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

[Citysmith]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Anyone else feel that it's like in the movies where the guy gets taken into the cell next door for a kicking and it's actually someone he knows so the gaurd kicks the crap out of the chair and makes all the rights noises whilst the G14 smoke cigars and think the whole thing has been sorted.

Everyone walks away happy (ish)

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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

Our core income last year was £270m (without the IP deals). Add the near £40m for extra TV money, about £10m in increased match day revenue (extra CL game, LC run and general price increases), higher CL income (£5m minimum) and new sponsorship deals gives us £330m total income. Wages will be around £200m and other expenses around £60m. Player amortisation will be around £70m. That's £330m in expenses and we break even.

We can add back £20m for FFP so we should show a profit for FFP purposes, when the requirement is to report nothing worse than a €20m (£16.5m) deficit. It's not clear how the withholding of prize money will be treated but even withholding the full €30m each season won't impact that. If it's allowed to be added then there's no problem at all.[/quote]

Thanks very much PB

 

[cibaman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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?

Because the IP rights were accepted, although this quote from the OS suggests we're having to simplify it in the future because UEFA simply don't know what to do about it :-

Given the unique nature of the new City Football Group structure – which incorporates MCFC, New York City, Melbourne Heart and a number of other companies, the Club has agreed to certain non-material terms in order to make FFP reporting as easy as possible for UEFA to discern.

It's an absolutely unique sporting setup the club have devised and it's actually confused UEFA.

The 'fail' was because of the 2010 contracts and how they were interpreted. Since they claim we failed even including the exemptions then we couldn't include the pre 2010 contract exemptions in the first place. This made the 'fail' even bigger.

It might be just wording, but City's statement seems to me to be implying that if UEFA had accepted City's interpretation of the pre 2010 contracts we would have avoided any sanction. That there wasn't a fail to make bigger

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Anyone else feel that it's like in the movies where the guy gets taken into the cell next door for a kicking and it's actually someone he knows so the gaurd kicks the crap out of the chair and makes all the rights noises whilst the G14 smoke cigars and think the whole thing has been sorted.

Everyone walks away happy (ish)

Lol, that's not a bad summation. Whinger will be the one the camera pans in on looking suspiciously at the door.

 

[ONTHERUNWITHTHAKSIN]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Bloody hell getting it from all angles this morning at work! Has our CL squad got to have 8 home grown players in?

As far as I am aware it's a maximum of 17 none homegrown players, which will mean we only need 4 homegrown this year.

Hart
Clichy
Milner
Lopez
Rodwell

 

[Dipsis_LTU_MC]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

some say that there is no need to have 8 home growns others say that we must have 8 home growns. who is right?

 

[southamptonblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Since nothing anything like this has happened to other clubs, and you'd hope (esp if Rags) they got hammered if it did......i read the sanctions as if about them and wanting them to be severe and crippling them, i then read the club statement

....and Guess what? If you look at it from that perspective you'd be well pissed and this forum would be in meltdown about how 'they' had got away with murder.

It's nearly all 'hot air' that looks imo to be almost a joint 'how do we make it look like were really punishing you to save face since were not very confident winning a court battle,whilst you don't have to drag it through courts for years'

Everyone trying to 'see the bigger picture' i think have overlooked the smaller picture which is we havebasically been given nothing more than a '£20m slap on the wrist' whilst the list of sanctions makes it look like we are getting hammered.

As for PR, the more the media dissect the sanctions and imply were actually getting hammered the better......since i (and City) can't see much punishment in it in real terms ;)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Bloody hell getting it from all angles this morning at work! Has our CL squad got to have 8 home grown players in?

As far as I am aware it's a maximum of 17 none homegrown players, which will mean we only need 4 homegrown this year.

Hart
Clichy
Sagna ?
Milner

Sagna isn't home-grown. Rodwell or Richards would count.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Congratulations to UEFA.

They succeeded in making their principles stick. Nobody seriously opposed them or mounted a legal test.

We now have to curb transfer expenditure to £49m net and keep basic salaries under reasonable control. The club claims we would have done this anyway to achieve our business plan.

We must look to bring on a few more "home-grown" players rather than import ready-made stars. That was the aim of the academy all along.

Is the world a much worse place this morning? It will be more difficult for a new City or PSG but we got to the top table in time.

Pragmatism rules OK.

There is a legal challenge scheduled for next year

I can't see why people aren't getting this, if we raised a legall challenge, it would come in after the one already set in place.

Yes but we could have applied for an injunction to have any sanctions suspended pending the hearing. And we didn't actually have to take UEFA to court, we merely had to say that we would, and have been a bit more convincing about it than I think we were.

 

[southamptonblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Anyone else feel that it's like in the movies where the guy gets taken into the cell next door for a kicking and it's actually someone he knows so the gaurd kicks the crap out of the chair and makes all the rights noises whilst the G14 smoke cigars and think the whole thing has been sorted.

Everyone walks away happy (ish)

Yes, you said in one paragraph what i said in 4/5! Spot on i think.