blueparrot said:tolmie's hairdoo said:City were one of four clubs who voted against 'fair play' rules being introduced by the Premier League.
That gives us our answer where we stand in any component of restricted investment.
The plans for the stadium, complex, etc, were all in the pipe, regardless.
Their profit margins still need to be maintained.
Rather than City being worried about the impending rulings, I sense major apprehension from Uefa, with regards them trying to move the goalposts and shift the onus of responsibility to any dissenting clubs.
It would not only be a legal action from City, out auditors would also be well within their rights to protect their good name.
That's the crucial point if they accept our figures the with the pre 2010 contracts we fall into the allowed guidelines. If they challenge our figures then it's not us they are taking on , but the accountants and auditors. That would be a serious allegation of incompetence or fraud.
fbloke said:CITYBOY1000 said:fbloke said:I'm not sure how many of us blues remember Ferrostaal?
We played in the Ferrostaal Cup in year one of Sheikh Mansours's and they were a sponsor if you remember?
Well there were financial irregularities and once that was discovered the Abu Dhabi investors sold up and moved on. There is a very broad and deep streak of honour and doing things properly within the royal family of AD.
UEFA and their FFP fall into the same category as Ferrostaal, but rather than being inside the irregularities City are outside but will be negatively impacted by them and the interests of MCFC and Sheikh Mansour will be directly attacked.
Its clear to me that UEFA are on very thin ice. City refusing to publicly acknowledge FFPR is the clearest possible indication that the mood music has changed betwix City and UEFA as well as City and the old guard represented by the ECA.
I think we are also seeing signs from the old guard that they may well be getting nervous about the lack of action from UEFA.
But there are also clear indications that a number of clubs are being forced to change their ways in a manner that would be unimaginable until FFP. The message from City and PSG may well be that they have the dirt on the football business and that they will bring the house of cards tumbling down if pushed. Let us not forget the fact that City now refuse to do business with quite a few agents and indeed clubs because of what they have encountered in the early years of SM's tenure.
FFP might well be the public battle that City and PSH choose but there is more than that going on behind the scenes.
Our owners are obviously acknowledging FFP rules or they wouldn't have been going to the trouble of buying up New York and Australian football clubs to sell on IP and thereby balance the books though at a financial loss but which isn't a loss for FFP rules purposes.
Why else have we commenced the Etihad project with the development money not counting towards losses but the investment is counting ? That project is costing hundreds of millions and no way is the investment going to balance the cost. The new stands and increasing capacity to 61,000 is another measure. They'll be building loads of plush corporate boxes at £500,000 per season ticket that will be snapped up by mysterious Arab sheikhs no doubt who will never seem them more than once or twice. These are all FFP avoidance tactics, at great expense but where the books can be balanced for FFP purposes.
Our owners and their advisers and accountants have put a lot of thought into getting around FFP. They have also laid out vast sums of money that could have been spent on buying Hazard or Falcao or others we've missed out on due to the costs involved.
We didn't worry about transfer fees in the past pre-FFP. We do now. A lot has changed and to say we haven't acknowledged FFP is misguided I believe.
That is different of course from us officially saying something that indicates we will accept any punishment. I think our owners take FFP seriously but if the punishment for failing to comply is draconian then they will fight it.
So basically you're equating everything being done by City as a devise to dodge round FFP?
The nonsense about charging £1/2m to a mystery arab is not even close to acceptable to UEFA and the FFP regs so why bother doing all the other hoop jumping if you dont intend to follow the rules in any case?
The idea also that we have spent perhaps £300m on buying two other clubs just to again dodge FFP with an IP transaction is naive in the extreme.
Perhaps if you see what is developing at City as a business growth and investment for the returns that will be derived in future then you will see things as they actually are.
The plan when City were bought was to take advantage of football as a marketing tool for AD but also to buy a very much undervalued asset which, with some investment, would pay dividends year on year in the future.
I would venture that FFP gets in the way of the plans if it is accepted as being enforceable, a position I dont think City accept.
The Campus developments were also on the table irrespective of Platini and UEFA. In fact the deal with Nike and the development of City Schools (or whatever brand they opt for) etc havent even started yet but are in place, ready to go.
In short FFP is at worst an annoyance that may mean some slight changes in the presentation of the clubs financial position. If it were to go beyond that and UEFA caused any real problems for the City Football Group then you would see a rather more belligerent CFG.
tolmie's hairdoo said:blueparrot said:tolmie's hairdoo said:City were one of four clubs who voted against 'fair play' rules being introduced by the Premier League.
That gives us our answer where we stand in any component of restricted investment.
The plans for the stadium, complex, etc, were all in the pipe, regardless.
Their profit margins still need to be maintained.
Rather than City being worried about the impending rulings, I sense major apprehension from Uefa, with regards them trying to move the goalposts and shift the onus of responsibility to any dissenting clubs.
It would not only be a legal action from City, out auditors would also be well within their rights to protect their good name.
That's the crucial point if they accept our figures the with the pre 2010 contracts we fall into the allowed guidelines. If they challenge our figures then it's not us they are taking on , but the accountants and auditors. That would be a serious allegation of incompetence or fraud.
I would be intrigued to learn if our own London auditors also work for any potential dissenters!
Our auditors would be compelled to act and protect the value of their own company.
It could get really nasty if we demanded to open the books of Arsenal or Liverpool.
The Messi deal aside has anyone with a head for figures calculated roughly our transfer budget for this summer, given our increasing income, player contracts ending and our desire to break even?BluessinceHydeRoad said:For my money (!), FFPR is unenforceable because it is contrary to law and I would love to see the legal challenge going through the courts get rid of it for good and all. I hope this will be the case. It would be nice to see the cartel fined 10% of their turnover for ... well anything. The Sheikh's attitude is probably different. The club is "relaxed" and believes there is no problem. This seems the most likely outcome. In the medium term there is certainly no problem.
We all assume that FFPR will bring our days of spending to an end while the gang of debtors carry on spending at will. It won't mean this at all. United and Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool will, of course, be able to spend more than they should, but in the last 5 years City's income has increased from £79 million to £236 million and the club was suggesting that it will be one of the top 5 next year and greater growth to come. Spending is limited by income, but growing income permits growing spending.
The striking feature of our owner and friends is that they operate on a different level to other "businessmen" involved in football and they astound us every time they announce a new venture. We are already the world's first multinational club/group, we know of the plans for the area around the Etihad and I feel there are many other plans for increasing revenue that we don't know of and, as yet, can't dream of. From what PB replied to me yesterday about Messi, a complicated deal involving partners and sponsors is in place to buy him and pay him, should he want to come. The Sheikh would not be dipping into his own pockets. I suspect, as many do, that FFPR is a complete irrelevance to the powers at City. City will be a self-sustaining business within the Sheikh's time scale, not UEFA's. The only action that could raise eyebrows at City is if UEFA tried to rule out the Etihad deal or tried to exclude City from the CL. The Sheikh has made no statement on FFPR. I suspect he'll make none - unless forced to.
CITYBOY1000 said:fbloke said:CITYBOY1000 said:Our owners are obviously acknowledging FFP rules or they wouldn't have been going to the trouble of buying up New York and Australian football clubs to sell on IP and thereby balance the books though at a financial loss but which isn't a loss for FFP rules purposes.
Why else have we commenced the Etihad project with the development money not counting towards losses but the investment is counting ? That project is costing hundreds of millions and no way is the investment going to balance the cost. The new stands and increasing capacity to 61,000 is another measure. They'll be building loads of plush corporate boxes at £500,000 per season ticket that will be snapped up by mysterious Arab sheikhs no doubt who will never seem them more than once or twice. These are all FFP avoidance tactics, at great expense but where the books can be balanced for FFP purposes.
Our owners and their advisers and accountants have put a lot of thought into getting around FFP. They have also laid out vast sums of money that could have been spent on buying Hazard or Falcao or others we've missed out on due to the costs involved.
We didn't worry about transfer fees in the past pre-FFP. We do now. A lot has changed and to say we haven't acknowledged FFP is misguided I believe.
That is different of course from us officially saying something that indicates we will accept any punishment. I think our owners take FFP seriously but if the punishment for failing to comply is draconian then they will fight it.
So basically you're equating everything being done by City as a devise to dodge round FFP?
The nonsense about charging £1/2m to a mystery arab is not even close to acceptable to UEFA and the FFP regs so why bother doing all the other hoop jumping if you dont intend to follow the rules in any case?
The idea also that we have spent perhaps £300m on buying two other clubs just to again dodge FFP with an IP transaction is naive in the extreme.
Perhaps if you see what is developing at City as a business growth and investment for the returns that will be derived in future then you will see things as they actually are.
The plan when City were bought was to take advantage of football as a marketing tool for AD but also to buy a very much undervalued asset which, with some investment, would pay dividends year on year in the future.
I would venture that FFP gets in the way of the plans if it is accepted as being enforceable, a position I dont think City accept.
The Campus developments were also on the table irrespective of Platini and UEFA. In fact the deal with Nike and the development of City Schools (or whatever brand they opt for) etc havent even started yet but are in place, ready to go.
In short FFP is at worst an annoyance that may mean some slight changes in the presentation of the clubs financial position. If it were to go beyond that and UEFA caused any real problems for the City Football Group then you would see a rather more belligerent CFG.
There are no rules preventing an Arab, unconnected with ADUG, paying 500K per year for a luxury corporate box and that is what are going to be built. I did the survey around a year or so again after an e-mail from the club. The survey was asking how much I'd be prepared to pay for various deals culminating in the most luxurious that were way out of my price range - not saying much admittedly but the prices were incredible though the package was deluxe as well.
The complex thing only came into being after FFP rules were introduced and immediately were targeted as a ploy to circumvent the rules. I've seen nothing convincing to say the campus is going to give a financial return - other than the Etihad money so why do it ?
If FFP is just an annoyance why have we gone from almost buying Kaka for £100 million and hoovering up RSC, Adebayor, Robinho, Tevez, Yaya and Kolo, Kun, Dzeko, Silva and Nasri for top fees and wages to dropping into the bargain basement for Rodwell, Maicon, Sinclair, Garcia, Navas, Demechelis (£18K per week) and Negredo and almost not buying Ferny until he took a £5 million wage cut because he wanted a chance of playing in the world cup ?
Our revenues are increasing but our ambition in the transfer market seems to have been stunted. We've balked at paying £35 million for Hazard, £50 million for Falcao and a range of other players. Admittedly, they are all risks but we seemed prepared to take the risks in the past.
Why do you think we bought NYCFC and the Australian outfit and immediately sold them our IP which coincidentally brought our losses down by £50 million ? That seems to be the only conceivable reason to me but perhaps you can tell me why would paid all that money for ownership of 2 clubs which don't even have recognised leagues and minimal followings or speculative followings in the case of NYCFC and where revenues and profits will never be on a par with the Premiership.
How do you explain that ?
tolmie's hairdoo said:blueparrot said:tolmie's hairdoo said:City were one of four clubs who voted against 'fair play' rules being introduced by the Premier League.
That gives us our answer where we stand in any component of restricted investment.
The plans for the stadium, complex, etc, were all in the pipe, regardless.
Their profit margins still need to be maintained.
Rather than City being worried about the impending rulings, I sense major apprehension from Uefa, with regards them trying to move the goalposts and shift the onus of responsibility to any dissenting clubs.
It would not only be a legal action from City, out auditors would also be well within their rights to protect their good name.
That's the crucial point if they accept our figures the with the pre 2010 contracts we fall into the allowed guidelines. If they challenge our figures then it's not us they are taking on , but the accountants and auditors. That would be a serious allegation of incompetence or fraud.
I would be intrigued to learn if our own London auditors also work for any potential dissenters!
Our auditors would be compelled to act and protect the value of their own company.
It could get really nasty if we demanded to open the books of Arsenal or Liverpool.
fbloke said:CITYBOY1000 said:fbloke said:So basically you're equating everything being done by City as a devise to dodge round FFP?
The nonsense about charging £1/2m to a mystery arab is not even close to acceptable to UEFA and the FFP regs so why bother doing all the other hoop jumping if you dont intend to follow the rules in any case?
The idea also that we have spent perhaps £300m on buying two other clubs just to again dodge FFP with an IP transaction is naive in the extreme.
Perhaps if you see what is developing at City as a business growth and investment for the returns that will be derived in future then you will see things as they actually are.
The plan when City were bought was to take advantage of football as a marketing tool for AD but also to buy a very much undervalued asset which, with some investment, would pay dividends year on year in the future.
I would venture that FFP gets in the way of the plans if it is accepted as being enforceable, a position I dont think City accept.
The Campus developments were also on the table irrespective of Platini and UEFA. In fact the deal with Nike and the development of City Schools (or whatever brand they opt for) etc havent even started yet but are in place, ready to go.
In short FFP is at worst an annoyance that may mean some slight changes in the presentation of the clubs financial position. If it were to go beyond that and UEFA caused any real problems for the City Football Group then you would see a rather more belligerent CFG.
There are no rules preventing an Arab, unconnected with ADUG, paying 500K per year for a luxury corporate box and that is what are going to be built. I did the survey around a year or so again after an e-mail from the club. The survey was asking how much I'd be prepared to pay for various deals culminating in the most luxurious that were way out of my price range - not saying much admittedly but the prices were incredible though the package was deluxe as well.
The complex thing only came into being after FFP rules were introduced and immediately were targeted as a ploy to circumvent the rules. I've seen nothing convincing to say the campus is going to give a financial return - other than the Etihad money so why do it ?
If FFP is just an annoyance why have we gone from almost buying Kaka for £100 million and hoovering up RSC, Adebayor, Robinho, Tevez, Yaya and Kolo, Kun, Dzeko, Silva and Nasri for top fees and wages to dropping into the bargain basement for Rodwell, Maicon, Sinclair, Garcia, Navas, Demechelis (£18K per week) and Negredo and almost not buying Ferny until he took a £5 million wage cut because he wanted a chance of playing in the world cup ?
Our revenues are increasing but our ambition in the transfer market seems to have been stunted. We've balked at paying £35 million for Hazard, £50 million for Falcao and a range of other players. Admittedly, they are all risks but we seemed prepared to take the risks in the past.
Why do you think we bought NYCFC and the Australian outfit and immediately sold them our IP which coincidentally brought our losses down by £50 million ? That seems to be the only conceivable reason to me but perhaps you can tell me why would paid all that money for ownership of 2 clubs which don't even have recognised leagues and minimal followings or speculative followings in the case of NYCFC and where revenues and profits will never be on a par with the Premiership.
How do you explain that ?
The idea of selling a ticket, box, shirt or hot dog way above its value circumvent FFP is wrong, the fair price for such things would mean that such an action would be questioned by UEFA and how many would the club have to sell to make a difference?
We went from having to pay £100m for Kaka to not having or wanting to. There's no secret that we are a far more attractive proposition for players now than we were then.
The plans for the academy and much, much more including a stadium of over 80k were in place almost from day one of Sheikh Mansour's ownership. (ask TH or PB as well as a few well placed others).
The IP sale is pure speculation on your part and on the part of ill-informed and out of touch journalists.
Rather than explain YOUR speculation I would rather deal in facts so please point me to where the details of the supposed IP sales are as I would love to check it out.
-- Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:33 pm --
CITYBOY1000 said:fbloke said:CITYBOY1000 said:There are no rules preventing an Arab, unconnected with ADUG, paying 500K per year for a luxury corporate box and that is what are going to be built. I did the survey around a year or so again after an e-mail from the club. The survey was asking how much I'd be prepared to pay for various deals culminating in the most luxurious that were way out of my price range - not saying much admittedly but the prices were incredible though the package was deluxe as well.
The complex thing only came into being after FFP rules were introduced and immediately were targeted as a ploy to circumvent the rules. I've seen nothing convincing to say the campus is going to give a financial return - other than the Etihad money so why do it ?
If FFP is just an annoyance why have we gone from almost buying Kaka for £100 million and hoovering up RSC, Adebayor, Robinho, Tevez, Yaya and Kolo, Kun, Dzeko, Silva and Nasri for top fees and wages to dropping into the bargain basement for Rodwell, Maicon, Sinclair, Garcia, Navas, Demechelis (£18K per week) and Negredo and almost not buying Ferny until he took a £5 million wage cut because he wanted a chance of playing in the world cup ?
Our revenues are increasing but our ambition in the transfer market seems to have been stunted. We've balked at paying £35 million for Hazard, £50 million for Falcao and a range of other players. Admittedly, they are all risks but we seemed prepared to take the risks in the past.
Why do you think we bought NYCFC and the Australian outfit and immediately sold them our IP which coincidentally brought our losses down by £50 million ? That seems to be the only conceivable reason to me but perhaps you can tell me why would paid all that money for ownership of 2 clubs which don't even have recognised leagues and minimal followings or speculative followings in the case of NYCFC and where revenues and profits will never be on a par with the Premiership.
How do you explain that ?
The idea of selling a ticket, box, shirt or hot dog way above its value circumvent FFP is wrong, the fair price for such things would mean that such an action would be questioned by UEFA and how many would the club have to sell to make a difference?
We went from having to pay £100m for Kaka to not having or wanting to. There's no secret that we are a far more attractive proposition for players now than we were then.
The plans for the academy and much, much more including a stadium of over 80k were in place almost from day one of Sheikh Mansour's ownership. (ask TH or PB as well as a few well placed others).
The IP sale is pure speculation on your part and on the part of ill-informed and out of touch journalists.
Rather than explain YOUR speculation I would rather deal in facts so please point me to where the details of the supposed IP sales are as I would love to check it out.
-- Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:33 pm --
What if £500K is a fair price ? I've not said it wasn't a fair price. It is a multi-million development. £500,000 for a 10-seat box equates with just a £20,000. Trust me, that will be fair price for what is on offer and will be for at least 10 people as well so £2,000.00 each per game and they roll out the red carpet.
I'm not speculating. I'm seeing it for what it is or at least how it could e very easily viewed by an outside, objective observer. To that extent, we are all speculating or relying on second and third hand hearsay - no offence to the likes of PB and the others who have shown very intelligent insight.
I note you quoting PB in support of your argument and I might be wrong on this one so I apologise in advance as there have been so many contributors on this thread, but I recall it 'might' have been PB who explained/justified the whole IP sale thing in a corporate context in the first place. I was oblivious to it or its meaning until I came on here. The thesis has certainly been advanced many times on this thread and I don't recall PB reacting to it with the righteous indignation that you have shown.
I didn't ask you to explain speculation, mine or anyone else's. I asked you to explain the clear rise in revenues alongside the clear fall in ambition in the transfer market. This was against the overall background of my disagreement with you over whether our owners took FFP rules seriously or whether they were simply annoying.
So, I repeat the question. How do you explain our fall in ambition in the transfer market when our revenues are rocketing in any other way than that our owners are taking FFP rules very seriously indeed ?
JoeMercer'sWay said:CITYBOY1000 said:fbloke said:The idea of selling a ticket, box, shirt or hot dog way above its value circumvent FFP is wrong, the fair price for such things would mean that such an action would be questioned by UEFA and how many would the club have to sell to make a difference?
We went from having to pay £100m for Kaka to not having or wanting to. There's no secret that we are a far more attractive proposition for players now than we were then.
The plans for the academy and much, much more including a stadium of over 80k were in place almost from day one of Sheikh Mansour's ownership. (ask TH or PB as well as a few well placed others).
The IP sale is pure speculation on your part and on the part of ill-informed and out of touch journalists.
Rather than explain YOUR speculation I would rather deal in facts so please point me to where the details of the supposed IP sales are as I would love to check it out.
-- Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:33 pm --
What if £500K is a fair price ? I've not said it wasn't a fair price. It is a multi-million development. £500,000 for a 10-seat box equates with just a £20,000. Trust me, that will be fair price for what is on offer and will be for at least 10 people as well so £2,000.00 each per game and they roll out the red carpet.
I'm not speculating. I'm seeing it for what it is or at least how it could e very easily viewed by an outside, objective observer. To that extent, we are all speculating or relying on second and third hand hearsay - no offence to the likes of PB and the others who have shown very intelligent insight.
I note you quoting PB in support of your argument and I might be wrong on this one so I apologise in advance as there have been so many contributors on this thread, but I recall it 'might' have been PB who explained/justified the whole IP sale thing in a corporate context in the first place. I was oblivious to it or its meaning until I came on here. The thesis has certainly been advanced many times on this thread and I don't recall PB reacting to it with the righteous indignation that you have shown.
I didn't ask you to explain speculation, mine or anyone else's. I asked you to explain the clear rise in revenues alongside the clear fall in ambition in the transfer market. This was against the overall background of my disagreement with you over whether our owners took FFP rules seriously or whether they were simply annoying.
So, I repeat the question. How do you explain our fall in ambition in the transfer market when our revenues are rocketing in any other way than that our owners are taking FFP rules very seriously indeed ?
Firstly, I do not deem it a fall in ambition. I would state that in the summer of 2012 we did not have an ideal executive structure in place and that we were in the middle of a transitional period, and I'll only go off what I've heard and what others have said, but that a combination of factors including not having an ideal transfer committee in place, and a lack of suitable B targets to Mancini's demanded A-listers caused to be in a more difficult situation than needed. Further to that, we were trumped on Hazard because they won the CL as much as them paying more, and ultimately, like everything in business we are entitled to our valuation on acquisitions, and we have made it a clear policy to not overpay to agents or third parties and I believe that is principally to avoid issues that for example Barca have faced or similar issues, and to continue to be held to ransom by players/clubs/agents who wanted to charge us what we were prepared to spend to get to the top. Now we have achieved a comfortable platform from which to develop further we do not want to be held to ransom and as can be seen from our dealings, particularly with Sevilla last summer, we are now doing very fair value deals for very good players.
Now, when top agents want their cut, and the top young players want a big move, they will have to approach the negotiating table far more reasonably if they want to do a deal. Ultimately I believe we have a philosophy that our season or ambitions does not end with the loss of one player and that the make-up of our squad can still be as good by refusing to bow to the demands of an A-list target but securing a very good player in their own right who's actually willing to come. That is also part and parcel of a holistic approach whereby we populate the dressing room with players who actually want to be here for the right reasons and not because of their, or their agents, paycheck.
I would not see not signing Falcao as failing to get Falcao, more that for the 2 deals on the table the deal for Negredo was far better value for money and therefore inherently more sensible to conclude. That, when trying to run a business that you would want to be run as professionally as possible, and football at least now is waking up to the reality that it is little different to other businesses when it comes to money, that to maintain that stance to agents and other clubs, and to manage the investment sensibly so that we maximise its value across the whole club, means that spunking £50m on a player when we can get a very good alternative for a third of that is just a complete waste, and against what we want to do as a club.
I would also point out that as our revenues continue to climb dramatically the club will have far more money to spend on transfers anyway, which ultimately is what this is about. It is not false to state that the club, and in the eyes of the Sheikh as well, should be spending its own money on buying players and not the Sheikh anymore, and that is where we have been aiming to get to and thus we will run our business to achieve that goal and FFPR is nothing but a sideshow. We were always going to end up being run effectively and properly and in a way it's pretty classy that unlike most other clubs City have not used FFPR as the excuse for being more sensible, they are continuing to develop the club in the right way and on the right financial path regardless.