You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
mancity dan
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
We don't need to do any of the above as we will fully comply with any FFP regs from here on in anyway.
MrE said:Guys,
another thread on another forum has inspired this thought but please bear with me for a moment.
Scenario
CFG hold the contracts of all youth players on the group books.
CFG hold all the costs (coaches/ players/ etc)
CFG pay City a rental for use of there training facility.
CFG free transfer players (as required) into our squad, either for use or sale...
CFG we see a 16 year old has real potential... he comes onto Cities books and the club hold him for 2 years (meets homegrown criteria.)
The club reduce there overheads
The club get income for a facility.
Does anyone see a negative in this system.
Would it work, Would it improve our FFP standings
We don't need to do any of the above as we will fully comply with any FFP regs from here on in anyway.
Silva Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 1,005
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I accept that, I just want to know if the theory is sound ?
mancity dan said:MrE said:Guys,
another thread on another forum has inspired this thought but please bear with me for a moment.
Scenario
CFG hold the contracts of all youth players on the group books.
CFG hold all the costs (coaches/ players/ etc)
CFG pay City a rental for use of there training facility.
CFG free transfer players (as required) into our squad, either for use or sale...
CFG we see a 16 year old has real potential... he comes onto Cities books and the club hold him for 2 years (meets homegrown criteria.)
The club reduce there overheads
The club get income for a facility.
Does anyone see a negative in this system.
Would it work, Would it improve our FFP standings
We don't need to do any of the above as we will fully comply with any FFP regs from here on in anyway.
I accept that, I just want to know if the theory is sound ?
I'm no cynic but...
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 4,000
- Location
- True friends stab you in the front.
- Team supported
- The one and only City
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It's something I've thought about too, the only snag I can see [other than UEFA making up some rule in hindsight] is that CFG might be regarded as a 3rd party and could have an 'outside influence' on sporting affairs. PB might be the best person to ask.MrE said:mancity dan said:MrE said:Guys,
another thread on another forum has inspired this thought but please bear with me for a moment.
Scenario
CFG hold the contracts of all youth players on the group books.
CFG hold all the costs (coaches/ players/ etc)
CFG pay City a rental for use of there training facility.
CFG free transfer players (as required) into our squad, either for use or sale...
CFG we see a 16 year old has real potential... he comes onto Cities books and the club hold him for 2 years (meets homegrown criteria.)
The club reduce there overheads
The club get income for a facility.
Does anyone see a negative in this system.
Would it work, Would it improve our FFP standings
We don't need to do any of the above as we will fully comply with any FFP regs from here on in anyway.
I accept that, I just want to know if the theory is sound ?
mancity dan
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
PB would definitely be the man for this ^^^
I'm no cynic said:It's something I've thought about too, the only snag I can see [other than UEFA making up some rule in hindsight] is that CFG might be regarded as a 3rd party and could have an 'outside influence' on sporting affairs. PB might be the best person to ask.MrE said:mancity dan said:We don't need to do any of the above as we will fully comply with any FFP regs from here on in anyway.
I accept that, I just want to know if the theory is sound ?
PB would definitely be the man for this ^^^
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Yes. It's 'their' not 'there'. Plus we've agreed not to include any intra-group transactions in our FFP calculation.MrE said:Guys,
another thread on another forum has inspired this thought but please bear with me for a moment.
Scenario
CFG hold the contracts of all youth players on the group books.
CFG hold all the costs (coaches/ players/ etc)
CFG pay City a rental for use of there training facility.
CFG free transfer players (as required) into our squad, either for use or sale...
CFG we see a 16 year old has real potential... he comes onto Cities books and the club hold him for 2 years (meets homegrown criteria.)
The club reduce there overheads
The club get income for a facility.
Does anyone see a negative in this system.
King Geedorah
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 1,413
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Sanchez is the one I most want.
Fantastic little player.
We really should build into our transfer plans that Barca and Madrid buy fantastically talented players and get rid within 3 years. If we remained 3 years behind them at all times we'd do very well (Picking up players like Ibra, Robben, Ozil, Fabregas etc).
St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:So we are linked with Mangala,Barkley,Willy Callabero and Sanchez.
I would fucking love to sign all three of these,now I know it is doubtful but if we did how would we comply with FFP in the next set of accounts? No change out of what 100 plus million?
Sanchez is the one I most want.
Fantastic little player.
We really should build into our transfer plans that Barca and Madrid buy fantastically talented players and get rid within 3 years. If we remained 3 years behind them at all times we'd do very well (Picking up players like Ibra, Robben, Ozil, Fabregas etc).
OB1
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
I don't comment on FFP a lot but now transfer season is getting underway for real, I find myself hugely irritated by this ridiculous piece of UEFA "legislation". I am not a violent person but I would have to work hard not to attempt to slap some sense into Platini in the unlikely evert that I bumped into him.
I suspect that we will see some club's make a mockery of the fact that we have a limit set on our transfer spending this summer. I am not one of those who thinks that we should go out and hijack every deal for a decent player that involves our rivals but we should be able to compete with whatever or rivals spend. They should not be allowed to spend more simply because they earn more. We should be allowed to compete by investing over whatever we choose to invest in the business.
The only time that there would be a need to reign City in is if we consistently spent way more money than the biggest clubs over an extended number of seasons: that is when what City are doing could be deemed anti-competitive.
At the moment, the rules are in danger of preventing City form being as competitive as they could be and that is wrong; but you do not need me to tell you that.
I don't comment on FFP a lot but now transfer season is getting underway for real, I find myself hugely irritated by this ridiculous piece of UEFA "legislation". I am not a violent person but I would have to work hard not to attempt to slap some sense into Platini in the unlikely evert that I bumped into him.
I suspect that we will see some club's make a mockery of the fact that we have a limit set on our transfer spending this summer. I am not one of those who thinks that we should go out and hijack every deal for a decent player that involves our rivals but we should be able to compete with whatever or rivals spend. They should not be allowed to spend more simply because they earn more. We should be allowed to compete by investing over whatever we choose to invest in the business.
The only time that there would be a need to reign City in is if we consistently spent way more money than the biggest clubs over an extended number of seasons: that is when what City are doing could be deemed anti-competitive.
At the moment, the rules are in danger of preventing City form being as competitive as they could be and that is wrong; but you do not need me to tell you that.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
According to some sages on here UEFA's attack has made absolutely no difference to anything! Priceless.OB1 said:I don't comment on FFP a lot but now transfer season is getting underway for real, I find myself hugely irritated by this ridiculous piece of UEFA "legislation". I am not a violent person but I would have to work hard not to attempt to slap some sense into Platini in the unlikely evert that I bumped into him.
I suspect that we will see some club's make a mockery of the fact that we have a limit set on our transfer spending this summer. I am not one of those who thinks that we should go out and hijack every deal for a decent player that involves our rivals but we should be able to compete with whatever or rivals spend. They should not be allowed to spend more simply because they earn more. We should be allowed to compete by investing over whatever we choose to invest in the business.
The only time that there would be a need to reign City in is if we consistently spent way more money than the biggest clubs over an extended number of seasons: that is when what City are doing could be deemed anti-competitive.
At the moment, the rules are in danger of preventing City form being as competitive as they could be and that is wrong; but you do not need me to tell you that.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
He also said there were WMD in Iraq.cibaman said:Tony Blair used to have a saying "Never underestimate the Tories, never over estimate the Lib Dems". I think you can substitute United and Liverpool.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Yeah but he had his fingers crossed behind his back for that one.
gordondaviesmoustache said:He also said there were WMD in Iraq.cibaman said:Tony Blair used to have a saying "Never underestimate the Tories, never over estimate the Lib Dems". I think you can substitute United and Liverpool.
Yeah but he had his fingers crossed behind his back for that one.
OB1
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It has made a difference to us but it has not stopped us joining the elite and it won't stop us staying there but it does make it harder for us. Didn't Soriano say somehwere that we would bery soon be in the top 5 clubs in Europe for earnings? If we achieve that, we won't have too many worries and will be able to keep growing our income and list of honours.
George Hannah said:According to some sages on here UEFA's attack has made absolutely no difference to anything! Priceless.OB1 said:I don't comment on FFP a lot but now transfer season is getting underway for real, I find myself hugely irritated by this ridiculous piece of UEFA "legislation". I am not a violent person but I would have to work hard not to attempt to slap some sense into Platini in the unlikely evert that I bumped into him.
I suspect that we will see some club's make a mockery of the fact that we have a limit set on our transfer spending this summer. I am not one of those who thinks that we should go out and hijack every deal for a decent player that involves our rivals but we should be able to compete with whatever or rivals spend. They should not be allowed to spend more simply because they earn more. We should be allowed to compete by investing over whatever we choose to invest in the business.
The only time that there would be a need to reign City in is if we consistently spent way more money than the biggest clubs over an extended number of seasons: that is when what City are doing could be deemed anti-competitive.
At the moment, the rules are in danger of preventing City form being as competitive as they could be and that is wrong; but you do not need me to tell you that.
It has made a difference to us but it has not stopped us joining the elite and it won't stop us staying there but it does make it harder for us. Didn't Soriano say somehwere that we would bery soon be in the top 5 clubs in Europe for earnings? If we achieve that, we won't have too many worries and will be able to keep growing our income and list of honours.
Re: City & FFP (continued)
It hasn't. What did we need to add to last season's squad? As far as the starting XI goes, only really a new CB and then replacements for the (likely) departures of Pantilimon, Richards and Rodwell, who all contributed very little last season. We'll manage to satisfy all of those needs within our FFP restriction.
I understand that a signing like Sanchez would be nice, but would he really make that much of a difference? If he came, he'd be taking a very very good player out of the first team. Only Chelsea in 09/10 scored more Premier League goals in a season than we managed last year so suggestions that signing attacking players is vital are ridiculous. We should also see far more of Jovetic next season.
Even if we were to lose a big player (Yaya or Negredo), we should be able to replace them suitably using the money we get from their sales and those of other likely departures.
I think that an awful lot of fans are showing incredibly little confidence in last season's squad, which produced the most successful City season ever.
George Hannah said:According to some sages on here UEFA's attack has made absolutely no difference to anything! Priceless.OB1 said:I don't comment on FFP a lot but now transfer season is getting underway for real, I find myself hugely irritated by this ridiculous piece of UEFA "legislation". I am not a violent person but I would have to work hard not to attempt to slap some sense into Platini in the unlikely evert that I bumped into him.
I suspect that we will see some club's make a mockery of the fact that we have a limit set on our transfer spending this summer. I am not one of those who thinks that we should go out and hijack every deal for a decent player that involves our rivals but we should be able to compete with whatever or rivals spend. They should not be allowed to spend more simply because they earn more. We should be allowed to compete by investing over whatever we choose to invest in the business.
The only time that there would be a need to reign City in is if we consistently spent way more money than the biggest clubs over an extended number of seasons: that is when what City are doing could be deemed anti-competitive.
At the moment, the rules are in danger of preventing City form being as competitive as they could be and that is wrong; but you do not need me to tell you that.
It hasn't. What did we need to add to last season's squad? As far as the starting XI goes, only really a new CB and then replacements for the (likely) departures of Pantilimon, Richards and Rodwell, who all contributed very little last season. We'll manage to satisfy all of those needs within our FFP restriction.
I understand that a signing like Sanchez would be nice, but would he really make that much of a difference? If he came, he'd be taking a very very good player out of the first team. Only Chelsea in 09/10 scored more Premier League goals in a season than we managed last year so suggestions that signing attacking players is vital are ridiculous. We should also see far more of Jovetic next season.
Even if we were to lose a big player (Yaya or Negredo), we should be able to replace them suitably using the money we get from their sales and those of other likely departures.
I think that an awful lot of fans are showing incredibly little confidence in last season's squad, which produced the most successful City season ever.
mac
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Well said,it's easy playing football manager when you think you have billions in the bank..oh we have, but we only need fine tuning, not 3/4 mega signings.CityStu said:George Hannah said:According to some sages on here UEFA's attack has made absolutely no difference to anything! Priceless.OB1 said:I don't comment on FFP a lot but now transfer season is getting underway for real, I find myself hugely irritated by this ridiculous piece of UEFA "legislation". I am not a violent person but I would have to work hard not to attempt to slap some sense into Platini in the unlikely evert that I bumped into him.
I suspect that we will see some club's make a mockery of the fact that we have a limit set on our transfer spending this summer. I am not one of those who thinks that we should go out and hijack every deal for a decent player that involves our rivals but we should be able to compete with whatever or rivals spend. They should not be allowed to spend more simply because they earn more. We should be allowed to compete by investing over whatever we choose to invest in the business.
The only time that there would be a need to reign City in is if we consistently spent way more money than the biggest clubs over an extended number of seasons: that is when what City are doing could be deemed anti-competitive.
At the moment, the rules are in danger of preventing City form being as competitive as they could be and that is wrong; but you do not need me to tell you that.
It hasn't. What did we need to add to last season's squad? As far as the starting XI goes, only really a new CB and then replacements for the (likely) departures of Pantilimon, Richards and Rodwell, who all contributed very little last season. We'll manage to satisfy all of those needs within our FFP restriction.
I understand that a signing like Sanchez would be nice, but would he really make that much of a difference? If he came, he'd be taking a very very good player out of the first team. Only Chelsea in 09/10 scored more Premier League goals in a season than we managed last year so suggestions that signing attacking players is vital are ridiculous. We should also see far more of Jovetic next season.
Even if we were to lose a big player (Yaya or Negredo), we should be able to replace them suitably using the money we get from their sales and those of other likely departures.
I think that an awful lot of fans are showing incredibly little confidence in last season's squad, which produced the most successful City season ever.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
You're right, I seem to recall Khaldoon saying something similar but what does he know compared to you George...George Hannah said:According to some sages on here UEFA's attack has made absolutely no difference to anything! Priceless.OB1 said:I don't comment on FFP a lot but now transfer season is getting underway for real, I find myself hugely irritated by this ridiculous piece of UEFA "legislation". I am not a violent person but I would have to work hard not to attempt to slap some sense into Platini in the unlikely evert that I bumped into him.
I suspect that we will see some club's make a mockery of the fact that we have a limit set on our transfer spending this summer. I am not one of those who thinks that we should go out and hijack every deal for a decent player that involves our rivals but we should be able to compete with whatever or rivals spend. They should not be allowed to spend more simply because they earn more. We should be allowed to compete by investing over whatever we choose to invest in the business.
The only time that there would be a need to reign City in is if we consistently spent way more money than the biggest clubs over an extended number of seasons: that is when what City are doing could be deemed anti-competitive.
At the moment, the rules are in danger of preventing City form being as competitive as they could be and that is wrong; but you do not need me to tell you that.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Just basic questions regarding how FFP is implemented (apologies if this is posted elsewhere on the forum).
1. Is it applied only to the top flight league of each affected Country ?
2 Do all Teams that are included in this catchment have to provide evidence of compliance (maybe Audited Accounts) by a certain date each year ?
3. Do UEFA take action against ALL Teams who do not comply or can they be selective in their targets ?
Just basic questions regarding how FFP is implemented (apologies if this is posted elsewhere on the forum).
1. Is it applied only to the top flight league of each affected Country ?
2 Do all Teams that are included in this catchment have to provide evidence of compliance (maybe Audited Accounts) by a certain date each year ?
3. Do UEFA take action against ALL Teams who do not comply or can they be selective in their targets ?
eastmanc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 10,325
- Team supported
- Manchester city
Re: City & FFP (continued)
the first thing that pisses me off about FFP is that it is so obviously aimed at clipping City's wings all because UEFA do not not want us gatecrashing their little party. The second is we have been punished for breaking the break even rule, although we have broke even this last season, which just dosn't make sense. And the third is we are hamstrung in our spending , whilst the likes of Liverpool, who would fail FFP at the present time, can spend what they like.
the first thing that pisses me off about FFP is that it is so obviously aimed at clipping City's wings all because UEFA do not not want us gatecrashing their little party. The second is we have been punished for breaking the break even rule, although we have broke even this last season, which just dosn't make sense. And the third is we are hamstrung in our spending , whilst the likes of Liverpool, who would fail FFP at the present time, can spend what they like.
keith's curle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 633
Re: City & FFP (continued)
The quick answers would be;
1. UEFA's ffp applies to all teams competing in their competitions (ie, CL and Europa). The PL has its own ffp, and the Championship likewise. The leagues then have/are getting their own.
2. The short (but not technically correct) answer is yes. EUFA check the audited accounts at a certain point. (Similar for PL etc)
3. UEFA pass on to the 'disciplinary committee' (or whatever its called) the clubs who are in breach of the regulations, who then decide the fate. There is a certain leeway for 'trends' etc.
I've certainly not reflected the complexity that even a simple answer could cover for your question, but keep reading the threads and you'll pick up the relevant points before too long.
SilverFox2 said:Just basic questions regarding how FFP is implemented (apologies if this is posted elsewhere on the forum).
1. Is it applied only to the top flight league of each affected Country ?
2 Do all Teams that are included in this catchment have to provide evidence of compliance (maybe Audited Accounts) by a certain date each year ?
3. Do UEFA take action against ALL Teams who do not comply or can they be selective in their targets ?
The quick answers would be;
1. UEFA's ffp applies to all teams competing in their competitions (ie, CL and Europa). The PL has its own ffp, and the Championship likewise. The leagues then have/are getting their own.
2. The short (but not technically correct) answer is yes. EUFA check the audited accounts at a certain point. (Similar for PL etc)
3. UEFA pass on to the 'disciplinary committee' (or whatever its called) the clubs who are in breach of the regulations, who then decide the fate. There is a certain leeway for 'trends' etc.
I've certainly not reflected the complexity that even a simple answer could cover for your question, but keep reading the threads and you'll pick up the relevant points before too long.
whp.blue
Well-Known Member
Re: City & FFP (continued)
Bit dramatic to say the least!
He is a squad player at best
mancity dan said:I'm no cynic said:Getting Jimmy signed up is a bit of a problem though...Prestwich_Blue said:It actually benefits us from an FFP perspective as it "saves" us about £3m a year in amortisation. Same if Milner signs up for another 5 years.
Need to keep Jimmy at all costs
Bit dramatic to say the least!
He is a squad player at best