down the track that people like Ogden and Jackson will probably end up in institutes.

Relax and enjoy the ride!!!!

#Champions

True enough, but I'd wager that the media's views on FFP will change more and more as the rags get closer and closer to being at risk... once the scum miss out on Europe again and lose a big chunk of their income, having splurged a few hundred million on a crap team, the general media opinion will be remarkably different to the one we see now....

 

[FanchesterCity]

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 ;-)

You may well have hit the nail on the head there mate.

Alas, that would be wrong too. I'm just a poster, nobody in disguise.

 

[moomba]

Only the true Pigeonho would deny his own pigeinity.