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

pardoeofftomexico said:
[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.
You're absolutely right. I was a bit tired when I posted that and not thinking straight. In any case, it's irrelevant to a very large degree as our net profits should be getting on for £100m in two years, once the next TV deal kicks in.
 
Damocles said:
cookster said:
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.
Football inflation has been insane over that period when you look at that.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Damocles said:
cookster said:
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.
Football inflation has been insane over that period when you look at that.
And it's all our fault, probably.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Damocles said:
cookster said:
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.
Football inflation has been insane over that period when you look at that.

I think the important thing to remember is that they are both right and both wrong in a way.

We signed a 10 year deal with Etihad that overvalued our shirt sponsorship deal in the first few years. In 2009 we deserved nowhere near that amount of money for our shirt deal, it made no economic sense. However Etihad were willing to gamble with us in a way that is typically Emirati - they understood that we didn't represent value for money in the short term but over the longer term of the deal they would be getting an extremely favourable deal on the backend. They made an investment because they trusted in our future direction.

6 years into the deal and people who are suggesting that it should be hugely renegotiated don't seem to understand the idea. City aren't going to walk away from Etihad because they're such an important sponsor for us and Etihad aren't going to randomly pay more money just because some insane conspiracy theorists believe that Sheikh Mansour can snap his fingers and make something like this happen.

We entered into a contract that we understood would challenge our revenues at the backend. This was the deal we made and the deal we will stick to. In a few years time we can renegotiate again, hopefully with the same company and take advantage of the inflation that occurred in the 10 year period.

Shirt sponsorship and shirt manufacturing are different things. We aren't valuable to many manufactuers because we don't sell anywhere near the amount of shirts as the biggest clubs.
 
Damocles said:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Damocles said:
2010: City's kit deal is so high it is cheating.

2015: City's kit deal is so low they should sack their negotiators.
Football inflation has been insane over that period when you look at that.

I think the important thing to remember is that they are both right and both wrong in a way.

We signed a 10 year deal with Etihad that overvalued our shirt sponsorship deal in the first few years. In 2009 we deserved nowhere near that amount of money for our shirt deal, it made no economic sense. However Etihad were willing to gamble with us in a way that is typically Emirati - they understood that we didn't represent value for money in the short term but over the longer term of the deal they would be getting an extremely favourable deal on the backend. They made an investment because they trusted in our future direction.

6 years into the deal and people who are suggesting that it should be hugely renegotiated don't seem to understand the idea. City aren't going to walk away from Etihad because they're such an important sponsor for us and Etihad aren't going to randomly pay more money just because some insane conspiracy theorists believe that Sheikh Mansour can snap his fingers and make something like this happen.

We entered into a contract that we understood would challenge our revenues at the backend. This was the deal we made and the deal we will stick to. In a few years time we can renegotiate again, hopefully with the same company and take advantage of the inflation that occurred in the 10 year period.

Shirt sponsorship and shirt manufacturing are different things. We aren't valuable to many manufactuers because we don't sell anywhere near the amount of shirts as the biggest clubs.
Spot on, and of course other sponsors have come on board since which has seen our revenue soar while our spending has gone down. It almost looks as if our owners actually know what they're doing with the club as regards their long term planning.
 
update on Dupont court case re FFP from The independent

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/financial-fair-play-stop-the-ffp-train-immediately-says-lawyer-in-landmark-case-10073381.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 73381.html</a>

Financial Fair Play: Stop the FFP 'train' immediately, says lawyer in landmark case

Lawyers fighting to bring down UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regime, in a case which has potential huge significance for football, today urged a judge to “stop the train” and put an immediate halt to the rules being made more stringent.

The UEFA regime demands that clubs become gradually more frugal, with each side entering the governing body’s competitions allowed aggregate losses of only 30m euro (£21.8m) in the seasons 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 rather than the aggregate 45m (£32.7m) for 2013/2014 and 2014/15. But Jean-Louis Dupont, one of the lawyers who secured the landmark Bosman ruling and who is now fighting FFP, told a judge in Brussels that the 45m euro figure must remain in place until the court has ruled on his case that FFP is illegal.

After the hearing, Mr DuPont told The Independent: “Since this is a case which is complicated and because UEFA will make it complicated, we have asked the judge – as an interim measure – to suspend the second phase, to freeze the current figure and to stop the UEFA train from speeding up. It is an interim request so we did not ask for the regime to be suspended.”

The challenge to UEFA’s regime – which Manchester City and Paris Saint Germain are keenly awaiting the outcome of, having fallen foul of FFP last year – has been brought at the Court of First Instance in Brussels by football agent Daniel Striani, who is represented by Mr Du Pont.

After UEFA have put their own case tomorrow morning, the court will adjourn while the judge reaches a decision on the interim ruling he is being asked to make. If the judge feels that he has the jurisdiction to rule on this case – not a certainty – it could take 30 days, or possible 60 days, for him to make a decision. A date will then be set for a third hearing – which Mr Du Pont believes may be four months away – in which he will hear the core of the FFP case.

The interim ruling could be significant, Mr DuPont said, “because we will see the way the judge views the case.” But British FFP specialists said last night that securing such a freeze may be challenging.

“It may prove difficult for Mr Striani to argue any interim measure that freezes the current 45m euro losses permitted until the case has been ruled on, because such a mechanism may need to last a couple of years in case of a referral to the European Courts,” said sports lawyer and FFP specialist Daniel Geeyof Field Fisher Waterhouse.

Mr Dupont, who is argue that FFP infringes competition law and should therefore be declared illegal, said that the case to hear the core issue should not be drawn out, as the written submissions have already been put before the court. A group of 30 PSG fans are bringing an identical case in Paris and they, too, hope for an interim decision by July.

The legal argument in the Striano case is that the break-even requirement of FFP is in breach of article 101.2 of the EU Treaty. This article basically prohibits cartels and other agreements that could disrupt free competition and, therefore, have an impact on consumer protection.
 
and in the meantime only 4 clubs will be able to fight it out for Poga, valued at £73mill. And those 4 clubs are Madrid, Barcelona, United, and if they wish to do so, Bayern. The rest including Chelsea, PSG, and City will be excluded due to FFP. In essence FFP is working. Especially for those 4 clubs above who pushed it through along with Platini and UEFA.

[bigimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/28/262BE22400000578-2973311-image-m-60_1425126626358.jpg[/bigimg]
 
jrb said:
and in the meantime only 4 clubs will be able to fight it out for Poga, valued at £73mill. And those 4 clubs are Madrid, Barcelona, United, and if they wish to do so, Bayern. The rest including Chelsea, PSG, and City will be excluded due to FFP. In essence FFP is working. Especially for those 4 clubs above who pushed it through along with Platini and UEFA.

[bigimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/28/262BE22400000578-2973311-image-m-60_1425126626358.jpg[/bigimg]

If we want Pogba we can afford him.
 
we can afford anyone, but FFP wont allow us to invest in our team to the same degree as B Munich, R Madrid, Man Utd and Barcelona. even though we have ZERO debt and most of the others have a mountain of debt. It's criminal, lets hope this court case exposes this for what it is.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.