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

[moomba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Our staff costs for y/e 2013 were: 233m
Our staff costs for y/e 2014 were: 205m

UEFA's sanctions (I believe) are on the 205m figure, but also include bonuses, so any new contracts offering lower salary / more bonus don't necessarily help (although one would assume this year's lack of success will result in less cost to City!).

As I understand it, 205m is our cap. Is this correct?

I wonder if UEFA would add on the wages moved onto the CFG books.

They'd have no right to but who would be really surprised?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

There's some extreme optimism on some figure here...

Marquee signings for 150K-200K a week? good luck with that.
Lots of easy outgoing sales with players on high wages happy to give them up? good luck with that.
All of our targets heading for us and nowhere else? good luck with that.

We will get SOME targets, fail on others.
We won't be able to shift every player (or get the price we want)

I'm a bit of a cynic, I'll readily admit that, but bloody hell, I'll take my cynicism over the outrageous optimism!!!... it's the hope that kills you!!

Perhaps you need to leave your admitted cynicism at the door?

How much do you think the likes of Costa, Fabregas, Hazard, Sanchez, Bale and Ozil earn each week?

For that matter, Sergio and Silva?

Not one of those players is on anywhere near £200k a week, and only a couple closer.

Outside of United paying £300k a week to Rooney, and slightly less to van Persie, Falcao and Di Maria, you have a weird perception of what the reality is in terms of pay.

Sterling, Pogba, players such as these, all well within top echelon parameters.

I don't think anybody on here needs to be stated the obvious that some players might actually want to play somewhere else.

And in terms of existing contracts, City will ensure asking prices commensurate to what can be construed as pay-offs.

And I'll also dispute my previous claim about Milner and Richards acting cynically.

Richards had two years left on his contract when a new deal was offered and Milner stated over a year ago it was about more playing time.

It's cynical when the end game is to leave all along.

Surely you as a cynical man should be able to spot that a little easier;)

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

Our staff costs for y/e 2013 were: 233m
Our staff costs for y/e 2014 were: 205m

UEFA's sanctions (I believe) are on the 205m figure, but also include bonuses, so any new contracts offering lower salary / more bonus don't necessarily help (although one would assume this year's lack of success will result in less cost to City!).

As I understand it, 205m is our cap. Is this correct?

sniff

FFS, given our experience of EUFA, I think it's only right that there is at least one voice of caution on here, give him a break, he's clearly a blue, after all we're past masters in pessimism.

I agree, clearly a blue albeit one with a 1990s mindset.

 

[squirtyflower]

Re Fanchester City posts:

I agree, it's almost like your pro FFP in a subtle way. For you to write that FFP wasn't directed at us is ludicrous. The break even rule was with us and PSG in mind because they know we threatened to be top dog and steal their ground. Read what Martin Samuel says about FFP, Man Utd will be in the box seat every year as far as transfers go, we'll never be able to compete with them. How is that good for us !! This convoluted theory about seeing value in us and allowing us in the cartel is ridiculous. We know they dont want us and will stifle us at every chance because we are a threat!
To be perfectly honest, I think you should keep your pro Platini comments to yourself

FFP was being muted before we were taken over, it's not targeted at City. It's targeted at maintaining the status quo of the elite. It wouldn't matter if Swansea had a sugar daddy owner, or Parma, or Newcastle, it's THAT they are worried about, not Man City per se.

Do you think if Newcastle had been bought by the sheik, they'd have different rules? no... they wouldn't. It's bot because it's City, it's because it's a new threat to the status quo, regardless of who.

Semantics surely?
Unless you consider us all to be paranoid?

 

[FanchesterCity]

Our staff costs for y/e 2013 were: 233m
Our staff costs for y/e 2014 were: 205m

UEFA's sanctions (I believe) are on the 205m figure, but also include bonuses, so any new contracts offering lower salary / more bonus don't necessarily help (although one would assume this year's lack of success will result in less cost to City!).

As I understand it, 205m is our cap. Is this correct?

Only my guess but a sanctions were imposed on the 2013 accounts the 2013 figure would be the one used and last years wages were the first year of our new 2 year monitoring period. But could do with PB or somebody with a better understanding than me to confirm that.

You could be right on that.... but the wording is really ambiguous from both sides when it says 'wages to be kept at our current level'... is that at the point the sanctions were imposed, or at the level in the accounts on which we were judged? as you say, that could mean 28m buffer in our favour (or not).
As far as I know, nobody's actually stated the limit, just used that phrase 'at the current level'.

The bonus thing is a little weird too, since it makes loads of sense for City to lower the salary and increase the bonus, since if we win, things, the increased revenue covers the bonuses anyway, but, with regard to FFP, it would increase the risk. You'd have to assume City look at the worst case scenario of all bonuses paid out, and it still be less than the cap right?

 

[blueparrot]

Our staff costs for y/e 2013 were: 233m
Our staff costs for y/e 2014 were: 205m

UEFA's sanctions (I believe) are on the 205m figure, but also include bonuses, so any new contracts offering lower salary / more bonus don't necessarily help (although one would assume this year's lack of success will result in less cost to City!).

As I understand it, 205m is our cap. Is this correct?

Only my guess but a sanctions were imposed on the 2013 accounts the 2013 figure would be the one used and last years wages were the first year of our new 2 year monitoring period. But could do with PB or somebody with a better understanding than me to confirm that.

You could be right on that.... but the wording is really ambiguous from both sides when it says 'wages to be kept at our current level'... is that at the point the sanctions were imposed, or at the level in the accounts on which we were judged? as you say, that could mean 28m buffer in our favour (or not).
As far as I know, nobody's actually stated the limit, just used that phrase 'at the current level'.

The bonus thing is a little weird too, since it makes loads of sense for City to lower the salary and increase the bonus, since if we win, things, the increased revenue covers the bonuses anyway, but, with regard to FFP, it would increase the risk. You'd have to assume City look at the worst case scenario of all bonuses paid out, and it still be less than the cap right?

As the sanctions were imposed before the 2014 books were available, November 2014, I think, then current level must be 2013 figure. As for bonuses, I haven't a clue.

 

[squirtyflower]

Only my guess but a sanctions were imposed on the 2013 accounts the 2013 figure would be the one used and last years wages were the first year of our new 2 year monitoring period. But could do with PB or somebody with a better understanding than me to confirm that.

You could be right on that.... but the wording is really ambiguous from both sides when it says 'wages to be kept at our current level'... is that at the point the sanctions were imposed, or at the level in the accounts on which we were judged? as you say, that could mean 28m buffer in our favour (or not).
As far as I know, nobody's actually stated the limit, just used that phrase 'at the current level'.

The bonus thing is a little weird too, since it makes loads of sense for City to lower the salary and increase the bonus, since if we win, things, the increased revenue covers the bonuses anyway, but, with regard to FFP, it would increase the risk. You'd have to assume City look at the worst case scenario of all bonuses paid out, and it still be less than the cap right?

As the sanctions were imposed before the 2014 books were available, November 2014, I think, then current level must be 2013 figure. As for bonuses, I haven't a clue.

Iirc there was a specific mention that bonuses weren't included in the salary cap

 

[VOOMER]

Our staff costs for y/e 2013 were: 233m
Our staff costs for y/e 2014 were: 205m

UEFA's sanctions (I believe) are on the 205m figure, but also include bonuses, so any new contracts offering lower salary / more bonus don't necessarily help (although one would assume this year's lack of success will result in less cost to City!).

As I understand it, 205m is our cap. Is this correct?

sniff

FFS, given our experience of EUFA, I think it's only right that there is at least one voice of caution on here, give him a break, he's clearly a blue, after all we're past masters in pessimism.

agreed and apologies for a cheap shot, but a punishment this time would have to be challenged.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re Fanchester City posts:

I agree, it's almost like your pro FFP in a subtle way. For you to write that FFP wasn't directed at us is ludicrous. The break even rule was with us and PSG in mind because they know we threatened to be top dog and steal their ground. Read what Martin Samuel says about FFP, Man Utd will be in the box seat every year as far as transfers go, we'll never be able to compete with them. How is that good for us !! This convoluted theory about seeing value in us and allowing us in the cartel is ridiculous. We know they dont want us and will stifle us at every chance because we are a threat!
To be perfectly honest, I think you should keep your pro Platini comments to yourself

FFP was being muted before we were taken over, it's not targeted at City. It's targeted at maintaining the status quo of the elite. It wouldn't matter if Swansea had a sugar daddy owner, or Parma, or Newcastle, it's THAT they are worried about, not Man City per se.

Do you think if Newcastle had been bought by the sheik, they'd have different rules? no... they wouldn't. It's bot because it's City, it's because it's a new threat to the status quo, regardless of who.

Semantics surely?
Unless you consider us all to be paranoid?

I think there's a lot of clubs driving Platini to make sure no upstarts start rocking the boat. But I also think, in time, much like Chelsea, we'll slot into the elite and be accepted. I'd like to think the focus will move on to the next wave of new money clubs, but if FFP continues (as is), there won't be any more like us, since the drawbridge is closed.

I could say that once we're the right side of FFP, FFP actually works in our favour (by stopping anybody following us!).
If I take the 'good of the game' approach though, then FFP needs to be killed off (or certainly reworked massively).

Saying that FFP could actually help us (by preventing clubs following our lead now the drawbridge is up) doesn't make me an FFP advocate! It's just stating a side effect of FFP that can work in our favour!

 

[BLUE THUNDER]

Given they shafted us with the penalties imposed, even though we thought we were within their rules, what makes you think that if we abide by their rules this time that they wont interpret them how they want to stifle us yet again.
Whatever we do to get ahead, they will continually shift the goal posts to stop us. We're dealing with a corrupt cartel remember?