aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Ah so you favour the polite route ;)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
Ah so you favour the polite route ;)
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
that last line of yours tolm, fanciful speculation or.....
he would be 29 next june, 3 to 4 years left at the very peak of his powers?
just an opinion, but I think next season we will attempt it.
Ah so you favour the polite route ;)
I favour pretending to go down the polite route, and let them work out the threat. ;-)
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
He's just sent me this:
http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/club...-222m-in-champions-league-payments-from-uefa/
Which would suggest any qualifying Scottish club get 10% of an overall UK pool instead of it being split by association which would be strange after reading UEFAs own statements on it but he could be right.
That split of the pool money would make sense in that the CL TV rights are negotiated for the UK and Scotland has a population (and so a potential audience) that is roughly 10% of England's.
just an opinion, but I think next season we will attempt it.
I can see it if Pep comes, if not, don't see it as realistic.
Does anyone have a source for that £4.5m for Suarez @tolmie's hairdoo is talking about? At most I'd think it was €4,5m, no?
Last edited:
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Reading the article was like some of the posts that helped me understand the way FFP was affecting City over the last few years.
OK it was a comprehensive resume of financial matters but I have to say it mirrored the many posts that so many of our informed members held as beliefs.
Thank you once more to everyone who has contributed to this fabulous thread and patiently helped me to understand its many twists and turns.
OK it was a comprehensive resume of financial matters but I have to say it mirrored the many posts that so many of our informed members held as beliefs.
Thank you once more to everyone who has contributed to this fabulous thread and patiently helped me to understand its many twists and turns.
Jazzman
Well-Known Member
I can only echo this post. Well said !Reading the article was like some of the posts that helped me understand the way FFP was affecting City over the last few years.
OK it was a comprehensive resume of financial matters but I have to say it mirrored the many posts that so many of our informed members held as beliefs.
Thank you once more to everyone who has contributed to this fabulous thread and patiently helped me to understand its many twists and turns.
Blueknows
Well-Known Member
Swiss rambles latest FFP update
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/manchester-city-i-threw-brick-through.html
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/manchester-city-i-threw-brick-through.html
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 30,150
An excellent article, as usual, by the Swiss rambler but a few points need to be raised that have been missed that are pretty important:
Point 1.
Manchester City were released from the constraints of FFP by UEFA in June. To have been released from FFP means that City MUST BE in profit in terms of FFP calculation for season 2014/15. There are no ifs and buts here to have been released from ALL FFP settlement constraints (as they were) City have to show an FFP profit in season 2014/15 or transfer spending would have been limited as per last season. The last sentence in Point 15 in the current FFP FAQ (point 17 in the original FFP FAQ version) confirms this by stating:
"If a club becomes breakeven compliant during the course of the settlement, all sanctions shall cease to apply for the following season, with the exception of the non-conditional element of the financial measure." In City's case the unconditional element was the £16m fine. UEFA's comments on releasing City from all FFP restrictions indicate that the provisional figures that led to City's release must be confirmed by City's audited accounts.
Point 2.
A minor point but around £2m in wage savings and £3.5m in sales have been missed. Milner and Richards were both earning an extra £1m a year (£19.2k a week) in wages than stated in the wage table and the sell-on sales of £700k earned on Trippier (sell on from Burnley to Spurs) and a minimum of £2.8m for Denis Suárez (sell on from Barca to Villarreal) are missing. Basically the whole transfer fee from Villarreal came to City with Barca only making money if he is sold on again.
Point 3.
The figures stated for players salary levels are those that will be paid if City JUST qualify for the Champions League - finishing 2nd or 1st in the Premier League, progressing further in the Champions League and winning Cups will boost every players salary levels considerably further. If City finish 2nd and get to the Champions League QF this year then this will bump up Sterling's salary to around £210k (base £160K), De Bruyne's to around £240k (base around £185k) and the rest of the team by similar amounts. The bonus structure is based on team success and is probably paid yearly in arrears for tax purposes - not in a lump sum).
For all forms of FFP (UEFA & Premier League)these bonus payments will still be considered as wage costs even though they are deferred. Indeed I can see City's total wage bill remaining static rather than decreasing. This means City would have to find an additional £18.2m in revenue a year rather than £8m a year to break even. Point 1 would suggest that this has occurred a year before the additional revenue is required to back up expenditure and City will be able to spend a considerable amount next year as well.
Point 1.
Manchester City were released from the constraints of FFP by UEFA in June. To have been released from FFP means that City MUST BE in profit in terms of FFP calculation for season 2014/15. There are no ifs and buts here to have been released from ALL FFP settlement constraints (as they were) City have to show an FFP profit in season 2014/15 or transfer spending would have been limited as per last season. The last sentence in Point 15 in the current FFP FAQ (point 17 in the original FFP FAQ version) confirms this by stating:
"If a club becomes breakeven compliant during the course of the settlement, all sanctions shall cease to apply for the following season, with the exception of the non-conditional element of the financial measure." In City's case the unconditional element was the £16m fine. UEFA's comments on releasing City from all FFP restrictions indicate that the provisional figures that led to City's release must be confirmed by City's audited accounts.
Point 2.
A minor point but around £2m in wage savings and £3.5m in sales have been missed. Milner and Richards were both earning an extra £1m a year (£19.2k a week) in wages than stated in the wage table and the sell-on sales of £700k earned on Trippier (sell on from Burnley to Spurs) and a minimum of £2.8m for Denis Suárez (sell on from Barca to Villarreal) are missing. Basically the whole transfer fee from Villarreal came to City with Barca only making money if he is sold on again.
Point 3.
The figures stated for players salary levels are those that will be paid if City JUST qualify for the Champions League - finishing 2nd or 1st in the Premier League, progressing further in the Champions League and winning Cups will boost every players salary levels considerably further. If City finish 2nd and get to the Champions League QF this year then this will bump up Sterling's salary to around £210k (base £160K), De Bruyne's to around £240k (base around £185k) and the rest of the team by similar amounts. The bonus structure is based on team success and is probably paid yearly in arrears for tax purposes - not in a lump sum).
For all forms of FFP (UEFA & Premier League)these bonus payments will still be considered as wage costs even though they are deferred. Indeed I can see City's total wage bill remaining static rather than decreasing. This means City would have to find an additional £18.2m in revenue a year rather than £8m a year to break even. Point 1 would suggest that this has occurred a year before the additional revenue is required to back up expenditure and City will be able to spend a considerable amount next year as well.
Last edited:
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 30,150
Going back to the subject of Karen Brady and her inability to grasp the basics of FFP it is interesting to compare the costs of the the conversion of both stadia for the use of Football and how long it will take the club to pay for the costs of the stadium...
The City of Manchester Stadium, built for a cost of £112m of which £77m came from Sport England & £35m from Manchester Council. MCFC then spent £50m of there own money converting it to a Football Stadium. City then paid a rent of £2m a year that in the fullness of time would have resulted in City paying the stadium construction and conversion costs over 54 years.
After Sheikh Mansour took over, City tried to buy the Stadium but discovered all the money would go to Sport England rather than Manchester sport projects, so to keep the money going to Manchester sports projects City bought the Stadium naming rights and doubled the amount they paid to to council to £4m a year allowing the stadium to be extended (at City's cost). As such City now pay rent that will pay for the stadium in 26 years. With an additional £296m going to council sports projects over the first 100 years of the lease.
Lets now look at West Ham. I'll ignore the £486m of stadium construction costs as after conversion the Olympic Stadium can still be used for Athletics and just concentrate on the costs to upgrade it to be West Ham's new home. West Ham are paying £15m to add to the tax payers £275m to fund conversion - while only paying rent of £2.5m INCLUDING stadium naming rights when used as a football stadium (The XXX Olympic Stadium). As such West Ham will pay for their use of the stadium in 110 years! That's 4 times longer than City will take to pay for the whole stadium and it's conversion.
Compared with West Ham's OUTRAGEOUS deal for the Olympic Stadium the cost of COMS is an absolute bargain! I think Brady is 'aving a total Giraffe and should look a bit closer to home for dodgy deals
The City of Manchester Stadium, built for a cost of £112m of which £77m came from Sport England & £35m from Manchester Council. MCFC then spent £50m of there own money converting it to a Football Stadium. City then paid a rent of £2m a year that in the fullness of time would have resulted in City paying the stadium construction and conversion costs over 54 years.
After Sheikh Mansour took over, City tried to buy the Stadium but discovered all the money would go to Sport England rather than Manchester sport projects, so to keep the money going to Manchester sports projects City bought the Stadium naming rights and doubled the amount they paid to to council to £4m a year allowing the stadium to be extended (at City's cost). As such City now pay rent that will pay for the stadium in 26 years. With an additional £296m going to council sports projects over the first 100 years of the lease.
Lets now look at West Ham. I'll ignore the £486m of stadium construction costs as after conversion the Olympic Stadium can still be used for Athletics and just concentrate on the costs to upgrade it to be West Ham's new home. West Ham are paying £15m to add to the tax payers £275m to fund conversion - while only paying rent of £2.5m INCLUDING stadium naming rights when used as a football stadium (The XXX Olympic Stadium). As such West Ham will pay for their use of the stadium in 110 years! That's 4 times longer than City will take to pay for the whole stadium and it's conversion.
Compared with West Ham's OUTRAGEOUS deal for the Olympic Stadium the cost of COMS is an absolute bargain! I think Brady is 'aving a total Giraffe and should look a bit closer to home for dodgy deals
Last edited:
FootieFan86
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 202
- Team supported
- Liverpool FC
Hear hear.Going back to the subject of Karen Brady and her inability to grasp the basics of FFP it is interesting to compare the costs of the the conversion of both stadia for the use of Football and how long it will take the club to pay for the costs of the stadium...
The City of Manchester Stadium, built for a cost of £112m of which £77m came from Sport England & £35m from Manchester Council. MCFC then spent £50m of there own money converting it to a Football Stadium. City then paid a rent of £2m a year that in the fullness of time would have resulted in City paying the stadium construction and conversion costs over 54 years.
After Sheikh Mansour took over, City tried to buy the Stadium but discovered all the money would go to Sport England rather than Manchester sport projects, so to keep the money going to Manchester sports projects City bought the Stadium naming rights and doubled the amount they paid to to council to £4m a year allowing the stadium to be extended (at City's cost). As such City now pay rent that will pay for the stadium in 26 years. With an additional £296m going to council sports projects over the first 100 years of the lease.
Lets now look at West Ham. I'll ignore the £486m of stadium construction costs as after conversion the Olympic Stadium can still be used for Athletics and just concentrate on the costs to upgrade it to be West Ham's new home. West Ham are paying £15m to add to the tax payers £275m to fund conversion - while only paying rent of £2.5m INCLUDING stadium naming rights when used as a football stadium (The XXX Olympic Stadium). As such West Ham will pay for their use of the stadium in 110 years! That's 4 times longer than City will take to pay for the whole stadium and it's conversion.
Compared with West Ham's OUTRAGEOUS deal for the Olympic Stadium the cost of COMS is an absolute bargain! I think Brady is 'aving a total Giraffe and should look a bit closer to home for dodgy deals
Total shambles and a classic case of daylight robbery that West Ham have pulled on the British tax payer.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Hear hear.
Total shambles and a classic case of daylight robbery that West Ham have pulled on the British tax payer.
G'wan the Hammers.
dave_blue12
Well-Known Member
Going back to the subject of Karen Brady and her inability to grasp the basics of FFP it is interesting to compare the costs of the the conversion of both stadia for the use of Football and how long it will take the club to pay for the costs of the stadium...
The City of Manchester Stadium, built for a cost of £112m of which £77m came from Sport England & £35m from Manchester Council. MCFC then spent £50m of there own money converting it to a Football Stadium. City then paid a rent of £2m a year that in the fullness of time would have resulted in City paying the stadium construction and conversion costs over 54 years.
After Sheikh Mansour took over, City tried to buy the Stadium but discovered all the money would go to Sport England rather than Manchester sport projects, so to keep the money going to Manchester sports projects City bought the Stadium naming rights and doubled the amount they paid to to council to £4m a year allowing the stadium to be extended (at City's cost). As such City now pay rent that will pay for the stadium in 26 years. With an additional £296m going to council sports projects over the first 100 years of the lease.
Lets now look at West Ham. I'll ignore the £486m of stadium construction costs as after conversion the Olympic Stadium can still be used for Athletics and just concentrate on the costs to upgrade it to be West Ham's new home. West Ham are paying £15m to add to the tax payers £275m to fund conversion - while only paying rent of £2.5m INCLUDING stadium naming rights when used as a football stadium (The XXX Olympic Stadium). As such West Ham will pay for their use of the stadium in 110 years! That's 4 times longer than City will take to pay for the whole stadium and it's conversion.
Didn't City also hand Maine Rd to the Council as part of the deal. As I understand West Ham are not doing this.
Compared with West Ham's OUTRAGEOUS deal for the Olympic Stadium the cost of COMS is an absolute bargain! I think Brady is 'aving a total Giraffe and should look a bit closer to home for dodgy deals
I thought City also handed over Maine Rd as part of the deal. Not sure WH doing same
West Ham have sold their ground and are allowed to keep proceeds according to BBC documentaryI thought City also handed over Maine Rd as part of the deal. Not sure WH doing same
dave_blue12
Well-Known Member
West Ham have sold their ground and are allowed to keep proceeds according to BBC documentary
Incredible !
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
You can hardly blame West Ham for securing a very good deal. Blame the government for building a white elephant, and then failing to secure a good deal for the sell on.
West Ham are simply the buyer. If I put in a cheeky offer on a house well below the true value, and the seller accepts the deal, you can't blame me!
Then you have to look at another way too. The government is ultimately left with a white elephant on its hands. If the best offer is a measly one, what should it do? hold out for a better offer that might never arrive? Or accept it's a buyer's market, and at least recoup SOME money (even if it's a pitiful amount)?
Perhaps they would have been better to just knock it down and sell the land on, but that would incur a very heavy political price too, which is also a factor in all of this.
This only become a real story if there's a comparison with other bids for the stadium, THEN the public can start asking questions about why West Ham were chosen.
West Ham are simply the buyer. If I put in a cheeky offer on a house well below the true value, and the seller accepts the deal, you can't blame me!
Then you have to look at another way too. The government is ultimately left with a white elephant on its hands. If the best offer is a measly one, what should it do? hold out for a better offer that might never arrive? Or accept it's a buyer's market, and at least recoup SOME money (even if it's a pitiful amount)?
Perhaps they would have been better to just knock it down and sell the land on, but that would incur a very heavy political price too, which is also a factor in all of this.
This only become a real story if there's a comparison with other bids for the stadium, THEN the public can start asking questions about why West Ham were chosen.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 30,150
As it's champions League night, let's look at the impact of CL prize money on FFP.
Ignoring ticket money, CL prize money for this season increases by 50% (ish)
So qualifying for the group stage = €12.0m (previously €8.6m);
Each group win = €1.5m (€1.0m);
Each group draw = €0.5m (€0.5m);
R16 qualification = €5.5m (€3.5m);
QF qualification = €6.0m (€3.9m);
SF qualification = €7.0m (€4.9m);
Runner Up = €10.5m (€6.5m);
Winner = €15.0m (€10.5m);
Max = €54.5m (€37.4m);
And any club can still only invest €35m over 3 seasons to comply with UEFA FFP!
The existing prize money already turns the list of regular CL qualifiers into a Cartel - The new prize money levels make it very difficult even for a club like Utd to get back in to the CL if you drop out!
Ignoring ticket money, CL prize money for this season increases by 50% (ish)
So qualifying for the group stage = €12.0m (previously €8.6m);
Each group win = €1.5m (€1.0m);
Each group draw = €0.5m (€0.5m);
R16 qualification = €5.5m (€3.5m);
QF qualification = €6.0m (€3.9m);
SF qualification = €7.0m (€4.9m);
Runner Up = €10.5m (€6.5m);
Winner = €15.0m (€10.5m);
Max = €54.5m (€37.4m);
And any club can still only invest €35m over 3 seasons to comply with UEFA FFP!
The existing prize money already turns the list of regular CL qualifiers into a Cartel - The new prize money levels make it very difficult even for a club like Utd to get back in to the CL if you drop out!
crazyg
Well-Known Member
So the rags will spend all theirs on getting rid of the rat infestation. Come to think of it, there would then be an empty ground on match days.Here's an idea for actual fair FFP. Anyone can spend what they like but at least 10% of all spend annually must be on infrastructure/academy or else you'll be sanctioned.