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

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

FFP is, for me, quickly falling into the past concern category.

It seems clear from the club's press release and Khaldoon's position that the club are now putting it behind them too. As long as UEFA stand by the sanctions that City grudgingly accepted then we are as free from any future restriction as any club.

The next phase for the club is the move to profitability and I suspect that those profits may well set a new benchmark because City are doing things never done before in football.

Having a football group provides sponsors with a unique branding/sponsorship opportunity and of course the numbers will reflect that.

United claim 659m fans world wide but City Football Group will soon be able to claim much more than that. Most of united's sponsorship deals are localised, trading on mufc's success and history. CFG will be in the locality for every market as well as being a global success story and PL and CL anchors.

I've been talking for ages about City being the first club to generate $1bn in revenue and it might just happen in this decade.

FFP is a fast fading problem.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Under the FFP restrictions we could offer Fernando a reduced salary package with a discretionary bonus payment at the end of the season, which would not be FFP deductable.

We can and we will, all our players are now being signed on a reduced basic wage with heavy performance incentives. it's how Ferran Soriano likes to do business. However the bonus will not be discretionary, FIFA rules state that the parameters for bonus payments have to be clearly defined and measureable.

 

[adrianr]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

^Liverpool's loss was closer to £100m and they don't have that many players on pre 2010 contracts, even if they're able to write off £30m for academy and infrastructure, they need to turn a profit of over £25m to be safe, that's a turnaround of £75m in a year where they signed a good few players and have suarez that deal. CL money can't help them for this monitoring period either.

Liverpool lost something like £91m over the last two years. Assume £25m for academy and infrastructure and that leaves them with a break-even deficit of £66m or €80m, which is way above the €45m. Plus in order to use the figure of €45m the owners would have to convert €40m of loans to equity, otherwise it's €5m. With the figures as they are, they wouldn't be able to use the wages exclusion as their loss in 2013 was slightly higher than that in 2012 (even after adjusting that 10 month figure to a 12 month equivalent).

So to be sure of passing, they'll need to report an adjusted break-even surplus of £30m, meaning a net profit of more than £15m at least, possibly closer to £20m. That's a £70m turnaround from 2013. Going to be tight. If they do miss then they should still be OK as they'll show an improving trend from 2013 to 2014 but it depends on how UEFA interprets that rule as the 2012 accounts will be in the calculation.

It's also not true that they won't be assessed until next summer. It seems they have to submit their 2012 & 2013 accounts before the next CL starts. Then they have to add the 2014 ones later this year if they've failed on the two years' accounts. If those are OK, they're in the clear but if not then they could face sanctions in 2015.

Like Suarez being sold perhaps?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If it is not withdrawn (which I think will happen within 5 years) FFP will kill football. We will be left with a sterile cartel of top clubs (we will probably be one of them) who play themselves all the time. This coupled with the ludicrous seeding system will ensure there are no prospects of any other clubs breaking through in the way that Ajax and Feyenoord did in the 70s, and Forest and Villa in the 80s. In fact the Champions League is already starting to resemble this model. Let's face it it is not as much fun for fans as the much-maligned Europa league where there is still an element of surprise. Surely teams like Everton, Villa, Spurs, West Ham, and anyone else with ambition, will have to challenge FFP...otherwise they have no chance of progress. How can any business grow without external investment in its product (ie players)?
If UEFA wanted to create a level playing field they should have implemented wage controls for players (admittedly hard to police) and limits on the level of debt allowed. Virtually all fans and owners would have supported this and it could have worked. The truth is that UEFA and its crooked cartel of top clubs have no intention of allowing a level playing field. Look at the scandalous way the TV money (which counts as FFP revenue) is carved up in Spain.

These clubs voted in favour of FFP (mainly).

Fuck 'em.

I have no sympathy for these clubs but I am sure they are having second thoughts (Everton and Villa certainly) and the long-term future of football is at stake. I want to see City compete for honours in a flourishing Premier League and Champions League. The game in England will stagnate if the FFP rules are not revised. That won't be good for us...not least because it will hit our own sponsorship revenues.
Everyone knows that European and World football is corrupt at the highest level. I want City to succeed but not as part of the same corrupt cartel that has operated for years with teams like Real, Bayern and the rags at the heart of it. At some stage Platini and Blatter must be removed.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A question for you PB our transfer limit refers to the actual transfer fee does it not? Could we see City offer a lower transfer fee but with heavy bonus driven extras for like Fernando, say a basic price of €10m plus an additional million for every say 5 appearances until he has played 30 games? Would the fee be €10m for the purposes of our spending limits?

That's a good question and I honestly don't know the answer. My guess would be not, unless the conditional clauses were unlikely to be met. But I couldn't see any selling club agreeing to it unless the player had a bad injury record.

And to answer adrianr's point, they'd have to sell him before their year-end, which I think is June, for it to count.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A question for you PB our transfer limit refers to the actual transfer fee does it not? Could we see City offer a lower transfer fee but with heavy bonus driven extras for like Fernando, say a basic price of €10m plus an additional million for every say 5 appearances until he has played 30 games? Would the fee be €10m for the purposes of our spending limits?

That's a good question and I honestly don't know the answer. My guess would be not, unless the conditional clauses were unlikely to be met. But I couldn't see any selling club agreeing to it unless the player had a bad injury record.

And to answer adrianr's point, they'd have to sell him before their year-end, which I think is June, for it to count.

Transfer window opens 1st July, that route unfortunately isn't open to them.

 

[blueparrot]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

^Liverpool's loss was closer to £100m and they don't have that many players on pre 2010 contracts, even if they're able to write off £30m for academy and infrastructure, they need to turn a profit of over £25m to be safe, that's a turnaround of £75m in a year where they signed a good few players and have suarez that deal. CL money can't help them for this monitoring period either.

Liverpool lost something like £91m over the last two years. Assume £25m for academy and infrastructure and that leaves them with a break-even deficit of £66m or €80m, which is way above the €45m. Plus in order to use the figure of €45m the owners would have to convert €40m of loans to equity, otherwise it's €5m. With the figures as they are, they wouldn't be able to use the wages exclusion as their loss in 2013 was slightly higher than that in 2012 (even after adjusting that 10 month figure to a 12 month equivalent).

So to be sure of passing, they'll need to report an adjusted break-even surplus of £30m, meaning a net profit of more than £15m at least, possibly closer to £20m. That's a £70m turnaround from 2013. Going to be tight. If they do miss then they should still be OK as they'll show an improving trend from 2013 to 2014 but it depends on how UEFA interprets that rule as the 2012 accounts will be in the calculation.

It's also not true that they won't be assessed until next summer. It seems they have to submit their 2012 & 2013 accounts before the next CL starts. Then they have to add the 2014 ones later this year if they've failed on the two years' accounts. If those are OK, they're in the clear but if not then they could face sanctions in 2015.

Given all that it must seriously limit what they can invest this summer to make them competitive in the Champions League and domestically. If so they will be one of the first teams to suffer from rules they supported to protect themselves.

 

[john@staustell]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A question for you PB our transfer limit refers to the actual transfer fee does it not? Could we see City offer a lower transfer fee but with heavy bonus driven extras for like Fernando, say a basic price of €10m plus an additional million for every say 5 appearances until he has played 30 games? Would the fee be €10m for the purposes of our spending limits?

That's a good question and I honestly don't know the answer. My guess would be not, unless the conditional clauses were unlikely to be met. But I couldn't see any selling club agreeing to it unless the player had a bad injury record.

And to answer adrianr's point, they'd have to sell him before their year-end, which I think is June, for it to count.

Accounts say 'for year ending 31st May 2013'.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A question for you PB our transfer limit refers to the actual transfer fee does it not? Could we see City offer a lower transfer fee but with heavy bonus driven extras for like Fernando, say a basic price of €10m plus an additional million for every say 5 appearances until he has played 30 games? Would the fee be €10m for the purposes of our spending limits?

That's a good question and I honestly don't know the answer. My guess would be not, unless the conditional clauses were unlikely to be met. But I couldn't see any selling club agreeing to it unless the player had a bad injury record.

And to answer adrianr's point, they'd have to sell him before their year-end, which I think is June, for it to count.

Accounts say 'for year ending 31st May 2013'.

Transfer window opens 1st July, it'd be income for next season, just as if we sign anyone this summer they'll first hit the books next season.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

If it is not withdrawn (which I think will happen within 5 years) FFP will kill football. We will be left with a sterile cartel of top clubs (we will probably be one of them) who play themselves all the time. This coupled with the ludicrous seeding system will ensure there are no prospects of any other clubs breaking through in the way that Ajax and Feyenoord did in the 70s, and Forest and Villa in the 80s. In fact the Champions League is already starting to resemble this model. Let's face it it is not as much fun for fans as the much-maligned Europa league where there is still an element of surprise. Surely teams like Everton, Villa, Spurs, West Ham, and anyone else with ambition, will have to challenge FFP...otherwise they have no chance of progress. How can any business grow without external investment in its product (ie players)?
If UEFA wanted to create a level playing field they should have implemented wage controls for players (admittedly hard to police) and limits on the level of debt allowed. Virtually all fans and owners would have supported this and it could have worked. The truth is that UEFA and its crooked cartel of top clubs have no intention of allowing a level playing field. Look at the scandalous way the TV money (which counts as FFP revenue) is carved up in Spain.

These clubs voted in favour of FFP (mainly).

Fuck 'em.

I have no sympathy for these clubs but I am sure they are having second thoughts (Everton and Villa certainly) and the long-term future of football is at stake. I want to see City compete for honours in a flourishing Premier League and Champions League. The game in England will stagnate if the FFP rules are not revised. That won't be good for us...not least because it will hit our own sponsorship revenues.
Everyone knows that European and World football is corrupt at the highest level. I want City to succeed but not as part of the same corrupt cartel that has operated for years with teams like Real, Bayern and the rags at the heart of it. At some stage Platini and Blatter must be removed.

Villa actually voted against the PL version, perhaps because Randy Lerner knew he was going to sell up and knew very well how much less attractive they would be with a PL FFP rules in place. If he'd known earlier about FFP I suspect he'd have sold up before it became general knowledge.