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

[blueparrot]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

ALL sanctions will be lifted for the season 2015/16 as long as we don't post an FFP loss of more than 20m euros for this season.
Club statement clearly states we expect to operate free of sanctions for 2015/16 season.

Thanks,

I do wish other people would actually read what has been written rather than making it up as they go along

Yes as long as they only read what is written on the o/s or uefa rulings, not whats written in the general media as that's full of misinformation.

 

[Ducado]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

ALL sanctions will be lifted for the season 2015/16 as long as we don't post an FFP loss of more than 20m euros for this season.
Club statement clearly states we expect to operate free of sanctions for 2015/16 season.

Forgot about that

The nature of conditions that will result in the lifting of sanctions means that the Club expects to be operating without sanction or restriction at the commencement of the 2015-16 season.

The problem is that both the UEFA pdf and City's statement are pretty vague so you end up having to compare both to find out the heart of the matter

The heart of the matter is, that it's a classic compromise, UEFA got the headline they wanted and a small saving on the CL prize money for themselves (which they may need to cover ongoing litigation next year) we carry on very much as we going to go any way, we were never going to carry on spending like a condemned man, we don't need to

 

[ElanJo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

purposes of participation in UEFA competitions.

Thats the important bit, we can spend as much as we want without restriction on players who will not take part for two years in CL. So if we want to spend 100m on Shaw, Barkley etc as long as we don't put them on the A list we will be fine.

lol could you imagine the outcry by rival fans if we bought Barkley for 30m on top of the 50m net?

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sorry, I might be being stupid or something, but I just can't for the life of me see why we would need to buy anyone very much. With Lescott going, ok. cover for centre back (and ideally, someone better than him, but not world class, because nobody genuinely world class would accept sitting on the bench for weeks on end, at least as far as league games are concerned). Collectively, the defence took a lot of stick on this forum in the first few months, but the plain fact is we have the second best defence in the league, after Chelsea. What would you change about the attack, apart from having everybody fit all the time? (I'm hoping this has been Sergio's gremlin season — a second one like it would put a lot of pressure on us in terms of competing in all the trophies). And the midfield? Just about the best in Europe. That's a sober assessment. The time will come when we'll have to start thinking about a replacement for Yaya (although you just don't replace a player like that!) But not for two or three years.
I don't know if anyone's taking a wage cut though. It'd be pretty bizarre to ask a player to take a wage cut, when they've just won the league in such style, plus another trophy, plus progressed tone stage further in the CL.

 

[Hart of the Matter]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The term pro rata relates to proportions. A reduction to 21 is cut of around 16% of squad size. Our home grown would therefore reduce by 16% if pro rata ( which I suspect it is not. This souls see HG reduced to 7 or at best 6 not 4. I guess we will still need 8hg as leaked last week. We may have to do some registration juggling in January so some over seas player play 1/2 a season only in the squad.

 

[waspish]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Do teams in the champions league who make a profit have there books looked at?

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

18.08 & 18.12 specifically state that clubs have to have 8 places reserved for locally trained players. All examples in the Annexes are based on 25 man maximum squad sizes there is nothing in the rules that states you can have fewer than eight places reserved for locally trained players if your squad size is reduced as a punishment.
We may have negotiated a reduction as part of the negotiations but until I hear otherwise personally I am assuming we must have eight places reserved for locally trained players as specified in the rules,

As I posted last night this is a key part of the UEFA attack. The question is whether our transfer plans have actually been badly disrupted in spite of what we say on the OS . It crucially depends if UEFA reduce our foreign trained contingent by 4 to 13 by insisting on 8 association/club trained players in the 21. That would mean that 3 of our current 16 foreign trained players (or their direct replacements) weren't eligible for CL next season. In practice Pantilimon could be replaced by Willy but there would be no room for Mangala, Sagna or Fernando in that situation, so by signing all of them it would be six top players out of the CL. The best we can hope for it seems is that it would be a pro-rata reduction - 2 foreign-trained and 2 association-trained places but even then 4 would be excluded. We've taken a real beating on this one.

So you are doubting what the club have said, and would rather make up some prophesy of doom

The Club’s expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros. This will have no material impact on the Club’s planned transfer activity.

whatever

 

[Hart of the Matter]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The problem is that both the UEFA pdf and City's statement are pretty vague so you end up having to compare both to find out the heart of the matter[/quote]

No you don't . I have been on here all the time.

 

[Pam]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Damp Uefa squid as usual. Time to move on.

 

[bluegonads]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Damp Uefa squid as usual. Time to move on.

not the transfer forum again? :p