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

[Chippy_boy]

Technically Marcotti is right, we do have the spend limit, but it will be lifted.

Well it might be. But the settlement didn't say that it would be, it said it was for 2 years, so maybe it won't be.

Maybe technically Marcitti is right and it's for 2 years.

 

[FanchesterCity]

In hindsight, the pinch seems to have affected us more than we thought. Understandably we diminished our interpretation of the sanctions by calling it 'a pinch', while UEFA did the opposite and milked it as a 'strong punishment'.

For all we know, we might have had a lousy season anyway, but there's little to commend how we used the money we did have last summer. We can't blame all woes on FFP, but it certainly didn't help matters.

But one thing's for sure... we can't stomach another year of sanctions. The home grown rule's also going to steer us down a path we might not have naturally chosen. Rules like FFP end up having unintended consequences, and one of them is inflated prices for home grown players - a price we'll have to pay unfortunately.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Almost everything is for two years, like a suspended sentence. So the media (and therefore other fans) are still in a two year mode of thinking.
They keep forgetting the caveat about the second year being lifted if we meet the break even criterion.

It's the same with the fine spread over 3 years... two years of it is suspended.

In many ways, it's all a ruse so UEFA can claim they've hit us far harder. They could just have kept it all a lot simpler and given us a flat punishment for the year and have done with it. But no, this way, they can make it sounder bigger / harsher and then let us off the hook early when the storm's died down.

 

[BlueAnorak]

That's how I remember it as I was think the same
Put them all on minimum wage with massive (er) bonuses

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

YES so long as we acquire extra income to cover the expenditure...

I should indicate that the new SKY/BT TV deals kick in next season - an increase of 70% (about £50m) on the old one, So technically by UEFA rules we could jack it up by £25m to £230m and use the remaining £25m to fund £100m in transfers for players on 4 year contracts - remember the book value of a transfer is spread out over the whole of the players contract .
However by Premier League FFP rules any additional TV revenue can't be blown on player wages it would have to be covered by new revenue from other sources,,,

 

[BlueAnorak]

Conspiracy theory
Club tells players to lose games so bonuses are not triggered
Not to worry lift sanctions next season and double bonuses paid.............

LOL!
More likely just tell the manager to pick a crap formation and not practice corners! That way you don't have to pay double bonuses next season!

 

[Hungarian blue]

Marcotti had an article recently and he was adamant we still have the 60m€ net spend limit.

He is no FFP expert of course but I am not 100% sure myself. Even the club said we are confident we gonna go about summer without restrictions. But we were confident avoiding FFP punishment a year ago and we got slapped...

Marcotti???? You would have more truth from the sun mate!! ;-)

I actually like him but his piece was really strange with regards to our whole business stuff. All the figures and the possible incomings/outcomings were just random.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Almost everything is for two years, like a suspended sentence. So the media (and therefore other fans) are still in a two year mode of thinking.
They keep forgetting the caveat about the second year being lifted if we meet the break even criterion.

Perhaps you are unaware that whereas the settlement agreement says that various sanctions are lifted after 1 year if we meet certain conditions, specifically it does NOT say that in respect of the 2 year transfer spending cap?

 

[BlueAnorak]

Almost everything is for two years, like a suspended sentence. So the media (and therefore other fans) are still in a two year mode of thinking.
They keep forgetting the caveat about the second year being lifted if we meet the break even criterion.

Perhaps you are unaware that whereas the settlement agreement says that various sanctions are lifted after 1 year if we meet certain conditions, specifically it does NOT say that in respect of the 2 year transfer spending cap?

So why do Ferran and Khaloon continue to say that ALL restrictions will be lifted if we make the criteria that UEFA have set for 2015?
We don't have the legal agreement with UEFA to look over. But please tell me why these people say ALL sanctions are to be lifted if City make the criteria that UEFA have set?
Please answer the question.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Almost everything is for two years, like a suspended sentence. So the media (and therefore other fans) are still in a two year mode of thinking.
They keep forgetting the caveat about the second year being lifted if we meet the break even criterion.

Perhaps you are unaware that whereas the settlement agreement says that various sanctions are lifted after 1 year if we meet certain conditions, specifically it does NOT say that in respect of the 2 year transfer spending cap?

I am aware, and mentioned it earlier in the forum:

Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for
seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Manchester City further accepts a calculated
limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List
for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based
on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by
this agreement.


As you say there's a curious absence of the 'will be lifted' caveat for this paragraph, whereas it appears in most others.

Now, if we look at Khaldoon's statement on the same subject:

- The Club’s expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros. This will have no material impact on the Club’s planned transfer activity.

He doesn't contradict UEFA, but makes no mention of the second year.

A similar situation exists with the overall salary cap. The UEFA document implies there's a cap (including bonuses) but doesn't actually mention bonuses, but Khaldoon specifically states that bonuses are exempt. Other posters in the forum are confident that the bonuses (for the purpose of the sanctions) are exempt, but not in general FFP rules.

My theory (and that's all it is), is that both the UEFA and Khaldoon summaries of the sanctions are superficial summaries of a more comprehensive (secret) agreement between the club and UEFA where more precise details can be found. But we're not privy to such an agreement, if indeed it exists.

If it doesn't exist, and 'the agreement' as published by UEFA is the actual (awfully drawn up) contract, then we're in trouble, because it's riddled with ambiguity. I cannot believe the UEFA document is THE actual agreement, nobody at City's legal team would agree to that actual document, surely??

I think it's a summary, and City have more detail behind the scenes, hence why City are saying they are confident they are clear this summer.
I'm also aware we said that last time around and it went tits up, but surely we won't allow UEFA to pull a stunt twice? will we? I think it's a fair point for any to raise though... UEFA pulled a stunt on us last time, so we have to be wary of them doing it again.

This is the problem I'm having in the forum here... I'm looking at the ONLY document UEFA have released with the sanctions spelled out, and there are problems in that document.
I look at what Khaldoon said and there are slight variations in his version of the agreement which that very same document is supposed to represent..
Then I read what other posters on here say, who seemingly have a bit of insider information, and they support Khaldoon's interpretation, and are confident we're in the clear for the summer, but there is no documentation for that, only Khaldoon's statements and the suggestion they have a bit of insight (which they probably do, so I can only take their word for i.)
.
I've never once said we'll fail or anything like that, I've just said that based on UEFA's document alone, there's still a few traps waiting for us, but I simply can't believe City haven't got it covered. It would be sheer incompetence on City's part if they didn't have it covered.

I don't feel I'm being negative in any way, just curious about how UEFA might attempt to shaft us, and how there are subtle, but significant differences between what the official UEFA document says, and what Khaldoon says.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Almost everything is for two years, like a suspended sentence. So the media (and therefore other fans) are still in a two year mode of thinking.
They keep forgetting the caveat about the second year being lifted if we meet the break even criterion.

Perhaps you are unaware that whereas the settlement agreement says that various sanctions are lifted after 1 year if we meet certain conditions, specifically it does NOT say that in respect of the 2 year transfer spending cap?

So why do Ferran and Khaloon continue to say that ALL restrictions will be lifted if we make the criteria that UEFA have set for 2015?
We don't have the legal agreement with UEFA to look over. But please tell me why these people say ALL sanctions are to be lifted if City make the criteria that UEFA have set?
Please answer the question.

This is the only document we have:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/ClubFinancialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>

This is UEFA's official document, but it looks more like a summary of a contract than the actual contract. That's why I believe there's an actual contract that's not disclosed.
However, based SOLELY on the above document, you can see it's littered with issues.

When the document was released shortly after the sanctions were imposed, Khaldoon also made a prepared statement:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/2014/may/club-statement-16-may" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/20 ... ent-16-may</a>

The two match up in MOST areas, but not all.
Specifically, UEFA's document says we are waged capped, and uses a specific definition (from the normal FFP regulations) that implies player bonuses are part of the cap. It doesn't specifically say they are, it uses the term 'employee benefit expenses' stating they cannot be increased. This term INCLUDES bonuses (usually). Khaldoon's version of this paragraph explicitly states bonuses are not included. Therefore, it suggests he's aware of more details not included in the document.

The other slight mismatch is the transfer cap.
The UEFA document says 2 years, and there's no caveat to say it will be lifted IF we break even. This caveat exists for most of the other paragraphs, so it notable by it's absence.
In contrast, Khaldoon only mentions 1 year of transfer cap, and makes no mention of the second year (either for or against it happening).
UEFA say 'significantly limit spending', Khaldoon puts a 60m figure on it. We have no idea what the limit is / would be for the following year, or what the interpretation of 'significant' is.

Subsequently, Khaldoon and other City representatives have gone on record stating we are confident we will be operating without restriction this summer. No such statement has come from UEFA yet.

I think I've summarised that correctly, other's may disagree.