You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
stony said:LoveCity said:Does anyone have access to this and know if its anything of substance?
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/6442818/City-want-to-dodge-the-Fair.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... -Fair.html</a>
Just the headline is enough for me to give that a miss. They've already decided we are cheats.
This .. brain dead Skywanker Central....
Do NOT click the tw@ts
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
City want to dodge the Fair
City want to be able to spend big on stars to match Silva and Aguero
By DAN KING, Sport Uncovered
MANCHESTER CITY are leading calls to change or scrap part of the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play rules.
City believe clubs should be allowed to use more of the money from the next lucrative TV deals on player wages to help them compete at home and in Europe.
Why would City and others want to change regulations which helped the Premier League record its first combined profit for 15 seasons?
Well, the lack of Premier League clubs in this week’s Champions League semi-finals is one big reason.
But keeping up with neighbours Manchester United is also a factor.
Ahead of the current TV deals kicking in, clubs voted in favour of not only Uefa-style rules restricting losses over a three-year period, but also short-term controls on player wages.
They agreed top-flight sides would be allowed to use the larger broadcasting revenue to increase their wage bills by a maximum of £4million a year in 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.
But clubs could only pump up salary costs by more than £4m if the cash came from bigger sponsorship deals or matchday income
The result? Last season the combined income of Premier League clubs rose by 29 per cent to £3.3billion while wages went up by only 6 per cent to £1.9bn.
That produced an overall profit of £190m — the first time the Prem had been in the black since 1998-99.
Stoke, who are among the sides that would like to maintain the current rules, recorded a £3.76m profit, compared to a £31.1m loss in 2012-13.
But the lack of English success in Europe this season is troubling City and other ‘bigger’ clubs.
Barcelona and Real Madrid enjoy TV revenue far higher than any English side and can spend it how they like.
Bayern Munich earned less than £35m from the Bundesliga’s TV deal last season, but their commercial income of £215.4m eclipsed even Manchester United’s.
City have boosted their commercial revenue significantly in recent years, to £166m last season, but United raked in £189m despite their on-pitch struggles.
That gave Louis van Gaal more cash to splash on players’ wages for their rash of summer signings. Yet City — already punished by Uefa for breaking FFP rules — were relatively frugal.
That financial disadvantage will only increase when United’s £75m-a-year deal with adidas starts next season.
City are also poor relations in terms of matchday income.
The agreement for them to take over the 2002 Commonwealth Games stadium means they pay a share of profits to the city council. While City’s matchday revenue rose to £47.5m last season, both United and Arsenal earned more than £100m.
The domestic TV deals for 2016-17 onwards went up by 70 per cent to £5.14billion and City would like to use that increase to help finance wages for star players.
The current rules were agreed as a temporary measure, so they will only be repeated for the three years of the new broadcasting contracts if 14 out of 20 clubs support them.
So the battle for hearts and minds (and wallets) is now underway.
City want to be able to spend big on stars to match Silva and Aguero
By DAN KING, Sport Uncovered
MANCHESTER CITY are leading calls to change or scrap part of the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play rules.
City believe clubs should be allowed to use more of the money from the next lucrative TV deals on player wages to help them compete at home and in Europe.
Why would City and others want to change regulations which helped the Premier League record its first combined profit for 15 seasons?
Well, the lack of Premier League clubs in this week’s Champions League semi-finals is one big reason.
But keeping up with neighbours Manchester United is also a factor.
Ahead of the current TV deals kicking in, clubs voted in favour of not only Uefa-style rules restricting losses over a three-year period, but also short-term controls on player wages.
They agreed top-flight sides would be allowed to use the larger broadcasting revenue to increase their wage bills by a maximum of £4million a year in 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.
But clubs could only pump up salary costs by more than £4m if the cash came from bigger sponsorship deals or matchday income
The result? Last season the combined income of Premier League clubs rose by 29 per cent to £3.3billion while wages went up by only 6 per cent to £1.9bn.
That produced an overall profit of £190m — the first time the Prem had been in the black since 1998-99.
Stoke, who are among the sides that would like to maintain the current rules, recorded a £3.76m profit, compared to a £31.1m loss in 2012-13.
But the lack of English success in Europe this season is troubling City and other ‘bigger’ clubs.
Barcelona and Real Madrid enjoy TV revenue far higher than any English side and can spend it how they like.
Bayern Munich earned less than £35m from the Bundesliga’s TV deal last season, but their commercial income of £215.4m eclipsed even Manchester United’s.
City have boosted their commercial revenue significantly in recent years, to £166m last season, but United raked in £189m despite their on-pitch struggles.
That gave Louis van Gaal more cash to splash on players’ wages for their rash of summer signings. Yet City — already punished by Uefa for breaking FFP rules — were relatively frugal.
That financial disadvantage will only increase when United’s £75m-a-year deal with adidas starts next season.
City are also poor relations in terms of matchday income.
The agreement for them to take over the 2002 Commonwealth Games stadium means they pay a share of profits to the city council. While City’s matchday revenue rose to £47.5m last season, both United and Arsenal earned more than £100m.
The domestic TV deals for 2016-17 onwards went up by 70 per cent to £5.14billion and City would like to use that increase to help finance wages for star players.
The current rules were agreed as a temporary measure, so they will only be repeated for the three years of the new broadcasting contracts if 14 out of 20 clubs support them.
So the battle for hearts and minds (and wallets) is now underway.
The agreement for them to take over the 2002 Commonwealth Games stadium means they pay a share of profits to the city council.
We haven't done this for about 5 years
IanBishopsHaircut
Well-Known Member
Damocles said:The agreement for them to take over the 2002 Commonwealth Games stadium means they pay a share of profits to the city council.
We haven't done this for about 5 years
Exactly this..flat fee..absolute garbage journalism
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
Damocles said:The agreement for them to take over the 2002 Commonwealth Games stadium means they pay a share of profits to the city council.
We haven't done this for about 5 years
They get paid to write this shit and the gullible masses believe it cos its in the paper.....
pml79
Well-Known Member
Dont let facts get in the way of a good story for the scumbagsblue b4 the moon said:Damocles said:The agreement for them to take over the 2002 Commonwealth Games stadium means they pay a share of profits to the city council.
We haven't done this for about 5 years
They get paid to write this shit and the gullible masses believe it cos its in the paper.....
Big Dave Watson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,365
Hi City's greatest fan. *waves back*SWP's back said:Hi massive Dave. *waves*Big Dave Watson said:jrb said:So, have any of you bods got an idea at all of how much our revenues are this season with a PL top 4 finish, CL football, (poor) domestic cup runs, existing and new sponsorship deals, matchday revenues, merchandising revenues, etc. I appreciate it will be an educated guess.
And what will the bottom line profit be at the end of this financial year? (perhaps a phone call to Soriano would be better?)
As far as I understood it we had to significantly limit our transfer spend both last summer and this coming summer.... or something like that. So have we mwt the relevant targets to have restrictions removed or are we still restricted this summer too?
The former. As you'll see.
Good luck getting forth. Will me massive for Utd to get back in the CL.
So we are restricted again this summer?
I appreciate it's the Daily Mail, but if you were to believe the article, even the fairytale rise of Bournemouth to the Premier League has been tainted by a Russian Oligarch, personal loans, and subsequent debt. At least Maxim Demin can now look forward a minimum of £100mill from Bournemouth gaining promotion to the Premier League. Time to open another bottle of Vodka.
Bournemouth promotion comes at cost to Cherries owner Maxim Demin as Premier League new boys announce debt of £21.5m
Maxim Demin spent £25m to ensure his side sealed promotion
Loans are owed to Demin's company Wintel Petrochemicals Limited
The Cherries have increased their staff costs by 42.8 per cent in last year
Demin is considered a 'junior league tycoon' in his native Russia
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...w-boys-announce-debt-21-5m.html#ixzz3ZKsKLEFp
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
So f***ing name them then, instead of just.........
Europe.
'Bigger' clubs.
So it can only be United, Arsenal, Chelsea, and Liverpool. All voted for PL FFP, and we're involved with having it brought in. So which of those 'bigger' clubs have broken ranks? Not United or Arsenal for sure. Chelsea are telling everyone who cares to listen how happy they are with FFP. So it's Liverpool then? Or is it? Who else does that leave? Spurs? Bigger?
What an absolute croc of shite that article is.
But the lack of English success in Europe this season is troubling City and other ‘bigger’ clubs
Europe.
'Bigger' clubs.
So it can only be United, Arsenal, Chelsea, and Liverpool. All voted for PL FFP, and we're involved with having it brought in. So which of those 'bigger' clubs have broken ranks? Not United or Arsenal for sure. Chelsea are telling everyone who cares to listen how happy they are with FFP. So it's Liverpool then? Or is it? Who else does that leave? Spurs? Bigger?
What an absolute croc of shite that article is.