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

[Henkeman]

The problem they have with getting this through is that quite a few of the old G14 will be strongly against it - specifically the English clubs. Last time it was unanimous as the target was plainly City and PSG and it was in the interests of the likes of United to try and stop them. This time it would hamper United every bit as much as anyone else. They might only have one vote each, but the dubious legality of such a scheme allied to the strongest league in UEFA being opposed means I can't see how it could get through as proposed. They were sailing so close to the wind in legal terms last time - something so obviously in the self-interest of a few and aimed squarely at preventing competition has serious problems.

 

[schfc6]

So what will the limitation of transfer expenses really do?

1. There will be players who can not change clubs anymore, because they will cost more than 100 million.
2. Wages will go up, as it will be the way for the big clubs to attract the best players.

It looks to me like the best players will still end up at the biggest clubs, and it will be even more difficult for smaller clubs to grow bigger. All in all nothing new it seems.

If it's based on net spend as mooted, then we will see most clubs adopting the Chelsea model. Have 30-40 players out on loan and hope 20% of them make an impact and get sold for big money.

 

[BlueAnorak]

For FFP to work as originally intended:
Available spend = Income- debt.
Salary Cap = Same max across the board based on available spend.
Net Transfer Cap = Same max actoss the board based on available spend.
Mandatory transfer fee for players winding down contracts in leagues with minimal completion for the main prize.

But that isn't going to happen is It?

 

[dickie davies]

For FFP to work as originally intended:
Available spend = Income- debt.
Salary Cap = Same max across the board
Net Transfer Cap = Same actoss the biard.
Mandatory transfer fee for players winding down contracts in leagues with minimal completion for the main prize.

But that isn't going to happen is It?

A salary cap can't be implemented because of currency exchange rates
And I think the same applies to transfers

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

Yeah think they saying 90m net but how we going to sell a player for 150m when that club can’t spend more than 90m net? It will mean that club will have to sell first as well it’s a shambles.

Thanks - seems bonkers if you ask me. Why don't they just go out and say that there is a transfer fee and salary cap for all clubs wearing blue who play in a stadium in Manchester.

 

[scousemanc]

Thanks - seems bonkers if you ask me. Why don't they just go out and say that there is a transfer fee and salary cap for all clubs wearing blue who play in a stadium in Manchester.

You could get a job with UEFA

 

[Mid Wales blue]

It's 100M. You would need to sell a player for 10M to make the limit.

This could have bosman ramifications.
If say a club can’t spend more than the 90 million net, in any financial year, then this will have knock on affects to the contracts a player signed.
Any club can put an out of reach price on all players that they don’t want to lose. And in doing so restrict the contracted players progression.

Currently clubs (apart from the elite) buy players, not only as playing staff for the here and now, but as a future investment. These players are also using the club as a developing place, and also a shop window.

At the moment this works both ways fairly well. But as soon as the maximum spend comes in, then the players won’t want to go to a development club, as fear of having to see out a contract, due to what the club value that player at.

More contracts will be signed over longer periods for young players, currently average 4 to 5 years, probably increased to 6 to 8 years. Any players who for some reason, feel their playing time is being restricted, or have not settled at a club, will be stuck there, due to spend and squad caps.

With smaller squad size, comes the problem of less players available to choose from, thus increasing the value of “all players across the board”.

Restrictions placed on the football clubs of Europe, will end up with a league that mirrors the MLS. TV revenue will soon leave the game as it will become as sterile as Soccer in the States.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

There are no new rules yet. There is a proposal without many details.

Correct. It doesn’t make sense as it stands so I wouldn’t expect to see it implemented as a pure net spend figure, although nothing would surprise me.

For example, at the end of last season, we released 5 players who were at the end of their contracts. That’s 5 lots of wages off the bottom line so let’s say that’s £25m. That means we could buy a player for £90m (who we’d amortise at £18m a year) and pay him £130k a week (£6.5m a year), meaning we’d be no worse off than we were before. But theoretically we’d be in breach of the net spend limit of €100m (c£86m). That seems daft if implemented in that way & completely contrary to the notion of clubs living within their means.

If they are seeking to control transfer spending then I’d suggest one of two ways to do it:

1) Set out a formula that can be applied to all clubs that balances revenue, profits, fees & wages paid, player sales & profits/losses on those sales. So something like:
(Amortisation + wages on new players) - (amortisation & wages on players sold/released) cannot exceed more than 10% of turnover + 20% of any profits on player trading or minus 50% of any losses.

2) Set out a player pricing formula to be applied across UEFA that set a price based on a number of variables that might include:

• Player age
• Player position
• Number of first team games played
• Number of caps
• Nationality (on the grounds that a 25 year old Spanish midfield player with 50 caps is likely to be worth more than a similar Moldovan one)
• Maybe some sort of Opta rating

Both of those would make it a more level playing field in some ways.

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

Correct. It doesn’t make sense as it stands so I wouldn’t expect to see it implemented as a pure net spend figure, although nothing would surprise me.

For example, at the end of last season, we released 5 players who were at the end of their contracts. That’s 5 lots of wages off the bottom line so let’s say that’s £25m. That means we could buy a player for £90m (who we’d amortise at £18m a year) and pay him £130k a week (£6.5m a year), meaning we’d be no worse off than we were before. But theoretically we’d be in breach of the net spend limit of €100m (c£86m). That seems daft if implemented in that way & completely contrary to the notion of clubs living within their means.

If they are seeking to control transfer spending then I’d suggest one of two ways to do it:

1) Set out a formula that can be applied to all clubs that balances revenue, profits, fees & wages paid, player sales & profits/losses on those sales. So something like:
(Amortisation + wages on new players) - (amortisation & wages on players sold/released) cannot exceed more than 10% of turnover + 20% of any profits on player trading or minus 50% of any losses.

2) Set out a player pricing formula to be applied across UEFA that set a price based on a number of variables that might include:

• Player age
• Player position
• Number of first team games played
• Number of caps
• Nationality (on the grounds that a 25 year old Spanish midfield player with 50 caps is likely to be worth more than a similar Moldovan one)
• Maybe some sort of Opta rating

Both of those would make it a more level playing field in some ways.

Your last sentence means it will never be implemented how you suggest...

 

[Blue Mist]

Martin Samuel has done a great article and he highlights why this is likely to come in. It is to stop us. Last I heard Samuel was not part of the Manchester City Conspiracy Forum that regularly gets slagged off on here. He is an independent, well respected journalist and he says quite simply it is to stop us (and PSG)

 

[squirtyflower]

Martin Samuel has done a great article and he highlights why this is likely to come in. It is to stop us. Last I heard Samuel was not part of the Manchester City Conspiracy Forum that regularly gets slagged off on here. He is an independent, well respected journalist and he says quite simply it is to stop us (and PSG)

Yes, but the naysayers and ostriches never appear in these threads because they can't defend it.

 

[Blue Mist]

Yes, but the naysayers and ostriches never appear in these threads because they can't defend it.

i also typed it wrong, it should of course read The BlueMoon Conspiracy Forum glad you knew what I meant.
He even says in his article that the original FFP was meant to tackle debt but that would have adversely affected the rags so they didnt implement it, instead they brough in FFP 1 which we supposedly fell foul off but it did not stop us. For that sole reason they are bringing in FFP 2. I didnt say that Martin Samuel did. But of course there is no conspiracy.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Martin Samuel has done a great article and he highlights why this is likely to come in. It is to stop us. Last I heard Samuel was not part of the Manchester City Conspiracy Forum that regularly gets slagged off on here. He is an independent, well respected journalist and he says quite simply it is to stop us (and PSG)

Yep, he mocks conspiracy theorists regularly. I think on Wednesdays he has a column where he takes down some of the correspondence sent to him. I fully expect this week's to have a lot aimed at his praise of City.

 

[Rammyblues]

This will backfire on the so called istory clubs just as FFP1 did. Unless the clubs get all there so called signings in before this comes into effect down the line they will become croppers. eg The rags have 100m net to spend, the 100m could be straight cash which to them them is no problem but because of inflated market the player they want is costing 150m. They would have to sell enough of their players so that the end result is 100m net. Who the fuck would want to buy any of the rags players for 50m? Same with RM they have targeted a spend of 650m (according to press), one assumes they will offload Ronaldo and Bales for large amounts to compensate, who the hell could afford those sums of money for worn out players.

I actually think the model ourselves and Chelsea have of signing loaning and then selling is the way forward but no doubt that will be outlawed.

Finally to be fair to UEFA they will use this as an excuse to curb transfer fee inflation but that has been caused by the Rags, Liverpool Real Madrid Barca and PSG so I am not certain why they think these regs will only affect us.

Tin hat on.

 

[Andrew___K]

If this does come to pass, does it not give the elite (arguably all) players even more bargaining power?

Knowing full well that clubs will only have a £90m transfer deficit to deal with, they purposely run their contracts down; the buying club get a lower or "free" deal and the player can name his price.

Or does the deficit include wages as well?

Took this post from Cafe, I think it explains the Big Boys' anti-PL plan very well (written by Utd supporter if I'm not mistaken):

The difference is the likes of Bayern, Real & Barcelona don't want to have to spend this amount. They want to be able to cherry pick the best players from their leagues at the minimum cost possible.

Bayern for example want to be able to sign the best Bundesliga players, whilst paying the smallest possible fee's. In fact I'd go one step further and say Bayern want to get players to run down their contract to sign them on a free. They would have been incredibly irritated by City snatching De Bruyne, Sane & Gundogan; as historically they'd have probably gotten all three for a minimal fee. Likewise their reported interest in Sanchez was curbed the second they heard of his salary demands which could have been met by multiple PL clubs. Barcelona likewise are naturally furious that PSG were able to trigger Neymar's release clause, but also that Liverpool could hold out for £140m, rather than the much smaller £65m they were able to sign Suarez for. They tried all the tricks in the book with transfer requests and even pushed him to go on strike... But the net result was having to write a £140m cheque. I'm sure Real Madrid are likewise getting nervous about the quoted costs to replace Ronaldo/Benzema/Bale - the £200m fee for these three combined players is likely to not even be enough to sign one forward like Harry Kane.

Bayern, Madrid & Barcelona are likely to always have a higher revenue than Liverpool. However when Liverpool can offer a larger transfer fee than any of those three (and indeed anyone full stop) have ever spent on a central defender, along with a weekly salary comparable to any defender in the world, it decreases the amount leverage that those three clubs have historically had. If Hummels had 2 years left on his contract in the current climate - The likes of United, City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal would have the funds to offer them £75m, meaning Bayern would either have to pay up or step back, as they did with De Bruyne, Sane etc. Likewise if Suarez were now leaving Liverpool - Barcelona would have to pay a Coutinho type fee as they'd know there would be 3-4 other clubs willing to spend a nine figure sum on him (unlike the other offer at the time - Arsenal £40,000,001)

The fact that United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs & Liverpool all have a transfer record that is now higher than Bayern's illustrates why they're pushing for change.

 

[Jalfraag]

Yes, but the naysayers and ostriches never appear in these threads because they can't defend it.

I was wondering why there's a lack of the usual drivel in this thread.

 

[JULES]

Probably already been posted elsewhere but this probably has a lot to do with it(send this to every oil money spouting rag you know):
Broadcasting Income Comparison:


Domestically up there with anyone and most likely still rapidly growing in Europe since Pep arrived, especially on this seasons form. Most watched PL club in the US last figures we had, working on China, probably have eyes on South America with the Brazilian summer tour proposals if we are not yet already the most watched PL club. Things are looking pretty good for us and they don't like it.

well as I have said on here many times, here in south America we are no 1 news, all the sports programmes start with city, spend hours talking about city, then Chelsea, then a snippet on united and the arse. Liverpool and spuds are considered also rans. at the moment we have south America sewn up, how long that will last I don't know.

 

[aguero93:20]

well as I have said on here many times, here in south America we are no 1 news, all the sports programmes start with city, spend hours talking about city, then Chelsea, then a snippet on united and the arse. Liverpool and spuds are considered also rans. at the moment we have south America sewn up, how long that will last I don't know.

Hardly surprising mate, we're playing a style that's like the best of South American football with a healthy dose of Arrigo Sacchi.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Great article by Samuel who puts most of his media colleagues to shame. I think we are heading for a massive battle between the Premier League and the likes of Bayern, Barca, and Real. I'm not sure United are even part of the cartel any more as they will also lose out long-term if FFP2 comes in. The fight is now between the top English clubs, who are bloated with TV money, and the rest of Europe. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. I wonder if our ongoing split with the EU will influence things.

 

[BLUE THUNDER]

Great article by Samuel who puts most of his media colleagues to shame. I think we are heading for a massive battle between the Premier League and the likes of Bayern, Barca, and Real. I'm not sure United are even part of the cartel any more as they will also lose out long-term if FFP2 comes in. The fight is now between the top English clubs, who are bloated with TV money, and the rest of Europe. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. I wonder if our ongoing split with the EU will influence things.

I agree.
I think this is instigated by La Liga and aimed against the EPL clubs and curtailing the advantage their huge TV revenue provides.
La Liga feel threatened and are desperate to stay prominent. When Neymar left shit hit the fan which has prompted this new FFP2.
Hope they fall flat on their face the greedy hypocrits