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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Why don't we just ride some debt? Some experts could answer this...
 
bluesoup said:
Why don't we just ride some debt? Some experts could answer this...

Because it's income v spending for FFPR, whether the spending is your own cash or borrowed makes no difference.

For example if your yearly salary is £50k and you take out a £20k loan, it doesn't make your salary any bigger.
 
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]
Thought barca had a transfer ban or would that go out of the window if a marquee signing became available ?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

aguero93:20 said:
bluesoup said:
Why don't we just ride some debt? Some experts could answer this...

Because it's income v spending for FFPR, whether the spending is your own cash or borrowed makes no difference.

For example if your yearly salary is £50k and you take out a £20k loan, it doesn't make your salary any bigger.
Thanks. If only money raised as a loan could be seen as income... Ah well, at least we are debt free.
 
mrtwiceaseason said:
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]
Thought barca had a transfer ban or would that go out of the window if a marquee signing became available ?
NVM. It's early.
 
aguero93:20 said:
bluesoup said:
Why don't we just ride some debt? Some experts could answer this...

Because it's income v spending for FFPR, whether the spending is your own cash or borrowed makes no difference.

For example if your yearly salary is £50k and you take out a £20k loan, it doesn't make your salary any bigger.
It does if you don't pay the loan back...
 
richards30 said:
We dont have any restrictions this coming summer though do we??

What do you mean? You mean restrictions like the penalties imposed on us by uefa for breaching FFP? No but we have the huge general FFP restrictions and that will continue for the forseable future. Madrid, United and barça will be able to outspend us every season for at least the next 10 years I would imagine. Unless FFP gets scrapped.
 
Lets hope this court case works for us, I always believed that we should have been strong enough to take UEFA to court when they imposed the penalties.
The consequences of accepting FFP is that we will always be one level below Madrid Barca Munich and Scum. Yes our revenues are soaring, but it would be very difficult to match those 4.
It's a cartel, it cant possibly survive, not in the long term anyway
 
I argued last summer that the market had already been fixed by FFPR: PSG wanted Di Maria, Di Maria wanted PSG but the club would have fallen foul of the rules had they signed him. This left Di Maria with no choice but United. It appears that FFP will restrict competition for "elite"players even more to "elite clubs" the longer it is in operation.

What surprises me is that M. Dupont has not made more (or maybe he has) of UEFA's clear rejection of the sporting exception to justify FFP and of it's quite frank admission that the rules are meant to be anti-competitive. The UEFA document outlining what FFPR is and how it will work is explicit; FFPR do not attempt to make all football clubs equal in wealth, but rather accept vast differences in wealth (you'll be glad to hear, Mr Rumenigge). Their aim is to ensure the financial stability of each club. Now, this is not a sporting aim - it does not seek to restrict investment to protect the sporting integrity of UEFA competitions by such a means. At no point does it explain why a world record fine is a means of protecting the financial stability of PSG or City, and it does not even explain how the financial stability of those clubs is under threat, in a way that those of other clubs isn't. Furthermore, M.Platini expressed the opinion las June that the fine may have displeased City but that it would have pleased United! His even handed approach was illustrated further when he observed that United's record outlay for a single window, taken in combination with the limited spending of other clubs and the reduction in the overall spending on transfers showed the regulations were working "as intended".

It is cleat that Platini envisages a game where a small group of champions league clubs operate in a world closed off to all other clubs. They enjoy exceptionally high revenues and can have exclusive access to the best players, and this will maintain the supremacy of the CL as the premier European tournament for clubs and thus reinforce UEFA's privileged position as recipient of the lion' share of sponsorship. The courts should be made aware that UEFA is actually not a governing body in this sphere but an interested party competing with the clubs and that it has abused it's privileged position, is abusing it, will abuse it even further and ought to be stopped.
 

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.