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

[CharliesRightPeg]

We don't actually have zero debt.
We've a liability for the stadium, money owing on future transfers and a few other bits n pieces. Nothing like most clubs but we do have debt

 

[The Riot Club]

It's ridiculous and arbitrary. If any club can afford to spend x amount then they should be allowed. If a business had £20 billion to invest on its infrastructure it could, so why have this shitty ffp bollocks in football? If City, PSG, Madrid or (unfortunately) rags can afford to buy £300m of players in one month because of their vast income, why shouldn't they? If Barnsley or Watford or Anderlecht can't afford to, then tough shit. Just as UEFA and the FA thought it was tough shit on us when the filth were spending £30million on Rio Ferdinand and Veron and we didn't have a pot to piss in.

When will we make a proper legal challenge to this biased farce and kill ffp stone dead once and for all.

 

[ancoats]

It’s there competition you get invited to so they can make what ever rules up as they want legally.

the thing is our owners want success in europe and have to be yes men to uefa so we are just letting them wipe there feet on us and the rest are laughing at us. but the thing that really gets my goat up is clubs like united and real madrid and barca and munich think its there own competition and dare you take them on or ask questions. all of them 4 clubs have run up debts that will never get cleared and they just pipe on about fair play and its our own money HaHaHa

can uefa really stop a club from playing in there competitions and stop players from making a living and stopping the best club in england being shown on tv around the world and getting major sponsorship money for showing the best players in the world ???? also having zero debt and making profects every season how can that be bad for football ?????

just spend whatever you like and buy messi or ronaldo or both and see what happens????? if uefa stops us playing my bet is major sponsors will pull out and tv companies will demand they let man city play or they too will pull out it would make no sense at all to ban a club with the worlds best players in there team

 

[OB1]

I'm the management accountant for a company with revenues that might not be as high as the club's but are in a similar ballpark mate, I get it. But if a change of 0.4% to revenue and expenditure lets the business avoid sanctions that will affect them as a going concern the adjustments will be made.

And that's called management - as you also know - but that's very different from describing budgets as guess work etc. Mind you, if you are a CIMA, it's probably how you prepare your budgets.

 

[City_Sean]

Good luck catching up to us with a €100m limit United.

I'd wager that they'd absolutely lob silly money over the next three windows to try and close the gap else they're fucked.

 

[aguero93:20]

And that's called management - as you also know - but that's very different from describing budgets as guess work etc. Mind you, if you are a CIMA, it's probably how you prepare your budgets.

Haha no ACCA, but as you know it's a balance between prudent estimates and what the board want.

 

[aguero93:20]

We don't actually have zero debt.
We've a liability for the stadium, money owing on future transfers and a few other bits n pieces. Nothing like most clubs but we do have debt

It's working debt though, the players and stadium generate more revenue for the club than the payments on the debt. The rags and Madrid have legacy debt, a far worse issue.

 

[Cobwebcat]

I'd wager that they'd absolutely lob silly money over the next three windows to try and close the gap else they're fucked.

And they still can under the original ffp rules. The 100 million net spend debt just triggers an investigation you can still pass via revenues.

Not much has changed.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I may be looking at this through rose-coloured specs but it might work in our favour in some ways. It might help get rid of the "City premium" that we seem to be asked to pay all the time. If we can say to selling clusb "Sorry chaps. Can't pay that as we've already spent €70m net and we aren't selling anyone else".

 

[BlueAnorak]

It's working debt though, the players and stadium generate more revenue for the club than the payments on the debt. The rags and Madrid have legacy debt, a far worse issue.

Its no longer on the accounts as debt because its not a debt - it's a charge.