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

[blue5ter]

Re: We were runners up

Are the televised fixtures decided before a season starts or do they 'see what happens' and choose fixtures as the league unfolds?

mixture

but as we know all too well from the last minute date changes, most are done on a 'see what happens' basis. It's only the early ones that are 'known' from the start of the season but it's not rocket science that for instance, the Manchester derbies will be televised

 

[Cityfan]

Re: We were runners up

Are the televised fixtures decided before a season starts or do they 'see what happens' and choose fixtures as the league unfolds?

Bit of both pre-christmas fixtures decided before season starts, further fixtures decided later.

 

[lonestay]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

blue5ter It seems that CL is something the owners wish for , my point is as we keep getting bigger and more succesful the chumps league wont be worth watching unless we are in it,, so soon there will be a tipping point and Platini and Euafa will have to back us because their product wont have the same glitter with out us competing.

 

[Chris in London]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I am well documented in suggesting that the idea our owner has no influence over the likes of Etihad is laughable, regardless of whether they can legally be referred to as an RP, though I know some on here disagree.

The problem with this is that it assumes 'influence' in the context of FFP means what it means when it is used in every day conversation.

The problem is, UEFA themselves cut and pasted this part of the FFPR from a section of IAS rules where 'influence' doesn't have the same meaning as it has in everyday conversation. 'Influence' in that context has a very precise and specific meaning. Applying that specific test you either have influence or you don't, and the auditors (applying that specific test) have concluded the Sheikh doesn't.

If UEFA did not want 'influence' to bear this very precise and specific meaning in FFPR, they shouldn't have used as the template for their FFP rules internationally agreed and widely understood accountancy standards where it does have this very precise and specific meaning.

If they are doing what has been attributed to them in the press, i.e. have concluded that the Etihad deal is a RPT because of the Sheikh's influence in some broader sense, they are fundamentally moving the goal posts, and that I suspect is why City have been so angry about it.

 

[inbetween]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

What I'm failing to understand right now is how other clubs plan to pass FFP. Chelsea made a loss of £49.3M last year albeit not including the sale of Mata but it also does not include the purchase of Matic & Sallah... They still however passed FFP and plan to spend further? Where is their extra income coming from because I can't really see them selling anyone else given half their team is full of has been's and out of contract players.

Liverpool also made a loss of around £50M yet they also plan to spend and unless they sell Suarez, where is their money coming from?

I'm not being funny but how do all these other clubs plan to pass FFP when in my eyes they have already failed? Liverpool apparently plan to spend this summer yet made a -50M loss, say they spend £100M, where is the £150M deficit going to come from just to break even?? Liverpool are also funnily enough operating with a debt in excess of £100M, why the hell is this not taken into consideration??

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/04/liverpool-financial-fair-play-50m-annual-loss-accounts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... s-accounts</a>

Chelsea made the same loss but they barely have any players of any value to sell apart from Hazard and surely they can't be making any more money than last year.

I'm not the best at adding and subtracting but it would be interesting for someone to shed light on how the other clubs can even contemplate passing these rules in the current form. From what I see, no English club will be buying and selling anyone over the summer. It's funny though because in a time when City are completely discouraged from spending we see Chelsea buying Costa for £30M+, United apparently are already buying some 18yr old for £30M+ and basically need an entire new squad. So how do these clubs plan to pass FFP when their current accounts technically say they have already failed?

Something is not quite right if you ask me!

 

[Hart of the Matter]

City & FFP (continued)

It has taken 12 years for Chelsea to break even. This was a one off. They were over spent again last year. Their model is dependent on selling the large number of loan players and hoping they make a profit. This stored assets are highly vulnerable. We are close to break even after 4 years. Our model will be driven by the developments around the ground, our franchise and eventual lease holdings in and around the Etihad. We are here to stay. We are part of a money making portfolio for our owners. None oil based and self generating eventually. Our owners win and we win. FFP has put constraints on these aims being achieved and sanctions certainly will. Oh the irony. Ultimately it is us the fans that are being fleeced to pay for FFP. Match day costs, high priced merchandise etc. I believe our owners are doing their best to cap these costs but ultimately FFP may push them to maximise this income and increase prices for us. If Arsenal charged the same as us they would fail FFP. They have rich fans to bail them out. We have rich owners. Seems fair to me. I know which model as a fan I would prefer.

 

[Blue Coop]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand another...

This one will upset the frothers as it's Arab-based unlike most of our recent commercial deals.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.zawya.com/story/Arabtec_Signs_Regional_Sponsor_Agreement_with_Man_City-ZAWYA20140514142015/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.zawya.com/story/Arabtec_Sign ... 514142015/</a>

Arabtec Holding today signed an agreement with Manchester City Football Club, which will establish Arabtec as a regional sponsor of the Premier League Champions for a term of three years.

The Club, which won its second Premier League title in three years last Sunday, will enjoy the support of the leading engineering and construction group of companies specialising in complex projects in the Middle East and North Africa region. In return, Arabtec will gain certain promotional rights and privileges that will reinforce its brand in MENA, Russia, India, and Serbia.

Under the agreement, which will run up to the end of the 2017 season, Arabtec will have access to specific rights of use of the Club's brand. It will also get tickets and special programmes for VIPs to attend matches and special events. This is in addition to visibility of Arabtec 's logo and promotional materials at the Etihad Stadium and across the Club's digital platforms

The agreement was formalised at a special ceremony attended by Manchester City Chairman, Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak It was signed by Hasan Ismaik, Managing Director and CEO of Arabtec Holding , and Ferran Soriano, the Club's Chief Executive Officer, Hasan Ismaik, Managing Director and CEO of Arabtec Holding , commented:

"I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to His Highness Sheikh Mansour Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister of Presidential Affairs, and to the Manchester City management for having won the Premier League title for the second time under the ownership of His Highness. These achievements as well as the solid foundations upon which the Club is built have prompted us to go into a regional partnership agreement that will be highly beneficial for both parties. Both Manchester City and Arabtec are leaders in their field and this alliance will bring mutual prominence to both organisations.

Ismaik pointed out that the regional sponsorship of Manchester City will further boost Arabtec 's brand in the Region and the world over, at a time when the Company is pushing ahead with plans to become one of the top ten companies in the world by 2018.

"We are proud to be part of this golden time Manchester City is enjoying, with two out of its four league titles having been won under the ownership of His Highness Sheikh Mansour. Ismaik said.

Ferran Soriano, Chief Executive Officer of Manchester City, welcomed the partnership with Arabtec , noting the important role of sponsorship agreements in further developing the Club. " Arabtec is an important force in its sector and across its region. Both Manchester City and Arabtec are ambitious to become globally recognised brands. As Arabtec looks to develop and grow further across the markets which our agreement focuses on, we are looking forward to a successful relationship and to working together." said Soriano.

Is it just me who loves how much our UAE sponsorship's seem to irritate other fans?

Just to get them foaming at the mouth on this one - here's the link to the club.

Majority shareholder of Arabtec is Aabar (also a sponsor) - Aabar are 98% owned by IPIC, and the chairman of IPIC is Sheikh Mansour.

Lovely job lads, keep them coming.

 

[lazza]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So, another related party sponsorship deal then?(for UEFA and David Gill to get their teeth into during the next monitoring period)

If the Etihad deal has been called in buy UEFA for being related, why would City go down the same route again, with another Abu Dhabi company?

Does this mean the Etihad deal hasn't been called in, and we're free to sign any sponsorships deal in Abu Dhabi? :-)

Could it remotely just possibly, conceivably be because contrary to what the press would have you believe, we are actually signing up partners who are genuinely interested in sponsoring us, and guess what, since we are successful, high profile and Abu Dhabi owned, for some bizarre reason other Emirati companies are interested in hooking up with us?

Just a wild stab in the dark, like.

Could be a bit of both.

UEFA trying to claim our sponsors from that part of the world are unfair.
We claim there is huge interest in City in UAE.

What better way to prove the point than to announce another deal?

Quite bloody right!

It's completely beyond me that any regulator could expect anything else but dozens of deals with Abu Dhabi companies. It's basic marketing sense, as MCFC are clearly the highest profile football team there, so why sponsor any other team? It's really not very different (other than in the magnitude of the money involved of course!) to any local plumber sponsoring the match ball at his local non-league team. "Ah, no, I'm sorry, you come from Frickley, so you can't sponsor the game between Frickley and Blyth Spartans, related party you see, but maybe you'd be interested in sponsoring the ball for the Bognor Regis game..."

 

[blue5ter]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I am well documented in suggesting that the idea our owner has no influence over the likes of Etihad is laughable, regardless of whether they can legally be referred to as an RP, though I know some on here disagree.

The problem with this is that it assumes 'influence' in the context of FFP means what it means when it is used in every day conversation.

The problem is, UEFA themselves cut and pasted this part of the FFPR from a section of IAS rules where 'influence' doesn't have the same meaning as it has in everyday conversation. 'Influence' in that context has a very precise and specific meaning. Applying that specific test you either have influence or you don't, and the auditors (applying that specific test) have concluded the Sheikh doesn't.

If UEFA did not want 'influence' to bear this very precise and specific meaning in FFPR, they shouldn't have used as the template for their FFP rules internationally agreed and widely understood accountancy standards where it does have this very precise and specific meaning.

If they are doing what has been attributed to them in the press, i.e. have concluded that the Etihad deal is a RPT because of the Sheikh's influence in some broader sense, they are fundamentally moving the goal posts, and that I suspect is why City have been so angry about it.

I think we agree. This is a real mess because they have cut & pasted as you say, but they haven't actually said they are following IAS nor do they have the same level of supplementary guidelines that IAS have PLUS they probably know that we legally are not an RP which will frustrate them as they won't like the fact we are in reality 'related' but not according to their very own rules. However my point was that it doesn't really matter what their view is of Etihad being an RP if the deal is at fair value and to suggest it's not fair value is a hiding to nothing for UEFA

 

[6one]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sure that we haven't failed because of "related party transactions" but because they say you can only deduct pre-2010 wages if those wages > loss that's left after deductions for other allowances.

When they deducted our expenditure on infrastructure etc... the loss was less than pre-2010 wages, therefore we couldn't deduct them, therefore, were left with massive loss.

That's what I understood rather than Uefa saying our sponsorship is inflated. (PSG have 168m deal that Uefa have ignored)