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

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Uber Blues said:
We can control our salary outgoings no problem.
Bonus payments are outside the FFP rules.
Nothing to stop low/medium salary for players topped up with performance related bonus at year end.

Not true. Bonuses are treated in exactly the same way as wages. Think P11/D
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

cibaman said:
ColinLee said:
cibaman said:
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
Perhaps it was my wording but that was actually my point, so we're in total agreement ;)
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Chippy_boy said:
Uber Blues said:
We can control our salary outgoings no problem.
Bonus payments are outside the FFP rules.
Nothing to stop low/medium salary for players topped up with performance related bonus at year end.

Not true. Bonuses are treated in exactly the same way as wages. Think P11/D
But not for the purposes of this settlement. Performance related bonuses will not be included in the wages cap.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just woken up with the mother of all hangovers and I would say my feelings about this outcome are broadly positive, for City at least. It seems from cursory glances at previous pages from last night that many are disappointed that we have declined to become torch-bearers for the wider interests of clubs like Everton and Villa, but that was never going to happen. Such an expectation was unrealistic given the scale of the investment in this football club and the likely prospects of success. Perhaps any notions of such a crusade were ended when the likes of Everton and Spurs willingly voted in FFP in the Premier League, which we conspicuously did not. I expect our feelings of empathy for those that didn't, like Villa, weren't sufficient for the club to jeapordise the enduring success of the 'project' at such a decisive moment in its realisation. Principled stances are rarely assumed against an undiluted backdrop of altruism, but rather when an individual or corporate entities interests are unlikely to be hampered unduly by assuming such a position. I have, on occasion in my working life, tried to help others out, possibly by suggesting them for job interviews to colleagues for certain positions for example, but I only did so at a time and in a way that meant my interests were not undermined in any way. If I felt at any time that they may have been, I wouldn't have uttered a word. It seems City have evaluated things along similar lines and given the scope and aims of the project it was always unrealistic for people to expect any other outcome.

I believe this has been accepted on the basis that the Etihad deal isn't an RPT and that in any event it most certainly represents fair value. On that basis the other, seemingly ad hoc aspects of our last accounts, which seem to have been the cause of our failure FFP, are of little use to the club in further years. The club clearly feels that the Etihad deal was the deal-breaker, partly because any other outcome would have conspired to undermine the club's integrity beyond the bounds of tolerance and also because it would have prevented the club being masters of its own destiny going forward. As it now seems to stand the Etihad deal is bona fide and free to be renegotiated upwards, as it is clearly now undervalued. In that sense the club will have shrugged its corporate shoulders and realised the futility of fighting battles on other fronts. Moreover they will have done that against the backdrop of the knowledge of what other deals are in the pipeline, upon which we will doubtless hear more in the next few months in the lead up to the opening of the training complex.

My overriding concern in football is that of Manchester City. Everything else comes a very distant second and I have sufficient faith in those that run our club, based on all that they have delivered so far, to state with absolute confidence that they wouldn't ave struck this deal if it wasn't in the club's best interests. Given the journey they have taken this club on in the last (just shy of) six years, I am struggling to see how anyone could properly arrive at any other conclusion. They have absolutely delivered hitherto and had significantly more facts and information at their disposal in relation to this, both internal and external to the club, than anyone posting on this thread. On that basis they absolutely deserve the benefit of any doubt that some might have that this was the right decision for City.

It might not be the best decision for the soul of football, but you've got to choose your battles. Anyone expecting the club not to ultimately act in its own best interests, given the might of what we are up against, was always going to be crushingly disappointed at this stage. Getting in before the drawbridge went up is an analogy that is always used when describing City's relationship to FFP and I've always thought of it as one with considerable force. Imagine, if you will, someone holding on to a drawbridge as it is bing raised. In the course of being there he may have sacrificed a great deal, he may have helped others. But at that moment, when faced with the consequences of not scrambling over the top as it closes upon the wider world, what are his primary thoughts? Are they about helping others? No they are not. In that situation his principal concern is survival and getting over before it closes and to deal with the whys and wherefores afterwards. That is what City were faced with in the last couple of weeks and they've made the right decision in their best interests. It really is as simple as that.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Got a feeling we will be hearing a lot of "cheat cheat cheat" chants from other fans next season, so some of us will need to grow a thicker skin.

We need our resident witty song writers to get busy with something in return...
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

It's quite a favourable outcome really. I can't believe the club would accept the settlement if they didn't absolutely know that this years accounts had posted less than £16.5m losses, given we would have a pretty clear picture of that already. Most importantly, there is nothing in the settlement that stops us challenging for titles, winning trophies and growing off the field to become one of the best around.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Chippy_boy said:
Uber Blues said:
We can control our salary outgoings no problem.
Bonus payments are outside the FFP rules.
Nothing to stop low/medium salary for players topped up with performance related bonus at year end.

Not true. Bonuses are treated in exactly the same way as wages. Think P11/D

Maybe you should read the club statement ......clearly states bonuses can be paid on top.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

ColinLee said:
Citysmith said:
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.
As he removes his hand from his unmentionables.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Prestwich_Blue said:
ONTHERUNWITHTHAKSIN said:
BlueTaylor91 said:
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.


Yes PB I realised after posted.

But does the reasoning count that we still can have the maximum non homegrown players.
 
Re: City & FFP (continued)

Citysmith said:
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)

Exactly. A bit like this:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7avWjBmRXu0&t=0m44s[/video]
 

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.