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

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

As I've said before, most owners welcome FFP (and particularly the PL's version) as they will be able to keep a lid on costs. They won't be forced to spend the increased media revenue on wages and have to put their own money into their clubs. Whether fans welcome it is another matter.

As the gap between the top four grows each year there will b questions asked but as long as the likes of Norwich can splurge on Van Wolfswinkle and Sunderland on Altidore all will be well.

What's silly (among many things) about UEFA's rules in my opinion is that clubs close to Europe, like your Southamptons and Newcastles, cannot spend big money to make that push into Europe for fear of making a loss and being punished, but clubs like West Brom for instance could buy the available players without worrying about being fined. So the incentive to make that final push for a better finishing position is lost, since UEFA will simply take any reward off you via fines. Thus strengthening the original top clubs' positions. How did nobody see this before?

I don't think those clubs actually want to get into Europe, certainly not the EL anyway. It completely screwed up Newcastle and Swansea's seasons the last two years and the rewards aren't worth it. Much better and less stressful to finish 4 or 5 places higher in the PL than they did and avoid the EL completely.

And don't feel too sorry for Everton (or Spurs). They were members of the original breakaway group of top clubs in the 1980's who started all this money-grabbing crap.

 

[-nibz-]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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

Platini committed suicide. He shot himself three times in the head.
Pablo was arrested for punching a Falklands war hero in a chippy in Didsbury in a violent drunken rage.
A bog extension for vapor smokers at the back of the south-stand has got the go ahead according to the MEN..

 

[BlueBarratt]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

As the gap between the top four grows each year there will b questions asked but as long as the likes of Norwich can splurge on Van Wolfswinkle and Sunderland on Altidore all will be well.

What's silly (among many things) about UEFA's rules in my opinion is that clubs close to Europe, like your Southamptons and Newcastles, cannot spend big money to make that push into Europe for fear of making a loss and being punished, but clubs like West Brom for instance could buy the available players without worrying about being fined. So the incentive to make that final push for a better finishing position is lost, since UEFA will simply take any reward off you via fines. Thus strengthening the original top clubs' positions. How did nobody see this before?

I don't think those clubs actually want to get into Europe, certainly not the EL anyway. It completely screwed up Newcastle and Swansea's seasons the last two years and the rewards aren't worth it. Much better and less stressful to finish 4 or 5 places higher in the PL than they did and avoid the EL completely.

And don't feel too sorry for Everton (or Spurs). They were members of the original breakaway group of top clubs in the 1980's who started all this money-grabbing crap.

Yes, I'd agree they wouldn't want Europa League, but I was making the much-made point that there can't be another revolution like ours because of the rules, but from a slightly different angle. They can't get into the CL because of the fines they would accrue so the incentive to even try has now been completely removed

 

[Irwell]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

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.

Cheers PB. It's really not the numbers that I'm questioning though. I can't imagine that anyone would make a fundamental mistake with their calculations, so as far as I can see it can only be related to the interpretation of the different articles of the regulations. I've looked into it a little, and like I said earlier I'm a long way from being an expert on this stuff, but I'm struggling to get beyond the interpretation of the application of acceptable deviation. It's probably me and my 'dog with a bone' tendencies, but my own interpretation doesn't quite seem to gel with the consensus.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think premier league FFP is far more damaging for these clubs and other than Villa they voted for it! Clubs can do without Europe - even play a season without being checked, then unless they keep transgressing they will stay in with some punishments.

Prem FFP takes away the bread and butter, takes away increased TV money, fixes what you can spend on salaries etc etc - it is prem FFP that killed the dream far more than uefa

 

[EalingBlue2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

As I've said before, most owners welcome FFP (and particularly the PL's version) as they will be able to keep a lid on costs. They won't be forced to spend the increased media revenue on wages and have to put their own money into their clubs. Whether fans welcome it is another matter.

As the gap between the top four grows each year there will b questions asked but as long as the likes of Norwich can splurge on Van Wolfswinkle and Sunderland on Altidore all will be well.

What's silly (among many things) about UEFA's rules in my opinion is that clubs close to Europe, like your Southamptons and Newcastles, cannot spend big money to make that push into Europe for fear of making a loss and being punished, but clubs like West Brom for instance could buy the available players without worrying about being fined. So the incentive to make that final push for a better finishing position is lost, since UEFA will simply take any reward off you via fines. Thus strengthening the original top clubs' positions. How did nobody see this before?

Premier league FFP fixes their you salary spend so rather ruins that theory

 

[EalingBlue2]

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.

I suspect we aren't kept to 8 hg as if uefa had done it would have been trumpeted they would have made it very very clear etc. As it is it is in ours and uefa's interest assuming this is correct that everyone thinks the 8 hg is fixed as it makes appeal less likely and makes punishment appear harsher. We shall see but the statement from the club suggest 17

 

[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

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

it's not speculation it's simple arithmetic and if pointing out the elephant in the room to those who haven't noticed it is wumming then do your worst - I'm sure the Sheikh Sneerers etc will be delighted.

 

[cibaman]

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]

Don't we have to include 3 keepers?

There's a contradiction if UEFA have confirmed the 4+4 rule applies. The final sentence of the club's official statement says that all of the non financial restrictions were part of our existing plans.

 

[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]

Don't we have to include 3 keepers?

There's a contradiction if UEFA have confirmed the 4+4 rule applies. The final sentence of the club's official statement says that all of the non financial restrictions were part of our existing plans.

we planned to have up to 6 of our foreign trained players ineligible for the Champs League?