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

Citizen Green said:
What is your assessment of the proposed rules themselves, are they practical and a real long term solution to football finance?
Click to expand...
They're better than the current rules but I'm not sure they're practical. How are clubs going to be able to adjust their wage bill significantly when most players are on 5-year contracts? If united go out of the CL at the group stage, as they did a while back, that could cost 10% of their turnover. So contracts will probably have to be heavily performance based.

And they don't answer the question of long-term sustainability either. Imagine two clubs with identical revenue who both meet that 70% limit on football spending. But one has to pay a net £150m in transfer liabilities the following season while the other is owed a net £50m. If the first club don't have that money and can't pay it, they will potentially face administration.

I hate to say this about Tebas but the system in La Liga, which looks at what clubs can afford to spend in the coming year, is far better.
 
So the same basic premise? The richest clubs can spend more than the poorest? No matter how much a wealthy entrepreneur wants to put into a club they will not be able to spend as much as utd/bayern/barca/etc. And now City too.

Why cant they just set a figure that everyone can spend ffs! (With a set allowance/percentage for debt)
 
I don’t quite get how these new rules differ from the existing FFP rules? Ultimately spending is linked to revenue so no room for investment. Seems like it’s jus repackaged and given a different name.
 
So it wasn't enough to spend what your earn because certain owners don't like their club doing too much of that. Now they want to limit how much of their own revenue a club can spend? No doubt, it's nothing to do with what a club owes on transfers or any debts a club might have.

Sounds like a rule proposition written in America. (cough-John Henry-cough)

I may be cynical but if this gets passed, I just see this heading into a situation where they will limit some clubs more than others(they'll add those cartel club clauses later). Artificial financial control.
 
Last edited:
To me the obvious solution was always to steal baseball’s luxury tax system where teams who want to spend can do so but each incremental signing triggers huge taxes which can be redistributed. Better for the health of the entire pyramid and better for players. These asinine systems which tie spending power to revenue either limit player incomes so that billionaires can be more rich and/or make it impossible for any clubs to challenge the current top clubs. It’s so disheartening to me that they went back to this well
 
What does a club do with the spare 30% anyway?? Only so many things a club can spend money on besides players.

Obviously some owners want that extra cash in their back pocket guaranteed. Like the US systems where player earnings are capped as a percentage of income.
 
waspish said:
Where happening to the premier ffp?
Click to expand...
Sly sports will be along soon enough with a guilty verdict. The panel was made up from partisan pricks who take money from America, Qatar and Saudi with special mention to the excellent journalist integrity on show from Der Smeagol.

It’s over, we our long gone. Next attack is to try and destabilise the club by calling our owner a war mongering Muslim. All in the name of fair competition ;)
 
halfcenturyup said:
Well quite, not sure why anyone would draw any conclusions from total revenue as a multiple of social media following. Commercial income, maybe, and if anyone looked at that, they would see City are at the high end, but Bayern, Spurs, Dortmund and PSG are all higher than City. Seems they have some pretty good commercial people too.

Actually, commercial income as a proportion of broadcast income may be the best indication of commercial prowess, including as it does both monies for success and for global coverage. I may have a look at that ....
Click to expand...

I had a look at this, if anyone is interested. My rationale was this: commercial income should follow two things: success on the pitch and visibility to domestic and global audiences. I have equated these two with broadcast income (the more success, the bigger share of broadcast income; the better access to domestic/global audiences, the bigger share of broadcast income).

Now if we make league tables of commercial income and broadcast income, there is a strong correlation between the places in each, mostly within a couple of places of each other.

In 2022, the exceptions are:

City are first in broadcast income but only fourth in commercial income. The opposite of overstated commercial income, this shows more that our performance has been exceptional. I would argue there is a pretty good reason for that. His name is Josep.

Bayern are first in commercial income and seventh in broadcast income, indicating that their commercial income is out of line with their success and global reach. Nothing to do with their shareholder sponsorships, I imagine.

PSG are second in commercial income and eighth in broadcast income. I think we all know why their commercial income is so high compared to their success and global reach. Qatar (cough).

Liverpool are interesting. They are seventh in commercial income and fourth in broadcast income. The previous two years they were seventh/second and seventh/first. This means either they are weak commercially, or over performing as a team, possibly both. As I am attributing slanderous reasons to each club, I will go with asthma inhalers and energy drinks for Liverpool.

Chelsea are also interesting. Only ninth in commercial income but third in broadcast income. Why the discrepancy? Maybe no-one wanted to be associated with Abramovich even before Ukraine?

The others' positions in these "tables" in 2022 were: Real third/second; Barcelona fifth/fifth; United sixth/sixth; Juve eighth/ninth; Spuds tenth/tenth.

Conclusion? It's all a load of bollocks, of course, but it is as good as Crafton and Harris, the financial experts, casting aspersions on our commercial income.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Got to be approved first but they're talking about implementing them over a 3 year period, with the limit being 90% first year, then 80% and then 70%. As usual, it's a pile of horse shit as just looking at the Profit & Loss account for previous years tells you very little, if anything, about a club's future financial issues.
Click to expand...
Yes. Just another version of ffp, stifling competition for G14 and preventing innovative business models.
 
I know Abramovich invested in Chelsea before FFP but apparently he has been propping up the club with “soft” loans since that equate to losses of 900k per week.

Can anyone explain how this practice doesn’t infringe FFP rules?
 
hammocity said:
I know Abramovich invested in Chelsea before FFP but apparently he has been propping up the club with “soft” loans since that equate to losses of 900k per week.

Can anyone explain how this practice doesn’t infringe FFP rules?
Click to expand...

Putting money into a club as loans doesn't impact FFP at all, AFAIAK. Losses do, of course, but 900K a week doesn't sound right. Maybe for a few months of the year depending on timing of broadcast and sponsorship income?
 
hammocity said:
I know Abramovich invested in Chelsea before FFP but apparently he has been propping up the club with “soft” loans since that equate to losses of 900k per week.

Can anyone explain how this practice doesn’t infringe FFP rules?
Click to expand...

I think it's a matter of how FFP works. It counts amortisation for example (which doesn't need real cash on an ongoing basis), Infrastructure costs are not counted either - someone is still paying for it though.

Basically a cash injection of 50M does not necessarily look like 50M for FFP purposes.

calling @Prestwich_Blue, if he's got time to supply a better answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top