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

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It all boils down to the fact that if City were to have had the revenues at the current level when we started out on the 'project' then in all likelihood we would have passed FFP even after the accelerated spending of seasons past.

Will City be OK moving forwards? I would say more than OK the club and CFG will flourish especially as other clubs are way behind (including united) in terms of future growth.

As has been said before, the future is Sky Blue.

 

[Nascent Blues]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Moving forward, what will we be able to realistically spend each season? For instance, say we are in the black by a pound after the next financial year, what would we actually be allowed to spend before getting fucked over ffp again?

In future years the acceptable loss will be 30m Euros over 3 seasons, about £25m over 3 seasons

We have not yet declared our financial results for 2013/14 but in the reports and accounts for 2012/13 we stated

Since the year-end the football registrations of Fernandinho (from
Shakhtar Donetsk), Jesus Navas (from Seville), Alvaro Negredo (from
Seville), Stevan Jovetic (from Fiorentina) and Martin DeMichelis
(from Atletico Madrid) have been acquired. The registration of
Carlos Tevez (to Juventus) was sold. The net expenditure on these
transactions was approximately £84.1m

And we expect to break-even for the 2013/14 season.

So if we break even, we can spend 8 million plus anything else that is deductable under ffp?


Therefore City can break-even and spend £85m per season at the moment - but I am not sure if that could be sustained season after season

 

[Nascent Blues]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So if we break even, we can spend roughly 8 million plus anything that is deductable under ffp?

 

[HelloCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

?

Where've you got £8 million from?

Basically our transfer balance after selling Tevez and buying Fernandinho, Negredo, Navas etc is roughly -£85 million and we still expect to break even in the next set of financial results.

Our income is only going to increase as well.

Edit: I'm not sure how UEFA are playing it in terms of paying the fees over a period of time.

Say we bought Messi for £200 million but then paid Barca £50 million per season.

The club obviously think we're fine with what we've paid out and plan to pay out so far.

 

[Nascent Blues]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A previous poster said that a club is allowed to make a 25m loss over 3 years (roughly 8m). Therefore - hypothetically - would we be able to spend the 8m plus anything deductable from ffp? Ultimately i suppose it comes down to what balance is before we spend anything on players. For instance, if we didn't spend any money on players this season, what would our balance at the end of the year be; would we be 20 - 60m in the black?

 

[HelloCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

In a worse case scenario, yes. We could only lose an average of about 8 million a year over a 3 year period. We'd be well in the black without spending now and we still are even after slashing out.

You can spend whatever you want on transfers and wages if your income covers it.

The club believe we won't make any loss at all in the next set of financial results and that is after spending millions and millions on transfer fees and wages.

 

[Nascent Blues]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The last bit of your post mancityx is the hub of the question for me. If we didn't spend a single cent on players this year, what would our balance sheet look like at the year end (excluding money spent on the academy etc.)? How much profit would the club have made?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Put simply, after all that's been said have we tried to wing it? I shouldn't laugh but I'd find it amusing if that was the case. Or is that a bit harsh on the hierarchy at the club and, as you suggest, maybe they've miscalculated.

It's interesting. There seems to be a complete volte-face in the quote above, compared to the noises we were hearing for months if not years beforehand. I'm just wondering why that is.

Likewise. Looking forward to PB's response to your earlier question

Sorry - didn't see this originally but I strongly suspect we did indeed try to wing it and were fortuitous in terms of the settlement agreement. But I'm not sure yet. It's 99.9% certain that it's down to the interpretation of the issue of 2011/12 wages paid to players signed prior to June 2010. My original supposition was that UEFA moved the goalposts after it was too late for us to do anything about it but it could also have been that we were, shall we say, a little optimistic about what we could include in that figure. I still doubt that, as the rules stand, on the basis of my calculations we could have used that £80m, however we calculated it.

 

[petrusha]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It's interesting. There seems to be a complete volte-face in the quote above, compared to the noises we were hearing for months if not years beforehand. I'm just wondering why that is.

Likewise. Looking forward to PB's response to your earlier question

Sorry - didn't see this originally but I strongly suspect we did indeed try to wing it and were fortuitous in terms of the settlement agreement. But I'm not sure yet. It's 99.9% certain that it's down to the interpretation of the issue of 2011/12 wages paid to players signed prior to June 2010. My original supposition was that UEFA moved the goalposts after it was too late for us to do anything about it but it could also have been that we were, shall we say, a little optimistic about what we could include in that figure. I still doubt that, as the rules stand, on the basis of my calculations we could have used that £80m, however we calculated it.

Thanks. If you're right, we've actually come out of it much better than we really could have.

 

[xenon_]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We've come out of this good anyway. FFP works in City's favour. I wouldn't be surprised if our owners are secretly happy with the whole situation and are just navigating accordingly until the glass ceiling is fully complete. This whole saga is like fucking theatre haha

FFP may be horrible for football. It may prevent anyone else ever having a dream come true, like City. But make no mistake, from a business perspective, our owners must be very content that no one else will be able to replicate what they've done. We are in the cartel, pretty-much, and the door is being shut right behind us. We're sorted for life.

Sad day for football, good day for City. And we will carry on marching and eventually, probably, become just another evil empire like our Red counterparts. T'is a shame, but fuck it, it is what it is.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We've come out of this good anyway. FFP works in City's favour. I wouldn't be surprised if our owners are secretly happy with the whole situation and are just navigating accordingly until the glass ceiling is fully complete. This whole saga is like fucking theatre haha

FFP may be horrible for football. It may prevent anyone else ever having a dream come true, like City. But make no mistake, from a business perspective, our owners must be very content that no one else will be able to replicate what they've done. We are in the cartel, pretty-much, and the door is being shut right behind us. We're sorted for life.

Sad day for football, good day for City. And we will carry on marching and eventually, probably, become just another evil empire like our Red counterparts. T'is a shame, but fuck it, it is what it is.

absofuckinglutely agree 100%

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

There is the big 'but" though .
We are still awaiting the DuPont challenge , and we are still to see if PSG are determined to disregard FFP and take uefa head on as it appears that is what they are determined to do. Either or both of these could see the whole thing thrown out or at the very least changed fundamentally.
Presumably there will be a strategy in place for this eventuality, although any change would almost certainly benefit City.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We've come out of this good anyway. FFP works in City's favour. I wouldn't be surprised if our owners are secretly happy with the whole situation and are just navigating accordingly until the glass ceiling is fully complete. This whole saga is like fucking theatre haha

FFP may be horrible for football. It may prevent anyone else ever having a dream come true, like City. But make no mistake, from a business perspective, our owners must be very content that no one else will be able to replicate what they've done. We are in the cartel, pretty-much, and the door is being shut right behind us. We're sorted for life.

Sad day for football, good day for City. And we will carry on marching and eventually, probably, become just another evil empire like our Red counterparts. T'is a shame, but fuck it, it is what it is.

Very good point regarding our view of the situation now we have, all but, overcome it. It must piss off the likes of Arsenal & Co that they're now part of a stifling ruling, orchestrated by themselves, that now may worry them in the future, but likely not City.

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Regarding PSG, their biggest problem has been their wage bill which has had to include the massive tax quota that France imposes on the rich earners.
If the owners had bought Monaco instead or perhaps decided that they would be based in Monaco would this have changed their FFP position?

Incidentally, what are the rules for allowing a Club into a League outside its National border?

Imagine the confusion if a Russian Club decided to base themselves in Cyprus where many of the Russian offshore profits are made because of advantageous tax rules.
Perhaps they currently must play their home games within their National boundary or perhaps I misunderstand the personal tax advantages of Monaco cf France.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Sadly what FFP means is threads about law and finance and not about football!

 

[Blue Beard]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Seems to me like some City fans are still wondering what we have done wrong? FFP is the tip of a bigger iceberg !

Simple answer is we have done nothing wrong. Our investors saw an opportunity through City to achieve prominence of the Etihad brand.

They had all the cash in the world and could literally have chosen any club, but they chose our club.

If City supporters had deserted the club, they would not be interested. Our support when the chips were down had a massive effect on their decision to choose City and compete with our rag neighbours.

So big up City fans, we earned this investment.

FFP is the tip of an iceberg whereby the European establishment including English clubs are increasingly freezing City out of fair trade when it comes to buying and selling players. That is a worrying prospect now and moving forward. And I find it alarming that these clubs are more willing to trade with likes of Chelski Arse, Dipperspool and Rags than with ourselves.

If this sounds like bollocks to you, ask why Mangala's price has doubled since January when he is due out of contract anyway???

 

[Ray78]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Seems to me like some City fans are still wondering what we have done wrong? FFP is the tip of a bigger iceberg !

Simple answer is we have done nothing wrong. Our investors saw an opportunity through City to achieve prominence of the Etihad brand.

They had all the cash in the world and could literally have chosen any club, but they chose our club.

If City supporters had deserted the club, they would not be interested. Our support when the chips were down had a massive effect on their decision to choose City and compete with our rag neighbours.

So big up City fans, we earned this investment.

FFP is the tip of an iceberg whereby the European establishment including English clubs are increasingly freezing City out of fair trade when it comes to buying and selling players. That is a worrying prospect now and moving forward. And I find it alarming that these clubs are more willing to trade with likes of Chelski Arse, Dipperspool and Rags than with ourselves.

If this sounds like bollocks to you, ask why Mangala's price has doubled since January when he is due out of contract anyway???

It is Fernando who was out of contract not Mangala.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Seems to me like some City fans are still wondering what we have done wrong? FFP is the tip of a bigger iceberg !

Simple answer is we have done nothing wrong. Our investors saw an opportunity through City to achieve prominence of the Etihad brand.

They had all the cash in the world and could literally have chosen any club, but they chose our club.

If City supporters had deserted the club, they would not be interested. Our support when the chips were down had a massive effect on their decision to choose City and compete with our rag neighbours.

So big up City fans, we earned this investment.

FFP is the tip of an iceberg whereby the European establishment including English clubs are increasingly freezing City out of fair trade when it comes to buying and selling players. That is a worrying prospect now and moving forward. And I find it alarming that these clubs are more willing to trade with likes of Chelski Arse, Dipperspool and Rags than with ourselves.

If this sounds like bollocks to you, ask why Mangala's price has doubled since January when he is due out of contract anyway???

It is Fernando who was out of contract not Mangala.

Correct and it's to promote Abu Dhabi itself not just Etihad.
As for the bolded part I have no idea what you're talking about, it just sounds like paranoid crap. Stop smoking weed, it's affecting your judgement.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Regarding PSG, their biggest problem has been their wage bill which has had to include the massive tax quota that France imposes on the rich earners.
If the owners had bought Monaco instead or perhaps decided that they would be based in Monaco would this have changed their FFP position?

Incidentally, what are the rules for allowing a Club into a League outside its National border?

Imagine the confusion if a Russian Club decided to base themselves in Cyprus where many of the Russian offshore profits are made because of advantageous tax rules.
Perhaps they currently must play their home games within their National boundary or perhaps I misunderstand the personal tax advantages of Monaco cf France.

Incidentally, what are the rules for allowing a Club into a League outside its National border?

Ask Cardiff and Swansea.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Regarding PSG, their biggest problem has been their wage bill which has had to include the massive tax quota that France imposes on the rich earners.
If the owners had bought Monaco instead or perhaps decided that they would be based in Monaco would this have changed their FFP position?

Incidentally, what are the rules for allowing a Club into a League outside its National border?

Imagine the confusion if a Russian Club decided to base themselves in Cyprus where many of the Russian offshore profits are made because of advantageous tax rules.
Perhaps they currently must play their home games within their National boundary or perhaps I misunderstand the personal tax advantages of Monaco cf France.

Incidentally, what are the rules for allowing a Club into a League outside its National border?

Ask Cardiff and Swansea.

Or Rangers or Celtic...


only in their dreams.