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

[fbloke]

OK, i've reached my limit now.

Irrespective of the changes to FFP and the still in place PL FFP City were going to be spending very much more this summer than in previous years. Why? Because they are now at a point where revenues and profits would allow it.

It also happens to be true that the relaxation of UEFA's FFP will (as i previously posted about when someone told me) focus much more on debt and it will allow spending as long as the owner covers it all. That in effect means that the model espoused by Khaldoon in his only public reference to FFP will now be fully implemented.

Guess what boys and girls City can carry on and start spending what they want to. The amount they spend will be WHAT THEY WANT TO, they may not want to but that again is a choice the owners make.

No debt you see, NO DEBT.

Now FFS stop worrying.

 

[Damocles]

We're still bound by EPL FFP rules

They allow for significant owner investment

 

[leewill31]

Irrespective of FFP sooner rather than later we were gong to be in a position to spend more considering sponsorship's and growth worldwide and the work the owners have to into to getting us where we are now.

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

If a story I heard was true, Gill would have been shitting quite a lot over the last year or so. You don't fuck with the Abu Dhabi boys.

Oh you big tease.

Let's just say, purely hypothetically of course, that if you're closely associated with an organisation that carries significant debt, via publicly traded bond instruments, then you don't want to get on the wrong side of someone who could buy that debt without blinking.

Hypothetical or not this post make me think of happy things.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

It appears to be good news about FFP being eased, but I can't help thinking people are getting a bit carried away.

All Platini has said is that they will be looking to 'ease' some of the parameters of FFP. That's all he's said.

Before this announcement our major summer targets were Pogba, De Brune and Sterling. I still expect those to be our targets after the announcement.

Some people seem to think FFP is being completely scrapped, Sheikh Mansour is going blow everyone out of the water and every summer from now on is going to be like 2010 on pharmaceutical cocaine. I just don't see it.

If unlimited owner investment is allowed, then great. But I can't see that happening. I just think the allowable losses will be extended a bit, say to 50m a year, as long as the owner guarantees turning the debt in to equity.

But irrespective of FFP I think we're moving in to a period where the owner and chairman want the club to work towards self sustainability, and I can't see future years with £100m losses, we've moved on from that.

Wise words! There is nothing in Platini's latest interview which gives us any idea of what the proposed relaxation of FFP might mean. The belief is that it will allow owners to invest more in players, but perhaps not through loans to the club. I don't know if there is any evidence to support this belief. Then there is the suggestion that it's a response to the 10 court cases before the courts at the moment. If Dupont's claim that the break even rule is unlawful is upheld Platini has no room for manoeuvre - FFP is dead and buried. It seems therefore that the pending judgement is not a major influence on Platini's judgement. He says FFP is here to stay and only a judgement against UEFA will change that. My guess is that Platini will do no more than relax the limit on losses covered by owners, but this will not satisfy DuPont and it won't satisfy City. How much would Platini have to allow owners to invest in players each year before Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Munich faced real competition for players in the transfer market? How many English clubs would be able to compete with the cartel for even the best English players? The market will still be rigged in favour of the cartel until the courts get rid of FFUP lock stock and barrel.

 

[Newman Noggs]

When they say FFP regulations are "unenforceable under EU law", I assume they mean that they were illegal. Wonder why they don't just say that.

 

[gazbaz]

Oh you big tease.

Let's just say, purely hypothetically of course, that if you're closely associated with an organisation that carries significant debt, via publicly traded bond instruments, then you don't want to get on the wrong side of someone who could buy that debt without blinking.

Hypothetical or not this post make me think of happy things.

That is soooooo fucking good. I would be just so tempted to do it, and then close the scum down.

 

[Eds]

Let's just say, purely hypothetically of course, that if you're closely associated with an organisation that carries significant debt, via publicly traded bond instruments, then you don't want to get on the wrong side of someone who could buy that debt without blinking.

Hypothetical or not this post make me think of happy things.

That is soooooo fucking good. I would be just so tempted to do it, and then close the scum down.

PB for the uneducated in here can you explain your thoughts - are you suggesting hypothetically that the Sheik could have bought a majority shareholding in the club and used it as a feeder club

 

[Newman Noggs]

If a story I heard was true, Gill would have been shitting quite a lot over the last year or so. You don't fuck with the Abu Dhabi boys.

Oh you big tease.

Let's just say, purely hypothetically of course, that if you're closely associated with an organisation that carries significant debt, via publicly traded bond instruments, then you don't want to get on the wrong side of someone who could buy that debt without blinking.

So that would be the rags and Real Madrid reduced to financial servitude with our owners as master. Delicious.

 

[DalbeyINUK]

If a story I heard was true, Gill would have been shitting quite a lot over the last year or so. You don't fuck with the Abu Dhabi boys.

Oh you big tease.

Let's just say, purely hypothetically of course, that if you're closely associated with an organisation that carries significant debt, via publicly traded bond instruments, then you don't want to get on the wrong side of someone who could buy that debt without blinking.

I just got this warm feeling all over. It's like, all is right with the footballing world. I've a cloud I need to take a nap on now.