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

[BackgroundBlue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


(on my second G&T)

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness.

(3rd G&T)

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

And if it's the Mersey, they'll also be some shopping-trollies and the odd armchair.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


(on my second G&T)

i love that guy

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The "sustainability" or otherwise of United's debt is of little significance apart from the light it throws on the motives of UEFA and those supporting FFP. How does UEFA defend a set of regulations which allows a club which is more than its annual turnover in debt to spend some £150 million on players in one transfer window while club which is not 1p in debt and whose expenditure is covered by its owner is fined, has it's squad limited to 21 for the CL and has a ceiling on what it can spend on players set at less than 1/3 of what United eventually spent. It is nonsense to argue that United's revenues are large enough to sustain such debt levels indefinitely but that Sheikh Mansour's wealth is not sufficient to cover one season's overspend on players! In fact United found their debt uncomfortable enough to have reschedule it not long ago - rather like Leeds in 2001!

So what do you do to "persuade" a club in debt to devote its resources to debt repayment rather than a dash to buy players? Well, a limit on what can be spent on players seems stunningly appropriate, as does a limit on squad numbers. Where there's a will there's a way. Over to you Mr Gill.

 

[waspish]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thing with the debt the scum have if they don't qualify for the champs league for the next 3 season will they be in trouble? If NO the debt is serviceable..

 

[City Glory While Others Fade]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thing with the debt the scum have if they don't qualify for the champs league for the next 3 season will they be in trouble? If NO the debt is serviceable..

Surely any consideration as to the ability to service a debt from future earnings has to be based on what is guaranteed. FIFA would have to ignore future champs league revenue as this is dependent of on the pitch success, also any commercial deals with penalties for not playing champions league football would have to factored in.

If debt repayment is under consideration utd might have a problem if their payment is dependant on certain successes such as qualification for champions league.

 

[waspish]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thing with the debt the scum have if they don't qualify for the champs league for the next 3 season will they be in trouble? If NO the debt is serviceable..

Surely any consideration as to the ability to service a debt from future earnings has to be based on what is guaranteed. FIFA would have to ignore future champs league revenue as this is dependent of on the pitch success, also any commercial deals with penalties for not playing champions league football would have to factored in.

If debt repayment is under consideration utd might have a problem if their payment is dependant on certain successes such as qualification for champions league.

Agree but if they still are able to service the debt without meeting that criteria that in itself will show that there debt is serviceable.. The problem is now with ffp is that clubs who make champs league every season for 3/4 years are dependant on champs league money but if they drop out they will be in trouble meeting ffp it's a vicious circle and why ffp should be scrapped

 

[Newman Noggs]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thing with the debt the scum have if they don't qualify for the champs league for the next 3 season will they be in trouble? If NO the debt is serviceable..

Surely any consideration as to the ability to service a debt from future earnings has to be based on what is guaranteed. FIFA would have to ignore future champs league revenue as this is dependent of on the pitch success, also any commercial deals with penalties for not playing champions league football would have to factored in.

If debt repayment is under consideration utd might have a problem if their payment is dependant on certain successes such as qualification for champions league.

This is exactly where we became "the fox in the henhouse". Until we came along, the members of the cartel had arranged matters precisely in such a way that qualification for the Champions League was guaranteed. It was the whole point of the change to top four qualification. It is also why the reaction against us has been so vicious.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Look at it like this.

It's a moral victory of sorts, so far.

The fact that UEFA, no doubt under pressure from City, PSG, other clubs affected by FFPR, and even other cartel clubs who don't have debt like Bayern, are even looking at this, and have gone public on it, is a positive.

I can imagine the cartel clubs that are in debt are totally against this review, and will fight any tweaks to FFPR that punish clubs who are in debt, regardless of their revenues.

The hunters have just become the hunted.

 

[80s Shorts]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


(on my second G&T)

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness.

(3rd G&T)

 

[Bewar3them00n]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness.

(3rd G&T)

more of a "Way of the Samurai " guy myself
Take a look at the men today. It seems that most of them have a woman’s heart. There are very few true men anymore. It is easy for a strong warrior to gain the advantage these days because so few have any courage at all."
"The secret to a happy marriage is this: Treat your spouse all of your life as you did when you first met and there will never be room for discord."
2nd beer ( rum chaser)

 

[silverback]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I wondered why after years of there being no value in the market suddenly the quiet neighbours splurge over the last three transfer windows. Did Gill get wind of an adverse result re FFP and they had to spend big before "the drawbridge" was raised.

oh you old cynic.



the answer is definitely yes funny how this year they all went mad eh

Less of the old, I'm only 68 :)

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I wondered why after years of there being no value in the market suddenly the quiet neighbours splurge over the last three transfer windows. Did Gill get wind of an adverse result re FFP and they had to spend big before "the drawbridge" was raised.

oh you old cynic.



the answer is definitely yes funny how this year they all went mad eh

Less of the old, I'm only 68 :)

Shit and I thought I was old !! ;)

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That depends on the reason for not breaking even Chippy. I get the point though, I just think that whatever sanction Uefa decide to put in should be dealt with on a case by case basis related to that individual club and the reasons for the situation.

I realise that is a pipe dream though!

I think that's the absolute worst scenario. Given how bent these bastards are, any "flexibility" in the rules gives them carte blanche to favour some clubs and not others. Whatever rules are in play need to be crystal clear and universally applied. Look at the utter bullshit we are having to put up with this season with spending limits and squad restrictions all because UEFA chose to interpret the current FFP rule differently to how their initial guidance notes suggested.

And just a quick word on debt. There's nothing wrong with debt as a vehicle to fuel investment. It's a perfectly normal way to run a business and stopping or severely restricting it would be detrimental to the game. We would not have such great stadiums and the rest of the infrastructure if we stopped clubs from borrowing.

The issue is irresponsible borrowing and dangerous levels of debt. So some restaint might be considered appropriate, but that's not easy to do because how do you set the levels fairly. And requiring the debt to be serviceable based on guaranteed incomes is an unrealistic idea, both in principle and in practice. The reality is very little in life is guaranteed. When you take out a 4 year loan to buy a car, it's not guaranteed you'll be in work in 2 years time.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That's weird. They say the 750 (average 75 a year) is a guaranteed minimum, but then go on to explain that the annual payments can be reduced 30% in certain circumstances. Not a guaranteed minimum then. Either there is more to it, or that is a pretty misleading statement in a prospectus ....

It's taken me a while to reply to this as I have been away from my computer with the relevant files. However, the above is incorrect.

The Adidas deal is £75m per year and may be increased if they win the PL, FA Cup or CL. They do not have to win any of these to get a steady £75m per year.

If they fail to get into the CL for 2 consecutive seasons, beginning with the 2015/16 season, then the £75m can be reduced. So they would have to not qualify now until 2017/18 in order to receive anything less than £75m/year. This is pretty bloody unlikely, unfortunately.

Wow, well I dont think i'm alone in having read numbers that said the exact opposite somewhere. I guess we can only hope LVG carries on in the same manner as Moyes did.

FYI I got the info from their October 30th 2013 prospectus pending the offering of 12,000,000 new shares. You can be 100% certain it's correct or they would have class action lawsuits all over the place.

The exact text is this:

"We have reached a 10-year agreement with adidas with respect to our global technical sponsorship and dual-branded licensing rights, beginning with the 2015/16 season. The minimum guarantee payable by adidas is equal to £750 million over the 10-year term of the agreement or an average of £75 million per year, though actual cash payments per year will vary, subject to certain adjustments including those described below.

Payments due in a particular year may increase if our first team wins the Premier League, FA Cup or Champions League, or decrease if our first team fails to participate in the Champions League for two or more consecutive seasons starting with the 2015/16 season, with the maximum possible increase being £4 million per year and the maximum possible reduction being 30% of the applicable payment for that year."


So, sadly I think their demise is not something that's going to happen in the forseeable. LVG will just keep spending until they start winning things again.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

AC Milan want to table a motion at the UEFA meeting on Monday that would see the introduction of wildcards for 'important teams with a rich history of winning trophies and with a large enough fanbase to support Champions League football', for those who don't qualify by proper means

Slowly but surely...

In other news...Sunderland (who were against the implementation of FFP in the Premier League?) have had a request granted by the Premier League to see how these rules may have impacted down on wages, having been heralded as one of the key reasons for its introduction...

A clever move by owner Ellis Short.

All the clubs have submitted the returns and we will know the findings next month.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

That's weird. They say the 750 (average 75 a year) is a guaranteed minimum, but then go on to explain that the annual payments can be reduced 30% in certain circumstances. Not a guaranteed minimum then. Either there is more to it, or that is a pretty misleading statement in a prospectus ....

It's badly worded at best!

The opening sentence reads, "The minimum guarantee payable by adidas is equal to £750 million over the 10-year term of the agreement or an average of £75 million per year"

and the closing sentence reads,

"Any increase or decrease in a particular year would have the effect of increasing or decreasing the minimum guarantee amount of £750 million payable over the 10-year term of the agreement"

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

AC Milan want to table a motion at the UEFA meeting on Monday that would see the introduction of wildcards for 'important teams with a rich history of winning trophies and with a large enough fanbase to support Champions League football', for those who don't qualify by proper means

Slowly but surely...

In other news...Sunderland (who were against the implementation of FFP in the Premier League?) have had a request granted by the Premier League to see how these rules may have impacted down on wages, having been heralded as one of the key reasons for its introduction...

A clever move by owner Ellis Short.

All the clubs have submitted the returns and we will know the findings next month.

Is that serious about AC Milan? FFS you really couldn't make it up, could you.
As for the PL wages, what timeframe are they talking about? Would the rags be able to quietly forget about all their summer acquisitions?

 

[mancity dan]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

AC Milan want to table a motion at the UEFA meeting on Monday that would see the introduction of wildcards for 'important teams with a rich history of winning trophies and with a large enough fanbase to support Champions League football', for those who don't qualify by proper means

Slowly but surely...

In other news...Sunderland (who were against the implementation of FFP in the Premier League?) have had a request granted by the Premier League to see how these rules may have impacted down on wages, having been heralded as one of the key reasons for its introduction...

A clever move by owner Ellis Short.

All the clubs have submitted the returns and we will know the findings next month.

Ours would have come down a fair whack, whereas the quiet neighbours would have gone in the opposite direction.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Slightly off topic.

Can anyone explain what Business Tax Credits are?

The type of Tax Credits the Glazers have been using to make an operating loss, into an profit for United, over the last few years.(2/3?)

Before the tax credit the team had a little-changed loss of 6.1 million pounds for the first quarter. The team said the credit is related to a corporate restructuring

Manchester United said its 2013 net income was distorted by a one-off tax credit of £155.2m, which it received from “US deferred tax assets". Had it not received that, the club would have made a loss of £8.8m in 2013.

Why don't, or why haven't City used Business Tax Credits? Or do they?

Thanks.

I would love an answer to this as well, if anyone has a clue?
"Deferred Tax Assets"? Does that mean they still have to pay something in the future (thereby increasing their debt but in a sneaky fashion) or am I overthinking that?