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

[BlueMoonz1977]

Is it me but how come Chelsea can loan another £57m and have no ffp sanctions ?
Why carnt the sheikh loan the money to city then. ?
Or is that to simplistic ?
How can the post £18.4 million profit if they are just basically putting the debt onto their overdraft ?

Because Roman isn't an Arab. Get with the program.

A good reply and possibly even correct but its a good question how can their oilman get away with this but ours can't?

My own question is how can both Chelsea and seemingly the rags via Caymen Islands only make part of their accounts public? Can we trust UEFA to tell the truth is only they are shown figures?

Probably because Abramovich lives in London, and if the papers step out of line they could expect a nice little knock on the door from the Russian mafia

 

[mac]

Dalglish and Shearer telling us what we all know - FFP has killed the dream for most clubs and if it existed 20 years ago Blackburn would've had no chance of winning the league:

"No-one could do it so quickly again," Dalglish told BBC Radio 5 live's 'Joy of the Rovers show', which will be aired on Thursday, 14 May at 19:30 BST and the same time on Sunday, 17 May.
"It would have to be a long time from start to finish if they were ever going to do it. It is one team who has been fantastically successful and won the biggest trophy in this country - the Premier League.
"For every romantic one there are about 20 who are going out of business. You can understand the financial fair play rules but if they had been in place it would never have happened for us."
Walker's money helped Rovers twice break the British transfer record for strikers Alan Shearer and Chris Sutton, for £3.4m and £5m from Southampton and Norwich respectively, and sign Tim Flowers in a £2.4m record deal for a goalkeeper.
On a dramatic final day in May 1995, Blackburn won the title at Anfield despite losing 2-1 to Liverpool. Dalglish's side finished one point ahead of Manchester United, who could only draw 1-1 at West Ham.
Now, with the Premier League's Financial Fair Play regulations stopping clubs from losing a certain amount of money a season, Shearer has ruled out a repeat of Rovers's remarkable rise.
"For a team the size of Blackburn it is now impossible," said Shearer, who scored 131 goals in four seasons at Ewood Park.
"Whoever you are, you need the finances to try and challenge. The dream has gone for a vast majority of clubs.
"No-one can do what Jack did, be born and bred in that town, want that football club to have a good time and to try and entertain the fans. It is not allowed."

Shearer is one numpty head. Blackburn needed money back then. Nothing has changed in the sky yrs..it wasn't a fairy tale story you thick inbred bald boring Geordie cnut.( sorry to most geordies)

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

Because Roman isn't an Arab. Get with the program.

A good reply and possibly even correct but its a good question how can their oilman get away with this but ours can't?

My own question is how can both Chelsea and seemingly the rags via Caymen Islands only make part of their accounts public? Can we trust UEFA to tell the truth is only they are shown figures?

The relevant figures for both football clubs are in the publc domain, and aslo remember that the FFP break-even results are not analysed by a bunch of UEFA cronies, but by independant accountants.

And to answer the original question, Sheikh Mansour can loan City whatever he likes - just as Abramovic can. But neither loan counts as income for the FFP break-even calculation.

In order to buy a player, you need to (a) be able to "afford" it - i.e. the cost of the transfer fees and wages is within your allowable budget which is determine by how much revenue your club has. And (b) have sufficient actual cash available to pay for the transfer on whatever terms you agree with the selling club. A cash loan from Sheik Mansour or Abramovic will help (b), but does nothing for (a).

Well what is he lending Chelsea money for then ?
Surely if they are using the money to pay staff ,the milkbill the electric bill etc this is freeing up other money to stop them running at a loss.
If the accounts are audited how do they explain what they had an extra £56m for ?

 

[City1974]

Just out of interest have Inter Milan, Roma et al been found foul of FFP yet and fines\squad deductions imposed ?

Funny if they have you do not hear as much from our media in regards to other clubs getting found guilty off FFP breach, but when City do it every media outlet covers it ad infinitum, oh no, nothing to see here attitude towards when its other clubs, no anti City agenda of course in the media as Pinnochio would say.

 

[FanchesterCity]

A good reply and possibly even correct but its a good question how can their oilman get away with this but ours can't?

My own question is how can both Chelsea and seemingly the rags via Caymen Islands only make part of their accounts public? Can we trust UEFA to tell the truth is only they are shown figures?

The relevant figures for both football clubs are in the publc domain, and aslo remember that the FFP break-even results are not analysed by a bunch of UEFA cronies, but by independant accountants.

And to answer the original question, Sheikh Mansour can loan City whatever he likes - just as Abramovic can. But neither loan counts as income for the FFP break-even calculation.

In order to buy a player, you need to (a) be able to "afford" it - i.e. the cost of the transfer fees and wages is within your allowable budget which is determine by how much revenue your club has. And (b) have sufficient actual cash available to pay for the transfer on whatever terms you agree with the selling club. A cash loan from Sheik Mansour or Abramovic will help (b), but does nothing for (a).

Well what is he lending Chelsea money for then ?
Surely if they are using the money to pay staff ,the milkbill the electric bill etc this is freeing up other money to stop them running at a loss.
If the accounts are audited how do they explain what they had an extra £56m for ?

Imagine the loan was just like you might get a loan from a company...
But your salary and your outgoings wouldn't change (if it was 0% interest loan for an unspecified period of time).
You could use that loan to do whatever you like, but it wouldn't influence FFP....


Let's say (just as an example):

Chelsea sell a player for 50m
Chelsea get a loan from Abramovich for 100m
Chelsea buy a player for 150m

Chelsea's income is 50m
Chelsea's spend is 150m

They'd be -100m in terms of FFP (since the loan isn't counted as revenue)

Alternatively, they could sell a player for 50m, buy a player for 40m and that would leave them +10m for FFP. The 100m loan could be spent on a hotel, or infrastructure etc.

However, all of this is a moot point as CFC don't owe that money, a parent company does.

 

[SWP's back]

Dalglish and Shearer telling us what we all know - FFP has killed the dream for most clubs and if it existed 20 years ago Blackburn would've had no chance of winning the league:

"No-one could do it so quickly again," Dalglish told BBC Radio 5 live's 'Joy of the Rovers show', which will be aired on Thursday, 14 May at 19:30 BST and the same time on Sunday, 17 May.
"It would have to be a long time from start to finish if they were ever going to do it. It is one team who has been fantastically successful and won the biggest trophy in this country - the Premier League.
"For every romantic one there are about 20 who are going out of business. You can understand the financial fair play rules but if they had been in place it would never have happened for us."
Walker's money helped Rovers twice break the British transfer record for strikers Alan Shearer and Chris Sutton, for £3.4m and £5m from Southampton and Norwich respectively, and sign Tim Flowers in a £2.4m record deal for a goalkeeper.
On a dramatic final day in May 1995, Blackburn won the title at Anfield despite losing 2-1 to Liverpool. Dalglish's side finished one point ahead of Manchester United, who could only draw 1-1 at West Ham.
Now, with the Premier League's Financial Fair Play regulations stopping clubs from losing a certain amount of money a season, Shearer has ruled out a repeat of Rovers's remarkable rise.
"For a team the size of Blackburn it is now impossible," said Shearer, who scored 131 goals in four seasons at Ewood Park.
"Whoever you are, you need the finances to try and challenge. The dream has gone for a vast majority of clubs.
"No-one can do what Jack did, be born and bred in that town, want that football club to have a good time and to try and entertain the fans. It is not allowed."

Shearer is one numpty head. Blackburn needed money back then. Nothing has changed in the sky yrs..it wasn't a fairy tale story you thick inbred bald boring Geordie cnut.( sorry to most geordies)

What?

Read the article again.

 

[mac]

Dalglish and Shearer telling us what we all know - FFP has killed the dream for most clubs and if it existed 20 years ago Blackburn would've had no chance of winning the league:

Shearer is one numpty head. Blackburn needed money back then. Nothing has changed in the sky yrs..it wasn't a fairy tale story you thick inbred bald boring Geordie cnut.( sorry to most geordies)

What?

Read the article again.

I know what they are saying and I also think that this ffp is now becoming an issue to these cnuts. So it's alright for a born and bred businessman to invest and not a jonny foreigner..

 

[The Colonel]

Shearer is one numpty head. Blackburn needed money back then. Nothing has changed in the sky yrs..it wasn't a fairy tale story you thick inbred bald boring Geordie cnut.( sorry to most geordies)

What?

Read the article again.

I know what they are saying and I also think that this ffp is now becoming an issue to these cnuts. So it's alright for a born and bred businessman to invest and not a jonny foreigner..

I don't think that he's saying that? He's lamenting that it can't happen again, that it should be possible and he's right (you good head of hair numpty ;))

 

[mac]

What?

Read the article again.

I know what they are saying and I also think that this ffp is now becoming an issue to these cnuts. So it's alright for a born and bred businessman to invest and not a jonny foreigner..

I don't think that he's saying that? He's lamenting that it can't happen again, that it should be possible and he's right (you good head of hair numpty ;))

The thing is he is saying you need finances. You did back then you do now. Nothing has changed,yet when we splash the cash it's wrong..
Oh SWP sorry for calling the Geordie a bald ****. No offence.:)

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

The relevant figures for both football clubs are in the publc domain, and aslo remember that the FFP break-even results are not analysed by a bunch of UEFA cronies, but by independant accountants.

And to answer the original question, Sheikh Mansour can loan City whatever he likes - just as Abramovic can. But neither loan counts as income for the FFP break-even calculation.

In order to buy a player, you need to (a) be able to "afford" it - i.e. the cost of the transfer fees and wages is within your allowable budget which is determine by how much revenue your club has. And (b) have sufficient actual cash available to pay for the transfer on whatever terms you agree with the selling club. A cash loan from Sheik Mansour or Abramovic will help (b), but does nothing for (a).

Well what is he lending Chelsea money for then ?
Surely if they are using the money to pay staff ,the milkbill the electric bill etc this is freeing up other money to stop them running at a loss.
If the accounts are audited how do they explain what they had an extra £56m for ?

Imagine the loan was just like you might get a loan from a company...
But your salary and your outgoings wouldn't change (if it was 0% interest loan for an unspecified period of time).
You could use that loan to do whatever you like, but it wouldn't influence FFP....


Let's say (just as an example):

Chelsea sell a player for 50m
Chelsea get a loan from Abramovich for 100m
Chelsea buy a player for 150m

Chelsea's income is 50m
Chelsea's spend is 150m

They'd be -100m in terms of FFP (since the loan isn't counted as revenue)

Alternatively, they could sell a player for 50m, buy a player for 40m and that would leave them +10m for FFP. The 100m loan could be spent on a hotel, or infrastructure etc.

However, all of this is a moot point as CFC don't owe that money, a parent company does.

Being thick again,why take the loan if they don't need it then.
If the loan is used for infrastructure etc ,wouldn't they still have the money they would have to spend on infrastructure left in the pot then ? To pay for things that do count towards ffp ?