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

[domalino]

I may be looking at this through rose-coloured specs but it might work in our favour in some ways. It might help get rid of the "City premium" that we seem to be asked to pay all the time. If we can say to selling clusb "Sorry chaps. Can't pay that as we've already spent €70m net and we aren't selling anyone else".

Pretty much any feasible FFP rule is going to protect us more than harm us now. Anything based on revenue, avoiding losses or a spending cap is only ever going to benefit the team with the 5th highest revenue in the world, virtually 0 debt, with one of the best squads and infrastructures, playing the best football and winning trophies.

The new FFP will be pushing to level the European playing field and let Germany and Italy keep up with the Premier League, not stop us specifically. United and Spurs made a bit of a mockery of it, but 4/5 English teams in the last 16 should be standard now and that'll start turning into 3/4 in the last 8.

People like Agnelli and Rummenigge have been waiting for the English to work out how to use their disproportionate wealth properly and now they're worried it's happened.

 

[aguero93:20]

I may be looking at this through rose-coloured specs but it might work in our favour in some ways. It might help get rid of the "City premium" that we seem to be asked to pay all the time. If we can say to selling clusb "Sorry chaps. Can't pay that as we've already spent €70m net and we aren't selling anyone else".

Never works that way Colin, you can't apply artificial deflation to an inflationary market without severe checks and balances that do more harm than good.

 

[ste.sully]

Not sure what the big issue is. We got in before the door "shut". UEFA watered down FFP rules because they knew they were fundamentally anti-competitive. Although we think football clubs as football clubs - at the end of the day, whether you like it or not they are limited companies - City included. If it was tested in court they would rule in favour of the claimant who argued it was anti-competitive on the basis competing companies are coercing others into spending less, whether through investment or salaries.

It never got that far because clubs like City were willing to work with UEFA to reduce their bills and gradually comply. domalino hit the nail on the head a few posts back by saying: "any feasible FFP rule is going to protect us more than harm us now". City knew this in 2012 and could become an established top European club as the drawbridge was closing.

 

[Cobwebcat]

I may be looking at this through rose-coloured specs but it might work in our favour in some ways. It might help get rid of the "City premium" that we seem to be asked to pay all the time. If we can say to selling clusb "Sorry chaps. Can't pay that as we've already spent €70m net and we aren't selling anyone else".

Not really as it seems the original ffp rules still apply. 100 mill net is just one of the two new triggers to investigate. You can still spend what your revenue allows you to and presumably we could always have said to selling clubs we are at our revenue limit for ffp.

 

[Colthekid]

We don't actually have zero debt.
We've a liability for the stadium, money owing on future transfers and a few other bits n pieces. Nothing like most clubs but we do have debt

Not quite right I'm afraid (from someone who knows these things!)

We don't have any long term debt, but we do have current liabilities (sometimes called upcoming liabilities)

http://www.investinganswers.com/financial-dictionary/businesses-corporations/current-liability-5247

The key line being..."It is important to note here that although debt commonly comes to mind when one considers liabilities, not all liabilities are debt."

 

[BlueAnorak]

Clearly the €100m rule was floated and knocked back by Real and Manure as they have to spend really big to catch up ( with Barca and ourselves).
They're clearly finding it a bit difficult to formulate a rule that says: "You can only spend if you have 'Istory"

 

[domalino]

Not really as it seems the original ffp rules still apply. 100 mill net is just one of the two new triggers to investigate. You can still spend what your revenue allows you to and presumably we could always have said to selling clubs we are at our revenue limit for ffp.

What he's outlined is actually deregulation of smaller clubs.

 

[dickie davies]

Clearly the €100m rule was floated and knocked back by Real and Manure as they have to spend really big to catch up ( with Barca and ourselves).
They're clearly finding it a bit difficult to formulate a rule that says: "You can only spend if you have 'Istory"

They've introduced one for coefficient points, so it can't be long before "historic" or "heritage" is used in regards to how much a club can spend

 

[Neville Kneville]

I'm wondering about the line regarding 'everyone using the same accounting methods' & exactly what that means.

We have the CFG, which is consolidating City's strength around the world & threatening all kinds of nighmares for these ****s (who can't afford to set up their own similar organisation) & I'm pretty sure that these fuckers are absolutely desperate to put a stop to it, if they can find a way.

 

[SilverFox2]

Whilst new FFP regs are being prepared is it likely that our success in improving players within our successful team will have a big impact on our player salaries?
We rightly pulled out of the Sanchez deal for financial reasons but will renegotiation of existing player contracts force us to sell, indeed will it become part of our commercial success to say sell Jesus or Sterling who seem to be stalling regarding contract renegotiation thus improving our income side of the business ?

Currently we appear to have happy players but are their agents happy ? They see us improving their value but they get no share unless we sell.