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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

2 things

1. It will never happen. restrictions on scum, Barca and Madrid? no way.
2. just had a cheeky look a ragcafe and they think it would be unfair to count debt, but they have always pretended that ffp was about the pompeys and leeds of this world. cunts.

Part of me thinks uefa want rid of all this ffp bollocks
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Wreckless Alec said:
TheThirdDeano said:
Nothing would make me happier than watching the sh**-eating grins from the swamp wiped off their faces but I will believe it when I see it!
Click to expand...

Exactly. The relevant quote reads;

"Gianni Infantino, Uefa’s general secretary, said: “We’re now focused on losses and to repay the debt is part of the loss that the club can make at the end of the season. But, certainly, the question of debt is something that can be put on the table.”

It "can" be put on the table, but I suspect it won't be.
Click to expand...

With the above in mind, this latest news is possibly no more than UEFA making a shot across the bows of the Old Order. City & PSG are in the golden circle now, so play nice or we'll do worse than talk softly and wave this big stick.
UEFA, as bad as they are, crave harmony more than anything. An harmonious European game reflects well upon them an offers more clout when dealing with FIFA. Oh, and it's a lot easier to collect your dues from a devout or converted parishioner than it is from a cynic.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

with the ongoing/up coming court case(the bosman lawyer) maybe the eufa lawyers have told platini ect that the ffp is fucked,im sure citys bosses have had eufa by the throat and said if you don't make ffp fair for all then we will take your pants down.

the swing of opinion in the papers ect is getting louder,clubs of the "no hopers" are actually seeing that ffp would kill the golden prem league goose,

I think we took a pinch off eufa and gave back a big fuck off bollock flick



excuse my laymens opinions,theres some right clever fuckers on here who put me to shame,but im trying,im from heald green you know :)
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

This link may be posted elsewhere but still of interest ref debt:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/677842-football-trade-deficit-balloons-after-record-spending.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NorthWest_9th_Oct_2014_-_Daily_E-mail" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwes ... ily_E-mail</a>

United tops football trade deficit league

9th October 2014


RESEARCH by Barclays shows that England has the biggest transfer deficit in world football after clubs spent £579m recruiting talent from overseas, up 15%.The bank said the balance of trade deficit stands at £379.1m, after taking into account the sale of players worth £200m to foreign clubs. This was seven times larger than second placed Germany.Overseas television rights and sponsorship deals from ......for the full story register now for free or login below...
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Even if UEFA do bring in some add-on to ffp to address debt, how long is it going to take to implement?

Iirc, United are due to have their debt paid off by 2018ish. Even in the real world (as opposed to UEFA world) it would only be reasonable to allow clubs time to adjust, so I can't see it affecting United unless the Glazers were hoping to borrow against the club again.

Barca and Real are no doubt different but I wouldn't know enough about their situation to really guess.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Could it possibly be that UEFA are finally considering bringing debt into FFP, now that United have got their debt under control and will soon have it paid off?

Of course they couldn't do it before because it would have upset United and David Gill. Presumably Gill's told them United are now OK, so full steam ahead to try to shaft other clubs.

This is bent business as usual, nothing more.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

I wondered why after years of there being no value in the market suddenly the quiet neighbours splurge over the last three transfer windows. Did Gill get wind of an adverse result re FFP and they had to spend big before "the drawbridge" was raised.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Not sure about some of these theories lads...

United are a well run and sustainable business who have increased their commercial revenue as a failsafe against a few years of non-participation in the CL. They have a global audience. Their revenue streams are constantly growing. They have a huge stadium and huge ticket prices both for the common fan and especially in corporate areas where I'm afraid to say we are light years behind them in terms of attendance and cost.

All businesses have debt in some form or another and we tend to get focused on United's because it is a large figure. Just because you have a mortgage doesn't mean that you aren't financially secure, even if you have a big mortgage. United are covering their payments and more. Those waiting for UEFA or any other person to criticise United because they have a manageable debt will be waiting a long time.

They can't stay outside the CL for too long without having a financial breakdown though that can be said for every major team in Europe, but it isn't going to affect them substantially.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/2014/08/07/q2_2014_en.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer ... 014_en.pdf</a>
Not all is well at Adidas results wise, GP down 25% year on year and that's before the ridiculous Utd deal
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

silverback said:
I wondered why after years of there being no value in the market suddenly the quiet neighbours splurge over the last three transfer windows. Did Gill get wind of an adverse result re FFP and they had to spend big before "the drawbridge" was raised.
Click to expand...





oh you old cynic.



the answer is definitely yes funny how this year they all went mad eh
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Damocles said:
Not sure about some of these theories lads...

United are a well run and sustainable business who have increased their commercial revenue as a failsafe against a few years of non-participation in the CL. They have a global audience. Their revenue streams are constantly growing. They have a huge stadium and huge ticket prices both for the common fan and especially in corporate areas where I'm afraid to say we are light years behind them in terms of attendance and cost.

All businesses have debt in some form or another and we tend to get focused on United's because it is a large figure. Just because you have a mortgage doesn't mean that you aren't financially secure, even if you have a big mortgage. United are covering their payments and more. Those waiting for UEFA or any other person to criticise United because they have a manageable debt will be waiting a long time.

They can't stay outside the CL for too long without having a financial breakdown though that can be said for every major team in Europe, but it isn't going to affect them substantially.
Click to expand...

All very true, unfortunately.

Their finance costs are now running at around £26m/year (compared to £117m/year at its peak) and they are fundamentally a very profitable business.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

There's no intrinsic problem with debt just as much as there's no intrinsic problem with owners bankrolling clubs.

What is crucial is the sustainability of either of those situations. Had the rags failed to qualify for the CL in the early years of the Glazer ownership, when revenue was much lower, the debt was much higher along with the cost of servicing that debt, then they would have been in serious trouble. As it is, their debt is much more manageable now. Prior to Shinawatra, our debt was relatively small but it wasn't manageable.

As for the danger of unsustainable owner investment, look no further than Gretna. Brooks Mileson spent loads of money on them (to the despair of his minority business partner) and catapulted them to the SPL. But when he took ill and eventually died, they were left adrift and went into liquidation.

So it's the extremes that cause problems, which is what UEFA should be concerned about.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just the usual lip service, I see nothing in these latest comments to believe that something that will negatively impact the likes of United, Barca and Madrid would come to pass.

Perhaps caps can be introduced, however, that would bring spending in relation to the level of debt?

So clubs aren't allowed to spend more than 10 per cent of their overall debt within a 12-month period?

A bit like the hardbrake they applied to ourselves, United would only be allowed to spend £40m.

If they increase debt by a further 10 per cent to create a dodge, clubs would be banned for spending for six months.

It would also be a good way of keeping wages in check across the board.

We're on easy street either way.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Chippy_boy said:
Damocles said:
Not sure about some of these theories lads...

United are a well run and sustainable business who have increased their commercial revenue as a failsafe against a few years of non-participation in the CL. They have a global audience. Their revenue streams are constantly growing. They have a huge stadium and huge ticket prices both for the common fan and especially in corporate areas where I'm afraid to say we are light years behind them in terms of attendance and cost.

All businesses have debt in some form or another and we tend to get focused on United's because it is a large figure. Just because you have a mortgage doesn't mean that you aren't financially secure, even if you have a big mortgage. United are covering their payments and more. Those waiting for UEFA or any other person to criticise United because they have a manageable debt will be waiting a long time.

They can't stay outside the CL for too long without having a financial breakdown though that can be said for every major team in Europe, but it isn't going to affect them substantially.
Click to expand...

All very true, unfortunately.

Their finance costs are now running at around £26m/year (compared to £117m/year at its peak) and they are fundamentally a very profitable business.
Click to expand...
Which is why debt was never part of the original FFP regulations (once the cartel had had a word), the rags for one (probably Madrid and Barca too) wouldn't have been able to spend as they have in the last 3 years.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

ColinLee said:
Chippy_boy said:
Damocles said:
Not sure about some of these theories lads...

United are a well run and sustainable business who have increased their commercial revenue as a failsafe against a few years of non-participation in the CL. They have a global audience. Their revenue streams are constantly growing. They have a huge stadium and huge ticket prices both for the common fan and especially in corporate areas where I'm afraid to say we are light years behind them in terms of attendance and cost.

All businesses have debt in some form or another and we tend to get focused on United's because it is a large figure. Just because you have a mortgage doesn't mean that you aren't financially secure, even if you have a big mortgage. United are covering their payments and more. Those waiting for UEFA or any other person to criticise United because they have a manageable debt will be waiting a long time.

They can't stay outside the CL for too long without having a financial breakdown though that can be said for every major team in Europe, but it isn't going to affect them substantially.
Click to expand...

All very true, unfortunately.

Their finance costs are now running at around £26m/year (compared to £117m/year at its peak) and they are fundamentally a very profitable business.
Click to expand...
Which is why debt was never part of the original FFP regulations (once the cartel had had a word), the rags for one (probably Madrid and Barca too) wouldn't have been able to spend as they have in the last 3 years.
Click to expand...

Yep.

And as I said a few posts back, funny how it's being considered by UEFA now the scum have got theirs under control. David Gill's evil paw prints are all over this. Doubtless he's got other "pro United, anti-other club" adjustments up his sleeve.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Do we know for sure that United have got their debt under control? On the face of it, it looks like they have, but isn't there still the possibility that the Glazers are hiding something - such as where they got the money from to pay off the PIK notes - but because they shifted ownership of the club to a company in Delaware where there are strict secrecy rules it's difficult to establish whether things are quite as rosy as they look?
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Basically the same report as the Telegraph was carried in Worldsoccertalk but their headline was:-

UEFA To Consider Rules Change Targeting Manchester United and Real Madrid’s Debt

and it carried the following paragraphs as well:-

Another club which would be effected by this new regulation would be Real Madrid.
It was reported in September that the Spanish club’s total debt had risen to £474 million. Of that money, £59 million is due to the banks and £190 million is long-term debt; the remaining money (roughly £225 million) is short-term debt.


Should UEFA make debt reduction part of its new FFP regulations, United and Real Madrid will remain unpunished for the debt accumulated to this point. But the governing body will likely propose regulations which would force the European giants to ‘balance their books’ in a more timely fashion or face heavy sanctions and/or competitive bans.

The sentences in bold type make the whole initiative much less exciting, and Bluemooners are right to be somewhat cynical about the motives which underlie this possible rule change, and the invitation to City and PSG to the UEFA meeting on Monday. I'd like to know who was invited as well, and when.

I suspect that M> Dupont has quite a lot to do with this. This proposal doesn't, however, affect his legal challenge to FFP in the slightest, at all, one shred etc etc. His challenge is to the break even rule. His contention is that such a rule is quite simply an unacceptable limitation on the right of investors to invest. On Talksport, however, he introduced some language which will not only have offended UEFA but also alarmed them when he introduced the 'C' word. By saying that FFP was, in fact, no more than a cartel in action he may have sent out a message that he was going to prove that FFP is not misguided but rather dishonest and that UEFA is colluding with certain, easily identifiable clubs to commit the most serious crime known to commercial law. The penalties are draconian. One of the questions that will be asked is why, if UEFA is concerned about the stability of football clubs, no attempt is made to deal with the debt of clubs like Manchester United (still as high as annual turnover) and Real Madrid (now nearly twice as high as annual turnover). Is it credible to argue that the revenues of these clubs makes it easy to support such debt, but City's and PSG's owners are too poor to cover any overspend? Can UEFA possibly guarantee that the Glazers will be able to maintain such revenues, or will they walk away? Will Real find themselves in some financial scandal which makes their debt impossible to pay back? What makes it so certain that Sheikh Mansour or the Qataris will lose interest before the Glazers!!! In assuring us that they are concerned to avoid "another Leeds" UEFA neglect to inform us that Leeds had borrowed heavily in anticipation of future revenues - exactly what Manchester United and Real Madrid have done! Manchester United and Real Madrid have levels of debt far higher than Leeds ever had in relation to their turnover. In this light the fines and other sanctions imposed on PSG and Manchester City appear to be nothing more or less than commercial malpractice (cheating!) to allow heavily indebted businesses enjoy a massively advantageous position in the marketplace (the transfer window). How much did they spend again.

On Tuesday evening I posted saying that Platini and UEFA may consider it in their interests to draw closer to City, PSG and Monaco in particular. I shall be interested to see what comes of the meeting on Monday. If I am right at all there will be some measures to deal with debt and some measure to allow investors to put as much as they like into a club as long as it is not financed by debt.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

M18CTID said:
Do we know for sure that United have got their debt under control? On the face of it, it looks like they have, but isn't there still the possibility that the Glazers are hiding something - such as where they got the money from to pay off the PIK notes - but because they shifted ownership of the club to a company in Delaware where there are strict secrecy rules it's difficult to establish whether things are quite as rosy as they look?
Click to expand...

You've answered your own question there.

Unless the FA/UEFA demand full access to their funds, we will likely never ever know.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Bluewonder said:
I have three questions about these new proposals:

1. Has Platini ultimately played a blinder by wrestling power away from the old G14?

2. Has Platini recognised the shift in the balance of power in football, as the real businessmen at clubs such as City and PSG are set to dominate with their debt free model? Surely he would rather cosy up with Khaldoon than Ed Woodward?

3. Is Platini a bumbling idiot who is hopelessly bouncing from one rule change to the next?
Click to expand...

more likely that they (Uefa) know that they are open to legal challenge as things stand. But yes Platini is out of his depth in these matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top