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

[kiam06]

Real Madrid, The Rags, Munich etc should be stripped of all their trophies as clearly they were winning them with a leg up.

That's the one thing FFPR has done for me its made me realise that I no longer acknowledge any trophies the established cartel won it has all been a farce and carved up between 'friend's'.

Extremely corrupt.

 

[City & Blue Brazil]

This could actually end up shooting clubs in Europe in the foot. Many of them depend on PL clubs raiding them for players to get a big payout (think Monaco). If the PL clubs are restricted in their spend then the 'trickle down' of the PL money could disappear.

Be careful what you wish for....

When did trickle down ever happen?

 

[gh_mcfc]

The case goes to Brussels for appeal in spring. Msr DuPont still expects to win.

 

[sweenyuk]

@Prestwich_Blue given we were cutting it fine last season in terms of making a small profit and we appear to be spending a small fortune this window, how much d you think we've reduced our amortisation down by in extending the contracts of KDB, Dinho and Otta?

(or does it not really matter as we sold a load of players in the summer 2017 after the accounting period already released had finished.)

We can simply make a profit every year through clever accounting. Using the same method used by amazon and coffee shops to remove all their profits from the UK to avoid paying tax. Their international HQ's charge a branding fee to the UK business equal to their profits, they then make zero profit in the uk so pay zero tax. We do the opposite, we are the international HQ and we charge our international teams a branding fee equal to our losses, that way all losses are reported outside the UK on teams not involved in UEFA competitions

 

[aguero93:20]

We can simply make a profit every year through clever accounting. Using the same method used by amazon and coffee shops to remove all their profits from the UK to avoid paying tax. Their international HQ's charge a branding fee to the UK business equal to their profits, they then make zero profit in the uk so pay zero tax. We do the opposite, we are the international HQ and we charge our international teams a branding fee equal to our losses, that way all losses are reported outside the UK on teams not involved in UEFA competitions

UEFA have already put measures in place to stop us transferring costs to CFG.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

We can simply make a profit every year through clever accounting. Using the same method used by amazon and coffee shops to remove all their profits from the UK to avoid paying tax. Their international HQ's charge a branding fee to the UK business equal to their profits, they then make zero profit in the uk so pay zero tax. We do the opposite, we are the international HQ and we charge our international teams a branding fee equal to our losses, that way all losses are reported outside the UK on teams not involved in UEFA competitions

Do you know that for sure or is that a guess?

As far as I'm aware we charge the other clubs via the two companies (City Football Services & City Football Marketing) that we set up to handle central services such as marketing and technical matters. However those two companies are included within our FFP reporting perimeter according to the regulations, plus they charge back their services.

And, as pointed out by Aguero93:20, there is an agreement (rather than a formal mechanism I think) that we won't include inter-company revenue in FFP calculations.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I think what would be fairest is if each team got a net spend on historical success.

Your English is much better than last time Mr Rummenigge.

 

[aguero93:20]

Do you know that for sure or is that a guess?

As far as I'm aware we charge the other clubs via the two companies (City Football Services & City Football Marketing) that we set up to handle central services such as marketing and technical matters. However those two companies are included within our FFP reporting perimeter according to the regulations, plus they charge back their services.

And, as pointed out by Aguero93:20, there is an agreement (rather than a formal mechanism I think) that we won't include inter-company revenue in FFP calculations.

I think it was a formal mechanism as part of our settlement and has since shifted to an agreement. Don't think it was something we wanted to do anyway as it goes against the ethos of the investment.

 

[Silva2021]

Your English is much better than last time Mr Rummenigge.

Never put it past them.

Find this from Redcafe of all places, thought I would get there educated views

For all the sugar money in football (that mostly means in England with Chelsea and City) have destroyed football and make it less competitive, I have some stats for you.

In the 11 golden years of EPL when there were not sugar daddies *, only 3 clubs won the league with United winning 8 out of 11 titles (72%). In the next 14 years when the sugar daddy money came, 5 clubs won the league, with United and Chelsea winning it 5 times (36%). So, two most successful clubs in this non-competitive era together win as much as the most successful club in that mythical competitive era.

So, let's be fair. You're either total hypocrites who don't care about competition and just want United to monopolise trophies, or you are mistaking the pre-Abramovich era with pre-EPL year. Because the league before Abramovich was as competitive as Bundesliga is nowadays.

* A lot of people would argue that Blackburn was actually the original sugar daddy club, so if it wasn't for them United would have won 9/11 titles (82%). Since Abramovich, if you don't count Chelsea/City titles, we would have likely won 8/14 titles, all of them in a row. That is something that would make Bayern and Celtics proud.

EPL in particular has benefitted from outside money, and that is one of the reasons why the league is so good and so competitive

Seems very impartial and probably not a United fan, but it is an interesting point that this has created competition that has increased the value of the TV deal. The Aguerooo moment is pure box office.

The rest is the usual drival that considers FFP to be a joke because City are doing well. The whole concept of sponsors etc. it is as if we are still the same club before the takeover just with extra players, little or no credit is ever mentioned that sponsors might what to be associated with a club that is probably the most watched by neutrals, on TV a lot in Champions League. No all of our market value should be similar to that of Everton/ Newcastle and anything above that is just a dodgy deal.

I always wonder are PSG good for us or bad, they don't seem to care to the same extent (they still have this huge sponsorship tourism deal which gives £200 million pound, although book value was reduced to £100 million), spend HUGE sums and don't care who they upset. We on the otherhand seem to have invested in infrastructure, our highest transfer fee is £55 million and we have not took anyone away from the European elite. However it is always oil clubs PSG and City when FFP is mentioned.

 

[moomba]

We can simply make a profit every year through clever accounting. Using the same method used by amazon and coffee shops to remove all their profits from the UK to avoid paying tax. Their international HQ's charge a branding fee to the UK business equal to their profits, they then make zero profit in the uk so pay zero tax. We do the opposite, we are the international HQ and we charge our international teams a branding fee equal to our losses, that way all losses are reported outside the UK on teams not involved in UEFA competitions

That would have to be reported in our accounts as a related party transaction would it not?

Just had a look, the only transaction in our accounts between us and one of the other clubs is a small loan to NYCFC.