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

[momo88]

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.

According to some sages on here UEFA's attack has made absolutely no difference to anything! Priceless.

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.

Add to that his shameful behavior
it was all agreed and then suddenly he didn't want to fly to Manchester after that Udinese was forced to sell him to Barca for less

 

[momo88]

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 ?

1. only teams involved in CL or Europa league competition

2. normaly yes

3. the same as 2

 

[George Hannah]

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.

According to some sages on here UEFA's attack has made absolutely no difference to anything! Priceless.

You're right, I seem to recall Khaldoon saying something similar but what does he know compared to you George...

I don't and he wouldn't because he knows we've been banjaxed, What he said in effect was that we had anticipated their attack and have planned accordingly. This transfer window would have been very different without our FFP restrictions - just face the facts.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

According to some sages on here UEFA's attack has made absolutely no difference to anything! Priceless.

You're right, I seem to recall Khaldoon saying something similar but what does he know compared to you George...

I don't and he wouldn't because he knows we've been banjaxed, What he said in effect was that we had anticipated their attack and have planned accordingly. This transfer window would have been very different without our FFP restrictions - just face the facts.

Certainly not how I remember it. I think we were quite surprised at the sanctions. City's statement states that the sanctions will not affect our plans as we had no intention of spending in excess of the sanction. Whether this is actually true is another question but we certainly said it....


- The Club’s expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros. This will have no material impact on the Club’s planned transfer activity.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You're right, I seem to recall Khaldoon saying something similar but what does he know compared to you George...

I don't and he wouldn't because he knows we've been banjaxed, What he said in effect was that we had anticipated their attack and have planned accordingly. This transfer window would have been very different without our FFP restrictions - just face the facts.

Certainly not how I remember it. I think we were quite surprised at the sanctions. City's statement states that the sanctions will not affect our plans as we had not intention of spending in excess of the sanction. Whether this is actually true is another question but we certainly said it....


- The Club’s expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros. This will have no material impact on the Club’s planned transfer activity.

we had clearly been negotiating a settlement with UEFA for literally months by the time the OS statement was published
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/2014/may/club-statement-16-may" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/20 ... ent-16-may</a>

 

[Cobwebcat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I don't and he wouldn't because he knows we've been banjaxed, What he said in effect was that we had anticipated their attack and have planned accordingly. This transfer window would have been very different without our FFP restrictions - just face the facts.

Certainly not how I remember it. I think we were quite surprised at the sanctions. City's statement states that the sanctions will not affect our plans as we had not intention of spending in excess of the sanction. Whether this is actually true is another question but we certainly said it....


- The Club’s expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros. This will have no material impact on the Club’s planned transfer activity.

we had clearly been negotiating a settlement with UEFA for literally months by the time the OS statement was published
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/2014/may/club-statement-16-may" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/20 ... ent-16-may</a>

Resulting in no impact as the statement says.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Certainly not how I remember it. I think we were quite surprised at the sanctions. City's statement states that the sanctions will not affect our plans as we had not intention of spending in excess of the sanction. Whether this is actually true is another question but we certainly said it....


- The Club’s expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros. This will have no material impact on the Club’s planned transfer activity.

we had clearly been negotiating a settlement with UEFA for literally months by the time the OS statement was published
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/2014/may/club-statement-16-may" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/20 ... ent-16-may</a>

Resulting in no impact as the statement says.

that's because we took account of the sanctions in our planning options - that's what plans do - prepare for different scenarios

 

[LoveCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Any estimates, factoring in our projected revenue, on how much we might be allowed to spend next summer (without breaching FFP again) if our sanctions are lifted?

 

[Cobwebcat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

we had clearly been negotiating a settlement with UEFA for literally months by the time the OS statement was published
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/2014/may/club-statement-16-may" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/20 ... ent-16-may</a>

Resulting in no impact as the statement says.

that's because we took account of the sanctions in our planning options - that's what plans do - prepare for different scenarios

I don't think that is correct. We are on a different phase of development now heading towards sustainability with no need to spend that amount again. I also think no impact means no impact not there really is an impact but because we thought this might happen it doesn't count.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The transfer window would only be different if a big player becomes available.

That's where I feel City come up short compared to the Champions League top seeds. They have Galacticos who can and do win tight games. We don't. Aguero has the potential but injuries have hurt him.

When the season ended, and before the FFP sanction became known, the deficiencies in the squad were:

a) Cover for hart - we knew Pants was going
b) Cover for Zab as obvious that Richards wasn't rated
c) Another midfielder as we were short in that area
d) A long term replacement for Demichelis

So far it looks like abc will be addressed so you could therefore argue that the window would have looked like it does now, regardless of what money we had available to spend.

It will be annoying though if a player like Di Maria or Alexis Sanchez becomes available and we are unable to move for them.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Resulting in no impact as the statement says.

that's because we took account of the sanctions in our planning options - that's what plans do - prepare for different scenarios

I don't think that is correct. We are on a different phase of development now heading towards sustainability with no need to spend that amount again. I also think no impact means no impact not there really is an impact but because we thought this might happen it doesn't count.

We'll have to differ on the nature of strategic planning then, You also need to ask yourself why UEFA went to the trouble of cooking all this up if it would have no effect and why we were locked in negotiations for months fighting them.

 

[CityStu]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

that's because we took account of the sanctions in our planning options - that's what plans do - prepare for different scenarios

I don't think that is correct. We are on a different phase of development now heading towards sustainability with no need to spend that amount again. I also think no impact means no impact not there really is an impact but because we thought this might happen it doesn't count.

We'll have to differ on the nature of strategic planning then, You also need to ask yourself why UEFA went to the trouble of cooking all this up if it would have no impact and why we were locked in negotiations for months fighting them.

Because UEFA may have wanted us to have been punished more harshly and we've negotiated them to a level that doesn't affect us. Their punishment doesn't need to impact, it needs to look like it has impact.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Any estimates, factoring in our projected revenue, on how much we might be allowed to spend next summer (without breaching FFP again) if our sanctions are lifted?

Matty reckoned a possible extra £100m would have been available in this window earlier in the thread but Prestwich Blue reckoned zero, so I predict similar divergences in estimates for 2015/16

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I don't think that is correct. We are on a different phase of development now heading towards sustainability with no need to spend that amount again. I also think no impact means no impact not there really is an impact but because we thought this might happen it doesn't count.

We'll have to differ on the nature of strategic planning then, You also need to ask yourself why UEFA went to the trouble of cooking all this up if it would have no impact and why we were locked in negotiations for months fighting them.

Because UEFA may have wanted us to have been punished more harshly and we've negotiated them to a level that doesn't affect us. Their punishment doesn't need to impact, it needs to look like it has impact.

Spending half of what our title rivals will spend on marquee players doesn't just look like sanction, it feels and tastes like one too. I will however console myself with your thoughts if Sanchez, Di Maria and Vidal etc etc end up playing in the Prem with other clubs next season.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Any estimates, factoring in our projected revenue, on how much we might be allowed to spend next summer (without breaching FFP again) if our sanctions are lifted?

I've thought about this before and my theory was £90m based on what we spent in 2013-14.....a season where we're projected to break even

Next Summer we'll have the 8,000 extra seats plus we really should have grown our commercial revenues on the back of the title win.

More than enough to bring in a Suarez/Bale etc

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

My thoughts are that like any of the Elite Clubs perhaps City now feel confident that the FFP regs are something they can comply with.

Players will leave and replacements bought, but this is normal given the need for Agents to 'churn' their 'assets'.

Should any additional high value and maintenance players be added to the squad, for whatever reason, then maybe time for creative accounting and MCFC version of the 'Hire Purchase' method used successfully by the Spanish Clubs could perhaps be a means to avoid adverse P and L effects.

 

[onceabluealways]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I expect that any planning City made for this forth coming season didn't account for -

YAYA throwing a strop and maybe wanting to leave - requires significant spend to replace him
Negredo wanting to leave ( can probably replace him with the money received )

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I expect that any planning City made for this forth coming season didn't account for -

YAYA throwing a strop and maybe wanting to leave - requires significant spend to replace him
Negredo wanting to leave ( can probably replace him with the money received )

I'm sure that contingency plans are always in place for the unexpected. There are very few players who could play the Yaya way, but if he went then I'm sure that we will cope with a minor rejigging of our system. His loss should not cause too much of a worry given the outstanding quality of the remaining squad. I could say something similar about Negredo, but we already have Dzeko to take his place and if another player was to be brought in, I would be happy if we went for someone with pace and mobility rather than a traditional target man. That's my own idea of how we should cope and no doubt it's at odds with the guys at the top, but all I'm saying is that the game moves on and there is always the new flavour of the day player ready to be picked up by a club like ours.

 

[gh_mcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

PSG Fans (as expected are a bit pissed off)

<a class="postlink" href="http://forum.psg.fr/showthread.php?p=4445576" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://forum.psg.fr/showthread.php?p=4445576</a>

<a class="postlink" href="https://www.facebook.com/supporterscontrelefairplayfinancier/timeline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://www.facebook.com/supporterscont ... r/timeline</a>


From what I understand they will be looking to Join (add names) to the case currently going through the courts on the basis that FFP has a direct affect on football consumers in terms of price of tickets and subscriptions and also on the basis it kills the dreams of fans. As such the it is the EUs duty to protect consumers . This will be a powerful argument as I understand it. I also have information that other fans from other countries will be adding there names to the case. I will update if I get more info.

 

[Gordyola]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

PSG Fans (as expected are a bit pissed off)

<a class="postlink" href="http://forum.psg.fr/showthread.php?p=4445576" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://forum.psg.fr/showthread.php?p=4445576</a>

<a class="postlink" href="https://www.facebook.com/supporterscontrelefairplayfinancier/timeline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://www.facebook.com/supporterscont ... r/timeline</a>


From what I understand they will be looking to Join (add names) to the case currently going through the courts on the basis that FFP has a direct affect on football consumers in terms of price of tickets and subscriptions and also on the basis it kills the dreams of fans. As such the it is the EUs duty to protect consumers . This will be a powerful argument as I understand it. I also have information that other fans from other countries will be adding there names to the case. I will update if I get more info.

I posted this earlier in the thread

Just for a bit of mischief I mailed the European Commision asking them if I could register a complaint about the effect of FFP on me as a fan I got this email in reply



Dear ....

Thank you for your email of 22 May 2014 whereby you raised concerns about the effects of UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations on yourself as a supporter of a club competing in UEFA competitions. In your view due to the FFP, clubs need to maximize their income and this leads to high prices for supporters.

EU competition law prohibits, among others, collusion between market operators (Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; "TFEU") and abuses of a dominant position (Article 102 of the TFEU) where trade between EU Member States may be appreciably affected.

On the basis of the information provided in your e-mail, the issue you raised does not seem to fall under EU competition laws but it rather seems to be a consumer protection issue. Therefore you might want to contact the consumer protection agency in your country.

For the avoidance of doubt, it should be stated that we regard your information as market information rather than as a formal complaint which would have to comply with certain legal requirements as set out in Article 5 of Commission Regulation No. 773/2004.

We appreciate that you have chosen to inform us of this issue and we have taken note of your concerns.

Yours sincerely,
Ágnes Szarka
Case Handler


European Commission
DG COMPETITION
Unit C-2

MADO 28/08
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
+32 2 29 53 164
agnes.szarka@ec.europa.eu
Competition websites: <a class="postlink" href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://ec.europa.eu/competition</a>
DISCLAIMER
"The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission."