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

[deano ou812]

Aren't we free from restrictions this summer?

No.

Under the complex ruling the club must also agree to a string of other conditions: maximum losses of €20m in 2014 and €10m in 2015, to cap their wage bill at current levels for the next two seasons and to "significantly limit" spending in the transfer market for the same period.

Not so much of "a pinch" more of a kneecapping.

Ffs oh well we will probably find ourselves out of the top 4 next season then

And if that's the case then ffp will have done its job..certain teams going out again spending big while we are curtailed...

 

[uwe rosler 28]

If City comply with the restrictions, they will be lifted at the end of the 2015-16 season. The club said they would have complied with the restrictions anyway during the "natural course of the club's planned business operations".

 

[Blue warrior]

Please quantify 'significantly limit'.

Well we were going to buy Messi and Ronaldo for a combined £250m but we significantly limited our spending to half of that by only buying Messi!

We'll us fans won't know that. Last year we knew we could only spend £49 mil plus sales of players. I would reckon £65 mill plus player sales perhaps

 

[uwe rosler 28]

No.



Not so much of "a pinch" more of a kneecapping.

Ffs oh well we will probably find ourselves out of the top 4 next season then

Not sure what you're basing that on.

basically we are a team in decline that can't spend what it wants too but Chelsea, arsenal, rags, dippers, spurs can do that puts us in a very vulnerable position!

 

[fbloke]

Please quantify 'significantly limit'.

Well we were going to buy Messi and Ronaldo for a combined £250m but we significantly limited our spending to half of that by only buying Messi!

We'll us fans won't know that. Last year we knew we could only spend £49 mil plus sales of players. I would reckon £65 mill plus player sales perhaps

The point I was rather clumsily making is that the lack of any specificity, a given figure, tells me that the restriction isnt really a restriction.

If UEFA had said - restrict to level of spending seen in 2014, or even - not exceed a net expenditure of £65m then they would have something to argue with City about if they spent £250m in the summer. As they havent the rather wooly wording means its a non-restriction IMHO. After all you cant get a speeding ticket for exceeding an understood agreement to significantly limit your speed.

 

[stony]

Please quantify 'significantly limit'.

I would presume they will take our transfer spending for the last few seasons into account, which according to 'Transfer market' averages out at just over £65M per season for the last 5 seasons. If we've agreed to 'significantly limit' that amount, then I can't see us having more than the £50M cap they hit us with this season. I suppose it sounds better than a 3 year £50M cap on transfers.

 

[fbloke]

Please quantify 'significantly limit'.

I would presume they will take our transfer spending for the last few seasons into account, which according to 'Transfer market' averages out at just over £65M per season for the last 5 seasons. If we've agreed to 'significantly limit' that amount, then I can't see us having more than the £50M cap they hit us with this season. I suppose it sounds better than a 3 year £50M cap on transfers.

As i've just said on another reply the lack of a figure makes it a nonsense TBH

 

[stony]

Please quantify 'significantly limit'.

Well we were going to buy Messi and Ronaldo for a combined £250m but we significantly limited our spending to half of that by only buying Messi!

We'll us fans won't know that. Last year we knew we could only spend £49 mil plus sales of players. I would reckon £65 mill plus player sales perhaps

The point I was rather clumsily making is that the lack of any specificity, a given figure, tells me that the restriction isnt really a restriction.

If UEFA had said - restrict to level of spending seen in 2014, or even - not exceed a net expenditure of £65m then they would have something to argue with City about if they spent £250m in the summer. As they havent the rather wooly wording means its a non-restriction IMHO. After all you cant get a speeding ticket for exceeding an understood agreement to significantly limit your speed.

You actually trust UEFA after they've already changed the rules to specifically fuck us over?

 

[blueparrot]

Please quantify 'significantly limit'.

I would presume they will take our transfer spending for the last few seasons into account, which according to 'Transfer market' averages out at just over £65M per season for the last 5 seasons. If we've agreed to 'significantly limit' that amount, then I can't see us having more than the £50M cap they hit us with this season. I suppose it sounds better than a 3 year £50M cap on transfers.

I'd just assume it means limit to what's affordable within FFP limits, and not overspend an fall outside those limits.

 

[fbloke]

Please quantify 'significantly limit'.

I would presume they will take our transfer spending for the last few seasons into account, which according to 'Transfer market' averages out at just over £65M per season for the last 5 seasons. If we've agreed to 'significantly limit' that amount, then I can't see us having more than the £50M cap they hit us with this season. I suppose it sounds better than a 3 year £50M cap on transfers.

I'd just assume it means limit to what's affordable within FFP limits, and not overspend an fall outside those limits.

Soooooooooooooooooo if City happen to make a profit of £150m all is good ;-)