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

[Packrat]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm sure we can more than cope with this, seems to be a rather large hiccup, but not as bad as the
sensationalists would have had us believe.

 

[Daz_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Seems we have bent over Canal St style to UEFA .....

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I reckon that UEFA have dug a deep hole for themselves. We all know what FFP was about and who was behind it and who it was aimed at, but if this punishment is forced, it will go to court and UEFA themselves may be the ones to pay compo. And if the punishment is relaxed instead, then other clubs who are deemed to have failed will also be demanding leniency and the whole charade will collapse, leading perhaps (hopefully) to Platini's resignation.

 

[stony]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Does anyone actually think the people running our club have been outflanked? Some of you are letting your hearts rules your heads.

Well it's certainly looking that way mate. I can't understand why we have allowed them to class Etihad as related party.

 

[SrilankanBlue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Furthermore Manchester City agrees that revenues from the sale of assets within
their group structure will not be included in future break-even calculations.

Thats one revenue stream we can't use then

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We've just got two nw sponsors and it doesn't stop us getting more. They didn't put a number on spending in the transfer market either so it should be revenue related. Plus we're the best team in england in both those years worth minimal spending. This. Will. Not. Stop. Our. Rise.

The settlement was concluded on 16 May 2014 and covers the three sporting seasons
2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. For the duration of the settlement, Manchester City will
be subject to on-going restrictions which have been agreed by the club and which are
described further below.

Yea we've agreed to it, my word that genuinely couldn't have gone much worse

In order to avoid
dispute and for the avoidance of doubt, Manchester City has agreed that for the
period of the settlement it will not seek to improve the financial terms of two
second tier commercial partnerships.
 Furthermore Manchester City agrees that revenues from the sale of assets within
their group structure will not be included in future break-even calculations.

So it was the IP property rights sales not the Etihad deal which we got fucked with

Also precludes us bumping sponsorship deals

 

[cmdub]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This doesn't look good unless I'm missing something

 

[HelloCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

@SkySportsNews: BREAKING NEWS: Manchester City will NOT appeal their FFP punishment

 

[Chancy Termites]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I reckon that UEFA have dug a deep hole for themselves. We all know what FFP was about and who was behind it and who it was aimed at, but if this punishment is forced, it will go to court and UEFA themselves may be the ones to pay compo. And if the punishment is relaxed instead, then other clubs who are deemed to have failed will also be demanding leniency and the whole charade will collapse, leading perhaps (hopefully) to Platini's resignation.

If we are taking it to court I can't see why we'd first accept it. I'll be honest, if there's a game plan on our part here, I can't see what it is.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It's better than it looks at first glance. €40m of the fine is conditional as long as we comply with the terms so might only cost us €20m overall. We have to accept a 21 man CL squad for next season but we only used 21 players last season. We have had a wage ceiling imposed but last year's wage bill included around £30m paid to Mancini and his cohorts under the terms of their contract and we're reducing the wage bill anyway. We have to meet a €20m break-even deficit target this year and half that the year after. That shouldn't be a problem either.