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

Near the end of that BBC article, it states that ffp was brought in to stop clubs ‘spending beyond their means’. What I have never understood, and why we’ve never properly challenged it, is this:

If a club has a super rich owner, willing to pump hundreds of millions into their club, surely that means the club does have the means? So why is that falling foul of ffp?

Surely if a club is only sponsored by local companies and has about 500k a year income, then obviously they can’t spend millions on players. But if your owner is putting in £800 million a year, say, why can’t the club spend £800m a year on players if it chooses?

Genuine question, I just don’t get it.

What I’m assuming is you can only spend that much if it’s been coming from selling Cantona duvets and official noodle sponsors in the Far East, but not if your owner is worth £20bn?
 
Semper aggressus said:
Near the end of that BBC article, it states that ffp was brought in to stop clubs ‘spending beyond their means’. What I have never understood, and why we’ve never properly challenged it, is this:

If a club has a super rich owner, willing to pump hundreds of millions into their club, surely that means the club does have the means? So why is that falling foul of ffp?
Click to expand...

When they say beyond their means, they mean beyond the cartel clubs' means ......
 
SilverFox2 said:
That was my original understanding but we were subjected to action that constituted a barrier to entry at the early investment stage which resulted in a fine to City under FFP Regs Was that illegal,?
Click to expand...
We never tested the cartel argument. City prepared their accounts and submitted them. The rules were changed and backdated and City ended up with a fine. It was generally felt that a deal had been done to find what City would accept and what UEFA would settle for without City taking it to the courts. I suspect if City had known then that this was not going to be the end of UEFA coming after them that they would not have settled without court action.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Some idiot called Simon Chadwick seems to think the vote is aimed at the SA owners of Newcastle and the AD owners of City as a warning that they can't buy their way to success and have to comply with the rules. Who is this cockwomble living in the past?
Click to expand...
I don't agree always with what he says but TBF to him his twitter feed is a brilliant resource including one academic article I saw from him that City aren't sportswashing. A bit different to the Delaney boys....
 
If Newcastle have any wits about them, they should be reaching out and making contact with City ASAP.

Get the lowdown on who we see as adversaries and ensure there is a pact to stick together.

I think we saw first sign of it by abstaining from the vote on this related parties Melarchy.

General thoughts:
Saudi’s have definitely missed the boat and are late to the party. We just got in, and now any help they can get from us they would be silly not to take it.

ps: I always wondered if QIS (Qatar) regretted buying PSG. Great brand it is now but in a shit league. Arguably they could have gone for a London club outside of Chelsea if they wanted that London brand…. But I get it it was a favor to Sarkosy for the Worldcup …. But they must wonder what if….. we were in the Premier League…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.