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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If that's true lol at PSG failing by €146m!

At least we were the best of the 3, only failing it by €46m

Us and Inter better face much more lenient sanctions than PSG ...tho with Twatini I doubt it.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

GoMancini7 said:
Instead of these tricky IP deals Mansour just could have come up with another UAE sponsor and put that 30-40m extra in that way.
He didnt want it to be so transparent as PSG's Qatar deal and opted for this special/tricky way to put his money into the club. I dont blame him tho.

What I would like to know how Mr. Soriano will improve our incomes, not trough IP deals, but the "real" incomes.

He is a big politician so probably wil sell the new TV deals/CL money as his effect on our incomes, but really if I would be the CEO those extra amounts would still come into the club just for every other English clubs...

What would be really interesting to know how he improved the matchday incomes from 11-12 to 12-13 and from that to 13-14.
How much sponsor money we have since 11-12.
Probably any time we could find a UAE sponsor if we really needed one, but if Soriano is a master magician CEO he should bring us surely he can bring us different sponsors too.

He says he turned around Barca finances, but if we could somehow fuck over like 16 PL clubs and take most of their TV money like Real/Barca does in La Liga, we could be the richest club in the world too based on incomes.
Click to expand...

well Barca's revenues went up 170m euros in his time there, and they turned around a 70m loss into an 80m profit, so he did something right.

Under us, well we only have accounts for the one year he's been with us. In that time our losses dropped by £48.2m, our turnover went up by £40m, our matchday revenues went up £4m, our TV revenues had a negligible increase and our other commercial revenues showed an increase of £35.5m. He also puts us on target for revenues of £404m by the end of next season, which would be an increase of over £130m in 2 seasons.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Infrastructure costs look very light.
I would also say that paying Mancini and the coaches off all at once has has tipped us over the edge.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

PSG really should have been excluded from UEFA competition on those figures - I'll bet Mr Platini stepped in on his son's behalf.

Isn't the fact we've decreased our losses from the previous year supposed to be taken into account? If so us getting hit by anything more than a fine, particularly considering PSG aren't being excluded, would seem grossly unfair.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

While we're at it, look at Utds figures! -16
Has the Chevrolet deal in Aug 2012 been excluded?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Firstly IP deals, admin cost sharing are completely legitimate and regular deals that most multinationals or Multi faceted companies have. The issue with them is what are you selling, does it have substance, is it a real transaction or one purely for tax or accounting purposes.

With the pay off for Mancini once we had incurred an irrevocable liability with no future benefit we would have had to take the full hit immediately anyway to meet accounting requirements.

I am sure we will not get hit hard enough to hurt us, I doubt any appeal will be made against us let alone succeed . I also doubt we will do anything other than push back in the initial settlement to agree something more favourable.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

We should be extending contracts on as many players as possible who we see staying and being part of the club. If we could extend 100m worth of players on 4 year contracts in the last year or two of these on to new 4 year contracts we could probably improve our amort by 20m a year which with the Mancini pay off would offset any impact of disallowed deals.

We should also look at u21 signings who are ready to play as they are not counted in any champs league squad restriction as they don't have to be named in the 25.

We also need to look at homegrown players as we have a big risk in that quota this is why Fabregas would be such a good signing .
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

EalingBlue2 said:
We should be extending contracts on as many players as possible who we see staying and being part of the club. If we could extend 100m worth of players on 4 year contracts in the last year or two of these on to new 4 year contracts we could probably improve our amort by 20m a year which with the Mancini pay off would offset any impact of disallowed deals.

We should also look at u21 signings who are ready to play as they are not counted in any champs league squad restriction as they don't have to be named in the 25.

We also need to look at homegrown players as we have a big risk in that quota this is why Fabregas would be such a good signing .
Click to expand...

They have to be counted in the 25-man CL A-list if they haven't been at the club for the required length of time. e.g Balotelli had to be included in the 25-man CL squad even though he was under 21.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

BlueAnorak said:
While we're at it, look at Utds figures! -16
Has the Chevrolet deal in Aug 2012 been excluded?
Click to expand...

That's particularly interesting given the rebuilding job required and the pay-off to Moyes. If they buy players this summer for £150m on 5 year contracts that's £30m a year amortisation alone. I guess the new TV deal will make a difference but, in terms of sponsorship, no CL won't help one iota.
 
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.