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

[Ducado]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

One big sponsorship deal negates the financial penalty does it not?

Not really, we'll still be €20 million down from what we should have regardless of any future sponsorship.

It's not taken in to account for FFP it's like we have but we don't if you understand

 

[dctid]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

@dctid, don't forget PSG have to deal with a 75% higher rate of income tax too, they have to pay a lot more gross to match english, german and spanish clubs.

Aye forgot about that too PSG will be selling players this transfer window out of necessity to comply with future FFP not sure City are in that boat

It a big big deal for PSG the mark down of their deal

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

One big sponsorship deal negates the financial penalty does it not?

Not really, we'll still be €20 million down from what we should have regardless of any future sponsorship.

It's not taken in to account for FFP it's like we have but we don't if you understand

Yeah, I'd forgotten that. I'd actually seen that earlier and laughed out loud at the absurdity of it. That actually makes sense of the suspended portion if we can add that for FFP purposes because we will actually receive it (I think, I may have just confused myself).

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

@dctid, don't forget PSG have to deal with a 75% higher rate of income tax too, they have to pay a lot more gross to match english, german and spanish clubs.

Aye forgot about that too PSG will be selling players this transfer window out of necessity to comply with future FFP not sure City are in that boat

It a big big deal for PSG the mark down of their deal

Apparently PSGs discussions with the CFCB showed that they have to pay around €210,000,000 more in wages over a 3 year period than a german club would over the same time period for the same players, shows how badly thought out the regulations are, especially when you consider the lack of broadcasting income in Ligue 1, although I'm sure PSG/Monaco will have a strong enough hand to drive up the tv deals the next time they're negotiated.

 

[Jacks77]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Fewquestions.

Manchester City accepts that employee benefit expenses cannot be increased during the next two financial periods (2015 & 2016).


So in 14-15, 15-16 seasons our wage bill will have to remain what our wage bill is in 13-14?

Manchester City
agrees to significantly limit spen
ding in the transfer market for
seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
Manchester City
further accepts a calculated
limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List
for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This
calculation is based
on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by
this agreement.

I dont get what this means. If we spend more than the 60m € they can stop us registering a new player for CL next summer for example?
What net transfer position means in this context? Anything over the net 60m€ spent?

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here's this:

Has there been any clarification on this, that as well as a net spending limit of 60m euros, we can't add any new signings to our Champion's League squad for next season?

Marcotti seems to be claiming that, even though the sanctions make no reference to this punishment, that is because if it was public knowledge it would have a detrimental effect on our summer transfer dealings.

Personally I can't see us having accepted such a sanction, as it would leave us really struggling to attract the targets we'd be after. Would people be willing to join us and then watch a seasons champion's league go by with them in the stands?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

@dctid, don't forget PSG have to deal with a 75% higher rate of income tax too, they have to pay a lot more gross to match english, german and spanish clubs.

Aye forgot about that too PSG will be selling players this transfer window out of necessity to comply with future FFP not sure City are in that boat

It a big big deal for PSG the mark down of their deal

Apparently PSGs discussions with the CFCB showed that they have to pay around €210,000,000 more in wages over a 3 year period than a german club would over the same time period for the same players, shows how badly thought out the regulations are, especially when you consider the lack of broadcasting income in Ligue 1, although I'm sure PSG/Monaco will have a strong enough hand to drive up the tv deals the next time they're negotiated.

This is one aspect that often gets overlooked when considering whether FFP falls foul of the totemic principles of EU law. Operating under such a system clearly gives clubs in countries with lower income tax rates a discernible advantage over those at the other end of the scale. Such inequalities could very well act as a restriction on the free movement of labour between member states.

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Fewquestions.

Manchester City accepts that employee benefit expenses cannot be increased during the next two financial periods (2015 & 2016).


So in 14-15, 15-16 seasons our wage bill will have to remain what our wage bill is in 13-14?

Manchester City
agrees to significantly limit spen
ding in the transfer market for
seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
Manchester City
further accepts a calculated
limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List
for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This
calculation is based
on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by
this agreement.

I dont get what this means. If we spend more than the 60m € they can stop us registering a new player for CL next summer for example?
What net transfer position means in this context? Anything over the net 60m€ spent?

That may well answer my question!

It mentions our "net transfer position", I don't think they're talking net from a monetary position, I think they're talking ins and outs from a player perspective. Basically, if we sell/release 5 first team players this summer then we can add 5 new signings to the UEFA A List (based around the 21 player limit, with 8 homegrown). However if we sell/release 3 players and sign 4 new players then we can't add 4 new players to the list, just 3.

I may be totally wrong though. These things seem designed to cause confusion!

 

[waspish]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think our wage bill will come down by at least 20m next season so all good

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here's this:

Has there been any clarification on this, that as well as a net spending limit of 60m euros, we can't add any new signings to our Champion's League squad for next season?
Marcotti seems to be claiming that, even though the sanctions make no reference to this punishment, that is because if it was public knowledge it would have a detrimental effect on our summer transfer dealings.
Personally I can't see us having accepted such a sanction, as it would leave us really struggling to attract the targets we'd be after. Would people be willing to join us and then watch a seasons champion's league go by with them in the stands?

I read it as saying we can only register £49m net of new players in the CL squad each year.