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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

YourBirdCanSing22 said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
It seems clearer what has transpired now and why we were upset with UEFA. We had been working on the basis of being able to exclude £80m of player wages in order to comply. That figure always looked high to me but Kieran Connor (aka Swiss Ramble) told me that UEFA had clarified the pre-2010 wages figure by saying that although FFP says that renegotiated contracts were not included, we could exclude any wages paid under those renegotiated contracts in 2011/12 that we would have paid under the old contract.

As an example, if we paid Player A £70k a week and renegotiated that up to £90k a week on or after June 1st 2010, we could still exclude the £70k. The statement seems to imply that they have back-tracked on that, hence we aren't allowed to exclude the £80m but a lesser amount. So that's why we believe they've gone back on their word.

To me, it looks like a catastrophic PR failure from our club. Again.

This is a golden era for City. I don’t even think these punishments will affect us too much. The only question for me has always been whether our owners (coming from an entirely different media culture) are being given the best advice on how to manage the European media.

These 'rules' were announced 3 years ago. They were laughable, transparently corrupt, and may yet turn out to be illegal. Why on earth did we wait until the 11th hour to start talking to journalists about them?

Why did we let every major European news outlet cover Platini & Gill’s media roadshow for ‘fairness,' but wait until the last 2 weeks to begin briefing on the hypocrisy of it all, set against the United's leveraged debts, or the community regeneration we are doing in East Manchester?

Why have we let HUNDREDS of journalists and 'financial experts' merrily publish their conclusions that City would fail (which we have) without sharing with any of them our plans to comply, and some of the detail of our conversations with UEFA? So that if UEFA have broken their word and moved the goalposts it would be now be obvious who the real cheats are?

Why have we relied on a single journalist - Martin Samuel - to tell the other side of the story? And not because we talked to him about it, but because he came to that conclusion on his own.

Why have we let Wenger make City and their evil money a weekly theme of his Friday press conferences without once reminding those same journalists about the tens of millions Arsenal have happily taken from us to spend on their new stadium?

Why have we not fed ONE serious news article been to the press that highlights the clear conflict of interest in a director of Manchester United (still involved in the day-to-day running of the club) sitting on a UEFA panel that has the power to run the rule over their biggest competitor’s accounts?

Because we want to do it 'quietly.'

We let UEFA, Ruminegge, Platini, Gill and Wenger set the media agenda, while we believe (against ALL evidence) that silence is a better strategy. And in the end, where has it got us?

Just wait and see how they now emerge to bask in this triumph. Forget the gentle requests to UEFA in our official statement, or the reality that these measures may not really affect us, this will be a media tsunami. As far as the world is now concerned:

City tried to outspend the ‘big clubs’ - they were stopped.
City tried to ‘cook the books’ and cheat the fairness rules - they were caught and punished.


We lost the PR war, hands down. Again.

Our owners are quiet, successful people and they want the club to operate that way. But football is political. And like all politics, the media is the key battleground. Time and time again we get beaten at their game.

There is a middle ground between the motormouth of Suliman al-Fahim and total silence. In fact there are a multitude of positions between the two.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it:
Our media team are NOT up to the job of managing one of the biggest news cycles in modern sport, and our owners are getting the wrong advice with regard to how to handle the press.
Totally agree, mate. Our owners don't seem to appreciate just how degenerate footballing people are. We have not fought our corner in all of this and so we find ourselves accepting the unacceptable. It beggars belief.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

ManCitizens. said:
Rammyblues said:
Squad limitations will be 13 foreign players, 4 homegrown players and 4 city academy players who are over 21. Suspect this is why we have offered Boyata a new contract. Getting down to 13 foreign players on the A list is going to be very tricky and unpopular with some of our players who have to miss out. Just hope that with all these restrictions we go out next season and beat the lot of them and win the bloody thing.

I'd rather we sent out the EDS with 21 home grown players. Fuck the CL for a year, lets hurt them and have the English champions devaluing the competition.
They won't feel it or give a shit if we do that.

Foreign: Zabaleta, Kompany, Mangala, Nastasic, Kolarov, Yaya Toure, Fernandinho, Javi Garcia, Silva, Nasri, Aguero, Dzeko, Negredo

Homegrown: Milner, Clichy, Rodwell, (Barkley?)

Academy: Boyata, Hart, Guidetti, Richards

----
Goalkeepers: Hart

Defenders: Zabaleta, Boyata, Richards, Kompany, Mangala, Nastasic, Clichy, Kolarov

Midfielders: Milner, Yaya Toure, Fernandinho, Rodwell, Javi Garcia, Silva, Nasri, Barkley

Strikers: Aguero, Dzeko, Negredo, Guidetti
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

SuperSilva said:
Neville Kneville said:
TrueBlue1705 said:
Well - if the 8 homegrown number that keeps getting banded about is true then we're royally f*cked for the CL

No we're not. It would just mean that some of the overseas players will have a sulk on for the season but be fitter in the Prem. We will still have 13 plus Miner, Hart, Nastasic, Clichy & any young players we choose to involve. It just means we will have to use certain players in the Champs League & rest them more in the Prem. A bit more 'management'.

Is Lopes homegrown... or is he a foreigner and so deemed evil by UEFA...

I think we will be all pissed off when we see some of the EDS lads playing against Ramos, Bale and Ronaldo...

Lopes wont need to be registered because he is under 21.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Prestwich_Blue said:
Exeter Blue I am here said:
"You might feel a slight sting. That's pride fucking with you. Well, fuck pride. It never helps. You fight though that shit".

Yeh, the bitter cunts have had us over, but given the unpredictability of the courts and the potential doomsday scenario of Chimps League exclusion that could have come our way, I don't reckon those sanctions are gonna put too much of a dent in our plans. The only pisser for me is that we might not be able to afford Ross Barkley this summer.

I might need PB's help here, but just to confirm, am I right in thinking.....

1. We lose 10m of last season's Chimps League money
2. We lose 10m of next season's Chimps League money
3. 30m of the 50m fine is suspended (pending what PB? Compliance with FFP next year, or the year after that as well?)
4. We can still spend 60m on transfers this summer
5. Our 21 player Chimps League player limit, does not include a caveat stating we must still have 8 home growners in it.
6. We are not allowed new sponsorship deals next year?
7. Candlepool, Arseholenal and the rags can still lobby for our punishment to be increased.

All in all, could have been a fuck sight worse. Qualifying for the Chimps League again next year was the short term Holy Grail, and that goal shouldn't really be affected by this punishment. We've had a bit of a contretemps in the showers and our collective arses probably sting a bit, but given that we could have been fucked senseless by the whole of E wing without the benefit of a bar of soap, I can live with it......
To answer your questions (as I understand the terms)
1) Correct
2) Correct
3) The above only hold good as long as we comply in full with the terms of the settlement agreement otherwise it's €30m each season instead of €10m. It's not clear how this will be reflected in our revenues for FFP purposes though.
4) We can spend €60m net on transfers this summer (according to the club with no reference to January which is interesting). UEFA say nothing specific in their press release.
5) Doesn't appear to have a home-grown caveat.
6) Not correct if I've read it right. We have agreed not to increase the terms of two unspecified "second tier" deals, which I take doesn't include Etihad and Nike and is more likely to be the other Abu Dhabi-based sponsors (Aabar, Etisalat, etc.)
7) They can I believe.

The other thing that jumps out, reading between the lines, is that they had problems with the sale of IP but probably couldn't find grounds to disallow it. So we've agreed not to do it anymore, which we weren't going to do anyway as these were presumably one-offs for the foreseeable future.
Surely they are going to right? I mean, they are fighting for relevancy, so why wouldn't they? Or do you think there will be a gentleman's agreement? I honestly don't know.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

We should send out the EDS with 21 home grown players for a season. It 'll damage our co-efficient but it'll also devalue the competition if the English champions decide other competitions take priority.

Tell the press everyday that the PL is the number one goal, ask CL finalists (Yaya, Vieira) to describe the PL as more important along with the Carling Cup and watch them come back to us (as long as we continue to be successful).
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

In this regard, PSG undertakes to report a maximum break-even deficit of EUR 30 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2015 and no break-even deficit for the financial year ending in 2016. In this context the contract between PSG and the Qatar Tourism Authority has been carefully considered and a fair value, significantly below that submitted by the club, has been assigned.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

So it's a load of shite, they stick less money in our bank, as oppose to us drawing it out and giving it to them.

We can only use 21 players, same as this year,

We can spend as much as we wanted to anyway,

We get to release a statement stating we could of shafted them, but let them off, coz actually there is no fuckin punishment, and in the future we can do want we want, coz financially we are going to smash it.

Forget sky sports and their bollocks, the truth is out there.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Yes unless we face punishment under our own FFP. But which players are going to come to city without playing in CL.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Blue Haze said:
yamcha said:
TrueBlue1705 said:
PLEASE, someone clarify, is there a homegrown quota in the 21 squad ?????

yes there is. 8 home grown players, 4 of them must have come through the academy.

I'd reduce the squad for this season to 21 if I was the club. No player would be left out of the CL and we'd save on wages. And I'd focus only on two competitions. Let the EDS play in the capital one cup and fa cup.


This is the way I read it

Original rules: City can name 25 A-list players (players over 21), 8 of which must be homegrown.

City this last season didn't name a full 8 homegrown

New restrictions: City are limited to 21 A-list players

What's to stop us from simply excluding homegrown slots? If we've known about this restriction for weeks, why are we pursuing 3 foreign players?

this is what needs some clarification - can the 4 player squad reduction all come from our homegrown quota if we choose?

i.e. 21 man squad with 4 homegrown players, if we still have to include 8 homegrown then its difficult with the makeup of our squad and the potential addition of Fernando, Sagna and Mangala or Benatia ....
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

i8rags said:
So it's a load of shite, they stick less money in our bank, as oppose to us drawing it out and giving it to them.

We can only use 21 players, same as this year,

We can spend as much as we wanted to anyway,

We get to release a statement stating we could of shafted them, but let them off, coz actually there is no fuckin punishment, and in the future we can do want we want, coz financially we are going to smash it.

Forget sky sports and their bollocks, the truth is out there.

It is designed to look an incredibly harsh punishment on the surface and to the media whilst actually doing us not much harm at all! A stitch up all round


Can't wait to see the "safety" bonuses all our new players get!
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.