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

[Damocles]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/20/uefa-defeats-financial-fair-play-challenge?CMP=twt_gu

UEFA win

Do any of you people have any testicles at all?

Conn's article leaves out numerous facts about how the EC left it (as in they wanted more evidence) and this doesn't present a problem in the Belgian court that they're challenging.

[bigimg]http://www.drboblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/brass-balls.jpg[/bigimg]

 

[TonyM]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Let's say City was bought now instead of 6 years ago. Mansour let's say would invest just as heavily in the academy, the stadium and the City Football Group partner clubs. All outside the FFFP figures right? Then he'd want to grow our revenues by sponsorship deals but he'd have a tough time due to not having spent big yet on big names.

How much would he be able to spend in years 1, 2 and 3 to be compliant with FFFP while maximising revenues?

I am curious to know if he could have still got us to where we are but doing it the UEFA way. Anyone knowledgable enough to model it out?

I would guess that it is possible to do bug the margin for error regarding return of player investment would be almost zero, i.e. You'd want players like Silva and Yaya from the start rather than Robinho and Adebayor. And I'd suspect Santa Cruz would have sent you back years. Meanwhile all the big clubs can afford a load of mistakes.i think it's unfair but is it possible to see it from Uefa's perspective?

 

[hello]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Let's say City was bought now instead of 6 years ago. Mansour let's say would invest just as heavily in the academy, the stadium and the City Football Group partner clubs. All outside the FFFP figures right? Then he'd want to grow our revenues by sponsorship deals but he'd have a tough time due to not having spent big yet on big names.

How much would he be able to spend in years 1, 2 and 3 to be compliant with FFFP while maximising revenues?

I am curious to know if he could have still got us to where we are but doing it the UEFA way. Anyone knowledgable enough to model it out?

I would guess that it is possible to do bug the margin for error regarding return of player investment would be almost zero, i.e. You'd want players like Silva and Yaya from the start rather than Robinho and Adebayor. And I'd suspect Santa Cruz would have sent you back years. Meanwhile all the big clubs can afford a load of mistakes.i think it's unfair but is it possible to see it from Uefa's perspective?

To answer this without going into the model approach you wanted, imagine if he had a twin brother with the same bank balance and ambition, hell even add sibling rival in to it as well. Villa area at comparable (ish) level now & for sale. Would he even contemplate going ahead with the deal. If mr Rich twin existed and brought villa and was allowed to pump up to £25m into them for 3 years then feck all while the top 4-5 take the exclusive 50m chumps leagues and extra TV money. I think its fair to say that even if they get te best owner in all the world that makes ours look poor short sighted and incompetent Villa will not challenge for the league before 2020 unless FPP is ripped to pieces by ECJ

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Let's say City was bought now instead of 6 years ago. Mansour let's say would invest just as heavily in the academy, the stadium and the City Football Group partner clubs. All outside the FFFP figures right? Then he'd want to grow our revenues by sponsorship deals but he'd have a tough time due to not having spent big yet on big names.

How much would he be able to spend in years 1, 2 and 3 to be compliant with FFFP while maximising revenues?

I am curious to know if he could have still got us to where we are but doing it the UEFA way. Anyone knowledgable enough to model it out?

I would guess that it is possible to do bug the margin for error regarding return of player investment would be almost zero, i.e. You'd want players like Silva and Yaya from the start rather than Robinho and Adebayor. And I'd suspect Santa Cruz would have sent you back years. Meanwhile all the big clubs can afford a load of mistakes.i think it's unfair but is it possible to see it from Uefa's perspective?

The problem would be - if it could be done at all - it would take decades.

First, you'd need an outstanding manager, say a Klopp, that you landed by pure luck. And then some talented youngsters that developed into exciting prospects. But then, the rich clubs would come along and poach these players. So you'd have a bit more cash, but now your team is back to being dross again, so you start again.

If you were incredibly well run, and got really lucky, I reckon you can in theory punch above your weight year on year on year and eventually make it to the top table. As a pure guess this would take a minimum of 20 to 30 years. Maybe 50 years.

Just a guess, but that woud be my guess.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Let's say City was bought now instead of 6 years ago. Mansour let's say would invest just as heavily in the academy, the stadium and the City Football Group partner clubs. All outside the FFFP figures right? Then he'd want to grow our revenues by sponsorship deals but he'd have a tough time due to not having spent big yet on big names.

How much would he be able to spend in years 1, 2 and 3 to be compliant with FFFP while maximising revenues?

I am curious to know if he could have still got us to where we are but doing it the UEFA way. Anyone knowledgable enough to model it out?

I would guess that it is possible to do bug the margin for error regarding return of player investment would be almost zero, i.e. You'd want players like Silva and Yaya from the start rather than Robinho and Adebayor. And I'd suspect Santa Cruz would have sent you back years. Meanwhile all the big clubs can afford a load of mistakes.i think it's unfair but is it possible to see it from Uefa's perspective?

We wouldn't have the brand name to interest so many people in ventures around the world. We would have struggled to get in the Champions League & every year, the clubs in it would be multi millions of quid better off than us, & buying the players to keep them there. Plus players wouldn't come to City because we weren't in the Champions League & we're not favourites to get there.

People tend to rewrite history about the Hughes era now, but we had to evolve very quickly at that time, hence spending ott money on certain players. They were all well known faces who increased the profile of the club, encouraging other players to think about signing.

I remember people on the radio openly laughing at rumours Adebayor would come to City & they all thought Lescott etc were mking the wrong choice.

The whole system was designed in order for that to happen, it wasn't an accident, & it's no surprise that ffp comes into being now, after over 100 years of club owners being able to spend what they want, without having to explain it.

Our only hope of getting top 4 would be a great academy, some good bargains & incompetence by Rags Spurs & Arsenal.

It would be much tougher than Sven/ Hughes' era.

Oh & we wouldn't get Mancini or Pellegrini as manager either.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

can't be arse reading the 870 plus pages so don't know if someone has thought same as me, how can anybody be allowed to restrict trade in the european union ? if i bought a business and football is BIG business, why shouldn't i be allowed to invest in that business to make it bigger and stronger than the other businesses classed as my competitors, that surely is illegal under european laws and only the banks should say no if you don't have enough of your own money to invest, if its your cash you should be allowed to invest how you see fit to gain an advantage over your competitors as long as its legal

Spot on, we can only hope the judges see it that way, when the case eventually goes before them. Madness isn't it? When owners like the Glaziers are seen as being good for football, while Sheikh Mansour is seen as being bad. It's a corrupt old world, sometimes.

 

[TonyM]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Only playing devils advocate ... but ... with the backing of Mansour we would not have to sell our best talent. The only reason the'd go is to get CL football. And the younger players may be willing to wait a while as they get more games (think of SWP if we didn't have to sell).

Yes it'd be slow to develop enough talent in the "new world class academy" but it's not inconceivable that in 5 years you could have fantastic young players coming through. You could afford to still buy emerging talent for reasonable prices to add to that and maybe only 2 or 3 top players would be necessary to get you to a point where you could fight for the 4th spot (like Everton).

So maybe it would take 10 years for the "brand" to be powerful enough to start increasing revenues enough to be able to buy better quality.

In the meantime we'd have been happy fans just to have been in there competing and we'd have been delighted with our owners.

But what I fail to understand at all is what is so much better and safer about this as opposed to what we actually have done.

 

[hello]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Tony,

In your sceenario we might have been able to postpone the sale for 1-2 seasons but ultimately the chumps league and higher wages would get the good talent especially with agents being the twats they are. Remember even if we had his subisidy we could still only post small losses whilst the sky 4 could blow everyone out the water with wages & fees as harry would say and how the chumps leagues was designed for in the first place :)

 

[blueparrot]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Only playing devils advocate ... but ... with the backing of Mansour we would not have to sell our best talent. The only reason the'd go is to get CL football. And the younger players may be willing to wait a while as they get more games (think of SWP if we didn't have to sell).

Yes it'd be slow to develop enough talent in the "new world class academy" but it's not inconceivable that in 5 years you could have fantastic young players coming through. You could afford to still buy emerging talent for reasonable prices to add to that and maybe only 2 or 3 top players would be necessary to get you to a point where you could fight for the 4th spot (like Everton).

So maybe it would take 10 years for the "brand" to be powerful enough to start increasing revenues enough to be able to buy better quality.

In the meantime we'd have been happy fans just to have been in there competing and we'd have been delighted with our owners.

But what I fail to understand at all is what is so much better and safer about this as opposed to what we actually have done.

No the top players wouldn't join unless c/l was close. the players like Barry. Lescott wouldn't join unless other top players were there, and young talent would be tempted by the teams in c/l.
Unless an owner can invest heavily and make it happen quickly, teams can get close then but then fall away again, as players and managers are cherry picked, as has happened to lots of teams over the years.

 

[TonyM]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The sale of Villa will be a great test. It's the biggest club in the second city and has great history and potential. Does whoever buys it have to aim for top 4? Pre or post FFFP CL places only go to the the 4.

Pre FFFP unless you are going in with a blowing out of the water attitude, like Chelsea first and then us, isn't it hopeless to even bother. So without FFFP you can only have a spiralling cycles of club purchases. Eventually even Mansour could be dwarfed.

But post FFFP everyone has the same restrictions of revenue. So sponsor yourself up the wazoo and you've got a chance. Yes the top clubs have a huge advantage which makes it far from fair.

So could it be that the problem with FFFP is just that it's not fair? If you could make if fair then it'd be ok. For example by having it based on a standard transfer/wage limit that is regardless of revenue.