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

fbloke said:
I see parallels between MCFC and Jaguar Land Rover.

Both had seen better days, had great potential and needed investment for that potential to be met.

JL had been mismanaged by wealthy owners for decades and through a lack of decent money being pumped in was close to being closed down. What was needed was an owner who saw the potential, was willing to invest now knowing that there would be better days ahead.

Such an owner came in, invested billions, revitalised the company, its products and its image and now loads more people are buying into the brand, buying the products in existing and new markets and because of that lots of people are now being employed and JL's local communities are benefitting financially.

Its an undoubted success story based on owner investment.

But of course if JL were a football club it would not be allowed to sell its products in Europe because of the investment made by the companies owner. And none of those jobs would be created, no financial benefit for local communities. And all because the other car companies dont like competition.
Very well put
 
Sorry if already posted....


Manchester City’s links to Etihad, the main airline of Abu Dhabi, may have fallen foul of financial fair play regulations. How convenient that not all family connections are viewed with such forensic suspicion at UEFA.

Take the case of Yohann Zveig, a little-known composer from Paris.

Think of how many exceptionally gifted musicians there are in the world, yet Zveig was lucky enough to get the commission to write the Europa League anthem in 2009.

He then composed a separate piece for the final ceremony of the competition in 2010. And again in 2011, 2012 and 2013.

UEFA say Zveig won the tender from a shortlist of 22 candidates.

What a happy coincidence, then, that he also happens to be son-in-law of UEFA president Michel Platini.

Some pre-existing ties are obviously more palatable to UEFA’s boss than others.

Martin Samuel - Daily Mail
 
mcmanus said:
Robbo. said:
Spursy22 said:
Spur supporter here. I'm reading through this thread and I really hope for your sake the owners take FFP more seriously than you guys do.

I think you guys will probably pass ffp this time coz you guys are showing improvement even tho you haven't fully met the requirements.

But I wonder if you guys are gonna start taking it to considerration from now on like Chelsea are. I know that most of you want another revamp in the summer, which might be neccessary as a lot of your players walk around thinking that City owe them and City are lucky to have them instead of the other way around.

If you guys do go on another spree from now on without considering ffp you can't complain about any reprecussions which might follow.


Are you pissed? fuck off you idiot back to your own forum. You clearly know fuck all about us.

No way he's a keeper.

We can use him to see how much ill informed media bullshit is just sucked up and believed as gospel by fans of other clubs. Use him as a barometer.

Spursy why do other fans see a Muslim man owning and using his 'Arab Money' (media phrase) worse than say an American, a Christian, a Jew or a dodgy Russian? Some of whom even take money out of football to line their pockets.

RSVP.

Not that I agree with any of the points that Spursy was trying to make, but what on earth does race/religion/politics have to do with this debate?

FFP is purely and simply about the G14 protecting its hegemony and so far it's been pretty effective.
 
bada bing said:
Sorry if already posted....


Manchester City’s links to Etihad, the main airline of Abu Dhabi, may have fallen foul of financial fair play regulations. How convenient that not all family connections are viewed with such forensic suspicion at UEFA.

Take the case of Yohann Zveig, a little-known composer from Paris.

Think of how many exceptionally gifted musicians there are in the world, yet Zveig was lucky enough to get the commission to write the Europa League anthem in 2009.

He then composed a separate piece for the final ceremony of the competition in 2010. And again in 2011, 2012 and 2013.

UEFA say Zveig won the tender from a shortlist of 22 candidates.

What a happy coincidence, then, that he also happens to be son-in-law of UEFA president Michel Platini.

Some pre-existing ties are obviously more palatable to UEFA’s boss than others.

Martin Samuel - Daily Mail

Platini's is like Blatter, corruption runs in their veins.
 
Being at the top of football is like being at the top of the Chinese government. The whole thing is so corrupt that anyone who gets that far has corruption coming out of their eyeballs.
 
fbloke said:
If you think that the man who signs the cheques has baulked at buying those players because of FFPR I reckon you need to revisit what Khaldoon said a couple of times soon after the club was bought.

I dont doubt that every club has one eye on the wider implications of FFPR but the reason that, for example Isco wasnt bought was because the club wouldnt sanction back handers and tax free payments. Hazard had many complications along similar lines and was sold at a premium.

City as a club have taken a very firm stance against agents, backhanders and tax free third party payments and that is the main reason deals were not closed not FFPR.
Exactly. As with any club looking to expand quickly, you have to overpay for some players. Once you're already in a position where you're challenging for titles, you can afford to be a bit more prudent and refuse to be ripped off on players. We refused to pay €64m for Cavani and instead, went for Negredo for £16m. And both players have scored roughly the same number of goals this season. Decisions like that are made because he wants the club to be paying for itself in the future, not because of FFP. Everything about Mansour's investment has suggested the goal is a title-challenging club that will sustain itself. The Fernandinho transfer surely shows that he's still willing to get his wallet out for the right player. Let's not forget that most people thought that was a massively overpriced deal at the time (stupid as that looks now).
 
I've posted an extract from the link below. It is interesting and easily forgotten how much debt Liverpool got themselves into due to the poor management of the previous regime. Are they really in debt by £400m and how will that affect them once they return to the Champions League? I know they have recorded losses of around £50m for each of the last 2 reported years but the additional debt gets easily forgotten.


<a class="postlink" href="http://www.7amkickoff.com/2014/ffp-prepares-a-toothless-snarl-at-psg-and-man-city/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.7amkickoff.com/2014/ffp-prep ... -man-city/</a>

Your team has to be in the one of the two UEFA competitions (Champions League and Europa League) in order to be subject to these penalties. Thus, Liverpool, who have made nearly £100m in losses in the last two years doesn’t even get investigated by UEFA, this year. However, if Liverpool finish in the top four, which seems very likely considering their position on the table, they will be eligible for European competitions next year and will then be subject to scrutiny.

Liverpool is a great example of how toothless these rules really are. The Scousers were on the verge of bankruptcy with £400m in debt when the Boston group stepped in and saved them from administration. Since then, much of the debt on the books has been retired (through inter-company, interest free loans) but the club continue to make huge losses season after season. This is precisely the kind of situation we were told that both UEFA’s FFP and the Football Association FFP rules would prevent: no team should be on the verge of bankruptcy only to receive a temporary reprieve and then start spending ludicrously again.

It will be interesting to see how UEFA deal with Liverpool’s books next year. They have lost money consistently year in and year out and only “retire” debt through inter-company loans. Chelsea have found similarly creative ways to cook their books. The so-called £2m in profits they made last year were actually £19m in losses if you don’t count their canceled shares in a joint venture with BSkyB, which Chelsea simply subsumed (e.g. Abramovich gifted). Chelsea has gone on to lose £50m again this season, but since the rules are structured so that losses are cumulative over two years, Chelsea once again avoid running into FFP’s toothless buzzsaw.
 
So a consortium of American billionaires are interested in buying Villa (who voted for FFPR) if they stay up.

Shame they wont be able to spend loads on the team isnt it?
 
fbloke said:
So a consortium of American billionaires are interested in buying Villa (who voted for FFPR) if they stay up.

Shame they wont be able to spend loads on the team isnt it?

Didn't Villa vote against?
 

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.