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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-leave-Manchester-City-and-move-to-China.html

This could help bring in some extra revenue if we are going for the expensive star names we are linked with also need some other clubs to bid for some of our other players.

Possible work around FFP not that we needed it is a club in china buying Yaya at an inflated price before becoming a related party then us buying them at an inflated price which would surely be exempt as its infrastructure and paid for by our parent company CFG not us MCFC. Thaksin after all got money off ADUG before the actual take over to buy players. So its the same but in reverse

People ignore the facts when it comes to City.

Ramires went for £25 million.

Martinez for £30+ million.

Yaya is still one of the biggest stars in world football and could play at the top for another 3 years in a slower league. He is still twice the player of Ramires.

Yaya to China would be like Beckham to the MLS.

In the scheme of things he would be worth easily at least £35+ million to China without any related party deals.
 
I agree with Ric. FFP is dead as far as we are concerned, with our increased revenues and the new TV deals. Plus there will be another groundswell around the world coming with the Pep appointment.

If all else fails we just go by the new 'Milan' rules and give WAFFA notice that we are going to spend 300M quid. If such players were available.

But I still dont think we'll get much for Yaya unless it's a back-hander as described
 
It is interesting that UEFA see fit to establish such clear boundaries in relation to % of income from owners.
So if we sold a further 13% of our share holding to another expanding market say a South American purchaser of SA TV rights, then who would UEFA determine as our owners? Would that be only our major shareholder in Abu Dhabi or would they extend the total income from all 3 sources to include the said 30% thereby limiting any potential growth in sponsorship.
If you answer the latter in the affirmative then surely this is becoming a restriction on our business that the courts could not brook as being anything other than damaging and be actionable or am I thinking that UEFA think they can get away with anything and everything? Plus the fucking noodle nil nil arena owners would shit themselves or would I be so bold as to suggest that it somehow wouldn't affect the Yank debt ridden monkeys?

I love it that our income from Abu Dhabi based sponsorship is likely to be less than 20%. Someone should tell Arsene and the other FFP advocates and their smug fanbases and then watch their faces as they try to understand what that means exactly re little Ciddy from the Emptihad! The dawning of recognition would be a site to behold. Tick Tock as someone once said.
 
Net spend on what, can't see it being players alone ? Why would we need to spend that much anyway ?

Thats got to be unfair. First of all he breaks FFP rules by investing massively in players and infrastructure then he starts to make profits of that magnitude after a year or two.
In my opinion this stinks of taking a standard business plan from the real world and applying it to football, it should be not allowed otherwise others might try to do the same.
 
Anonymous ‏@Anonymous0211 2m2 minutes ago
City have estimated the club can have a net spend of a quite staggering £440m this summer and still make profit for 2016-17.

Wouldn't surprise me, we are still in 4 comps and with the extra seats and pep interest our financial performance must be off the charts. That is before we start to build in the new TV money!!! Ffp is in our past!
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.