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

[FanchesterCity]

There was a very real threat that the players would be called out on strike if a salary cap, in any form, was introduced via FFP.

UEFA have tried to make it sound like FFP is a tough restriction but in fact its simply rubber stamping the way that most clubs are now framing contracts in any case.

There is one player who recently signed for Sunderland who simply has to turn up on match day to achieve one of his bonus payments.

As for Fanchester's pessimism I do find it funny that he tells me I am dead wrong about City's spending intentions when he doesnt know the facts about contract values, bonus payments and even on the available funds for summer signings.

I will trust the information chucked my way that City's net spend, if all players they desire sign for City, will be £150m - £200m.

If you mean net and that's not a mistake then I'm of to the transfer forum:-)

N.E.T.

But one player they are trying to sign would at into about one third of that.

So, I repeat, you're claiming we are about to spend the greatest net amount ever in the history of football? correct?

And I'm deluded because I've taken a far more moderate view that says we might do 120-150m gross?

I hope you're right, I really do, because that would mean we have some world beating signings to look forward to, but I don't think it's particularly pessimistic to think we'll have a decent summer, but not an earth shattering one that breaks all records.

Seriously, what's pessimistic about that? sod all.

It's hardly rocket science to predict a marquee signing would cost us 70m. I think the vast majority of fans have already deduced that.
The question is about whether we'd still have another 130m on top that!! (NET remember).

 

[80s Shorts]

There was a very real threat that the players would be called out on strike if a salary cap, in any form, was introduced via FFP.

UEFA have tried to make it sound like FFP is a tough restriction but in fact its simply rubber stamping the way that most clubs are now framing contracts in any case.

There is one player who recently signed for Sunderland who simply has to turn up on match day to achieve one of his bonus payments.

As for Fanchester's pessimism I do find it funny that he tells me I am dead wrong about City's spending intentions when he doesnt know the facts about contract values, bonus payments and even on the available funds for summer signings.

I will trust the information chucked my way that City's net spend, if all players they desire sign for City, will be £150m - £200m.

Can we do this 200 m without more sanctions ?.

Honest question from a thiko

Depends who you listen to.

The people who told me are certain the club thinks they can when all income is totted up.

Wow, you are ITK again ?

Last time I checked you were saying you were not.

 

[FanchesterCity]

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

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?

Bonuses are absolutely definitely exempt from FFP.

Really?

What's this in EUFA's FFP regulations then?

1. Definitions for the elements of relevant expenses are as follows:
a) Expenses-Costofsales/materials
Includes cost of sales for all activities, such as catering, merchandise, medical care, kits and sports materials.
b) Expenses–Employeebenefitsexpenses
Includes all forms of consideration in exchange for services rendered during
the reporting period by employees, including directors, management and those charged with governance.
Employee benefits expenses covers all forms of consideration including, but not limited to, short term employee benefits (such as wages, salaries, social security contributions, profit sharing and bonuses), non-monetary benefits (such as medical care, housing, cars and free or subsidised goods or services), post-employment benefits (payable after completion of employment), other long-term employee benefits, termination benefits, and share-based payment transactions.

If bonuses were exempt, it would be an absolute breeze to shift offload almost all the wages, and pay 99% bonus instead.

Thankfully, if we're in the clear this time around, as expected, it won't matter (with regard to the current sanctions), but it'll still matter in general terms of the break even requirement (normal FFP crap)

 

[fbloke]

Can we do this 200 m without more sanctions ?.

Honest question from a thiko

Depends who you listen to.

The people who told me are certain the club thinks they can when all income is totted up.

Wow, you are ITK again ?

Last time I checked you were saying you were not.

I never claim to be 'in the know' as I'm not. Never said it and never will.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Depends who you listen to.

The people who told me are certain the club thinks they can when all income is totted up.

Wow, you are ITK again ?

Last time I checked you were saying you were not.

I never claim to be 'in the know' as I'm not. Never said it and never will.

I too have absolutely no idea who or what our targets are. It's pure speculation. But I think most of reckon we'll be due a marquee signing and we know the typical cost of one of those (70m+). We also know that one player won't be enough (not if we want to improve) - we're looking at 3 or 4 quality players right? It's then a matter of guessing just how good and expensive those players are likely to be.
I am guessing IF we got the marquee signing (circa 70m), then we might be looking at a 40m + a 30m + a 20m that's bringing us to 160m GROSS, then we offload players anywhere between 30-60m

It's pure speculation because we've no clue who is on our shopping or 'for sale' list, nor if it'll go to plan. Past history says we won't get everybody we want, we'll end up with a compromise (as is the case with most clubs).

You're a lot more optimistic than I am about us splashing the cash to the sum of 150-200m NET
I'm less 'optimistic' (not pessimistic) that it'll be 120-150m GROSS

We shouldn't fall out over it... it's just two views... either way, even with my more conservative estimate, it's a hell of a lot better than last summer (as long we use the money wisely).

 

[richards30]

Wow, you are ITK again ?

Last time I checked you were saying you were not.

I never claim to be 'in the know' as I'm not. Never said it and never will.

I too have absolutely no idea who or what our targets are. It's pure speculation. But I think most of reckon we'll be due a marquee signing and we know the typical cost of one of those (70m+). We also know that one player won't be enough (not if we want to improve) - we're looking at 3 or 4 quality players right? It's then a matter of guessing just how good and expensive those players are likely to be.
I am guessing IF we got the marquee signing (circa 70m), then we might be looking at a 40m + a 30m + a 20m that's bringing us to 160m GROSS, then we offload players anywhere between 30-60m

It's pure speculation because we've no clue who is on our shopping or 'for sale' list, nor if it'll go to plan. Past history says we won't get everybody we want, we'll end up with a compromise (as is the case with most clubs).

You're a lot more optimistic than I am about us splashing the cash to the sum of 150-200m NET
I'm less 'optimistic' (not pessimistic) that it'll be 120-150m GROSS

We shouldn't fall out over it... it's just two views... either way, even with my more conservative estimate, it's a hell of a lot better than last summer (as long we use the money wisely).

but you are adamant we wont spend big and argue that until the cows come home?!!! Are you sure you are actually a blue??

 

[Chippy_boy]

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?

Bonuses are absolutely definitely exempt from FFP.

Really?

What's this in EUFA's FFP regulations then?

1. Definitions for the elements of relevant expenses are as follows:
a) Expenses-Costofsales/materials
Includes cost of sales for all activities, such as catering, merchandise, medical care, kits and sports materials.
b) Expenses–Employeebenefitsexpenses
Includes all forms of consideration in exchange for services rendered during
the reporting period by employees, including directors, management and those charged with governance.
Employee benefits expenses covers all forms of consideration including, but not limited to, short term employee benefits (such as wages, salaries, social security contributions, profit sharing and bonuses), non-monetary benefits (such as medical care, housing, cars and free or subsidised goods or services), post-employment benefits (payable after completion of employment), other long-term employee benefits, termination benefits, and share-based payment transactions.

If bonuses were exempt, it would be an absolute breeze to shift offload almost all the wages, and pay 99% bonus instead.

Thankfully, if we're in the clear this time around, as expected, it won't matter (with regard to the current sanctions), but it'll still matter in general terms of the break even requirement (normal FFP crap)

The FFP regulations and the settlement (aka penalty) are not the same thing. The FFP regulations do indeed seek to define payroll costs including bonuses as you suggest. But the punishment - as far as I am aware - did not, bizarre though that may seem.

 

[FanchesterCity]

I never claim to be 'in the know' as I'm not. Never said it and never will.

I too have absolutely no idea who or what our targets are. It's pure speculation. But I think most of reckon we'll be due a marquee signing and we know the typical cost of one of those (70m+). We also know that one player won't be enough (not if we want to improve) - we're looking at 3 or 4 quality players right? It's then a matter of guessing just how good and expensive those players are likely to be.
I am guessing IF we got the marquee signing (circa 70m), then we might be looking at a 40m + a 30m + a 20m that's bringing us to 160m GROSS, then we offload players anywhere between 30-60m

It's pure speculation because we've no clue who is on our shopping or 'for sale' list, nor if it'll go to plan. Past history says we won't get everybody we want, we'll end up with a compromise (as is the case with most clubs).

You're a lot more optimistic than I am about us splashing the cash to the sum of 150-200m NET
I'm less 'optimistic' (not pessimistic) that it'll be 120-150m GROSS

We shouldn't fall out over it... it's just two views... either way, even with my more conservative estimate, it's a hell of a lot better than last summer (as long we use the money wisely).

but you are adamant we wont spend big and argue that until the cows come home?!!! Are you sure you are actually a blue??

Show me where I've said we won't spend big?
Are you even reading?

I said I don't think we'll spend as big as fbloke estimates.

Would you say United spent big this summer? I would..... and my prediction is we'll be about the same. So that'll be erm... spending big right?
Am I sure I'm actually a blue? bloody hell. erm no.... I'm not sure at all. All this debate about who and what we might spend in the summer is making me doubt if I support City. Obviously, I need to say we'll spend 500m and I'll be a better City fan!

Honestly, I don't mind debating with people that can put forward their point of view, but I'm not going to get into stupid personal arguments. Argue the topic, not the person.

 

[fbloke]

Wow, you are ITK again ?

Last time I checked you were saying you were not.

I never claim to be 'in the know' as I'm not. Never said it and never will.

I too have absolutely no idea who or what our targets are. It's pure speculation. But I think most of reckon we'll be due a marquee signing and we know the typical cost of one of those (70m+). We also know that one player won't be enough (not if we want to improve) - we're looking at 3 or 4 quality players right? It's then a matter of guessing just how good and expensive those players are likely to be.
I am guessing IF we got the marquee signing (circa 70m), then we might be looking at a 40m + a 30m + a 20m that's bringing us to 160m GROSS, then we offload players anywhere between 30-60m

It's pure speculation because we've no clue who is on our shopping or 'for sale' list, nor if it'll go to plan. Past history says we won't get everybody we want, we'll end up with a compromise (as is the case with most clubs).

You're a lot more optimistic than I am about us splashing the cash to the sum of 150-200m NET
I'm less 'optimistic' (not pessimistic) that it'll be 120-150m GROSS

We shouldn't fall out over it... it's just two views... either way, even with my more conservative estimate, it's a hell of a lot better than last summer (as long we use the money wisely).

I'm certainly not falling out with anyone over football.

And I dont think i've been looking forwards to a summer as much as this one ever. Not ony because it will mean this bloody awful season will be over ;-)

 

[FanchesterCity]

Bonuses are absolutely definitely exempt from FFP.

Really?

What's this in EUFA's FFP regulations then?

1. Definitions for the elements of relevant expenses are as follows:
a) Expenses-Costofsales/materials
Includes cost of sales for all activities, such as catering, merchandise, medical care, kits and sports materials.
b) Expenses–Employeebenefitsexpenses
Includes all forms of consideration in exchange for services rendered during
the reporting period by employees, including directors, management and those charged with governance.
Employee benefits expenses covers all forms of consideration including, but not limited to, short term employee benefits (such as wages, salaries, social security contributions, profit sharing and bonuses), non-monetary benefits (such as medical care, housing, cars and free or subsidised goods or services), post-employment benefits (payable after completion of employment), other long-term employee benefits, termination benefits, and share-based payment transactions.

If bonuses were exempt, it would be an absolute breeze to shift offload almost all the wages, and pay 99% bonus instead.

Thankfully, if we're in the clear this time around, as expected, it won't matter (with regard to the current sanctions), but it'll still matter in general terms of the break even requirement (normal FFP crap)

The FFP regulations and the settlement (aka penalty) are not the same thing. The FFP regulations do indeed seek to define payroll costs including bonuses as you suggest. But the punishment - as far as I am aware - did not, bizarre though that may seem.

But UEFA's compromise agreement clearly states 'Employee benefits expenses' (as per the above definition) must not exceed the current level. So by my interpretation of that, any bonuses this past year will be counted (shouldn't be too many of those given the performances!). Next year won't matter though, if the restrictions are lifted.

Like I've said before though, the 'compromise agreement' is just an awful document. When you compare that agreement with the FFP regulations proper, there's a world of difference in quality and specificity. The compromise agreement just looks like a loose summary of a much more detailed (secret) agreement (that none of us have seen, nor are we likely to).

UEFA's document and Khaldoon's version differ slightly in the wording, probably as each tries to present it as 'a heavy punishment' and 'a pinch' respectively.