Marcotti (read the full article because it's not all positive - edit: and by that I mean he suggests we won't be able to spend close to what we once did, yet we hear of £220m gross spend/£150m net?):
UEFA have confirmed that Manchester City will not be subject to a net spend restriction this summer, provided they meet the terms of the settlement agreement the club signed last year after being found in breach of Financial Fair Play Regulations.
That means that, if the club meets the limits set by the agreement -- maximum FFP break-even losses of €20 million ($22.5 million) for the financial year ending in 2014 -- they will not be subjected to a net spend maximum like they faced last year, giving them more freedom to rebuild.
Last May, UEFA released a statement listing City's obligations under the terms of the settlement, which included the fact that €60 million ($67.5 million) in prize money would be withheld (with two-thirds of it returned if certain targets were reached), that "employee benefit expenses" could not increase and that squad size would be restricted.
Some of those sanctions were conditional and some were fixed. The spending restriction appeared to be fixed: "Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for 2014-15 and 2015-16."
Yet City insisted that meeting the settlement terms means they'll be free from this restriction and, this week, UEFA confirmed to ESPN FC that this is indeed the case.
In December, City released their accounts, which showed a loss of £23 million ($35.4 million). However, £16 million ($24.6 million) was the withheld prize money which, like spending on youth development and infrastructure, isn't counted toward the FFP break-even requirement. According to reports, City believe that, in FFP terms, they actually made a profit £8 million ($12.3 million).
So does this mean City are in the clear and that owner Sheikh Mansour can take out his big checkbook like crosstown rival Manchester United did last summer? Not necessarily.
First, UEFA need to confirm that their FFP calculation matches that of the club. Given the discrepancy between the allowed loss ($22.5 million) and City's calculation, the club should be in the clear.
Then again, if those numbers are disputed, it wouldn't be the first time UEFA's financial experts have disagreed with their colleagues at City. There's also the possibility that City will fall foul of other settlement requirements, in particular the FFP losses limit of €10m ($11.2m) for 2014-15.
Given the FFP profit City claimed last year ($12.3m) and the fact that they would receive $22.5 million of the withheld prize money for meeting the requirements of the first season of the settlement regime, there's reason to believe there will be more funds available, but it's by no means a guarantee and it likely won't be close to pre-FFP levels.
Then there's the future. Once City exit the settlement regime they will be subject to the same restrictions as everyone else, but the maximum allowable losses will continue to fall. That means there will be less wiggle room, which in turn will require them to get their revenue projections and budgeting right.
Still, those are worst-case scenarios. The fact of the matter is that City are on the path to sustainability and they'll be helped along when the new Premier League TV deal -- a 70 percent uplift compared to the previous one -- kicks in.
The days of massive spending relative to revenue are over but City will still be able to throw much more money around this summer. The spending might not be on the same scale as in years past, but it will be almost certainly more than last season and enough -- if they get it right -- to significantly strengthen the squad, whether for the benefit of Manuel Pellegrini or another manager.
