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

[stony]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You could, but if you don't tell them what's happening, as there's nothing outside London and the M25 to speak of, then they won't ever learn or know the truth.

I had this very same problem on SSC regarding City and FFPR. Denial or ignorance, or both. However, overtime and after many posts, those who questioned Sheikh Mansour, City, and me, now have an insight into what's going on at City and in the wider community. Yes some still can't see past Sheikh Mansour, his billions, buying success, corrupting football, and not doing things the right way.(arf!) But many now see and understand the bigger picture of what Sheikh Mansour is doing for the club and the wider community as a whole. :-)

its a mix of all when you have most football journo (and medias) spreading bullshits and lies instead of facts (city ruining football, money)

the nature of football fans (not all but big proportion) who are blinded by hatred and jealousy towards other's success

so it gives you a clear image of the deluded arse fans

some people just wishing City to crumble why ? i don't know !

but give it 5 years and things will change

Oh my!

Can you image what the training academy and the Etihad stadium are going to look like in 5 years time. As for the Collar Site and Etihad Campus around the stadium, who knows? But one thing is for sure, it's going to look mind blowing, whatever's planned and built.

As for City's revenues. Bye, bye Arsenal. And by the time the leisure destination of national and international significance is built, and the Etihad Campus is fully operational, bye, bye United.

It's just that United, Arsenal, etc, fans, just can't see it and don't get it. The vast majority of them haven't got a f***ing(sorry for swearing) clue what's being built and being planned. Oh my word, are they in for a shock! :-)

Why did I immediately think of the Death Star in Star Wars when I read that.

 

[Rammyblues]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Why did I immediately think of the Death Star in Star Wars when I read that.

Except they won't have OB1 or any Jedi (red) knights to save them. :-)

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Arsenal represent everything that is bad in football. A club that has ripped off its own supporters for years, has hardly invested anything in its local community and exists only to put more money into the back pockets of its wealthy board members. I had lots of respect for the old Arsenal. They had great supporters rooted in North London. Their new breed of fans are truly sickening and amongst the most ignorant in the country. The business model at Arsenal, which essentially revolves around its board taking money out of the club and investing it abroad, is never challenged by our media. The won the FA Cup with one less English player (one) than we won the league with but we were painted as the bad guys. These days I despise Arsenal almost as much as the rags.

Bravo. +1. I feel exactly the same way.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I expect this has been done, but it's only just crossed my mind.......

With Fernando deal reportedly close to being announced, I'm reading that there are add-ons as per usual

So how does that work with the 60m Euro cap? Do they value the basic deal.......in which case City have a loophole.....structure every deal with add-ons, or is the whole potential package taken into account even if it will never be realised. Surely not

I'm guessing the cap would be based on the base amount payable.

 

[CITYBOY1000]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I expect this has been done, but it's only just crossed my mind.......

With Fernando deal reportedly close to being announced, I'm reading that there are add-ons as per usual

So how does that work with the 60m Euro cap? Do they value the basic deal.......in which case City have a loophole.....structure every deal with add-ons, or is the whole potential package taken into account even if it will never be realised. Surely not

I'm guessing the cap would be based on the base amount payable.

It has to be surely.

The add-ons are conditional upon the happening of certain events which might not happen. They can't be included in the cap.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I expect this has been done, but it's only just crossed my mind.......

With Fernando deal reportedly close to being announced, I'm reading that there are add-ons as per usual

So how does that work with the 60m Euro cap? Do they value the basic deal.......in which case City have a loophole.....structure every deal with add-ons, or is the whole potential package taken into account even if it will never be realised. Surely not

I'm guessing the cap would be based on the base amount payable.

It has to be surely.

The add-ons are conditional upon the happening of certain events which might not happen. They can't be included in the cap.

If so then City will be looking to structure every deal we do in this window in this fashion. Give the seller club some easily attainable add-ons, at a slightly higher overall value, and everyone is happy

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I expect this has been done, but it's only just crossed my mind.......

With Fernando deal reportedly close to being announced, I'm reading that there are add-ons as per usual

So how does that work with the 60m Euro cap? Do they value the basic deal.......in which case City have a loophole.....structure every deal with add-ons, or is the whole potential package taken into account even if it will never be realised. Surely not

I'm guessing the cap would be based on the base amount payable.

It will be based on the amount paid over the time period - i.e. now till 1st July 2015.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I expect this has been done, but it's only just crossed my mind.......

With Fernando deal reportedly close to being announced, I'm reading that there are add-ons as per usual

So how does that work with the 60m Euro cap? Do they value the basic deal.......in which case City have a loophole.....structure every deal with add-ons, or is the whole potential package taken into account even if it will never be realised. Surely not

I'm guessing the cap would be based on the base amount payable.

It will be based on the amount paid over the time period - i.e. now till 1st July 2015.

In that case there's no cap at all. Just pay by instalments - many deals are done that way

 

[gmckennasell]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

the tarquins and the rags supporters are the biggest mugs in football , their owners shaft them relentlessly every season , and they are clinging onto the FFP challenging us , because their football teams dont have the ability or quality to do so , and they never will. The investment from our owners has been necessary to fast track the club to be the best in europe , but within 5 years we will be self sufficient , producing home grown world class stars , and actually making a profit . Their envy and jealousy is comforting , the pain the tarquins and the rags customers will experience over the next decade will be just reward in itself .

 

[john@staustell]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I expect this has been done, but it's only just crossed my mind.......

With Fernando deal reportedly close to being announced, I'm reading that there are add-ons as per usual

So how does that work with the 60m Euro cap? Do they value the basic deal.......in which case City have a loophole.....structure every deal with add-ons, or is the whole potential package taken into account even if it will never be realised. Surely not

I'm guessing the cap would be based on the base amount payable.

It will be based on the amount paid over the time period - i.e. now till 1st July 2015.

In that case there's no cap at all. Just pay by instalments - many deals are done that way

Not really because on that basis instalments from previous years would come into this year - making it a total unknown for us.

 

[Daz_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The Sheikh should give everyone in Abu Dhabi a brown envelope with money in to buy a city shirt from us......

That would fuck Platini off no end.....no proof where the envelopes came from :)

 

[Matty]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I expect this has been done, but it's only just crossed my mind.......

With Fernando deal reportedly close to being announced, I'm reading that there are add-ons as per usual

So how does that work with the 60m Euro cap? Do they value the basic deal.......in which case City have a loophole.....structure every deal with add-ons, or is the whole potential package taken into account even if it will never be realised. Surely not

I'm guessing the cap would be based on the base amount payable.

It will be based on the amount paid over the time period - i.e. now till 1st July 2015.

In that case there's no cap at all. Just pay by instalments - many deals are done that way

The instalment method won't work here. If we were to buy a player for £10m, and pay 4 instalments of £2.5m, then UEFA wouldn't care. For the purposes of our sanction (the £49m net spending cap) UEFA would view this as a £10m spend. This isn't an accounting issue for UEFA, or anything to do with instalments, or amortisation, it's a far more simplistic matter. Total value of the spend.

The issue around what happens with add ons is an interesting one, but I don't see how UEFA can count them towards our £49m spend. Fernando might have an appearances add on, or a success add on, neither or which are guaranteed, so UEFA can't assume those costs have been incurred. The add ons would probably fall under the bonuses category and, as such, would be exempt from the transfer cap, in the same way as performance bonuses are exempt from the wage cap.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It will be based on the amount paid over the time period - i.e. now till 1st July 2015.

In that case there's no cap at all. Just pay by instalments - many deals are done that way

The instalment method won't work here. If we were to buy a player for £10m, and pay 4 instalments of £2.5m, then UEFA wouldn't care. For the purposes of our sanction (the £49m net spending cap) UEFA would view this as a £10m spend. This isn't an accounting issue for UEFA, or anything to do with instalments, or amortisation, it's a far more simplistic matter. Total value of the spend.

The issue around what happens with add ons is an interesting one, but I don't see how UEFA can count them towards our £49m spend. Fernando might have an appearances add on, or a success add on, neither or which are guaranteed, so UEFA can't assume those costs have been incurred. The add ons would probably fall under the bonuses category and, as such, would be exempt from the transfer cap, in the same way as performance bonuses are exempt from the wage cap.

Pay £5m now and a further £35m after his 120th training session. ;-)

 

[blueparrot]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

In that case there's no cap at all. Just pay by instalments - many deals are done that way

The instalment method won't work here. If we were to buy a player for £10m, and pay 4 instalments of £2.5m, then UEFA wouldn't care. For the purposes of our sanction (the £49m net spending cap) UEFA would view this as a £10m spend. This isn't an accounting issue for UEFA, or anything to do with instalments, or amortisation, it's a far more simplistic matter. Total value of the spend.

The issue around what happens with add ons is an interesting one, but I don't see how UEFA can count them towards our £49m spend. Fernando might have an appearances add on, or a success add on, neither or which are guaranteed, so UEFA can't assume those costs have been incurred. The add ons would probably fall under the bonuses category and, as such, would be exempt from the transfer cap, in the same way as performance bonuses are exempt from the wage cap.

Pay £5m now and a further £35m after his 120th training session. ;-)

Yes but would the selling club accept those terms. To be honest though there may be clever accounting ways around the £49 mill net spend cap, but I don't think the club are that bothered as the intended targets for this summer where never planned to cost more than £49mil net.
I think the club will have a plan that looks ahead 2 or 3 windows at a time now and it would take a very special player becoming available to make them change course, or an unexpected transfer out.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The instalment method won't work here. If we were to buy a player for £10m, and pay 4 instalments of £2.5m, then UEFA wouldn't care. For the purposes of our sanction (the £49m net spending cap) UEFA would view this as a £10m spend. This isn't an accounting issue for UEFA, or anything to do with instalments, or amortisation, it's a far more simplistic matter. Total value of the spend.

The issue around what happens with add ons is an interesting one, but I don't see how UEFA can count them towards our £49m spend. Fernando might have an appearances add on, or a success add on, neither or which are guaranteed, so UEFA can't assume those costs have been incurred. The add ons would probably fall under the bonuses category and, as such, would be exempt from the transfer cap, in the same way as performance bonuses are exempt from the wage cap.

Pay £5m now and a further £35m after his 120th training session. ;-)

Yes but would the selling club accept those terms. To be honest though there may be clever accounting ways around the £49 mill net spend cap, but I don't think the club are that bothered as the intended targets for this summer where never planned to cost more than £49mil net.
I think the club will have a plan that looks ahead 2 or 3 windows at a time now and it would take a very special player becoming available to make them change course, or an unexpected transfer out.

I think it's the principle that is being questioned rather than the practicalities. UEFA have imposed a rule and it is for us to either live with it or to use 'creative accounting' techniques to deal with it. My own way of dealing with it is to take players on 12 month loans with loan fees of, say, £10m, and if we are interested in these same players in a years time when our sanctions may have expired, we hold transfer talks with the parent club. If we are no longer interested or if UEFA smell something fishy, we drop the deal and the player returns to his parent club and we are 'only' £10m the poorer for it.

 

[blueparrot]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Pay £5m now and a further £35m after his 120th training session. ;-)

Yes but would the selling club accept those terms. To be honest though there may be clever accounting ways around the £49 mill net spend cap, but I don't think the club are that bothered as the intended targets for this summer where never planned to cost more than £49mil net.
I think the club will have a plan that looks ahead 2 or 3 windows at a time now and it would take a very special player becoming available to make them change course, or an unexpected transfer out.

I think it's the principle that is being questioned rather than the practicalities. UEFA have imposed a rule and it is for us to either live with it or to use 'creative accounting' techniques to deal with it. My own way of dealing with it is to take players on 12 month loans with loan fees of, say, £10m, and if we are interested in these same players in a years time when our sanctions may have expired, we hold transfer talks with the parent club. If we are no longer interested or if UEFA smell something fishy, we drop the deal and the player returns to his parent club and we are 'only' £10m the poorer for it.

Yes I see that I just get the impression the club are happy to live with it as it is.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Yes but would the selling club accept those terms. To be honest though there may be clever accounting ways around the £49 mill net spend cap, but I don't think the club are that bothered as the intended targets for this summer where never planned to cost more than £49mil net.
I think the club will have a plan that looks ahead 2 or 3 windows at a time now and it would take a very special player becoming available to make them change course, or an unexpected transfer out.

I think it's the principle that is being questioned rather than the practicalities. UEFA have imposed a rule and it is for us to either live with it or to use 'creative accounting' techniques to deal with it. My own way of dealing with it is to take players on 12 month loans with loan fees of, say, £10m, and if we are interested in these same players in a years time when our sanctions may have expired, we hold transfer talks with the parent club. If we are no longer interested or if UEFA smell something fishy, we drop the deal and the player returns to his parent club and we are 'only' £10m the poorer for it.

Yes I see that I just get the impression the club are happy to live with it as it is.

I think you're right in broad terms.

The problem though is that of Fabregas or Di Maria, players who were not expected to become available and so the cost was not factored in.

Imagine if these players asked for a move to City (As Shaw apparently has to united) but we had to say no based on the limitations UEFA had placed on us.

 

[blueparrot]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think it's the principle that is being questioned rather than the practicalities. UEFA have imposed a rule and it is for us to either live with it or to use 'creative accounting' techniques to deal with it. My own way of dealing with it is to take players on 12 month loans with loan fees of, say, £10m, and if we are interested in these same players in a years time when our sanctions may have expired, we hold transfer talks with the parent club. If we are no longer interested or if UEFA smell something fishy, we drop the deal and the player returns to his parent club and we are 'only' £10m the poorer for it.

Yes I see that I just get the impression the club are happy to live with it as it is.

I think you're right in broad terms.

The problem though is that of Fabregas or Di Maria, players who were not expected to become available and so the cost was not factored in.

Imagine if these players asked for a move to City (As Shaw apparently has to united) but we had to say no based on the limitations UEFA had placed on us.

I suppose thats right, though if Di Maria came in then somebody would need to be sold to keep the foreign quota down, which would bring money in but, that's a different discussion.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

roll on wembley so we can wave our ten pound notes at the tarquins.
hate that club..fucking hypocrites.

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just found this article on the net regarding FFP:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.uefa.org/protecting-the-game/club-licensing-and-financial-fair-play/news/newsid=2114180.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.uefa.org/protecting-the-game ... 14180.html</a>

"Serbian champions FK Crvena zvezda have been excluded from the 2014/15 UEFA Champions League for breaching UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.

The Adjudicatory Chamber of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), chaired by José Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues, has taken its decision in the case of FK Crvena zvezda. The CFCB chief investigator referred this case to the Adjudicatory Chamber in early April after becoming aware of the existence of overdue payables as a result of a complaint.

The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber determined that the club were in breach of a number of provisions of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations. Accordingly, Crvena zvezda are excluded from participating in the 2014/15 UEFA Champions League for which they had qualified on sporting merit.

The club have ten days to appeal this decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

An investigation against the Football Association of Serbia (FSS) might be opened within the coming days by the chief investigator for alleged breaches of the club licensing regulations in relation to the granting of the licence to the same club". (Dated Friday 6th June 2014)

It will be interesting to see how this pans out!!