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

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

the smaller Formula 1teams questioning the spending cap introduced and voted for by the big players

sound familiar

Not sure there's any comparison really. The spending cap is a set figure in Formula 1 (say £100m) that applies to all teams. The smaller teams don't actually spend up to the limit anyway so it's not hampering them.

 

[Henkeman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

if we needed proof what a farce ffpr is, lets see what happens at southampton this summer

now is the time for major investment but it can't happen and 2-3 of their best players are going to get cherry-picked

they could be bottom half next season

Absolute bollocks. According to every Liverpool and united fan I hear talk on this subject they can perfectly easily grow "organically".

Yeah, but Liverpool and United's version of growing "organically" is to spunk money earned by selling branded toothpaste to Malaysians because, of course, that's somehow "football" related and therefore perfectly fine.

Is this what United mean by growing organically?

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/t...fers_1991_1985_default_default_189_a_a_a.html

3 times income on transfers. Hmmm...

 

[cibaman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well what other big deals have we done? But I'd put my money on it being the IP deals and specifically the £24.5m third party deal.

Me too.

I have ruled out it being the Etihad deal because (a) of the accounting objectivity and lack of wriggle room over whether its a RPT or not, and (b) how could they revalue it substantially lower than £35m/year anyway, especially bearing in mind other clubs' sponsorship deals. £35m for everything Etihad got, does not seem remotely over-valued.

It must be the IP sales.

Exactly. I'm also reasoning that the related party ones will have to have been fully justified financially , which only leaves that third party deal they're supposedly not revealing details of.

I'm not as up on accounting standards these days, do City's auditors have to value the IP sales or is it just a disclosure issue?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Expensive Compost.

Absolute bollocks. According to every Liverpool and united fan I hear talk on this subject they can perfectly easily grow "organically".

Yeah, but Liverpool and United's version of growing "organically" is to spunk money earned by selling branded toothpaste to Malaysians because, of course, that's somehow "football" related and therefore perfectly fine.

Is this what United mean by growing organically?

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/t...fers_1991_1985_default_default_189_a_a_a.html

3 times income on transfers. Hmmm...

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well what other big deals have we done? But I'd put my money on it being the IP deals and specifically the £24.5m third party deal.

Me too.

I have ruled out it being the Etihad deal because (a) of the accounting objectivity and lack of wriggle room over whether its a RPT or not, and (b) how could they revalue it substantially lower than £35m/year anyway, especially bearing in mind other clubs' sponsorship deals. £35m for everything Etihad got, does not seem remotely over-valued.

It must be the IP sales.

Exactly. I'm also reasoning that the related party ones will have to have been fully justified financially , which only leaves that third party deal they're supposedly not revealing details of.

If it is indeed the third party IP sale then that raises the issue of what happens in a year or so's time when the name of the third party is revealed (as will happen) and the IP sale turns out to be completely above board and perfectly acceptable? By that stage UEFA will have already fined us £50m, and reduced our Champion's League squad for this season (plus probably a similar punishment for next season, when the same issues will arise). Can we claim back the £50m? What about our Champion's League campaign? That will have long gone. Can we sue for potential lost earnings? If we go out in the 2nd round again could we argue that with a full 25 man squad we'd have progressed further? UEFA are playing with fire here.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

UEFA could probably claim we were liable as we didn't fully disclose the deal by the deadline Matty.

 

[Eds]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Can anyone categorically say that it is a fact that the accountancy rules covering FFP have been changed by UEFA.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Me too.

I have ruled out it being the Etihad deal because (a) of the accounting objectivity and lack of wriggle room over whether its a RPT or not, and (b) how could they revalue it substantially lower than £35m/year anyway, especially bearing in mind other clubs' sponsorship deals. £35m for everything Etihad got, does not seem remotely over-valued.

It must be the IP sales.

Exactly. I'm also reasoning that the related party ones will have to have been fully justified financially , which only leaves that third party deal they're supposedly not revealing details of.

If it is indeed the third party IP sale then that raises the issue of what happens in a year or so's time when the name of the third party is revealed (as will happen) and the IP sale turns out to be completely above board and perfectly acceptable? By that stage UEFA will have already fined us £50m, and reduced our Champion's League squad for this season (plus probably a similar punishment for next season, when the same issues will arise). Can we claim back the £50m? What about our Champion's League campaign? That will have long gone. Can we sue for potential lost earnings? If we go out in the 2nd round again could we argue that with a full 25 man squad we'd have progressed further? UEFA are playing with fire here.

Having spent the weekend looking into what the squad size reduction means for City, I'd suggest that we are fighting not just the financial sanctions, but also this particular sanction. A 21 man squad with 8 "English" players would leave us with a huge problem in registering players for next season's competition. We'd effectively be limited to 13 "foreign" players, and this is with me including Richards and Rodwell in our calculations. If we were to lose those two then the picture becomes even more complicated.

HART* PANT
NASTY KOMPANY CLICHY* KOLAROV RICHARDS* ZABA DEMI
DINHO NAVAS MILNER* NASRI RODWELL* SILVA GARCIA TOURE
DZEKO AGUERO JOVETIC NEGREDO

That's 21 players right there, and there's only 5 homegrown players in there two of whom are Richards and Rodwell. If we lose the appeal and/or are have our squad limit imposed I don't see how we pick a CL squad strong enough to do well in the competition without replacing at least two of our first team regulars with English players.

This is beginning to feel like a huge clusterfuck of problems.

 

[flb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Exactly. I'm also reasoning that the related party ones will have to have been fully justified financially , which only leaves that third party deal they're supposedly not revealing details of.

If it is indeed the third party IP sale then that raises the issue of what happens in a year or so's time when the name of the third party is revealed (as will happen) and the IP sale turns out to be completely above board and perfectly acceptable? By that stage UEFA will have already fined us £50m, and reduced our Champion's League squad for this season (plus probably a similar punishment for next season, when the same issues will arise). Can we claim back the £50m? What about our Champion's League campaign? That will have long gone. Can we sue for potential lost earnings? If we go out in the 2nd round again could we argue that with a full 25 man squad we'd have progressed further? UEFA are playing with fire here.

Having spent the weekend looking into what the squad size reduction means for City, I'd suggest that we are fighting not just the financial sanctions, but also this particular sanction. A 21 man squad with 8 "English" players would leave us with a huge problem in registering players for next season's competition. We'd effectively be limited to 13 "foreign" players, and this is with me including Richards and Rodwell in our calculations. If we were to lose those two then the picture becomes even more complicated.

HART* PANT
NASTY KOMPANY CLICHY* KOLAROV RICHARDS* ZABA DEMI
DINHO NAVAS MILNER* NASRI RODWELL* SILVA GARCIA TOURE
DZEKO AGUERO JOVETIC NEGREDO

That's 21 players right there, and there's only 5 homegrown players in there two of whom are Richards and Rodwell. If we lose the appeal and/or are have our squad limit imposed I don't see how we pick a CL squad strong enough to do well in the competition without replacing at least two of our first team regulars with English players.

This is beginning to feel like a huge clusterfuck of problems.

We could always buy some English !

 

[yeah whatever !!]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Who gives a shit tonight? Our first double, lets celebrate that.

Eh?
Try 1970

It all began in 1992... didnt you get the memo fella.??