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

Has anyone got a link to a good explanation of what FIFAs change to player loan deals will mean for us? Call me paranoid, but I’m guessing it will be aimed at trying to shackle us (and Chelsea).
 
trotsky said:
Has anyone got a link to a good explanation of what FIFAs change to player loan deals will mean for us? Call me paranoid, but I’m guessing it will be aimed at trying to shackle us (and Chelsea).
Click to expand...
It'll impact us but may just end up with us selling players to each other 2 year loan becomes a sale with sell on if they don't develop or a cheap buy back if they do. Each hand washes the other

Troyes manager got the hump and handed his cards in in December as he didn't like the loan players having to play
 
Bandofblues said:
Thought the general informed opinion on here was that Etihad accounted for 15% of sponsorship. That analysis has it at 27%?
Click to expand...
I had missed the date on it. It was made 31st December 2021. He's waiting for the Liverpool and Arsenal accounts to be released, to do an updated version of it.



£67m was 27% of the £246.3m commercial revenue of 2020's accounts. It rounds up to 25% of the £271.7m commercial revenue of 2021's accounts.

I don't think it's 100% accurate either way though, he's made a few assumptions and errors here and there IMO. To be fair to him, he's not claiming to be a finance expert. He's just a fan with an interest in the data.

Has City ever officially said what the split is on the shirt, stadium and training complex sponsorship revenue for instance?

Do we know how much of the Puma revenue can be used in Manchester City's own accounts?

The 20% of commercial revenue, outside of the 7 major sponsors, is interesting. Since only one of them seems to be related party, I can hear the sighs of disappointment from the agenda pushers already. It would be nice to know the actual amounts of each, if they are publicly available anywhere.

It was still a good effort that I hadn't seen before, I thought. At the very least, it could be a nice reference point for anyone wanting to make their own, with some corrections and/or less assumptions.
 
Last edited:
MillionMilesAway said:
Contract extensions reduce amortisation.
e.g 80M transfer with a 4 year contract - appears on accounts at 20M/year.
After 2 years, there is a nominal 40M left of that contract.
A contract extension of +2 years, means that 40M is then amortised over 4 years, not two, so drops from 20M/year to 10M/year.

Torres' leaving will remove his, but it'll have gained Grealish, as an example. Fernandinho's is almost certainly 0, as his contract expired and a short one signed.

It will start to go down only when City stop spending transfer fees (ignoring alternatives like extending everyone's contracts).
Click to expand...
I know how it works I was just trying gage what the result would be

iv been thinking for years it will go down as we produce more players sell better and keep renewing contract but it doesn’t seem to make any difference due to us having to replace players and prices going up
 
FFP is done and dusted for us. UEFA won't punish us anymore , they are fighting for their existence.

I think transfer fees won't be the Problem now , I think it's the wages nowadays
 
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.