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

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Another hundred pages...can somebody resume for me quickly...ta

Nothing in reality

Cheers.Its still fucking stinks though mate.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Ian Herbert, who has been quite obsessive about FFP, isn't even sure about the squad restrictions. He wrote this:

It is possible that the reduction in City’s Champions League squad could mean a pro-rata reduction in the number of home-grown players they must use next season. But a lack of Englishmen severely restricts their options.

it should become clearer when we have to leave up to 6 of our top players out of Champs League matches next season - we've already got 3 too many and nobody has been signed yet.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Another hundred pages...can somebody resume for me quickly...ta

We failed for the sake of £3m because after it was too late to change anything, UEFA changed their rules for excluding pre-2010 player wages from a definition that meant we could have passed to one that meant we failed.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Ian Herbert, who has been quite obsessive about FFP, isn't even sure about the squad restrictions. He wrote this:

It is possible that the reduction in City’s Champions League squad could mean a pro-rata reduction in the number of home-grown players they must use next season. But a lack of Englishmen severely restricts their options.

it should become clearer when we have to leave up to 6 of our top players out of Champs League matches next season - we've already got 3 too many and nobody has been signed yet.

Ok, I'll humour you:

Point 1: The fact that the club says it won't impact transfer business means we have the issue covered.

Point 2: If we are restricted on foreign players and it was going to be an issue to the club, we wouldn't have agreed to the sanction and therefore UEFA would have been hurtling towards trouble if they hadn't backed down.

So it's neither here nor there in reality.

 

[Irwell]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We failed for the sake of £3m because after it was too late to change anything, UEFA changed their rules for excluding pre-2010 player wages from a definition that meant we could have passed to one that meant we failed.

Sorry to harp on about it, and people are free to take their own view of it, but I'm not entirely convinced by this. There seem to be a lot of assumptions leading you to that conclusion. I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, just that the evidence doesn't appear to lead incontrovertibly to it.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Ian Herbert, who has been quite obsessive about FFP, isn't even sure about the squad restrictions. He wrote this:

it should become clearer when we have to leave up to 6 of our top players out of Champs League matches next season - we've already got 3 too many and nobody has been signed yet.

Ok, I'll humour you:

Point 1: The fact that the club says it won't impact transfer business means we have the issue covered.
Point 2: If we are restricted on foreign players and it was going to be an issue to the club, we wouldn't have agreed to the sanction and therefore UEFA would have been hurtling towards trouble if they hadn't backed down.

So it's neither here nor there in reality.

We'll see whether it is when our CL squad list for 2014/15 is published - if our squad is reduced the foreign trained quota will be as well.
Simple arithmetic in reality.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We failed for the sake of £3m because after it was too late to change anything, UEFA changed their rules for excluding pre-2010 player wages from a definition that meant we could have passed to one that meant we failed.

Sorry to harp on about it, and people are free to take their own view of it, but I'm not entirely convinced by this. There seem to be a lot of assumptions leading you to that conclusion. I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, just that the evidence doesn't appear to lead incontrovertibly to it.

I've given the links on the other thread and I'd take you through it but am tired and have a migraine so excuse me if I don't. The figures you need are a loss of £98m in 2011/12 with an add-back of £15m and a loss of £52m last year with an add back of £20m. So our actual FFP break even deficits were £83m and £32m respectively. Our wages add-back for 2011/12 was £80m.

That means, on the basis of the 2013 version of the toolkit, we couldn't use the wages add-back as it was less than the break-even deficit.

 

[pudge]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This is from the Mail;

[bigimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/17/article-2631373-1DF3D21F00000578-12_634x615.jpg[/bigimg]

 

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This is from the Mail;

[bigimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/17/article-2631373-1DF3D21F00000578-12_634x615.jpg[/bigimg]

it's really sad when Joe Bernstein can work it out and some numbnuts on here can't

 

[Ducado]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

This is from the Mail;

[bigimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/17/article-2631373-1DF3D21F00000578-12_634x615.jpg[/bigimg]

it's really sad when Joe Bernstein can work it out and some numbnuts on here can't

It's speculation pure and simple, and you are joining the fray, to be honest you having been on the WUM for a few days now, take this as a hint to desist

Cheers