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

[Blue Llama]

I expect it will be some of Agnelli's silly rules, such as not being allowed to buy players from clubs in the same European competition, and something like transfer spend based on % of commercial revenue only and excluding tv revenue, so the English clubs are castrated and the status quo can siphen off the TV money to pay off debt and pay dividends as they won't be able to spend it, the non top 6 English clubs wouldn't be able to use the TV money to jump up the ladder and their commercial revenues would be too small to challenge.

That would also stuff Barca and Madrid as they get the lion's share of Spanish TV money so probably will not happen.

 

[BlueMonkey79]

The fallout on the "cafe" and "RAWK" is epic.

Well done @M18CTID (if you're the same poster on here that's posted on the cafe). They just don't get it at all...

We are still guilty of breaking financial rules in their eyes, even when proven NOT in front of a judicial panel.

Inflated sponsorship - even when that has been proven NOT to be the case.

The best comment of the day was on RAWK.

"We should have a proper Independant commission looking into sponsorships, like how can Etihad be worth 100 million a year when the country it operates from only has a population of 9 million people".... They are thick as fuck. Waves and waves of pure salty tears on every page. Lol

 

[Ric]

I particularly enjoyed this on Red Cafe:

It's good enough for me that everyone with any sense knows that City's success is a hollow mockery of the sport. A horrible, villainous state wanted to improve their image around the world in order to cover up their countless human rights violations and generally deplorable reputation around the globe, and Manchester City had no apparent qualms being the conduit for that. Propped up by blood money, their success is wholly artificial and means little to most football fans.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I’ve always wonder why they haven’t done this already. It would be so easy for them to bring in a rule where an owner couldn’t own several teams in different countries. Possibly the only reason they haven’t is that some of the other big boys plan on copying it

I wouldn't be surprised if it is the next line of attack. There are plenty of sports franchises which have teams in different sports (like FSG and the Glazers) but I can't recall any that have multiple clubs in one sport (like CFG).
Our business model gives us a commercial advantage because we can leverage bigger revenues from global sponsorships for example and also reduce our costs by spreading them across the whole group. There is nothing unusual in this it is the way most major global businesses work including the tech giants. I am not sure how easy it would be for UEFA to stop us doing this. Other clubs will have to try and catch up on us. City are like the Amazon of the football industry.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I seem to recall but @Prestwich_Blue is the guru on all things FFP - that all contracts signed with players pre the introduction of FFP could be discounted in the final FFP calculation but when the G14 worked out that both City and PSG would pass on that basis they swiftly did an about turn and changed this policy - after we'd submitted our accounts and hence why we failed FFP - when we thought we'd pass on a technicality. History tells us not to trust these fuckers at UEFA - as far as we could throw Snr Tebas.

Pretty well spot on. As soon as we submitted our accounts, thinking we'd be OK under the previous basis of calculation, they changed it. To be fair, the first calculation was utterly bizarre and damn near impossible to work out without a supercomputer, whereas the second was far more logical and you could work it out in an instant. But that's not the point.

The analogy I used is that it was like taking a 2-part exam, where you're told that to pass you need to get 70% in the first part and an average 75% over both parts. So if you get 70% in part 1 then you know you need 80% in part 2. Then, when you've done part 1, they say you have to get a minimum 75% in each part. So you're fucked before you even sit part 2.

 

[KS55]

Yeah, that would seem the most obvious way to hinder us although I'm not sure it'd have that huge an impact now anyway. City would still be able to thrive without the other clubs in the CFG.

It would be easy to get round a Uefa rule. Just split CFG and base non european sector in different country. So, fifa rule required, good luck with that one.
CFG 1 LTD, CFG2 LTD.....etc. Nominal shareholders.
I believe there are certain clubs registered in the Caymans!

 

[Ric]

There are plenty of sports franchises which have teams in different sports (like FSG and the Glazers) but I can't recall any that have multiple clubs in one sport (like CFG).

There's the Red Bull teams, plus the Pozzo family own Udinese and Watford. There's probably other examples too.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

From freezing to cancellation. The Financial Fair Play (FFP) as we know it may have run its course after just over 10 years. As reported by Gazzetta dello Sport, UEFA will discuss a new system of rules for continental football tomorrow in a videoconference at the European Parliament, which will be very different from the one devised in 2010 by the Platini-Infantino duo.

The basic idea, according to the newspaper, will be the transition from the idea of "spending as much as you take in" to "spending as much as you need without wasting". In light of the need to change the system there are obviously the economic effects of the pandemic, with disastrous figures far more than 2008, and virtually no clubs in line with the parameters.

The new model will therefore focus on waste and exaggeration, because football is in crisis but players' salaries and commissions to agents are not decreasing.

One idea could be the introduction of a salary cap, disguised as a luxury tax to ensure compliance with European regulations: you buy a player, you pay a percentage to be distributed to the system. In addition, sporting sanctions could be reduced in favour of greater economic sanctions.

In any case, it is unlikely that UEFA would want to impose itself on clubs without dialogue. The crisis requires shared action, but it must be done quickly. Not everyone will be happy, but something has to be done to protect the system. Foreign leagues, such as the German and Spanish leagues, which have been implementing stricter rules for some time, are well aware of this.

In Italy, on the other hand, it will be necessary to intervene as hoped by president Gravina, who was the first to launch the idea of a salary cap. The UEFA work has already begun with the aim of achieving approval by the end of the year, with entry into force from 2022, and a period of gradual adaptation, a few years, before going full steam ahead and consolidating better than the previous system.

Sorry but much of this simply will not help to solve any of the problems of pre- or post-pandemic club football because it is wedded to the idea the the problem facing the game is caused by spending and this is nonsense in every area of economic activity. Just as governments are realising that they have to spend their way back to economic growth football has to realise that it has to spend its way back to prosperity. The driver for the national and global economies can only be public expenditure (as Keynes realised a century ago) and in football some clubs have to be encouraged to spend on players so that money is injected into the system and circulates. Crowds have to be brought back, though tis can't do it on its own. These will both be more difficult if UEFA flirts with silly ideas like wage caps and luxury taxes. UEFA has to realise that making football a land fit for the heavily indebted is the path to suicide: it is more starkly clear than ever that football can only survive as a result of owner investment. They had better hope that their craven flirtation with Der Spiegel and its greedy gang hasn't made the Sheikh decide irrevocably to **** European clubs up comprehensively. If UEFA is ready for the discussion promised by Khaldoon in 2014, which is already 2 years overdue, there is some hope for the future but not if they are still wedded to the daft protectionist ides you've described.

 

[JGL07]

The fallout on the "cafe" and "RAWK" is epic.

Well done @M18CTID (if you're the same poster on here that's posted on the cafe). They just don't get it at all...

We are still guilty of breaking financial rules in their eyes, even when proven NOT in front of a judicial panel.

Inflated sponsorship - even when that has been proven NOT to be the case.

The best comment of the day was on RAWK.

"We should have a proper Independant commission looking into sponsorships, like how can Etihad be worth 100 million a year when the country it operates from only has a population of 9 million people".... They are thick as fuck. Waves and waves of pure salty tears on every page. Lol

Well someone should ask how Emirates Airline are valued at $188.46 billion when the population of Dubai is only 3.3 million. You could ask similar questions about Qatar Airline or Singapore Airline.

 

[Centurions]

I wouldn't be surprised if it is the next line of attack. There are plenty of sports franchises which have teams in different sports (like FSG and the Glazers) but I can't recall any that have multiple clubs in one sport (like CFG).
Our business model gives us a commercial advantage because we can leverage bigger revenues from global sponsorships for example and also reduce our costs by spreading them across the whole group. There is nothing unusual in this it is the way most major global businesses work including the tech giants. I am not sure how easy it would be for UEFA to stop us doing this. Other clubs will have to try and catch up on us. City are like the Amazon of the football industry.

Red Bull surely?