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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I do not believe that City have a problem over FFP. My basic contention is that you are wasting your time, in a Western European, capitalist economy, trying to stop a fabulously rich individual, backed by massive business expertise, succeeding in whatever area of economic activity they choose. Sheikh Mansour has already transformed City from "perennial underachievers" to serial trophy winners, and he's only done the easy bit so far. If UEFA determine to resist his advance they will be alienating someone it is better not to alienate (especially after a pinch), someone on first name terms with every head of state in the western world and someone playing a leading role in the development of club football in the USA, Australia and Asia. He is proving that the investment model is benefitting football all over the world while UEFA is determined to defend a restrictive, un adventurous philosophy that football is not about glory, about winning and dreaming, but about the thrill of balancing the books. Yet even within these parameters he's shown that he can bring in better players playing better football in a better stadium in need of enlarging because of the larger numbers wishing to watch. He is better at the cartel's game than they are. There seems little they can do about these new deals; if they try they will be alienating their own sponsors and risking the real wrath of the courts. And Sheikh Mansour will be developing new revenue streams, City and CFG will be even wealthier.

Why might Platini be risking such folly? Apparently because of an agreement with the ECA, or at least those clubs of the old G14, clubs who threatened to secede and set up their own league if they did not get their way. This threat is hollow now. FFP is to "stop" City, PSG, Monaco and one or two clubs from the old Soviet Union. The latter appear not to be a real threat because their funding is irregular, but the first three certainly are. But to whom? It was Sylvio Berlusconi who first mooted the idea of financial regulation. His club were European champions at the time. What effect would a threat to withdraw from the CL have now! Manchester United's position is a tad weaker than it was 8 years ago, and does Platini have to take any notice of Arsenal and their superb record? Real and Barca seem to value the benefits of domestic rivalry to secede, which leaves only Bayern and they may decide a break away league of them and a handful of second rate, CL non-qualifiers is not an attractive prospect.

Platini's lukewarm defence of FFP recently may be because he believes it is time to ditch the old elite in favour of the rising forces, especially as two of them are French and the other is already taking the first steps to genuine globalisation. If he hasn't taken such a decision yet, he should very quickly. And if the old clubs do secede the Sheikh can put a comforting arm round his shoulders and whisper a comforting, "Don't worry, Michel my old friend, we'll sort out a few big new sponsors for the CL...."
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Poor old platini , he really seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place.
He's not stupid - he can see which way the economic wind is blowing and he will at some point have to decide where he - and uefa - stand.
The increasing influence of people like the sheik ,irresistible both in business and politics, while the powers of the old guard recedes, is adding up to a sea change in world football.
I think the big showdown won't be between uefa and City , but more likely between uefa and the G14ers , and as has been pointed out in his excellent post by BluessinceHydeRoad, owners like Berlusconi and by association most of the others don't want to even try to compete with the "new money" so I see a face off between the two parties, ultimately leading to the bloody destruction of some cosy relationships.
Reality is really starting to bite now.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

BluessinceHydeRoad said:
I do not believe that City have a problem over FFP. My basic contention is that you are wasting your time, in a Western European, capitalist economy, trying to stop a fabulously rich individual, backed by massive business expertise, succeeding in whatever area of economic activity they choose. Sheikh Mansour has already transformed City from "perennial underachievers" to serial trophy winners, and he's only done the easy bit so far. If UEFA determine to resist his advance they will be alienating someone it is better not to alienate (especially after a pinch), someone on first name terms with every head of state in the western world and someone playing a leading role in the development of club football in the USA, Australia and Asia. He is proving that the investment model is benefitting football all over the world while UEFA is determined to defend a restrictive, un adventurous philosophy that football is not about glory, about winning and dreaming, but about the thrill of balancing the books. Yet even within these parameters he's shown that he can bring in better players playing better football in a better stadium in need of enlarging because of the larger numbers wishing to watch. He is better at the cartel's game than they are. There seems little they can do about these new deals; if they try they will be alienating their own sponsors and risking the real wrath of the courts. And Sheikh Mansour will be developing new revenue streams, City and CFG will be even wealthier.

Why might Platini be risking such folly? Apparently because of an agreement with the ECA, or at least those clubs of the old G14, clubs who threatened to secede and set up their own league if they did not get their way. This threat is hollow now. FFP is to "stop" City, PSG, Monaco and one or two clubs from the old Soviet Union. The latter appear not to be a real threat because their funding is irregular, but the first three certainly are. But to whom? It was Sylvio Berlusconi who first mooted the idea of financial regulation. His club were European champions at the time. What effect would a threat to withdraw from the CL have now! Manchester United's position is a tad weaker than it was 8 years ago, and does Platini have to take any notice of Arsenal and their superb record? Real and Barca seem to value the benefits of domestic rivalry to secede, which leaves only Bayern and they may decide a break away league of them and a handful of second rate, CL non-qualifiers is not an attractive prospect.

Platini's lukewarm defence of FFP recently may be because he believes it is time to ditch the old elite in favour of the rising forces, especially as two of them are French and the other is already taking the first steps to genuine globalisation. If he hasn't taken such a decision yet, he should very quickly. And if the old clubs do secede the Sheikh can put a comforting arm round his shoulders and whisper a comforting, "Don't worry, Michel my old friend, we'll sort out a few big new sponsors for the CL...."
superb post
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

FFP was never about City or PSG it was always going to be too late and everyone knew that. PSG and city were always going to be made an example of not to stop them but to stop another dozen city's. City and PSG have added enough dollars to the game to more than make up for 14 becoming 16 what the cartel can't deal with though is another g14 with more money and power . We are well past the draw bridge but as planned the drawbridge is closed a teams like city and Chelsea will be in the new g14 teams like marseille will disappear from influence - as we become as big as united financially they will start to realise the rivalry can help them too
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

According to Soriano, our revenue for 13/14 - the accounts set to be released in the new year - is expected to be around 404m Euros (£315-320m)

With the extra £30-35m p/a from the new CFA sponsors and the Etihad extension that would put us at around 444m Euros (£350m) *before* any other increases in revenue for this season - not far away from being the highest in the PL (Utd expected to be around £390m this season)

Suck on that, twatini et al.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

This thread can be merged with the City agenda thread.
FFP was originally muted to control clubs living with excessive levels of debt
As FFP developed its stunted path this was at the same time as Chelski took off with their Russian money
Chelsea's model was to convert debt to equity and they are now in a position where over a billion pounds has been invested as equity
Along comes the Middle East money and all of a sudden the focus changes from debt concerns to rich owner concerns
Debt and equity are completely different, equity in a flexible results orientated industry is the most sensible, by far, method of financing
Just look over the City walls into Salford and see how much football generated income leaves football in the guise of interest, owner debt funding and owner equity funding.
Compare this to our owner who puts in and takes out nothing and then you begin to see just how wrong and irrational FFP is.
No wonder Khaldoon is so confident we will look back in a few years time and everyone will see who is right and who is wrong.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Silva_Spell said:
According to Soriano, our revenue for 13/14 - the accounts set to be released in the new year - is expected to be around 404m Euros (£315-320m)

With the extra £30-35m p/a from the new CFA sponsors and the Etihad extension that would put us at around 444m Euros (£350m) *before* any other increases in revenue for this season - not far away from being the highest in the PL (Utd expected to be around £390m this season)

Suck on that, twatini et al.
But you have to remember that even if we catch them in 2014/15, they will take 1st place again because of the Adidas deal, IF they get to Champions League, otherwise they have 30% slashed off that Adidas deal per annum. Also the CL revenue they get on top of that.

The Adidas deal they signed is something £75m per annum?, IF Champions League.

One thing is laughable tho that their wage bill went over £200m mark even before Falcao and Di Maria.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Silva_Spell said:
According to Soriano, our revenue for 13/14 - the accounts set to be released in the new year - is expected to be around 404m Euros (£315-320m)

With the extra £30-35m p/a from the new CFA sponsors and the Etihad extension that would put us at around 444m Euros (£350m) *before* any other increases in revenue for this season - not far away from being the highest in the PL (Utd expected to be around £390m this season)

Suck on that, twatini et al.

Minor pint but that presentation was c. 1 year ago (correct me if I'm wrong) and the Euro turnover would have been calculated somewhere in the region of 1.17€ / 1gbp. That would be projecting a turnover in gbp of c. £345m or c. €435m at todays rates.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Petrovs left peg said:
Silva_Spell said:
According to Soriano, our revenue for 13/14 - the accounts set to be released in the new year - is expected to be around 404m Euros (£315-320m)

With the extra £30-35m p/a from the new CFA sponsors and the Etihad extension that would put us at around 444m Euros (£350m) *before* any other increases in revenue for this season - not far away from being the highest in the PL (Utd expected to be around £390m this season)

Suck on that, twatini et al.

Minor pint but that presentation was c. 1 year ago (correct me if I'm wrong) and the Euro turnover would have been calculated somewhere in the region of 1.17€ / 1gbp. That would be projecting a turnover in gbp of c. £345m or c. €435m at todays rates.


People have not even factored in the BT Champions League money coming on stream next year...which is worth a fucking fortune...to those actually in it...

Should United miss out again on top four we will be above their turnover.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Bodicoteblue said:
Poor old platini , he really seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place.
He's not stupid - he can see which way the economic wind is blowing and he will at some point have to decide where he - and uefa - stand.
The increasing influence of people like the sheik ,irresistible both in business and politics, while the powers of the old guard recedes, is adding up to a sea change in world football.
I think the big showdown won't be between uefa and City , but more likely between uefa and the G14ers , and as has been pointed out in his excellent post by BluessinceHydeRoad, owners like Berlusconi and by association most of the others don't want to even try to compete with the "new money" so I see a face off between the two parties, ultimately leading to the bloody destruction of some cosy relationships.
Reality is really starting to bite now.

First of all thanks BluessinceHydeRoad for yet another thoughtful set of observations.

Great point Bodicoteblue regarding the philosophy of G14+ owners.
Even those who have no massive debt to service have no stomach to compete with the comprehensive investment that our owners are making.

Little wonder they are resorting to as much protectionism as they can but change is about to happen with the pending opening of the Campus and some Community buildings.
I am sure this supplementary investment will demonstrate that the start up cost was not restricted to players and will be a big surprise to most supporters of the other teams we compete with though obviously not to their hamstrung owners.
Perhaps they may ask these owners why they do not invest in a similar way.

Whether this message is conveyed by the media is another story though but our owners may choose to quietly get on with the next phase rather than paying for TV adverts that would convey this Community investment message to the general public.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

To be within £30/£40 million off the rags turnover is enough for me especially when you factor into they are about £400 million behind us squad wise and our wage bill will massively drop with all the new pay structures and there's is going to massively increase with all the new signings and desperation wages they are having to throw about.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

uwe rosler 28 said:
To be within £30/£40 million off the rags turnover is enough for me especially when you factor into they are about £400 million behind us squad wise and our wage bill will massively drop with all the new pay structures and there's is going to massively increase with all the new signings and desperation wages they are having to throw about.


You're not related to that clown Miliband are you ;)

You seem to have left out the most pertinent fact, they are also £400m plus in debt.

We have zero debt.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

MeatHunterrr said:
Silva_Spell said:
According to Soriano, our revenue for 13/14 - the accounts set to be released in the new year - is expected to be around 404m Euros (£315-320m)

With the extra £30-35m p/a from the new CFA sponsors and the Etihad extension that would put us at around 444m Euros (£350m) *before* any other increases in revenue for this season - not far away from being the highest in the PL (Utd expected to be around £390m this season)

Suck on that, twatini et al.
But you have to remember that even if we catch them in 2014/15, they will take 1st place again because of the Adidas deal, IF they get to Champions League, otherwise they have 30% slashed off that Adidas deal per annum. Also the CL revenue they get on top of that.

The Adidas deal they signed is something £75m per annum?, IF Champions League.

One thing is laughable tho that their wage bill went over £200m mark even before Falcao and Di Maria.

The Adidas deal created headlines for its size but once the details started to emerge it is clear that for the £75m figure to be hit they have to win the league and CL.

If they fail to win silverware and fail to get into the CL they get paid less than under the previous Nike deal.

It was a deal of desperation as far as united are concerned and Adidas were being very businesslike and realistic in the structure. The theatre of dreams means nothing to the hard nosed German businessmen at Adidas.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

fbloke said:
MeatHunterrr said:
Silva_Spell said:
According to Soriano, our revenue for 13/14 - the accounts set to be released in the new year - is expected to be around 404m Euros (£315-320m)

With the extra £30-35m p/a from the new CFA sponsors and the Etihad extension that would put us at around 444m Euros (£350m) *before* any other increases in revenue for this season - not far away from being the highest in the PL (Utd expected to be around £390m this season)

Suck on that, twatini et al.
But you have to remember that even if we catch them in 2014/15, they will take 1st place again because of the Adidas deal, IF they get to Champions League, otherwise they have 30% slashed off that Adidas deal per annum. Also the CL revenue they get on top of that.

The Adidas deal they signed is something £75m per annum?, IF Champions League.

One thing is laughable tho that their wage bill went over £200m mark even before Falcao and Di Maria.

The Adidas deal created headlines for its size but once the details started to emerge it is clear that for the £75m figure to be hit they have to win the league and CL.

If they fail to win silverware and fail to get into the CL they get paid less than under the previous Nike deal.

It was a deal of desperation as far as united are concerned and Adidas were being very businesslike and realistic in the structure. The theatre of dreams means nothing to the hard nosed German businessmen at Adidas.

Exactly this I have been trying to tell those who care to listen that the deal is only worth that if they win every single cup completion that they enter. Same with every club.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

the originalkippaxman said:
fbloke said:
MeatHunterrr said:
But you have to remember that even if we catch them in 2014/15, they will take 1st place again because of the Adidas deal, IF they get to Champions League, otherwise they have 30% slashed off that Adidas deal per annum. Also the CL revenue they get on top of that.

The Adidas deal they signed is something £75m per annum?, IF Champions League.

One thing is laughable tho that their wage bill went over £200m mark even before Falcao and Di Maria.

The Adidas deal created headlines for its size but once the details started to emerge it is clear that for the £75m figure to be hit they have to win the league and CL.

If they fail to win silverware and fail to get into the CL they get paid less than under the previous Nike deal.

It was a deal of desperation as far as united are concerned and Adidas were being very businesslike and realistic in the structure. The theatre of dreams means nothing to the hard nosed German businessmen at Adidas.

Exactly this I have been trying to tell those who care to listen that the deal is only worth that if they win every single cup completion that they enter. Same with every club.

it would be interesting if we knew each monetary stage to see its true worth
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

uwe rosler 28 said:
To be within £30/£40 million off the rags turnover is enough for me especially when you factor into they are about £400 million behind us squad wise and our wage bill will massively drop with all the new pay structures and there's is going to massively increase with all the new signings and desperation wages they are having to throw about.

I agree. As long as our revenues going forward are enough to sustain a decent enough net transfer spend each year to remain competitive at the top of the league while complying with FFP then that will do for me for the time being. If that's the case I'm not really arsed about getting into pointless pissing contests with the Rags about who has the biggest turnover. Of course, with everything that's going on behind the scenes it could well be that we do overhaul them sometime in the next 3-5 years in the revenue stakes and that would annoy them no end which would be amusing to see!
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Given their 'millions' of fans around the world, the fact that we are even in an earshot of them at this stage in our project is fantastic work by Khaldoon and the boys

It's quite scary to think where we will be and what we could achieve in 5 years time
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

M18CTID said:
uwe rosler 28 said:
To be within £30/£40 million off the rags turnover is enough for me especially when you factor into they are about £400 million behind us squad wise and our wage bill will massively drop with all the new pay structures and there's is going to massively increase with all the new signings and desperation wages they are having to throw about.

I agree. As long as our revenues going forward are enough to sustain a decent enough net transfer spend each year to remain competitive at the top of the league while complying with FFP then that will do for me for the time being. If that's the case I'm not really arsed about getting into pointless pissing contests with the Rags about who has the biggest turnover. Of course, with everything that's going on behind the scenes it could well be that we do overhaul them sometime in the next 3-5 years in the revenue stakes and that would annoy them no end which would be amusing to see!

They will still come out with the old rubbish of the sponsors we have, are companies owned by Sheikh Mansour, and that this isn't real earnt money. Haha. Can't wait for our accounts to come out.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

tolmie's hairdoo said:
uwe rosler 28 said:
To be within £30/£40 million off the rags turnover is enough for me especially when you factor into they are about £400 million behind us squad wise and our wage bill will massively drop with all the new pay structures and there's is going to massively increase with all the new signings and desperation wages they are having to throw about.


You're not related to that clown Miliband are you ;)

You seem to have left out the most pertinent fact, they are also £400m plus in debt.

We have zero debt.

Haha totally forgot about that just like uefa!
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

mancity dan said:
M18CTID said:
uwe rosler 28 said:
To be within £30/£40 million off the rags turnover is enough for me especially when you factor into they are about £400 million behind us squad wise and our wage bill will massively drop with all the new pay structures and there's is going to massively increase with all the new signings and desperation wages they are having to throw about.

I agree. As long as our revenues going forward are enough to sustain a decent enough net transfer spend each year to remain competitive at the top of the league while complying with FFP then that will do for me for the time being. If that's the case I'm not really arsed about getting into pointless pissing contests with the Rags about who has the biggest turnover. Of course, with everything that's going on behind the scenes it could well be that we do overhaul them sometime in the next 3-5 years in the revenue stakes and that would annoy them no end which would be amusing to see!

They will still come out with the old rubbish of the sponsors we have, are companies owned by Sheikh Mansour, and that this isn't real earnt money. Haha. Can't wait for our accounts to come out.

Yeah, not all of them but some will. When it comes to tribalism in football some people are so blinkered that they will say things that are wholly inaccurate and pass them off as the truth and even when it's pointed out to them that they're wrong, backed up by evidence of cold hard facts, they still won't alter their view. People like that aren't worth educating so fuck 'em!
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top