squirtyflower said:Iirc there was a specific mention that bonuses weren't included in the salary capblueparrot said:FanchesterCity said: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.
That's how I remember it as I was think the sameChippy_boy said:squirtyflower said:Iirc there was a specific mention that bonuses weren't included in the salary capblueparrot said: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.
Without searching to check, I am pretty sure you are right. Because I remember thinking how bloody stupid that is, because instead of paying say £200k per week, we just pay £150k plus a £50k bonus for not being sent off. Or whatever.
Wonder if the bonuses that were set were proper bonuses or just a way of getting round things ?squirtyflower said:Iirc there was a specific mention that bonuses weren't included in the salary capblueparrot said:FanchesterCity said: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 said:Iirc there was a specific mention that bonuses weren't included in the salary capblueparrot said:FanchesterCity said: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.
blueparrot said:FanchesterCity said:blueparrot said: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.
FanchesterCity said:squirtyflower said:Iirc there was a specific mention that bonuses weren't included in the salary capblueparrot said: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.
From the UEFA sanction document:
Manchester City accepts that employee benefit expenses cannot be increased during the next two financial periods (2015 & 2016). If
Manchester City meets the annual break even requirements outlined above, this spending limit will be removed for the 2016 financial period.
God knows what's interpreted as 'employee benefit expenses' - bonuses included or not? (I thought they were as UEFA didn't want anybody paying £1.00 in wages, and £200K a week in bonuses as a very easy workaround).
I HATE this document, it's so damn ambiguous, and since I don't trust UEFA, I see ways in which they'll interpret things that work against us. It's not like they've not done it before is it?
That's my understanding. Those 2013 accounts included something close to £30m of payoffs to Mancini and his cohorts so UEFA's imposition of a cap on that figure was a fudge par excellence. That cap should disappear anyway this summer.blueparrot said:FanchesterCity said: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.
Why do Arsenals best players keep leaving then? Very odd, it's almost as if Mr Neville has some blind hatred of us that he struggles to containLoveCity said:Gary Neville believes we'll struggle to compete this summer because of FFP and "if any player has a choice between United, Chelsea, Arsenal and City, City will always be 4th" (tell that to Nasri and Jovetic).
Has anyone given these football experts an update or are we all wrong?
LoveCity said:Gary Neville believes we'll struggle to compete this summer because of FFP and "if any player has a choice between United, Chelsea, Arsenal and City, City will always be 4th" (tell that to Nasri and Jovetic).
Has anyone given these football experts an update or are we all wrong?