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

[Ducado]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The disappointment from rival fans is palpable bless em

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

For anyone still wondering about possible appeals against our "punishments" (the quotes are just to wind up lurking bitters :) ) this is from the official UEFA website :- http://www.uefa.org/protecting-the-...-financial-fair-play/news/newsid=2116154.html

On Friday 16 May, settlement agreements were concluded with nine clubs who had not fulfilled the break-even requirements of the UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) Regulations. In relation to the provisions in the settlements concerning the number of players to be included in the A list for the 2014/15 UEFA club competitions, the UEFA Emergency Panel, meeting in Lisbon on Friday 23 May, already confirmed the relevant principles, which are as follows:

• Should a club be entitled to register a maximum number of 21 players on the A list, the minimum number of places exclusively reserved for 'locally trained players' shall be five instead of eight, of which a maximum of four shall be 'association-trained'; and

• Should a club be entitled to register a maximum number of 22 players on the A list, the minimum number of places exclusively reserved for 'locally trained players' shall be six instead of eight, of which a maximum of four shall be 'association-trained'.

All nine clubs which have signed settlement agreements will be subject to ongoing monitoring, and any case of non-compliance with the terms of their agreement will be automatically referred to the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) Adjudicatory Chamber as per Article 15(4) of the Procedural Rules governing the CFCB.

UEFA also confirms that no reviews were requested of the settlement agreements, either by directly affected parties or by the chairman of the CFCB.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The only remaining query regarding the sanctions are City's interpretations of this from UEFA :-

Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for
seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Manchester City further accepts a calculated
limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List
for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based
on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by
this agreement.

Whereas we say :-

The nature of conditions that will result in the lifting of sanctions means that the Club expects to be operating without sanction or restriction at the commencement of the 2015-16 season.

Importantly all non-financial sanctions agreed to would have been complied with as a natural course of the Club’s planned business operations.

Then again would a £49 million transfer restriction affect us next season either? Presuming say a £36 million outlay this summer on Sagna/Fernando/Benatia (ignoring any incoming fees), next summer short of losing anyone we shouldn't need any reinforcement and hopefully will have some options from the youth ranks.

 

[M18CTID]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

ragcafe similarly p-o'ed
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/threads/manchester-city-facing-financial-fair-play-sanctions.388686/page-42" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/threads/manchest ... 86/page-42</a>

Not sure why United fans are getting their knickers in a twist over there - this doesn't affect them whatsoever as they're not even in Europe next season!

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

ragcafe similarly p-o'ed
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/threads/manchester-city-facing-financial-fair-play-sanctions.388686/page-42" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/threads/manchest ... 86/page-42</a>

Not sure why United fans are getting their knickers in a twist over there - this doesn't affect them whatsoever as they're not even in Europe next season!

Given their options of focusing on the train wreck that is their own club or gazing with jealous eyes on what we're doing do you really blame them?

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A serious question...

What happens to the agents fees in calculations? If a deal goes through at £20m and the agent lands himself a fee of, say, £5m, then is it £25m for FFP purposes, or is it still £20m?

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A serious question...

What happens to the agents fees in calculations? If a deal goes through at £20m and the agent lands himself a fee of, say, £5m, then is it £25m for FFP purposes, or is it still £20m?

£20m I'd have thought.

 

[CityStu]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A serious question...

What happens to the agents fees in calculations? If a deal goes through at £20m and the agent lands himself a fee of, say, £5m, then is it £25m for FFP purposes, or is it still £20m?

I'd imagine that the transfer fee of £20m would be the one to count against our spending limit. The agent's fee would still count towards FFP though, just as other expenditure.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The false sense of entitlement shown by the usual suspects is breathtaking.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A serious question...

What happens to the agents fees in calculations? If a deal goes through at £20m and the agent lands himself a fee of, say, £5m, then is it £25m for FFP purposes, or is it still £20m?

I would assume it would go into contracts and sections like that, as it's negotiated with the player, not with the club.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The false sense of entitlement shown by the usual suspects is breathtaking.

Yes - it seems that , like beauty , corruption is very much in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A serious question...

What happens to the agents fees in calculations? If a deal goes through at £20m and the agent lands himself a fee of, say, £5m, then is it £25m for FFP purposes, or is it still £20m?

I would assume it would go into contracts and sections like that, as it's negotiated with the player, not with the club.

If a club pays an agent a fee as a direct cost of acquiring a player's registration then it's classed as part of the transfer fee.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A serious question...

What happens to the agents fees in calculations? If a deal goes through at £20m and the agent lands himself a fee of, say, £5m, then is it £25m for FFP purposes, or is it still £20m?

I would assume it would go into contracts and sections like that, as it's negotiated with the player, not with the club.

If a club pays an agent a fee as a direct cost of acquiring a player's registration then it's classed as part of the transfer fee.

As an afterthought, I got to thinking about Tevez. He wasn't a transfer as such, but Kia made himself multi-rich over that player. Figures being waved about at the time guessed at anything between £24m and £42m for this supposedly free agent. I just get the feeling that a deal of this nature would land us in hot water if it ever happened with us again.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I would assume it would go into contracts and sections like that, as it's negotiated with the player, not with the club.

If a club pays an agent a fee as a direct cost of acquiring a player's registration then it's classed as part of the transfer fee.

As an afterthought, I got to thinking about Tevez. He wasn't a transfer as such, but Kia made himself multi-rich over that player. Figures being waved about at the time guessed at anything between £24m and £42m for this supposedly free agent. I just get the feeling that a deal of this nature would land us in hot water if it ever happened with us again.

The fact that he was registered with a company rather than a football club doesn't make any difference I don't think. As long as there's transparency between the club and UEFA there's no problem.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If a club pays an agent a fee as a direct cost of acquiring a player's registration then it's classed as part of the transfer fee.

As an afterthought, I got to thinking about Tevez. He wasn't a transfer as such, but Kia made himself multi-rich over that player. Figures being waved about at the time guessed at anything between £24m and £42m for this supposedly free agent. I just get the feeling that a deal of this nature would land us in hot water if it ever happened with us again.

The fact that he was registered with a company rather than a football club doesn't make any difference I don't think. As long as there's transparency between the club and UEFA there's no problem.

It's the monetary side of the deal that I was thinking about, although as you suggest, he wasn't a transfer from one club to another. It's the agent here who made the money, but I don't know whether the fee we paid out was then, or would be now, counted as a transfer fee or would be an agent's fee instead. More complications, and I wonder if anyone at UEFA have thought of that one?

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

As an afterthought, I got to thinking about Tevez. He wasn't a transfer as such, but Kia made himself multi-rich over that player. Figures being waved about at the time guessed at anything between £24m and £42m for this supposedly free agent. I just get the feeling that a deal of this nature would land us in hot water if it ever happened with us again.

The fact that he was registered with a company rather than a football club doesn't make any difference I don't think. As long as there's transparency between the club and UEFA there's no problem.

It's the monetary side of the deal that I was thinking about, although as you suggest, he wasn't a transfer from one club to another. It's the agent here who made the money, but I don't know whether the fee we paid out was then, or would be now, counted as a transfer fee or would be an agent's fee instead. More complications, and I wonder if anyone at UEFA have thought of that one?

3rd party ownership is very common in South America at least and has been probably for ever so UEFA know all about it. It also makes it more likely that what PB says about agents fees being part of the transfer cost more likely to be correct as well.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A serious question...

What happens to the agents fees in calculations? If a deal goes through at £20m and the agent lands himself a fee of, say, £5m, then is it £25m for FFP purposes, or is it still £20m?

£20m I'd have thought.

since you've cast yourself in the role of agony aunt on this thread Colin, what's your take on how much more than £49m nett we could have safely spent this window using our rising revenues to keep within general FFP rules? (PB has maintained a dignified silence since I asked him this directly a few pages back.)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A serious question...

What happens to the agents fees in calculations? If a deal goes through at £20m and the agent lands himself a fee of, say, £5m, then is it £25m for FFP purposes, or is it still £20m?

£20m I'd have thought.

since you've cast yourself in the role of agony aunt on this thread Colin, what's your take on how much more than £49m nett we could have safely spent this window using our rising revenues to keep within general FFP rules? (PB has maintained a dignified silence since I asked him this directly a few pages back.)

It's simply impossible to answer that question accurately without knowing what our financial targets are or our cash flow position is. So we know that the amortisation & wages for Barry & Lescott, plus the wages for Pantilimon are off the books. That's probably a total of about £17.5m per annum off the books. If we're happy to spend all that then I'd guess that's about £35m in transfer fees. Any other revenue we bring in could increase that so I can well believe that the £49m is what we were possibly planning to spend anyway.

The increased revenues have to go towards breaking even, rather than supporting increasing expenses.

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A serious question...

What happens to the agents fees in calculations? If a deal goes through at £20m and the agent lands himself a fee of, say, £5m, then is it £25m for FFP purposes, or is it still £20m?

£20m I'd have thought.

since you've cast yourself in the role of agony aunt on this thread Colin, what's your take on how much more than £49m nett we could have safely spent this window using our rising revenues to keep within general FFP rules? (PB has maintained a dignified silence since I asked him this directly a few pages back.)

It's like measuring apples against oranges.

It would all depend upon the lengths of the contracts offered to the players. If we bought a player for £20m, and offered him a 4 year deal, we'd only be hit for £5m in this years accounts for his transfer, if he was offered a 5 year deal this would drop to £4m in this years accounts.

The £49m spending cap is an entirely separate entity, as it doesn't involve amortisation of any description. It's a simple cap on our total spend, and doesn't consider how accountancy views our spending. In the above example it's a £20m spend, regardless of how many years the "cost" is spread out from an accountancy perspective. It's not a matter of us being able to spend more, or less, than £49m without this cap being placed upon us. As far as FFP, and accountancy methods, is concerned, part of our transfer "spend" this accountancy period, will include the signing of Sergio Aguero, as we are still amortising his transfer over the length of his contract. However whatever the cost is for this accountancy period for "signing" Aguero (probably something in the region of £7m) that doesn't affect the £49m transfer cap.

What I'm trying to say is, we could possibly have spent £100m this summer, as long as when those transfers are amortised for this coming season their total, when combined with the total for players already at the club and in the process of being amortised, didn't exceed whatever amount our revenue was able to cover. We could have signed 3 £33m players, each to a 5 year contract. As far as amortisation is concerned that would be an additional £20m "cost" to our accounts for the 2014/15 accountancy period (£100m/15 years x 3 players). If we could cover this additional £20m cost by club revenue then we'd be fine. However this £100m spend wouldn't be possible, not because we can't cover the £20m cost per year, but because the £100m exceeds the £49m cap we've had put upon us. This is why I'm not 100% convinced by the assurances we've been given by City that the spending cap won;t affect our summer transfer planning/dealings. Unless of course we never planned to spend anything like £100m on strengthening the squad, or we assumed that we could spend £100m and recoop £50m from players sales?

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A serious question...

What happens to the agents fees in calculations? If a deal goes through at £20m and the agent lands himself a fee of, say, £5m, then is it £25m for FFP purposes, or is it still £20m?

£20m I'd have thought.

since you've cast yourself in the role of agony aunt on this thread Colin, what's your take on how much more than £49m nett we could have safely spent this window using our rising revenues to keep within general FFP rules? (PB has maintained a dignified silence since I asked him this directly a few pages back.)

Lol, agony aunt? If you've got an erectile dysfunction I'd suggest going to see your doctor.

Do you mean if we hadn't been sanctioned?
BTW the quote you decided to use was before a later one where I posted that PB was probably correct in saying that agents fees are probably included in transfer fees.