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

PSG have got a lot to answer for after this latest window.

The spotlight is now on us again when we haven't done anything wrong , as others have said our sponsorship deals are about market value , you could argue that they are a bit undervalued compared to the past three years.

We are living within our means, we didn't in the immediate years after the takeover which is why they brought in FFP in the first place

Nothing will come of this complaint its just frustrating how our name keeps getting tagged with PSG when our approaches are chalk and cheese

Football is rotten to the core
 
  • We've been financially self-sufficient for 3 years.
  • The Etihad deal is now well under market value. If we changed to, say, Nissan, we'd get double what we now get from Etihad.
  • Our summer dealings effectively balanced out from an FFP point of view. Wages & amortisation of players going out at least matched that of the players coming in and may even have been slightly more, meaning we're up on the summer.
They can quite easily change the goal posts again as they did the last time.

All it takes is a groundswell of opinion to get a bandwagon rolling , perhaps other FA's in Europe complaining about the same thing
 
The grapes are extremely sour this morning.

So La Liga lost one of its crown jewels in Neymar so the first response is to throw a tantrum.

I wonder if Messi is actually considering a Bosman if we're being mentioned
 
Whoever is behind it, we should take the initiative and issue a statement forthwith. We should say quite clearly that:
1 We are not state aided
2 We are profitable
3 All sponsorships are at normal market rates
4 Our net transfer spend is well within our own means
5 We are compliant with ffp in all respects.

City are usually quite unresponsive to these accusations and reticent. If we stay quiet now, this nonsense will continue. Of course, if 1 to 5 ABOVE Are NOT TRUE, then we as fans should ask questions, because breaches leave us in danger of a ban.
 
They can quite easily change the goal posts again as they did the last time.

All it takes is a groundswell of opinion to get a bandwagon rolling , perhaps other FA's in Europe complaining about the same thing

I doubt that the owner would accept another "pinch" so lightly
 
Tarts, barca 'more than a club' my arse, moaning whining fuckers and if Real are involved in this Abu should withdraw the funding given to them and counter sight the state financial help they've had over the years,
 
I've just read the BBC's version and they've used gross rather than net spend and a nice little bar chart to appeal the the thickos who'll lap it up. Hate that corrupt bunch of bar stewards.

Can't use net spend this year because we're no longer top, it's why it's a load of bollocks. The media/authorities will us whichever figures appease them.
 
  • We've been financially self-sufficient for 3 years.
  • The Etihad deal is now well under market value. If we changed to, say, Nissan, we'd get double what we now get from Etihad.
  • Our summer dealings effectively balanced out from an FFP point of view. Wages & amortisation of players going out at least matched that of the players coming in and may even have been slightly more, meaning we're up on the summer.

Wouldn't be surprised if we kept Etihad for stadium/Campus naming rights but moved on to someone else for the shirt sponsor.

No one can say anything about say Nissan being put on the shirt and it would prove a point to a lot of people who think we are dependant on 'Arab money'.

There should be an announcement regarding kit manufacturer before the end of this year as well which will be a 400%+ increase on the current Nike deal.
 

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.