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

[bluesoup]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I kinda think the deals rejected will just have a domino effect for following years accounts. That's why we are probably not agreeing to a deal now . All speculation though in the absence of facts...

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Ok, just so I can get my head round FFP...

[bigimg]http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/resources/Monitoring%20Periods.jpg[/bigimg]

Looking at that, if we have been adjudged to have failed FFP by a hefty amount, due to not being allowed to exclude pre-2010 contracts (around 80m), we're definitely going to fail again next year unless this year's accounts (which end May 31?) can make up for it. However, this is not going to happen given that the expected increase in revenue (up 60m from 270m to 330m - as per Soriano's UAE presentation - and and any decrease in wages - no managerial pay offs) will be eaten up by last summer's net transfer spend (Negredo et al)


So, all in all, those pre-2010 contracts are going to act like a ball and chain until after next year's break even point when the 2011-2012 no longer applies.

Is this correct?

If so, I could see us being excluded from the 2015/2016 Champions League because the noise to chuck us out, having failed 2 break even points in a row, will be deafening

It surely depends on what view is taken on the Etihad deal. That holds the key.

Well according to bill bradshaw some journo doing the paper review on sky all "dodgy abu dhabi ased deals" are whats in doubt.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Ok, just so I can get my head round FFP...

[bigimg]http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/resources/Monitoring%20Periods.jpg[/bigimg]

Looking at that, if we have been adjudged to have failed FFP by a hefty amount, due to not being allowed to exclude pre-2010 contracts (around 80m), we're definitely going to fail again next year unless this year's accounts (which end May 31?) can make up for it. However, this is not going to happen given that the expected increase in revenue (up 60m from 270m to 330m - as per Soriano's UAE presentation - and and any decrease in wages - no managerial pay offs) will be eaten up by last summer's net transfer spend (Negredo et al)


So, all in all, those pre-2010 contracts are going to act like a ball and chain until after next year's break even point when the 2011-2012 no longer applies.

Is this correct?

If so, I could see us being excluded from the 2015/2016 Champions League because the noise to chuck us out, having failed 2 break even points in a row, will be deafening

It surely depends on what view is taken on the Etihad deal. That holds the key.

If we have failed this year, does that mean we have zero chance of passing next year then as its the same 2 years accounts plus this years added on? Unless we make a profit I guess.

Re-read PB's post. Soriano said a few months ago that he expected City to break-even this season, implying an FFP surplus which may enable City to use the pre 2010 wages exemption. There's some speculation that UEFA have not allowed us to us that this time, for technical reasons, which may not apply next time. Obviously speculative

 

[blueinsa]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Ok, just so I can get my head round FFP...

[bigimg]http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/resources/Monitoring%20Periods.jpg[/bigimg]

Looking at that, if we have been adjudged to have failed FFP by a hefty amount, due to not being allowed to exclude pre-2010 contracts (around 80m), we're definitely going to fail again next year unless this year's accounts (which end May 31?) can make up for it. However, this is not going to happen given that the expected increase in revenue (up 60m from 270m to 330m - as per Soriano's UAE presentation - and and any decrease in wages - no managerial pay offs) will be eaten up by last summer's net transfer spend (Negredo et al)


So, all in all, those pre-2010 contracts are going to act like a ball and chain until after next year's break even point when the 2011-2012 no longer applies.

Is this correct?

If so, I could see us being excluded from the 2015/2016 Champions League because the noise to chuck us out, having failed 2 break even points in a row, will be deafening

It surely depends on what view is taken on the Etihad deal. That holds the key.

Well according to bill bradshaw some journo doing the paper review on sky all "dodgy abu dhabi ased deals" are whats in doubt.

Just watched and fuck me, surely from a legal stance you can't come out with shit like that on a national TV station?

 

[citysince88]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Bill Bradshaw came across as an absolute know nowt, he expects us to accept the revised punishment on Monday.

 

[moomba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Im just waiting to see next year..liverpool,monaco to name but 2 who will clearly fail..
Goalposts moving all the time.

I think Liverpool will pass next season.

They would fail this season due to not being able to use the pre 2010 exemption (increasing trend of losses). But next season with increase in TV money I think they eill come close to break even. That will alloe them to usemthe exemption and they will be ok.

Then they'll pretend the last few years of losses never happened.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Last minute deal or settlement is my best guess too on this whole thing.

Too much to lose for both sides to go further from here to CAS etc.

The best interest of the club will have to decide not personal feelings. Us being in the CL for years is the clubs best interest in terms of building the brand bigger and bigger. We need lot of new fans buying shirts in China, USA etc. Soriano told it clearly. CL success is a big way of doing next to building a team that plays great football, great style, and wins trophies with that style what is already in place.

I keep reading things like this, but I must respectively disagree. There is far more for City to lose than UEFA unfortunately, as the latter's piss taking stance amply demonstrates

 

[cibaman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Ok, just so I can get my head round FFP...

[bigimg]http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/resources/Monitoring%20Periods.jpg[/bigimg]

Looking at that, if we have been adjudged to have failed FFP by a hefty amount, due to not being allowed to exclude pre-2010 contracts (around 80m), we're definitely going to fail again next year unless this year's accounts (which end May 31?) can make up for it. However, this is not going to happen given that the expected increase in revenue (up 60m from 270m to 330m - as per Soriano's UAE presentation - and and any decrease in wages - no managerial pay offs) will be eaten up by last summer's net transfer spend (Negredo et al)


So, all in all, those pre-2010 contracts are going to act like a ball and chain until after next year's break even point when the 2011-2012 no longer applies.

Is this correct?

If so, I could see us being excluded from the 2015/2016 Champions League because the noise to chuck us out, having failed 2 break even points in a row, will be deafening

It surely depends on what view is taken on the Etihad deal. That holds the key.

Mail says the Etihad deal isn't the problem (warning: reading this article might make you want to cut your throat)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2625288/Man-Citys-title-win-years-decide-battle-UEFA-sanction-breaking-FFP-rules.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... rules.html</a>

 

[bluesoup]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thankfully, I laughed at most of the article...

Speculation taken to another level lol

 

[Newman Noggs]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Nothing new in that Mail article it's all variations on the speculation on here moulded together to present a doomsday scenario. It fails to take into account increasing income. As regards English players, we could replace Sinclair with one of us at a cost of £50K a year (I'd do it) and lose nothing in terms of contribution on the field.