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

[aguero93:20]

With Arse, Manure, Dippers and now the Chavs signing kit and kit sponsorship deals way above what we are being paid, it does raise significant questions about our negotiators.

We've overtaken all apart from the Rags domestically revenue wise but unless we buck this trend I can see "London" based clubs picking up the top players.

Our kit deal was signed in 2009, everything has gone up since, why don't you wait to see what we get when we renegotiate before slagging off our commercial team.

Oh and for the record we're getting a combined £52 million per annum from Nike and Etihad, only the rags are getting significantly more.

 

[Damocles]

With Arse, Manure, Dippers and now the Chavs signing kit and kit sponsorship deals way above what we are being paid, it does raise significant questions about our negotiators.

We've overtaken all apart from the Rags domestically revenue wise but unless we buck this trend I can see "London" based clubs picking up the top players.

2010: City's kit deal is so high it is cheating.

2015: City's kit deal is so low they should sack their negotiators.

 

[cookster]

With Arse, Manure, Dippers and now the Chavs signing kit and kit sponsorship deals way above what we are being paid, it does raise significant questions about our negotiators.

We've overtaken all apart from the Rags domestically revenue wise but unless we buck this trend I can see "London" based clubs picking up the top players.

Our kit deal was signed in 2009, everything has gone up since, why don't you wait to see what we get when we renegotiate before slagging off our commercial team.

Oh and for the record we're getting a combined £52 million per annum from Nike and Etihad, only the rags are getting significantly more.

Both have been renegotiated since 2009, now would be a good time to try again.

 

[aguero93:20]

With Arse, Manure, Dippers and now the Chavs signing kit and kit sponsorship deals way above what we are being paid, it does raise significant questions about our negotiators.

We've overtaken all apart from the Rags domestically revenue wise but unless we buck this trend I can see "London" based clubs picking up the top players.

Our kit deal was signed in 2009, everything has gone up since, why don't you wait to see what we get when we renegotiate before slagging off our commercial team.

Oh and for the record we're getting a combined £52 million per annum from Nike and Etihad, only the rags are getting significantly more.

Both have been renegotiated since 2009, now would be a good time to try again.

Really? And there was me thinking we were still getting the original £40m per annum that we agreed with Etihad in 2009 and that Nike just took Umbro's contract as owners ie no bidding process. The Etihad deal is rumoured to be under renegotiation at the moment, it already matches Chelsea's future deal so I'm going to take a guess that we'll still be receiving more than them when their new deal kicks in.

 

[cookster]

With Arse, Manure, Dippers and now the Chavs signing kit and kit sponsorship deals way above what we are being paid, it does raise significant questions about our negotiators.

We've overtaken all apart from the Rags domestically revenue wise but unless we buck this trend I can see "London" based clubs picking up the top players.

2010: City's kit deal is so high it is cheating.

2015: City's kit deal is so low they should sack their negotiators.

Sure the kit deal was linked to the Stadium naming right, now would be a good time to try and separate the 2.

I'm not saying sack anybody, the commercial guys have done a great job as I stated we've overtaken everyone apart from the Rags. Hopefully the long-term lock in with Nike and Eithad have a re-negotiation clause, otherwise they will look even worse in the next few years.

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

With Arse, Manure, Dippers and now the Chavs signing kit and kit sponsorship deals way above what we are being paid, it does raise significant questions about our negotiators.

We've overtaken all apart from the Rags domestically revenue wise but unless we buck this trend I can see "London" based clubs picking up the top players.

Our kit deal was signed in 2009, everything has gone up since, why don't you wait to see what we get when we renegotiate before slagging off our commercial team.

Oh and for the record we're getting a combined £52 million per annum from Nike and Etihad, only the rags are getting significantly more.

Both have been renegotiated since 2009, now would be a good time to try again.

If we started new negotiations I think probably
Shirt sponsor £35 m
Stadium and campus £10m
Shirt manufactuer £45 m
So a ball park figure of £90 m as opposed to £52 m would be a guide

 

[cookster]

Our kit deal was signed in 2009, everything has gone up since, why don't you wait to see what we get when we renegotiate before slagging off our commercial team.

Oh and for the record we're getting a combined £52 million per annum from Nike and Etihad, only the rags are getting significantly more.

Both have been renegotiated since 2009, now would be a good time to try again.

Really? And there was me thinking we were still getting the original £40m per annum that we agreed with Etihad in 2009 and that Nike just took Umbro's contract as owners ie no bidding process. The Etihad deal is rumoured to be under renegotiation at the moment, it already matches Chelsea's future deal so I'm going to take a guess that we'll still be receiving more than them when their new deal kicks in.

2 things, the Etihad deal is for shirt sponsorship and naming rights, Chavs is for shirt sponsorship only.

In 2012 we switched from Umbro to Nike, the kit deal was increased to 12M a season from about 6M

 

[nobody can eat fifty eggs]

I like that our club have what it seems, numerous modest sponsors that will on the face of it not draw too much outcry or attention from the Uefa oligarchs.

 

[OB1]

But as you have already explained yourself PB, there would be no point in writing off the infrastructure costs. If we wrote off, say, £100M it would mean we would have an additional loss of that amount. But the same amount would then be added back for FFP to finish up with the profit we would have had if we had not written off the infrastructure costs. Everyone should just forget about the costs of the training ground, new stand, etc.

As for anything else the club have shown themselves to be pretty innovative as it is!

Exactly. You cannot suddenly magic up extra cash to spend on players because you have the ability to add back the depreciation on new fixed assets for FFP profit calculations. The real benefit of being able to spend more on infrastructure without the cost being charged to profit for FFP purposes is that you can do things like increasing your stadium capacity and thereby increase income without having to deduct all the costs involved in generating the additional income from the incremental revenue.

I can sort of see where tolmies hairdoo is coming from though. Cash itself is not an issue to ADUG. If they spend £1bn on various infrastructure projects that could engender £20m or more in depreciation for many years and that's £20m cash we don't have to generate from operations that can be used to our advantage within FFP.

The fact that we can spend further money on the stadium, training facilities, and - I think but you are the expert - youth development without that expenditure itself increasing our costs for FFP purposes is great but the benefit is not from being able to add that back to profit, the advantages it brings are from tangible improvements in our top line revenue that flow through to a higher bottom line and all the intangibles of being able to develop and take great care of top players.

The fact that we can add back thing like depreciation in respect of capex from days gone by obviously means we have less distance to go to break-even than we might otherwise have had.

The situation as far as I am concerned is that whilst FFP is in force in its current guise, we cannot indulge in the unfettered spending on players that Mansour's wealth would allow him to do but he can spend whatever he chooses on building things that will help to drive City's revenues and profits upwards.

 

[pardoeofftomexico]

Exactly. You cannot suddenly magic up extra cash to spend on players because you have the ability to add back the depreciation on new fixed assets for FFP profit calculations. The real benefit of being able to spend more on infrastructure without the cost being charged to profit for FFP purposes is that you can do things like increasing your stadium capacity and thereby increase income without having to deduct all the costs involved in generating the additional income from the incremental revenue.

I can sort of see where tolmies hairdoo is coming from though. Cash itself is not an issue to ADUG. If they spend £1bn on various infrastructure projects that could engender £20m or more in depreciation for many years and that's £20m cash we don't have to generate from operations that can be used to our advantage within FFP.

The fact that we can spend further money on the stadium, training facilities, and - I think but you are the expert - youth development without that expenditure itself increasing our costs for FFP purposes is great but the benefit is not from being able to add that back to profit, the advantages it brings are from tangible improvements in our top line revenue that flow through to a higher bottom line and all the intangibles of being able to develop and take great care of top players.

The fact that we can add back thing like depreciation in respect of capex from days gone by obviously means we have less distance to go to break-even than we might otherwise have had.

The situation as far as I am concerned is that whilst FFP is in force in its current guise, we cannot indulge in the unfettered spending on players that Mansour's wealth would allow him to do but he can spend whatever he chooses on building things that will help to drive City's revenues and profits upwards.

OB1 - that is absolutely correct and needs to be copied whenever anyone mentions this to save going through it all time and time again.

PB - not sure about your last comment or maybe I am not reading it correctly. It is more straightforward even than that. If we had spent absolutely nothing on infrastructure we may have got to a position where our profits were, say, £10M. On the other hand, if as you suggest we spent £1bn on infrastructure and wrote off £20M in depreciation that profit of £10M would become a loss of £10M. However, for FPP purposes we add back the £20M depreciation and still have a profit of £10M. So nothing has changed.