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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:
If PSG have negotiated a fine only (as per reports) with a loss of circa 194 mill then surely we cannot be hit harder.

I was thinking about this squad cap business. Surely a club only has to disclose it's total wages or at best playing staff wages?

So how on earth would Uefa know know is paid what, in order to police a salary cap for the CL?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

What time is it when we are across every channel that we have broken the rules
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Prestwich_Blue said:
Looks like they've disallowed the image rights deal as others have said plus that sale of IP the year before. But even if they'd allowed those we'd still have failed. I was under the impression that our infrastructure & youth development costs over both years were £35m/€40m. Based on that we'd need to show a decent profit (£25m) this year to avoid failing again.
Not too sure that's genuine PB, if we were going to land on that figure after the wage exemption and still fail, then we wouldn't have been allowed to use it (wouldn't have made the difference between a pass and a fail), also it's contrary to the reports that PSG's deal was negotiated down, as the full amount has been allowed in 12/13. Also they can't completely disallow the IP sales etc, which seems to have been done here, even if they disagree they have to attempt to negotiate them down to fair market value, they've just been deleted in that pic.
Not genuine for me, too many things not adding up.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

john@staustell said:
St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:
If PSG have negotiated a fine only (as per reports) with a loss of circa 194 mill then surely we cannot be hit harder.

I was thinking about this squad cap business. Surely a club only has to disclose it's total wages or at best playing staff wages?

So how on earth would Uefa know know is paid what, in order to police a salary cap for the CL?

They could ask what the figures are.

They are not going to be introducing salary caps though. No way.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

City Raider said:
please don't tell me we're anywhere near the scenario thompson was arguing
No, regardless we won't be. This is being done by auditors and forensic accountants, not clowns who can type setting up their own websites and constantly second guessing their 'guesstimates'.<br /><br />-- Fri May 02, 2014 9:30 am --<br /><br />
Chippy_boy said:
john@staustell said:
St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:
If PSG have negotiated a fine only (as per reports) with a loss of circa 194 mill then surely we cannot be hit harder.

I was thinking about this squad cap business. Surely a club only has to disclose it's total wages or at best playing staff wages?

So how on earth would Uefa know know is paid what, in order to police a salary cap for the CL?

They could ask what the figures are.

They are not going to be introducing salary caps though. No way.
They can't, the EU have already ruled out salary caps as anti-competitive in any industry unless the staff themselves collectively agree, can you see footballers doing that?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

willy eckerslike said:
MCFCinUSA said:
Here are two interesting articles in the Guardian concerning all the clubs in the Premier League and what's what with their accounting.

The overriding impression I get is that (other than the economics of football being upside down - which we've known for some time) is that the rules of FFP are somewhat misguided.

ManUre (seemingly well in line with all guidelines) actually have one of the least viable and most tenuous financial positions of grave concern, whereas Chelsea and City could spend all they want and not be in danger, and why shouldn't they?

Unless everything were to revert to an American NFL style model, which I'm not advocating and which would probably be ludicrous & impossible to implement anyway, there will always be an imbalance in the wealth & spending power of clubs, which is only natural.

Surely the powers that be should draft the rules such to help clubs better manage themselves - in extreme cases where the danger runs high they risk running into the financial rocks, and seem financially imprudent and/or need a little help to reign in the dangerous excesses of football economics and mismanagement.

A straight salary cap might be a more manageable yardstick to use (and I know we're already top of that scale) with or without reference to a club's other financial numbers, although these can be somewhat 'subjective' or pliable, as I'm guessing UEFA will be arguing when it comes to whatever's up for discussion very shortly & 'sanctions' they're now levelling at certain clubs.

The irony being that for some of those 'transgressing', like Chelsea, City and PSG, there isn't really any risk or danger of anything untoward happening, whereas over in Salford (where all is sunny and bright in the eyes of UEFA) there could be one hell of an implosion if they don't arrest the slump that's well and truly underway if it builds up a head of steam over the next couple of seasons.


<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/01/premier-league-clubs-record-wages" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... cord-wages</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/01/premier-league-accounts-club-by-club-david-conn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... david-conn</a>

first article in full below:

Premier League clubs paid their players and other staff a record £1.8bn in 2012-13, up 11% on the previous year, according to the Guardian's review of all the club's annual accounts.

Players earning multi-million pound salaries were again football's clear financial winners, in a year when the clubs made a record £2.7bn combined income, yet nevertheless made a loss overall, of £291m.

Twelve of the 20 clubs made a loss in 2012-13, with five clubs losing £50m or more: Aston Villa, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Queens Park Rangers.

The figures are for the final year of the Premier League's last, 2010-13 round of television deals, worth £3.5bn, before the current massively increased deals, £5.5bn from 2013-16. They suggest that despite Uefa and the Premier League clubs themselves introducing financial fair play rules to discourage wage inflation, most clubs struggle to restrain spending on players as they compete with each other on the field, to succeed or avoid relegation.

The proportion of the income clubs spent on wages in 2012-13 was the same as in 2011-12, 67%, above the 50-60% threshold commonly recommended as sensible. Because clubs earned more money overall, principally from increased sponsorship secured by the top clubs, that meant the total wage bill rose.

Clubs do not differentiate in their accounts between wages paid to players and to other staff, but the overwhelming majority unquestionably goes in galactic earnings of players. Other staff have historically not been well paid at clubs, where there has been a culture of expecting people to consider it a privilege to work in football. The organisation Citizens UK is campaigning for catering and other workers at Premier League clubs to be paid a living wage rather than the minimum wage, of £6.31 per hour, which its survey found many are on. Only Manchester City, of the 20 current Premier League clubs, had responded by committing to paying a living wage, of £7.65 an hour, or £8.80 in London.

The clear exception to that culture of low pay, besides the players and managers, is in the boardroom, where senior executives are lavishly paid in the Premier League. The highest paid director in 2012-13 was Southampton's executive chairman, Nicola Cortese, who earned £2.129m. Next highest paid was Ivan Gazidis, who as Arsenal's chief executive earned £1.825m.

Salary packages of more than a million pounds went to the highest paid director at nine clubs altogether: Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United, Norwich City (which included a £867,000 bonus for hitting financial targets and remaining in the Premier League), Southampton, Tottenham Hotspur, West Bromwich Albion and West Ham United.

Despite the record income, earned from rights to live matches being sold exclusively to pay-television as they have throughout the Premier League's existence, the sponsorships and historically very expensive ticket prices, clubs' net debt increased in 2012-13, from £2.2bn in 2011-12 to £2.4bn.

A majority of Premier League clubs still rely on money from owners, whether paid in return for shares, like the vast £1bn invested in Manchester City over just five years by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan of Abu Dhabi, or loaned, as at Liverpool, Newcastle United, West Ham United and others. Roman Abramovich, the Russian oligarch, has funded Chelsea with £958m since 2003, loaned to his holding company, Fordstam Limited.

Football's largest bank debt was owed by Manchester United, which is still paying heavily for the Glazer family's 2005 takeover, for which the Glazers borrowed £525m, then making United responsible for paying it off. United still owed £389m in 2012-13, and paid £72m in interest and other finance costs. That pushed the club into a £9m loss, despite record income of £363m.

That loss, however, puts United comfortably within Uefa's £37m permitted figure for financial fair play, and it is Mansour's City, who lost £52m, following £99m in 2011-12, against whom Uefa are understood to be considering sanctions. City have always maintained that Uefa's exemptions, principally excluding salaries of players signed before the rules were introduced in 2010, will mean their finances comply, and that their £35m a year shirt, stadium and training "campus" sponsorship by the Abu Dhabi airline Etihad is fair market value, not a connected sweetheart deal for Mansour. They can be expected to argue strongly against any sanction from Uefa.

QPR, who spent heavily on players for managers Mark Hughes and Harry Redknapp but still went down to the Championship, made a £65m loss and had £177m net debt, much of it loans from owners Tony Fernandes and partners. Rangers' wage bill, £78m, was 128% of the club's entire income, and substantially higher than Champions League finalists Atlético Madrid, whose 2012-13 wage bill was €66m (£54m).

If this is such a good article, why is our £1bn described as 'vast', while the ultra-clean Chelsea investment of a similar figure does not receive a similar emotive adjective. It also ignores the fact that the Sheikh's investment has a much better proportion in the areas around club and local area infrastructure and team development in comparison to Chelsea's, and that the smaller time-frame was forced upon the club due to impending FFP rules.

Feel this should go in the FFP thread.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Am I right in believing that punishments not laid down in FFP regulations will be inflicted on our club as a result of a set of figures published in Gazetta? The DT will then appeal for stronger sanctions on behalf of United, Arsenal and Liverpool? This will then persuade UEFA to ban us from buying Mangala (£30m), Pogba (£53m), Fabregas (£40m), Fernando (£20m) and A. N. Other (£whatever-is-necessary millions) as reported by the Mirror?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

BluessinceHydeRoad said:
Am I right in believing that punishments not laid down in FFP regulations will be inflicted on our club as a result of a set of figures published in Gazetta? The DT will then appeal for stronger sanctions on behalf of United, Arsenal and Liverpool? This will then persuade UEFA to ban us from buying Mangala (£30m), Pogba (£53m), Fabregas (£40m), Fernando (£20m) and A. N. Other (£whatever-is-necessary millions) as reported by the Mirror?
Yeah, the Journalists got a new EU treaty passed on the sly last night to scrap the constitution and make Gill plenipotentiary emperor to deal with City and the mad A-rabs.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

aguero93:20 said:
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
Am I right in believing that punishments not laid down in FFP regulations will be inflicted on our club as a result of a set of figures published in Gazetta? The DT will then appeal for stronger sanctions on behalf of United, Arsenal and Liverpool? This will then persuade UEFA to ban us from buying Mangala (£30m), Pogba (£53m), Fabregas (£40m), Fernando (£20m) and A. N. Other (£whatever-is-necessary millions) as reported by the Mirror?
Yeah, the Journalists got a new EU treaty passed on the sly last night to scrap the constitution and make Gill plenipotentiary emperor to deal with City and the mad A-rabs.
All Hail Emperor Gill!
 

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.