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

Damanino said:
The Nike deal has to be improved dramatically. 12m per year is a joke. Nike did very well to ties us down for years for so small amount.

Adidas paying United 75m with them having their worst kind of results since Ferguson retired. With hardly any CL performance from them recently.

Would expect 40-50m per year deal and hopewe change from Nike too. If we sign a contract for 5-6 years again for 20m per year we are fools.
Click to expand...

We are moving to Under Armour next season.
 
Neville Kneville said:
People are forgetting, they could sell Neymar & Mbappe, maybe for a profit. They may be worth more next year, than they are now, once Utd pay 200 mil for Bale, or some other ridiculous move. In fact I bet Utd would buy Neymar for more money than PSG paid.

As for UEFA, they have set up a system for clubs hadning over their accounts for assessment. It's none of their fucking business, or La Liga's, what is in a club's accounts prior to that period & PSG should refuse to let them see anything. If they are in breach of the rules when the time comes to hand in the accounts, then it's UEFA's business.

I don't see PSG having any problems at all financially.
Click to expand...

Presumably they won't but that is because they have done a deal - the Mbappe "loan" - which is probably not in the spirit of what UEFA intended with FFP. PSG have in substance bought Mbappe on extended credit terms but presumably won't account for the deal that way, which implies that their income statement for this season couldn't handle the amortisation of Mbappe's transfer fee. Otherwise, why bother with the loan?
 
It seems Barcelona continue to do as Arsenal do, but on a grander scale. This time it's being poorly organised petulant shits.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Why does anyone care, least of all UEFA?! FFP hasn't done a damned thing to help football. Nothing!
Click to expand...
Love the rest of your post but have to take a bit of issue with this. FFP, with its myriad faults, has helped to significantly reduce losses among European football clubs. There's a great deal more financial stability now than there was 5 years ago.

Of course we all know what's wrong with it - it's entrenched the elite and it's not even a particularly good way of measuring financial stability. But it has made a difference overall.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Love the rest of your post but have to take a bit of issue with this. FFP, with its myriad faults, has helped to significantly reduce losses among European football clubs. There's a great deal more financial stability now than there was 5 years ago.

Of course we all know what's wrong with it - it's entrenched the elite and it's not even a particularly good way of measuring financial stability. But it has made a difference overall.
Click to expand...

I agree, ffp has at least highlighted some of the ills of football finance.

If it had originated from an independent body, rather than from a body that is part of the problem, it may have been less political in nature, and more successful.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Love the rest of your post but have to take a bit of issue with this. FFP, with its myriad faults, has helped to significantly reduce losses among European football clubs. There's a great deal more financial stability now than there was 5 years ago.

Of course we all know what's wrong with it - it's entrenched the elite and it's not even a particularly good way of measuring financial stability. But it has made a difference overall.
Click to expand...

Part of our issue with FFP was that it appeared to teach our owner how to suck eggs. He could buy and sell the lot of them when it comes to starting any company in any sector of business by investing, getting to break even then making profits.

Our main issue was that it did not give the investment phase sufficient time to develop.In fact it was designed with exactly that potential failure in mind and was effectively a barrier to entry and as such protected a cartel.

The rest of it apart from allowing as much debt to accrue as needed copies normal business strategy so should have a good effect on all who follow it.
 
OB1 said:
Presumably they won't but that is because they have done a deal - the Mbappe "loan" - which is probably not in the spirit of what UEFA intended with FFP. PSG have in substance bought Mbappe on extended credit terms but presumably won't account for the deal that way, which implies that their income statement for this season couldn't handle the amortisation of Mbappe's transfer fee. Otherwise, why bother with the loan?
Click to expand...

And were we also trying to do the same deal ?

The assumption here has been we can spend 3-400 mil in one window & it's not a problem because we can spread the cost.

Yet we have no JFE, even when Sanchez/Mbappe didn't come, apparently because we couldn't move Mangala. I recon we are keeping the funds for Sanchez/ JFE. because it's all we've got.

All of this stuff is not as straightforward as it seems imo & I am not convinced that we had the money to sign Mbappe, after spending 200 mil , anymore than PSG have.

We may have had to do a similar deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.