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

[George Hannah]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

He said Utd and Everton will be happy.

I wonder if Everton are happy, well the fans at least ? I wonder if their fans have cottoned on to how this works or if they are in with the 'lets all shit on City' crowd, & not realised the implications for their own club.

I would have thought that they would dream of a better owner than Bill Kewright, who could straighten out their finances, pay their debts, & finance their team building.

But now, even if one came along, he can't spend enough money to get the players they need in order to be regualr top 4 & the rich, including City, & are just going to keep getting richer. And when City or Utd etc eventually sign Ross Barkley, the money will just go towards keeping them where they are now, or below.

Kenwright is often to be seen pimping the Blue Dippers in the Emirates Palace Hotel bars I'm told.

 

[LoveCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

PSG close to signing Luiz for £50m, which I believe is £1m more than they're allowed to spend before player sales. Their president has said in the last day that nothing and no one will stop them spending what they want, so it'll be interesting to see if they attempt to comply with the sanctions... because RMC in France is saying Hazard wants to join them too.

Cracking business by Chelsea again, though... squad players selling for £50m, £37m and £16m... and that's before they sell Lukaku (if they do). FFP has been a walk in the park for them, despite heavy spending just like us recently.

Again, it may highlight the absurdity of our punishment being equal to PSG's, when we made a clear attempt to comply with FFP while PSG couldn't really be arsed.

 

[SWP's back]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Surely it's just that the sanctions are in place, but cancelled if we comply etc.......

So the 2 statements are compatible.

This.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

PSG close to signing Luiz for £50m, which I believe is £1m more than they're allowed to spend before player sales. Their president has said in the last day that nothing and no one will stop them spending what they want, so it'll be interesting to see if they attempt to comply with the sanctions... because RMC in France is saying Hazard wants to join them too.

Cracking business by Chelsea again, though... squad players selling for £50m, £37m and £16m... and that's before they sell Lukaku (if they do). FFP has been a walk in the park for them, despite heavy spending just like us recently.

Again, it may highlight the absurdity of our punishment being equal to PSG's, when we made a clear attempt to comply with FFP while PSG couldn't really be arsed.

That was obviously wrong, & nobdy is accountable as the whole bunch are just elected by each other.

PSG could just make a sale of a minor player to sort this, then they are in compliance. I hope they just go on a rampant spending spree every season & just cause total anarchy though.

I suppose if they just say 'keep your fucking champions league money, we don't need it' & keep spending, then only squad reductions or a ban can make any difference.

 

[TrueBlue1705]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

PSG close to signing Luiz for £50m, which I believe is £1m more than they're allowed to spend before player sales. Their president has said in the last day that nothing and no one will stop them spending what they want, so it'll be interesting to see if they attempt to comply with the sanctions... because RMC in France is saying Hazard wants to join them too.

Cracking business by Chelsea again, though... squad players selling for £50m, £37m and £16m... and that's before they sell Lukaku (if they do). FFP has been a walk in the park for them, despite heavy spending just like us recently.

Again, it may highlight the absurdity of our punishment being equal to PSG's, when we made a clear attempt to comply with FFP while PSG couldn't really be arsed.

That was obviously wrong, & nobdy is accountable as the whole bunch are just elected by each other.

PSG could just make a sale of a minor player to sort this, then they are in compliance. I hope they just go on a rampant spending spree every season & just cause total anarchy though.

I suppose if they just say 'keep your fucking champions league money, we don't need it' & keep spending, then only squad reductions or a ban can make any difference.

Am I right in saying they didn't get a transfer cap like us?

 

[lancs blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

PSG close to signing Luiz for £50m, which I believe is £1m more than they're allowed to spend before player sales. Their president has said in the last day that nothing and no one will stop them spending what they want, so it'll be interesting to see if they attempt to comply with the sanctions... because RMC in France is saying Hazard wants to join them too.

Cracking business by Chelsea again, though... squad players selling for £50m, £37m and £16m... and that's before they sell Lukaku (if they do). FFP has been a walk in the park for them, despite heavy spending just like us recently.

Again, it may highlight the absurdity of our punishment being equal to PSG's, when we made a clear attempt to comply with FFP while PSG couldn't really be arsed.

That was obviously wrong, & nobdy is accountable as the whole bunch are just elected by each other.

PSG could just make a sale of a minor player to sort this, then they are in compliance. I hope they just go on a rampant spending spree every season & just cause total anarchy though.

I suppose if they just say 'keep your fucking champions league money, we don't need it' & keep spending, then only squad reductions or a ban can make any difference.

Am I right in saying they didn't get a transfer cap like us?

In terms of the transfer and wage caps and the fines their sanctions document is practically word for word identical to ours except for the allowed "break-even" amount which is -30m and zero for PSG compared to -20m and -10m for City.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/ClubFinancialControl/02/10/68/99/2106899_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That was obviously wrong, & nobdy is accountable as the whole bunch are just elected by each other.

PSG could just make a sale of a minor player to sort this, then they are in compliance. I hope they just go on a rampant spending spree every season & just cause total anarchy though.

I suppose if they just say 'keep your fucking champions league money, we don't need it' & keep spending, then only squad reductions or a ban can make any difference.

Am I right in saying they didn't get a transfer cap like us?

In terms of the transfer and wage caps and the fines their sanctions document is practically word for word identical to ours except for the allowed "break-even" amount which is -30m and zero for PSG compared to -20m and -10m for City.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/ClubFinancialControl/02/10/68/99/2106899_DOWNLOAD.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Dow ... WNLOAD.pdf</a>

Not quite true actually, although it's easy to miss the differences :-

PSG -

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

City -

Manchester City accepts that employee benefit expenses cannot be increased
during the next two financial periods (2015 & 2016). If Manchester City meets the
annual break-even requirements outlined above, this spending limit will be
removed for the 2016 financial period.

PSG -

PSG accepts that for the duration of the settlement it will be subject to a limitation
on the number of players that it may include on the “A” list for the purposes of
participation in UEFA competitions. Specifically, for season 2014/15 PSG may only
register a potential maximum of 21 players on the “A” list, instead of the potential
maximum of 25 as foreseen in the relevant competition regulations. If PSG
manages to comply with the break-even target the club shall gradually be released
from the restriction as regards the registration of players in UEFA club
competitions.

Not sure what exactly that means.

City -

Manchester City accepts that for the duration of the settlement it will be subject to
a limitation on the number of players that it may include on the “A” list for the
purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. Specifically, for season 2014/15
Manchester City may only register a potential maximum of 21 players on the “A”
list, instead of the potential maximum of 25 as foreseen in the relevant
competition regulations. If MC manages to comply with the annual break-even
target the club shall be released from the restriction as regards the registration of
players in UEFA club competitions for the 2015/16 season.

Then again both clubs have this included -

PSG/MC agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons
2014/2015 and 2015/2016. PSG/MC 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 include the last because according to City themselves -

The nature of conditions that will result in the lifting of sanctions means that the Club expects to be operating without sanction or restriction at the commencement of the 2015-16 season.

which brings the whole thing into doubt as to it's accuracy if City's version is true.

 

[Forzacitizens]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Could someone explain this to me.

We were allowed to discount players wages in the 2010/11 season, if the players met certain criteria.

As I understand it, one of the reasons we failed FFP was because these were not discounted.

Does anyone know what criteria we had to pass, and why therefore, we failed on this aspect?

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Could someone explain this to me.

We were allowed to discount players wages in the 2010/11 season, if the players met certain criteria.

As I understand it, one of the reasons we failed FFP was because these were not discounted.

Does anyone know what criteria we had to pass, and why therefore, we failed on this aspect?

You are only allowed to discount the wages if doing so would allow you to otherwise pass. Apparently (there's a fair bit of confusion over the details) City and UEFA disagreed over the wording of the rules (or UEFA just moved the goalposts) and wouldn't allow part of the allowance. This meant we couldn't use them at all as we were now short and so we failed miserably. Although I stand ready to be corrected on any points.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Could someone explain this to me.

We were allowed to discount players wages in the 2010/11 season, if the players met certain criteria.

As I understand it, one of the reasons we failed FFP was because these were not discounted.

Does anyone know what criteria we had to pass, and why therefore, we failed on this aspect?

The players had to have been signed before June 1st 2010 for them to be included. Those players were apparently paid something like £80m in 2011/12.

For us to be able to use this we had to meet three conditions:
1) It had to be the difference between us passing and failing, which it was.
2) Our financial results had to be improving, which they were.
3) We had to show that the aggregate deficit was specifically caused by our losses in 2012 and that those losses were caused specifically by those wages.

In respect of (3) UEFA's original guidance on whether we met that requirement indicated that we did. But 2 years later, long after we'd published the relevant accounts, they changed the guidance and that change meant we now didn't meet that requirement, despite the fact we met it using their own guidance at the time we applied it.