gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
The 'O' word rears its head.
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
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Olistic?The 'O' word rears its head.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Which sponsorship deal? The Qatari one? Doesn't cover the difference in tv money from both domestic and champions leagues. Don't forget English clubs get more money from CL participation than any others. I think you're being harsh on them, although I agree Soriano and Glick have done a fantastic job.and they have a much larger sponsorship deal than us, and are a 1 club team in one of the world's leading capital, a marketing dream. I think it shows just how strong the partnership of Soriano & Glick has been, they've really sorted us out financially and really put us in a strong position, Khaldoon was at pains to mention that in the interview.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Surely we could get Etihad, Nike, Nissan, BT and Citi between them to cover everything over the extra £5m we're allowed? If Yaya leaves as well that's £320k per week before any help from sponsors.Thinking about it, the problem is actually not UEFA's FFP rules but the PL's. Under those we can only increae wages by a small amount unless the extra comes from matchday or commercial sources. Under UEFA FFP as it stands, we can increase wages as much as we like, as long as we meet the overall break-even requirement.
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
Which sponsorship deal? The Qatari one? Doesn't cover the difference in tv money from both domestic and champions leagues. Don't forget English clubs get more money from CL participation than any others. I think you're being harsh on them, although I agree Soriano and Glick have done a fantastic job.
maybe, but I think a club of that stature, after being burned last season, should be able to get its finances in order.
FFP is of course evil, and they shouldn't be punished at all, but I just see PSG and I think they should have been able to avoid it this season, like we have. I think they're taking the riskier route, but perhaps I'm being harsh.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
If you're talking about Messi, then that was indeed the plan. Nike & Etihad would have covered most of it plus another three (at least) deals were lined up with other parties.Surely we could get Etihad, Nike, Nissan, BT and Citi between them to cover everything over the extra £5m we're allowed? If Yaya leaves as well that's £320k per week before any help from sponsors.
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
Thinking about it, the problem is actually not UEFA's FFP rules but the PL's. Under those we can only increae wages by a small amount unless the extra comes from matchday or commercial sources. Under UEFA FFP as it stands, we can increase wages as much as we like, as long as we meet the overall break-even requirement.
I think we're going to be the PL club with the biggest commercial growth in the next few years. Yes United have been able to pay £300k basics for the past year, but they've maxed out on their main commercial sponsorships now, from now on they'll have to move people in and out to really pay their wages, so now they have to be sensible in the transfer market or could become really hamstrung by their current wage bill.
Plus, the way we structure our wage packages gives us a little leeway, and we have so much scope to improve our commercial revenues. I also think any UEFA sanctions will pass and fade away, and the CFG combined will deliver such big sponsorship deals that it will become a billion pound entity and we'll have huge revenues as part of that. I can see, down the line, something like a deal with Adidas to merchandise the entire CFG, which could in 10/15 years time admittedly, be a monumental deal.
At the moment, TV money on fees and other stuff, commercial income on wage increases.
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
The 'O' word rears its head.
wanted it to sound an intelligent and considered post, apologies.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Surely our owner never intended to continue the investment phase without visualising a return on that investment at some stage ?
He owns us through an investment group not a charitable trust so ADUG must give a return on that investment to justify their existence. It happens to coincide with FFP rules so we are free of FFP and ADUG members can develop their profitability and earn a bonus or two like others who work for investors in other sectors.
Any extra player investment must be justified by an expected commercial return in excess of that investment otherwise why do it ?
He owns us through an investment group not a charitable trust so ADUG must give a return on that investment to justify their existence. It happens to coincide with FFP rules so we are free of FFP and ADUG members can develop their profitability and earn a bonus or two like others who work for investors in other sectors.
Any extra player investment must be justified by an expected commercial return in excess of that investment otherwise why do it ?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
All your posts sound as such, mate :-)wanted it to sound an intelligent and considered post, apologies.