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

[Chippy_boy]

Pull out of Europe,fuck um.

You mean us

Yeah

And what about the PL restrictions?

Should we pull out of the PL as well? We could really dominate the conference, couldn't we.

 

[mcfc1632]

Pull out of Europe,fuck um.

Was this meant to be on the General Election thread?

 

[EL APACHE TEVEZ]

You mean us

Yeah

And what about the PL restrictions?

Should we pull out of the PL as well? We could really dominate the conference, couldn't we.

We will sort Dyke and them cunts out,not a worry that,it's the big boys platini and is gangster squad we can't deal with.

 

[SilverFox2]

I just wonder how far we are along the original Sheik M. / ADUG Business Plan for City ?

By that I mean that the timeline had to be accelerated to ensure that UEFA's original rules for FFP were conformed with.
We know the FFP rules were skewed to trap PSG and City but are we still further along the timeline of expected investment results compared to how our owner envisaged ?

I cannot imagine that we are anything other than behind schedule.

The media hype in the early years about us winning the league at first attempt and likewise the Champions League, was surely ridiculous and never in the plans. But I can't imagine that we had envisaged doing better in the CL by now than we have done.

The results in other competitions, you couldn't really complain about with 2 title wins and a 2nd in the last 3 years, plus a top 4 finish at least this year. But in the CL we must surely have disappointed, especially when you look at PSG for example making it to the quarters in the last 2 seasons.

Thanks for that Chippy_boy, I agree with your on the field assessment but what about commercially ?

I know our Chairman wants to concentrate on that aspect now that FFP has been disposed of but did ADUG manage to over achieve when asked to reduce the timeline ? In other words was break even achieved sooner than the original BP ?
It was certainly quicker than UEFA members expected despite their delaying tactics.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I just wonder how far we are along the original Sheik M. / ADUG Business Plan for City ?

By that I mean that the timeline had to be accelerated to ensure that UEFA's original rules for FFP were conformed with.
We know the FFP rules were skewed to trap PSG and City but are we still further along the timeline of expected investment results compared to how our owner envisaged ?

I cannot imagine that we are anything other than behind schedule.

The media hype in the early years about us winning the league at first attempt and likewise the Champions League, was surely ridiculous and never in the plans. But I can't imagine that we had envisaged doing better in the CL by now than we have done.

The results in other competitions, you couldn't really complain about with 2 title wins and a 2nd in the last 3 years, plus a top 4 finish at least this year. But in the CL we must surely have disappointed, especially when you look at PSG for example making it to the quarters in the last 2 seasons.

Thanks for that Chippy_boy, I agree with your on the field assessment but what about commercially ?

I know our Chairman wants to concentrate on that aspect now that FFP has been disposed of but did ADUG manage to over achieve when asked to reduce the timeline ? In other words was break even achieved sooner than the original BP ?
It was certainly quicker than UEFA members expected despite their delaying tactics.

Just noticed I worded the above completely wrongly. I meant to say "But I imagine that we had envisaged doing better in the CL by now."

Regards the commercials, who knows. We have obviously made great progress, but where we are vs any written or unwritten plan, who knows.

 

[SilverFox2]

I cannot imagine that we are anything other than behind schedule.

The media hype in the early years about us winning the league at first attempt and likewise the Champions League, was surely ridiculous and never in the plans. But I can't imagine that we had envisaged doing better in the CL by now than we have done.

The results in other competitions, you couldn't really complain about with 2 title wins and a 2nd in the last 3 years, plus a top 4 finish at least this year. But in the CL we must surely have disappointed, especially when you look at PSG for example making it to the quarters in the last 2 seasons.

Thanks for that Chippy_boy, I agree with your on the field assessment but what about commercially ?

I know our Chairman wants to concentrate on that aspect now that FFP has been disposed of but did ADUG manage to over achieve when asked to reduce the timeline ? In other words was break even achieved sooner than the original BP ?
It was certainly quicker than UEFA members expected despite their delaying tactics.

Just noticed I worded the above completely wrongly. I meant to say "But I imagine that we had envisaged doing better in the CL by now."

Regards the commercials, who knows. We have obviously made great progress, but where we are vs any written or unwritten plan, who knows.

Thanks again for reply content.

I agree the BP is intriguing.
I think they would have obviously preferred no FFP rules but the way how it has worked out commercially was not too bad in fact apart from the massive fine.
The newspaper quoted post about City orchestrating an anti FFP movement may be correct but commercially why would they do it ?

 

[Big Dave Watson]

Hi City's greatest fan. *waves back*

So we are restricted again this summer?

We? United weren't last summer.

City won't be this summer.

Unless we are. We've been around and around and around on this, haven't we.
Unless you are on the board at City or have some contacts you have not disclosed, you have no possible way of knowing whether we will be or not. City's statements and UEFA's are entirely contradictory on this topic, so we have no way of knowing which is correct.

Thank you. Somebody is able to answer the question without the childish comments of a 10 year old.

 

[SWP's back]

Hi City's greatest fan. *waves back*

So we are restricted again this summer?

We? United weren't last summer.

City won't be this summer.

Unless we are. We've been around and around and around on this, haven't we.

Unless you are on the board at City or have some contacts you have not disclosed, you have no possible way of knowing whether we will be or not. City's statements and UEFA's are entirely contradictory on this topic, so we have no way of knowing which is correct.

City certainly don't think they are, put it that way.

 

[aguero93:20]

No news on the Inter etc sanctions yet, presume that means that they're contesting them.

 

[SWP's back]

We? United weren't last summer.

City won't be this summer.

Unless we are. We've been around and around and around on this, haven't we.
Unless you are on the board at City or have some contacts you have not disclosed, you have no possible way of knowing whether we will be or not. City's statements and UEFA's are entirely contradictory on this topic, so we have no way of knowing which is correct.

Thank you. Somebody is able to answer the question without the childish comments of a 10 year old.

You're the rag twat on a Ciy forum.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

The PL version of "fair play" is in place because they need to resort to the double speak characteristic of brutal dictatorships, so that East Germany and China were supposed to be "people's democratic republics". For "fair play" read "cheating". In fact, these regulations, like UEFA's, exist because they're contrary to the law: for well over 70 years at least western Europe has sought to encourage investment as the only way to long term prosperity and to give investors the right in law to invest, so UEFA and the PL enshrine the quite contrary principle that investment by shareholders is cheating, football does not want investors and investment is outlawed! The PL takes this further by deciding which revenue streams can be used to pay wages and which can't. Try telling a bank how much they can pay their staff and who has to come up with the money!

The law protects the right of investors to invest: it does not compel them to do so. The law does not say what wage levels are to be set, or where the revenue to pay them must come from. I doubt that Sky or BtT told the PL that their sponsorship must go into the pockets of Stan Kroenke or anyone of the Glazer tribe, or even John W Henry rather than into the wage packets of Wayne Rooney or any of the players. TV audiences don't tune in to get a glimpse of Stan or John W! The fact is that no club is compelled to use TV money to pay higher wages if they don't want, but it's their decision if they do want to. What the 13 clubs who voted in favour of these regulations were doing had nothing at all to do with competition or the long term financial stability of the game - since each club could do all of these things without any new regulations if it thought they were in its best interests - but had everything to do with stopping other clubs spending on players and wages. Thus United can spend their matchday income and Chevrolet sponsorship on what they want since they're bigger than anyone else's. Arsenal must be allowed to do as they will with their matchday income. But City compete on TV income, so that is hedged with restrictions to erode the club's ability to compete. Those clubs who voted for these regulations have this in common - they did not want other clubs to become more competitive than they are. It's like MPs who decide they are unduly deserving of bumper pay rises, but they don't need to break the law to get them.

 

[Big Dave Watson]

Unless we are. We've been around and around and around on this, haven't we.
Unless you are on the board at City or have some contacts you have not disclosed, you have no possible way of knowing whether we will be or not. City's statements and UEFA's are entirely contradictory on this topic, so we have no way of knowing which is correct.

Thank you. Somebody is able to answer the question without the childish comments of a 10 year old.

You're the rag twat on a Ciy forum.

Sorry, you must be younger than 10.

 

[SilverFox2]

The PL version of "fair play" is in place because they need to resort to the double speak characteristic of brutal dictatorships, so that East Germany and China were supposed to be "people's democratic republics". For "fair play" read "cheating". In fact, these regulations, like UEFA's, exist because they're contrary to the law: for well over 70 years at least western Europe has sought to encourage investment as the only way to long term prosperity and to give investors the right in law to invest, so UEFA and the PL enshrine the quite contrary principle that investment by shareholders is cheating, football does not want investors and investment is outlawed! The PL takes this further by deciding which revenue streams can be used to pay wages and which can't. Try telling a bank how much they can pay their staff and who has to come up with the money!

The law protects the right of investors to invest: it does not compel them to do so. The law does not say what wage levels are to be set, or where the revenue to pay them must come from. I doubt that Sky or BtT told the PL that their sponsorship must go into the pockets of Stan Kroenke or anyone of the Glazer tribe, or even John W Henry rather than into the wage packets of Wayne Rooney or any of the players. TV audiences don't tune in to get a glimpse of Stan or John W! The fact is that no club is compelled to use TV money to pay higher wages if they don't want, but it's their decision if they do want to. What the 13 clubs who voted in favour of these regulations were doing had nothing at all to do with competition or the long term financial stability of the game - since each club could do all of these things without any new regulations if it thought they were in its best interests - but had everything to do with stopping other clubs spending on players and wages. Thus United can spend their matchday income and Chevrolet sponsorship on what they want since they're bigger than anyone else's. Arsenal must be allowed to do as they will with their matchday income. But City compete on TV income, so that is hedged with restrictions to erode the club's ability to compete. Those clubs who voted for these regulations have this in common - they did not want other clubs to become more competitive than they are. It's like MPs who decide they are unduly deserving of bumper pay rises, but they don't need to break the law to get them.

Thanks BHSR for that post.

To be clear, are there any differences between the PL version and the UEFA CL one ?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

To be clear, are there any differences between the PL version and the UEFA CL one ?

Two key ones. The PL version:

- specifically restricts wage bill increases unless covered by increases in commercial income. At least that directly addresses the issue of controlling wage growth, which UEFA's doesn't.

- has a more generous break-even requirement. Something like £35m a season maximum allowable loss after the usual deductions. UEFA's limit is an aggregate £35m over 3 seasons.

The PL's version

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

We? United weren't last summer.

City won't be this summer.

Unless we are. We've been around and around and around on this, haven't we.
Unless you are on the board at City or have some contacts you have not disclosed, you have no possible way of knowing whether we will be or not. City's statements and UEFA's are entirely contradictory on this topic, so we have no way of knowing which is correct.

Thank you. Somebody is able to answer the question without the childish comments of a 10 year old.

Well said Massive Dave.

 

[jrb]

What's up, are UEFA once again trying to thrash out another FFP compromise?

 

[aguero93:20]

What's up, are UEFA once again trying to thrash out another FFP compromise?

UEFA "We want to fine you £10m"
Inter "We've lost £180m over the last 3 seasons and can't get 10,000 fans to a home game, where the fuck do you think we're going to get that kind of money?!"

 

[blueinsa]

Unless we are. We've been around and around and around on this, haven't we.
Unless you are on the board at City or have some contacts you have not disclosed, you have no possible way of knowing whether we will be or not. City's statements and UEFA's are entirely contradictory on this topic, so we have no way of knowing which is correct.

Thank you. Somebody is able to answer the question without the childish comments of a 10 year old.

Well said Massive Dave.

B.I.G......D.A.V.E....that spells fucking RAG to me with a knick knack paddy whack...........

 

[bluenose45]

You've got the Yank owned clubs to thank for FFP and their puppet Gill in Eufa. Nowt to do with fair play.

 

[Big Dave Watson]

Thank you. Somebody is able to answer the question without the childish comments of a 10 year old.

Well said Massive Dave.

B.I.G......D.A.V.E....that spells fucking RAG to me with a knick knack paddy whack...........

Are you writing these on the school computer?