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

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Some paper says our loss can be max. 20m€ next season. Is this again after we write off youth/stadium costs and old wages? Like that was really successful this time.:D

We easily can fail again unless we improve big on imcomes.

We had a 50m loss in 12-13 but who knows how much of that was helped by the IP deals that did not count as incomes.

We have earned 40 million pounds more from the TV revenue than last year. That alone should more than cover it.

But if we dont have incomes from Ip deals like last time that can be 40m less income and that could cancel out the tv deal improvement, no?

I think you'll find that City's Financial end of year accounts are slightly more complicated than that.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Morning Blues. Main points.
We have been fined but get most of it back
We have been capped on our transfers - but we can still spend shit loads
We have a salary freeze - but it is based on our highest ever figure which has reduced considerably
We have a limit on our squad size - but can still use as many under 21s as we like.

IF the HG rule is still 8 players we will face at least 3 big name players excluded (this is our only practical problem) if HG rule is proportional we should be OK.

Concerning this idea of the 'salary freeze' - and apologies if this has been mentioned before - but I read recently that the present contract of David Silva substantially reduced his wage from his first one, signed during our 'accelerated development' phase. Apparently all players signed last summer earn considerably less than £100k a week. If true, the ongoing long term effects of this will fit easily into any further FFP probing.

Note also what City said in our statement - there is no effect of these restrictions on performance bonuses, so expect even more of our players wages to be structured around performance bonuses rather than basic salary - will not affect the ffp calculation but will affect the "salary freeze" calculation

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

My concern is this:

As I understand UEFA did not recognise all our revenue income from the Etihad deal and some other soursces.
We are "only" breaking even even with those deals, do UEFA continue to not recognise the full amount in the next years too? As we are not allowed to spend more than we earn, I struggle to see how we could even spend the 50m we are allowed to spend this window without falling foul on their rules again when they judge us again next season?

Your understanding is not correct. There is no problem with the Etihad deal and we can continue to use the income from it. The only issue with our revenue is that we have agreed not to include the sale of club assets to other parts of the group in future break-even calculations but, as these were probably one-offs, then that won't be a problem.

If we spend £50m on players, that doesn't go through the accounts in one go but is spread over the life of the contracts. So if we give those players 5 year contracts it costs us £10m a year. I can't believe people still don't understand this the number of times it's been talked about on here.

Correct. The statement on the OS is pretty succinct and fairly short(although there's some interesting 'read between the lines' bits), why can't people read it first before posting?

 

[bobom]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Don't get all the doom and gloom. This is about a good a result for us as we could have expected: a conditional fine, a transfer limit which is higher than we would have paid anyway, and a wage cap which doesn't include performance related bonuses.

Most importantly, future compliance based entirely on the next two seasons' net results - 20m and 10m, which we will almost certainly meet - and NOT a three year running total, which for next year would have included last season's higher losses.

The squad restriction is a bore, but we only used 21 players this year, so it's manageable.

Everyone would have preferred no fine at all, but if you look at the detail this is a pretty toothless sanction. FFP is a load of bollocks, but we should be delighted with this result.

 

[ONTHERUNWITHTHAKSIN]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The impact of Uefa sanctions/fines are not massive and IMO we can move on with signing both Mangala and Fernando for £40m, hopefully selling a few players for extra revenue, sign Sagna for free etc.

But pissed off with Uefa considering what we have put into football and the community.

Really considering not opting into Champs League Cup scheme but this just punishes the club.

Overall the club have to look at the long term issues especially with sponsors, not many BIG companies want to be associated with a club battling the governing bodies.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just a thought... Isn't the salary freeze playing right into the Bosman lawyers hand?

Previously he had to argue that reduction in players' wages was a consequence of FFP, but now he has actual hard evidence that it is. Wage caps have to be carefully agreed - if they are to be allowed at all - with the involvement and consent of the employees, i.e. the players, but no players have been consulted. Very very bad under EU law, I think.

 

[Gray]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Has PSG received any sanction?

They are far worse than we are.

 

[peter.evans]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Am I missing something ? The media are reporting a 50m fine but 30m of it suspended yet the club statement only mentions two 10m Euro fines for two seasons ? I am confused !

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Some paper says our loss can be max. 20m€ next season. Is this again after we write off youth/stadium costs and old wages? Like that was really successful this time.:D

We easily can fail again unless we improve big on imcomes.

We had a 50m loss in 12-13 but who knows how much of that was helped by the IP deals that did not count as incomes.

We have earned 40 million pounds more from the TV revenue than last year. That alone should more than cover it.

But if we dont have incomes from Ip deals like last time that can be 40m less income and that could cancel out the tv deal improvement, no?

Last year we had an additional £30m of expenses due to the payoff to Mancini and his staff and the £22.5m from sale of IP to group companies, plus £24.5m to a third party. So without those we'd have had a £67m loss. The new TV deal brings in about £35m and we'll have higher ticket and commercial income plus player amortisation will be about £10m lower. So we'll make the €20m deficit easily, particularly as that's after we add allowable expenses (£20m) back.

 

[bobom]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Am I missing something ? The media are reporting a 50m fine but 30m of it suspended yet the club statement only mentions two 10m Euro fines for two seasons ? I am confused !

Exactly. It's designed to look as if they're slapping a big fine on us, but the details are really very favourable to us...