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

[SilverFox2]

I suppose our recent history has been to spend whatever our football experts feel we need to form a team that is capable of winning trophies.
At times FFP limited this spend but as our chairman says that pinch has been overcome and it is time to concentrate on the commercial side of the business.

Is it just possible that our spend on players will be limited by ADUG and have little to do with what FFP rules and regulations allow ?

I get the impression that our owners are looking for profit much more aggressively than the skewed yet also profit orientated FFP ones do.

No, concentrating on the commercial side of the business means raising revenues, not lowering costs. Our owner is from the royal family of an emirate that makes hundreds of millions every single day from oil sales, we're a PR exercise, he's not going to compromise our performance for the sake of squeezing 20 or 30 million in profit every year.

Any well run business concentrates on both reducing costs as well as raising its sales.

ADUG has surprised UEFA and its G14 sponsors by being a well run business whereas they thought that Sheik M. was just using the oil profits you refer to without thought for the investment skills that ADUG obviously possess.

Just an opinion.

 

[moomba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We've got to look at the non financial side too. It may be that at some stage will need to have less senior players in the squad to create opportunity for the kids to break into the team.

 

[aguero93:20]

I suppose our recent history has been to spend whatever our football experts feel we need to form a team that is capable of winning trophies.
At times FFP limited this spend but as our chairman says that pinch has been overcome and it is time to concentrate on the commercial side of the business.

Is it just possible that our spend on players will be limited by ADUG and have little to do with what FFP rules and regulations allow ?

I get the impression that our owners are looking for profit much more aggressively than the skewed yet also profit orientated FFP ones do.

No, concentrating on the commercial side of the business means raising revenues, not lowering costs. Our owner is from the royal family of an emirate that makes hundreds of millions every single day from oil sales, we're a PR exercise, he's not going to compromise our performance for the sake of squeezing 20 or 30 million in profit every year.

Any well run business concentrates on both reducing costs as well as raising its sales.

ADUG has surprised UEFA and its G14 sponsors by being a well run business whereas they thought that Sheik M. was just using the oil profits you refer to without thought for the investment skills that ADUG obviously possess.

Just an opinion.

We've reduced our wage bill as it was unsustainable at the time. I cannot see our transfer spending being reduced for the sake of a relatively small profit however.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I suppose our recent history has been to spend whatever our football experts feel we need to form a team that is capable of winning trophies.
At times FFP limited this spend but as our chairman says that pinch has been overcome and it is time to concentrate on the commercial side of the business.

Is it just possible that our spend on players will be limited by ADUG and have little to do with what FFP rules and regulations allow ?

I get the impression that our owners are looking for profit much more aggressively than the skewed yet also profit orientated FFP ones do.

No, concentrating on the commercial side of the business means raising revenues, not lowering costs. Our owner is from the royal family of an emirate that makes hundreds of millions every single day from oil sales, we're a PR exercise, he's not going to compromise our performance for the sake of squeezing 20 or 30 million in profit every year.

Any well run business concentrates on both reducing costs as well as raising its sales.

ADUG has surprised UEFA and its G14 sponsors by being a well run business whereas they thought that Sheik M. was just using the oil profits you refer to without thought for the investment skills that ADUG obviously possess.

Just an opinion.

I said in my reply to Silva_Spell that I suspect we have maximum limits for wages and amortisation ad probably general squad size. When we were trying to sign van Persie, Mancini was told one of Dzeko or Balotelli had to go before we could do the deal. Having gone through so much pain to get to where we are now, I can't imagine we won't exercise tight control over player expenses.

 

[Silva_Spell]

So in FFP terms, if UEFA doesn't downgrade the accounts this time, are you saying we're in profit (-7m + around 55m), if you isolate it to the most recent accounts?

The next accounts will be for the year to May 31st 2015 and should hopefully show a small profit. The accounts for the following season (2015/16) will show significantly better results due to:
- Increased CL money coming through from the BT Sport deal;
- The opening of the South Stand extension;
- CFA and other sponsorship deals.

It's those 2015/16 accounts where this summer's spending will first be recorded.

How much is that btw, anyone know?

 

[tonea2003]

We've got to look at the non financial side too. It may be that at some stage will need to have less senior players in the squad to create opportunity for the kids to break into the team.

only if they are good enough, the most important thing is the first team winning each and every competitive game they play

 

[aguero93:20]

So in FFP terms, if UEFA doesn't downgrade the accounts this time, are you saying we're in profit (-7m + around 55m), if you isolate it to the most recent accounts?

The next accounts will be for the year to May 31st 2015 and should hopefully show a small profit. The accounts for the following season (2015/16) will show significantly better results due to:
- Increased CL money coming through from the BT Sport deal;
- The opening of the South Stand extension;
- CFA and other sponsorship deals.

It's those 2015/16 accounts where this summer's spending will first be recorded.

How much is that btw, anyone know?

The headline payment per year is double what Sky were paying so we can reasonably expect to double our CL TV money, although that won't mean double the total CL income as a small part is prize money awarded by UEFA.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The next accounts will be for the year to May 31st 2015 and should hopefully show a small profit. The accounts for the following season (2015/16) will show significantly better results due to:
- Increased CL money coming through from the BT Sport deal;
- The opening of the South Stand extension;
- CFA and other sponsorship deals.

It's those 2015/16 accounts where this summer's spending will first be recorded.

How much is that btw, anyone know?

The headline payment per year is double what Sky were paying so we can reasonably expect to double our CL TV money, although that won't mean double the total CL income as a small part is prize money awarded by UEFA.

People are talking about £20m a year but it's more complicated that that.

All TV money goes into the pool and something like 85% is distributed. Some of this is via a fixed level of performance payments (for qualifying, wins, draws and getting to the knock-out stages) and the rest is via the market pool. The size of the pool for each country is dependent on the proportion of the TV income generated by each national association so if England accounts for 20% of the total TV income, then the English teams get 20% of the pool overall. That distribution, in turn, depends on the position each team finished in their domestic league the previosu season and how many games each team played in that season's competition.

So it's difficult to put an exact figure on it as it depends largely on the total TV revenue generated and how much of that comes from English TV companies.

 

[SilverFox2]

No, concentrating on the commercial side of the business means raising revenues, not lowering costs. Our owner is from the royal family of an emirate that makes hundreds of millions every single day from oil sales, we're a PR exercise, he's not going to compromise our performance for the sake of squeezing 20 or 30 million in profit every year.

Any well run business concentrates on both reducing costs as well as raising its sales.

ADUG has surprised UEFA and its G14 sponsors by being a well run business whereas they thought that Sheik M. was just using the oil profits you refer to without thought for the investment skills that ADUG obviously possess.

Just an opinion.

I said in my reply to Silva_Spell that I suspect we have maximum limits for wages and amortisation ad probably general squad size. When we were trying to sign van Persie, Mancini was told one of Dzeko or Balotelli had to go before we could do the deal. Having gone through so much pain to get to where we are now, I can't imagine we won't exercise tight control over player expenses.

Agree PB.

The officers of ADUG will be very aware of their objectives and their accountability for their individual actions. No doubt bonus time will take that into consideration.
The players have their payment plan so the directors and managers will have theirs.
None are actually shareholders so it must be Sheik M. who has approved the business plan they all will be judged by.

I cannot see him giving carte blanche to a plan that advocates spend without a need to achieve results both on and off the field.

 

[Salford_Blue]

They don't mess about do they?!?

Whilst we knew about it, look at the names of the sponsors being banded about. THESE are the ones we need to be targeting and with this in place, I think it is only a matter of time before we are sponsored by Apple or Google or Microsoft.

From The Mail...

Real Madrid set to rename stadium Abu Dhabi Bernabeu as part of £15m a year deal

As well as having it’s name behind one of European football’s biggest clubs Manchester City, Abu Dhabi now looks set to have its name in front of one of the world’s most emblematic stadiums – the Santiago Bernabeu.
The Arab Emirate that has bankrolled Manchester City entered into a financial partnership with Real Madrid last November and for around £15million a year over a reported 20-year period they have won the naming rights for the club’s stadium according to Diario AS.
Coca-Cola and Microsoft had both shown an interest in having their name on the Bernabeu but the race looks to have been won by the Spanish company Cespa which in turn is owned by the IPIC (International Petroleum Investment Company) which is owned by Abu Dhabi

In November of last year when the three-year tie-up between IPIC and Real announced by Madrid, president Florentino Perez was caught on camera saying the stadium will be called ‘IPIC or Cespa, whatever they want’.
According to the AS report the sponsors have settled for ‘Abu Dhabi Bernabeu’.
The renaming will not take place until the stadium is remodelled. Planning permission for the £375m project is currently stalled because of a European Commission enquiry into possible illegal state aid.

Real Madrid are currently finalising financing for the redevelopement and the somewhat unpopular sale of the stadium’s name is seen as one way to raise funds towards that end.
It was revealed last week that Real are the world's richest club in terms of revenue, raking in a staggering £459.5m in 2013-14 and the renaming of the stadium to earn extra cash is certain to anger supporters of this traditional club.
The iconic venue was opened in 1947 and named after the club's former chairman Santiago Bernabeu Yeste and has hosted four European Cup finals and the 1982 World Cup final.

The £300m Abu Dhabi investment will be the club's most lucrative deal in its history and, as well as helping fund the redevelopment of the famous old ground, will give Real the best chance of staying ahead of La Liga rivals Barcelona.
It was revealed this week that the Catalan giants are reviewing their £123.4m with Qatar Sports Investments which expires next year and is almost certain to increase.