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

[peter.evans]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

No guys I was questioning whether we had actually been fined 50 m Euro as the media are reporting with 30m suspended yet the club statement does not say that at all ! Can some explain the reality have we been fined 50m with 30m suspended or just 20m as the club says ?!!

 

[Ducado]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I do wonder of the people calling for us to fight this have any experience of doing so? I am sure we would win but at what cost? It's better to let someone else do the fighting

 

[Jacks77]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

How are bonuses work? They dont count in FFP? Why not? Like this year we won the league surely payments on wages+bonuses will be bigger than last year. Yeah I know some players left like Barry, Kolo, Tevez and also Mancini pay off..., but still if bonuses are big enough I dont expect much decrease in the 230m wage list.

 

[fallacy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

At the heart of those discussions is a fundamental disagreement between the Club’s and UEFA’s respective interpretations of the FFP regulations on players purchased before 2010. The Club believes it has complied with the FFP regulations..



can see that wording having big implications for uefa if the bosman guy wins

 

[cibaman]

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?

Slightly curious as to why the club statement focuses on the issue of the pre 2010 contracts rather than the sale of IP rights which UEFA appear to have disallowed. I can see that the club are obviously aggrieved that the contracts don't appear to have been taken into consideration for the purpose of setting the penalties. They've fined us on the basis of a mega fail. But is there more than that? Have UEFA refused accept the clubs's valuation of those contracts?

 

[BringBackSwales]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I do wonder of the people calling for us to fight this have any experience of doing so? I am sure we would win but at what cost? It's better to let someone else do the fighting

Agreed. Reputation is invaluable to our owners, hence the compromise agreement

 

[sir baconface]

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.

Not sure about this, mate.

Wouldn't any re-balancing of fixed/variable pay be individually negotiated at contract renewal? If so, it's neither imposed nor retrospective and therefore should not be a legal issue.

Just my interpretation.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

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.

Totally agree. I'm quite happy with this result, indeed if another club decides in future to challenge UEFA on FFP and wins, we could easily see the fines returned. Our statement that the squad reduction won't affect our performance in the CL next season could be seen that we won't pursue damages should FFP be deemed unfair in the future.

I posted earlier in this thread that this would likely be the result, that the owners could foresee destroying FFP rendering UEFA powerless and resulting in transfer fee inflation way above the value of these fines. "Better the devil you know", as you were.

I think we should all rejoice in the fact that other clubs will be over the moon, today, that we've been penalised, and look forward to the day they suddenly realise what this has actually done.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

True but it would be helpful to see an estimate of how Bluemooners think we have broken even this year . I am taking about in our accounts rather than FFP.

I assume increased TV revenue has offset the £50m one image and scouting rights value from last year.

We got out of the CL group for the first time that was reported to be worth £15m or so extra.

The pay off to Mancini and his backroom staff would have been a one off and we haven't been paying towards as many people being on loan e.g. Santa Cruz.

The squad will have continued to be the best paid in the league once bonuses for trophies won are dished out.

Ticket prices / match day revenue went up 10 percent so about £5m and the Nike shirt deal is worth millions more now.

Also, Glicky has negotiated several smaller sponsorship deals.

Can Anyone who has a better idea on the figures out together an estimate please?

Actually that raises a question for me. Which accounts do we include the CL prize money(or indeed PL & domestic cups) in for the season just finished? Is it the accounts which are finalised in 14 days time or are they included in next years financials?

 

[bluscuba]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Have we given UEFA / FFP enough rope to hang themselves in front of the Bosman lawyer ?

I don't think City are happy with being part of the Cartel as such as we won't like being told how to run our business by rank amateurs, which seems to be the first rule of joining the club. Having the accounts pored over by a load of jealous dinosaurs.

Maybe we need to request someone on the compliance panel that knows what he's doing, rather than letting Gill get away with it.