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

[petrusha]

PSG have reportedly renewed their deal with Qatar Tourism Authority for an annual EUR 175 million and were arguing that it shouldn't be revised downwards at all for FFP purposes because they're a bigger club now than when they entered into the original deal (later benchmarked at EUR 100 million) a few years ago: http://www.espn.com/soccer/paris-sa...in-to-value-qta-contract-at-175m-euros-report

I'd suggest that a value of EUR 100 million is actually extraordinarily generous on UEFA's part.

 

[aguero93:20]

PSG have reportedly renewed their deal with Qatar Tourism Authority for an annual EUR 175 million and were arguing that it shouldn't be revised downwards at all for FFP purposes because they're a bigger club now than when they entered into the original deal (later benchmarked at EUR 100 million) a few years ago: http://www.espn.com/soccer/paris-sa...in-to-value-qta-contract-at-175m-euros-report

I'd suggest that a value of EUR 100 million is actually extraordinarily generous on UEFA's part.

It is extraordinarily generous, but PSG's argument is still perfectly valid.
This is the problem with UEFA trying to set themselves up as an arbiter of fair value in a rapidly changing market, they've no business doing so and they don't have a fucking Scooby.

 

[dickie davies]

Also do you think Man Utd's huge agent fees, and wages for their signings is a deliberate attempt to take the transfer mkt out of City's reach? They as the club with the highest revenues, have a vested interest in inflating the market under the current regulations. They could drive transfer costs for the best players so high so that we can not compete.

We have the basis of a World Class squad for the next six years. It'll only take one addition per season for us to keep it up to scratch, so the market being hugely inflated makes no difference to us

 

[petrusha]

It is extraordinarily generous, but PSG's argument is still perfectly valid.
This is the problem with UEFA trying to set themselves up as an arbiter of fair value in a rapidly changing market, they've no business doing so and they don't have a fucking Scooby.

I agree with you fully. I just have a bee in my bonnet about PSG because I think their treatment and ours from UEFA has been markedly different. :)

 

[Jalfraag]

Do you know if the Etihad deal was ever renegotiated? This link suggested negotiations were underway, but nothing ever seems to have been confirmed. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-city-set-400million-jackpot-4377857

Also do you think Man Utd's huge agent fees, and wages for their signings is a deliberate attempt to take the transfer mkt out of City's reach? They as the club with the highest revenues, have a vested interest in inflating the market under the current regulations. They could drive transfer costs for the best players so high so that we can not compete.

They also have the highest costs and flat revenue growth. We'll overtake them off the pitch soon, just as we have on it.

 

[Cobwebcat]

We have the basis of a World Class squad for the next six years. It'll only take one addition per season for us to keep it up to scratch, so the market being hugely inflated makes no difference to us

Two ;-)

 

[waspish]

Do you know if the Etihad deal was ever renegotiated? This link suggested negotiations were underway, but nothing ever seems to have been confirmed. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-city-set-400million-jackpot-4377857

Also do you think Man Utd's huge agent fees, and wages for their signings is a deliberate attempt to take the transfer mkt out of City's reach? They as the club with the highest revenues, have a vested interest in inflating the market under the current regulations. They could drive transfer costs for the best players so high so that we can not compete.

And made a 24m loss this 1/4

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Do you know if the Etihad deal was ever renegotiated? This link suggested negotiations were underway, but nothing ever seems to have been confirmed. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-city-set-400million-jackpot-4377857

Also do you think Man Utd's huge agent fees, and wages for their signings is a deliberate attempt to take the transfer mkt out of City's reach? They as the club with the highest revenues, have a vested interest in inflating the market under the current regulations. They could drive transfer costs for the best players so high so that we can not compete.

I think it has been and that it's now £55m a year for the whole package, although there's been nothing public on that. Given that Chelsea get £40m for their shirt sponsorship alone and the rags get £53m, I'd say that it's still market value at £40m for the shirt, £10m for the stadium and £5m for the Campus.

You may have a point about fees but I think the rags are just desperate Marvin. It's all about social media and shirt sales with them. There's no coherent squad building strategy that I can see there. A lot of it may just be dick-waving as well as in "Look - we can afford to pay this for a player". Also they have to be in the CL to be relevant and a lot of their spending has been forced on them to achieve that. They've only qualified once via league position (and that was only 4th) since Baconface retired don't forget.

PSG have reportedly renewed their deal with Qatar Tourism Authority for an annual EUR 175 million and were arguing that it shouldn't be revised downwards at all for FFP purposes because they're a bigger club now than when they entered into the original deal (later benchmarked at EUR 100 million) a few years ago: http://www.espn.com/soccer/paris-sa...in-to-value-qta-contract-at-175m-euros-report

I'd suggest that a value of EUR 100 million is actually extraordinarily generous on UEFA's part.

I thought it was extraordinarily generous, given the market at the time. €60-70m would have been closer to the mark in my view.

 

[aguero93:20]

I agree with you fully. I just have a bee in my bonnet about PSG because I think their treatment and ours from UEFA has been markedly different. :)

No, it's been exactly the same and therein lies the issue. We've actually tried to do things by the book (their book) bar an accelerated period of investment that we were arguably forced into by FFPR being on the horizon. PSG have just given them the metaphorical finger from day 1 (not that I've an issue with that in itself). This despite PSG being in a better position to slowly invest than us due to our differing domestic league situation.

In any case the fault here lies with UEFA trying to artificially fix competition in an economic market, not with PSG (or ourselves) for choosing to invest. The current financial and sporting position of both clubs is proof of this.

 

[Newman Noggs]

I agree with you fully. I just have a bee in my bonnet about PSG because I think their treatment and ours from UEFA has been markedly different. :)

And you are right to have a bee in your bonnet. The fact that the Qatar sponsorship was reducd from £200m to £100m was fantastic sleight of hand to make it look as though they were being punished alongside us. £100 fucking million pounds ? Who decided that was the market rate ? They were a fig-leaf to cover the real purpose of FFP.

The fact is that PSG were one of the G14 teams that set up the Champions League, they have never had the same treatment as us and never will. They know this which is why they can take the piss.