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

[Cityfan]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Bonuses

As far as I can see from the city statement bonuses do not count as part of the salary cap but this does not mean that they do not count as part of the demand to break even.

It is this demand to break even and what is allowable as revenue which will ultimately determine how the FFP rules affect us.
Essentially we have to grow our revenues faster than our competitors who will also be looking to grow their revenues.

Looking ahead the thing that actually concerns me most is the new quasi Bosman court case which will essentially allow complete freedom of movement. Although this will diminish any transfer fees payable it may cripple the financial utility of our academy as any trainee will be free t leave without compensation.

 

[inbetween]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Funny how our sponsorships are all deemed legit by Uefa despite all the self-proclaimed FFP experts on the net with a few exceptions claimed that it was fake deals... Wishful thinking at it´s best I think.

Have UEFA said what was the problem then?

It is confirmed as being the "Other Operating Income". If so, how do we deal with that going forward?

I note in City's club statement we say

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

What does that mean? We account for this income in a different way?

From the UEFA statement:
"In order to avoid dispute and for the avoidance of doubt, Manchester City has agreed that for the period of the settlement it will not seek to improve the financial terms of two second tier commercial partnerships."

I guess that Eithad is on of the two "second tier commercial partnerships" and that the other one is "Visit Abu Dhabi", so we can't upgrade that one to the same level as what UEFA approved for PSG's deal with qatar tourism authority.

That's fine, it doesn't stop us 'attempting' to upgrade any other partnerships. Etisalat, Aabar are all lets say Middle-Eastern based...

 

[HolisticJim]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You read the sky sports article and the papers and it all seems very strong.
You read city's version and it all seems rather toothless.

It's just a shame as we are being made out to be cheats when clearly that isn't the case.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Really? I missed that. If that's the case, then this start to look a bit more like a toothless face saving exercise by UEFA because such a clause effectively renders the wages cap null and void. We can give them bonuses based on bogus criteria that they will always achieve. Employers used this trick in the 90's with Performance Related Pay.

For someone who negotiates multi-million pound contracts you seem to have a troubling lack of regard for the details ;-)

I'm not being paid for this GDM ;-). And I don't normally negotiate pissed, whilst watching the telly at the same time.

Haha! Fair enough.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think we are all being played, it smacks of Uefa and City being in bed over this all along?

All window dressing, keeps the G14 from turning on Uefa, plastic enough sanctions for City to more than work around them.

City's warning to UEFA, and what amounts to the ECA and the G14 to play fair is significant.

As City move into very profitable times we could easily become the ones who challenge other clubs who fail FFP.

Also, as I talked of ages ago on this thread City have agreed to keep things simple for UEFA to run the FFP regs more easily. I talked about City changing the way football clubs work and FFP having to keep up, well it seems that City have taken one on the chin to allow UEFA to develop things within FFP to match the new reality.

the new reality will never include discouraging German sabotage, leveraged buy-outs, massive debts and US ram raiders - that's all forbidden territory.

 

[HolisticJim]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Have UEFA said what was the problem then?

It is confirmed as being the "Other Operating Income". If so, how do we deal with that going forward?

I note in City's club statement we say



What does that mean? We account for this income in a different way?

From the UEFA statement:
"In order to avoid dispute and for the avoidance of doubt, Manchester City has agreed that for the period of the settlement it will not seek to improve the financial terms of two second tier commercial partnerships."

I guess that Eithad is on of the two "second tier commercial partnerships" and that the other one is "Visit Abu Dhabi", so we can't upgrade that one to the same level as what UEFA approved for PSG's deal with qatar tourism authority.

That's fine, it doesn't stop us 'attempting' to upgrade any other partnerships. Etisalat, Aabar are all lets say Middle-Eastern based...

Although how they are allowed to get away with that.
Because they aren't sure we are not allowed to go back to put two main sponsors and say 'we are performing above expected levels at the start of the deals and therefore require an increase in revenue'
What industry operates in this way!
It's like Hitlar for sports!

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think we are all being played, it smacks of Uefa and City being in bed over this all along?

All window dressing, keeps the G14 from turning on Uefa, plastic enough sanctions for City to more than work around them.

No tricks Tolmie - it is a very vicious attack on us which has drawn real blood. We've got to bind our wounds and secure the citadel.

Not so sure, mate.

City have about £400k coming off the wage bill this summer as things stand.

Transfer policy will not be affected - they are already boxed off.

I also suspect we will get creative and secure a couple of loan signings which will keep us below the transfer cap, once sales are also factored in.

The increased prize money from the Premier League, this season, (£35m on last time) means it is double the fines we will actually pay in lost Champions League revenue these next two monitoring periods, and that's before the BT deal kicks in next year.

As for the quotas, again, not much different to this season in terms of numbers.

I really can't see much blood, more like a close shave, with some chafing.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Funny how our sponsorships are all deemed legit by Uefa despite all the self-proclaimed FFP experts on the net with a few exceptions claimed that it was fake deals... Wishful thinking at it´s best I think.

Have UEFA said what was the problem then?

It is confirmed as being the "Other Operating Income". If so, how do we deal with that going forward?

I note in City's club statement we say

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

What does that mean? We account for this income in a different way?

From the UEFA statement:
"In order to avoid dispute and for the avoidance of doubt, Manchester City has agreed that for the period of the settlement it will not seek to improve the financial terms of two second tier commercial partnerships."

I guess that Eithad is on of the two "second tier commercial partnerships" and that the other one is "Visit Abu Dhabi", so we can't upgrade that one to the same level as what UEFA approved for PSG's deal with qatar tourism authority.

The Etihad deal is described as "second tier"? What is meant by second tier? Literally I would have thought upgrading originally minor deals to something more substantial.

What happens if an existing deal already has a performance related contract in it i.e the amount payable increases without a renegotiation of the deal as is quite likely with major contracts such as the Etihad deal?

Do UEFA want us to break-even? They are trying to reduce or cap the income we receive. Maybe its just from what they regard as related parties.

Are other clubs such as Bayern Munich receiving such scrutiny?

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

On question that comes from the negotiated sanctions -

If City were to make a profit of £200m next year how would that impact the agreement to limit spending in the summer window that follows?

It seems there is talk about 14/15 AND 15/16 having limitations on spending which could stop a hugely profitable club from spending its own cash, completely contrary to FFP.

 

[HolisticJim]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The one really good side effect of FFP is it forces us to become a massive club as opposed to a club just buying big players.
We are actually going to do more damage by being such a huge commercial attraction to the sport than if there were no FFP and we slowly grew whilst just buying players.

It also makes this whole thing irreversible.
Let's say Mr mans our does decide he's bored and go elsewhere, will are now a huge club in our own right and there's no going back on that.