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

[blueinsa]

Well said Massive Dave.

B.I.G......D.A.V.E....that spells fucking RAG to me with a knick knack paddy whack...........

Are you writing these on the school computer?

Shouldn't you be in the transfer thread telling us we have no chance?

 

[Chippy_boy]

We? United weren't last summer.

City won't be this summer.

Unless we are. We've been around and around and around on this, haven't we.

Unless you are on the board at City or have some contacts you have not disclosed, you have no possible way of knowing whether we will be or not. City's statements and UEFA's are entirely contradictory on this topic, so we have no way of knowing which is correct.

City certainly don't think they are, put it that way.

I am not even sure we can say that for certain.

Yes we have said we expect to operating without restriction. But that could mean that we have a £150m spending limit, and we are not planning on spending that much anyway. And we also said that we would be operating without restriction at the commencement of the 2015/16 season, by which we might conceivably mean "after the summer transfer window has closed".

I agree that neither interpretation is likely. But then again, our comments do appear to flatly contradict UEFA's statement, so there's something not right somewhere.

 

[halfcenturyup]

One thing is for sure: if there is any wiggle room in the interpretation of UEFA's sanctions, we will be the fuckee not the fuckor so I can't imagine management haven't got this tied down. We thought that last time, though, didn't we?

Unless we are. We've been around and around and around on this, haven't we.

Unless you are on the board at City or have some contacts you have not disclosed, you have no possible way of knowing whether we will be or not. City's statements and UEFA's are entirely contradictory on this topic, so we have no way of knowing which is correct.

City certainly don't think they are, put it that way.

I am not even sure we can say that for certain.

Yes we have said we expect to operating without restriction. But that could mean that we have a £150m spending limit, and we are not planning on spending that much anyway. And we also said that we would be operating without restriction at the commencement of the 2015/16 season, by which we might conceivably mean "after the summer transfer window has closed".

I agree that neither interpretation is likely. But then again, our comments do appear to flatly contradict UEFA's statement, so there's something not right somewhere.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

FFP will get interesting now as the big precedent was set with us and PSG, they have to meat out that justice to others. If they dont they open themselves up to appeals and court cases.

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors about the way they dealt with us and PSG. The statements that were issued were clearly designed to intimate a number of things but confirmed very little. We know we got fined and we know about the squad restriction so we should expect others to receive a similar sanction for similar financial performance. We also signed up for some other stuff but know one knows what that is or was but the fine enough would be good to see, as will how they will implement it with other clubs who have no hope of paying! I dont want other clubs to fail I just want to see if Uefa will really send clubs out of existence because they can't afford to pay fines. Also don't forget we get a share of any fines paid by other clubs.

 

[Big Dave Watson]

B.I.G......D.A.V.E....that spells fucking RAG to me with a knick knack paddy whack...........

Are you writing these on the school computer?

Shouldn't you be in the transfer thread telling us we have no chance?

Already told you. No Pogba, Barkley or Reus. No idea on the other targets, Tolmie knows more on them.

 

[chris85mcfc]

Are you writing these on the school computer?

Shouldn't you be in the transfer thread telling us we have no chance?

Already told you. No Pogba, Barkley or Reus. No idea on the other targets, Tolmie knows more on them.

Dave I think you're great, ignore these lot.

Despite coming across as a bit of a party-pooper, no one can deny that you get the majority of your predictions spot on

 

[stony]

Are you writing these on the school computer?

Shouldn't you be in the transfer thread telling us we have no chance?

Already told you. No Pogba, Barkley or Reus. No idea on the other targets, Tolmie knows more on them.

Shouldn't you be at home with Tinky Winky, Laa Laa and Po?

 

[jrb]

Not going to happen today.

CL semi-final tonight.

UEFA don't want that overshadowed by FFP fallouts and negative headlines.

 

[dickie davies]

Latest Forbes figures move us up to fifth, ahead of Chelsea, Arsenal and dipperpool

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/list/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/list/</a>

 

[SilverFox2]

To be clear, are there any differences between the PL version and the UEFA CL one ?

Two key ones. The PL version:

- specifically restricts wage bill increases unless covered by increases in commercial income. At least that directly addresses the issue of controlling wage growth, which UEFA's doesn't.

- has a more generous break-even requirement. Something like £35m a season maximum allowable loss after the usual deductions. UEFA's limit is an aggregate £35m over 3 seasons.

The PL's version

Many thanks PB. presume that 'commercial income' includes sale of players ?.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

To be clear, are there any differences between the PL version and the UEFA CL one ?

Two key ones. The PL version:

- specifically restricts wage bill increases unless covered by increases in commercial income. At least that directly addresses the issue of controlling wage growth, which UEFA's doesn't.

- has a more generous break-even requirement. Something like £35m a season maximum allowable loss after the usual deductions. UEFA's limit is an aggregate £35m over 3 seasons.

The PL's version

Many thanks PB. presume that 'commercial income' includes sale of players ?.

No. That's separate and part of trading income. Commercial income includes sponsorship revenue and sale of merchandise.

So we're restricted to a flat increase of £4m in the wage bill under PL rules, regardless of income or profit. But if we've increased our commercial revenue by £20m then we can use that to fund any additional increase over £4m.

 

[SilverFox2]

Two key ones. The PL version:

- specifically restricts wage bill increases unless covered by increases in commercial income. At least that directly addresses the issue of controlling wage growth, which UEFA's doesn't.

- has a more generous break-even requirement. Something like £35m a season maximum allowable loss after the usual deductions. UEFA's limit is an aggregate £35m over 3 seasons.

The PL's version

Many thanks PB. presume that 'commercial income' includes sale of players ?.

No. That's separate and part of trading income. Commercial income includes sponsorship revenue and sale of merchandise.

So we're restricted to a flat increase of £4m in the wage bill under PL rules, regardless of income or profit. But if we've increased our commercial revenue by £20m then we can use that to fund any additional increase over £4m.

Perhaps that will be the restriction on any star players we hope to sign in the next window ? Needing sale of high wage earners and / or the commercial expansion our chairman has claimed they are concentrating on ?

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

Daft question but even if we are free of restrictions for failing last year.won't we be restricted by the same rules as everyone else .so as we are looking to break even we won't be able to spend that much anyway ?

 

[meltonblue]

"So we're restricted to a flat increase of £4m in the wage bill under PL rules, regardless of income or profit."

It can be above that if it is covered by increased sponsorship deals, for example, though can't it?

 

[sugardubby]

"So we're restricted to a flat increase of £4m in the wage bill under PL rules, regardless of income or profit."

It can be above that if it is covered by increased sponsorship deals, for example, though can't it?

Yes. Agreed about the same time as our raggy friends' £75m per annum from adidas....

 

[jrb]

Breaking news.

Let's see how the 2 cartel club, Real and Barca, squirm their way out of this one.

La Liga to be suspended by Spanish FA over government interference

The Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) has announced that all domestic football will be suspended from May 16 in an argument over government interference.

It centres around a law which was passed last week which forced the RFEF to sell television rights for La Liga collectively. Currently, all clubs negotiate rights individually which hugely favours Barcelona and Real Madrid financially.

"At the same time, and yet again, we reiterate the offer of dialogue to the Spanish government," the federation said on its website after a board meeting on Wednesday

 

[Atypical]

City & FFP (continued)

French papers reporting PSG restriction this year €60 million spend without sales & CL squad increased from 21 to 22. Is this what we have in store?

 

[Silva_Spell]

French papers reporting PSG restriction this year €60 million spend without sales & CL squad increased from 21 to 22. Is this what we have in store?

Doubt it

We only made a 6m loss overall in the relevant accounts. And that's before all the non FFP deductions


Nobody but UEFA and PSG knows how much PSG's QTA sponsorship was slashed by but it would seem that they failed to make up for it in revenue growth.

 

[BillyShears]

So Paris won't be signing Pogba then. Interesting that they have the same restrictions again this summer. At least that's what is being reported over here this morning. Waiting to see if anyone reputable backs it.

 

[BlueAnorak]

French papers reporting PSG restriction this year €60 million spend without sales & CL squad increased from 21 to 22. Is this what we have in store?

Doubt it

We only made a 6m loss overall in the relevant accounts. And that's before all the non FFP deductions


Nobody but UEFA and PSG knows how much PSG's QTA sponsorship was slashed by but it would seem that they failed to make up for it in revenue growth.

As I said previously. We only got hammered to the same degree as PSG because we couldn't discount pre June 2010 wages using the FFP submission spreadsheet (that changed AFTER we submitted our 2011-12 accounts). That mean't we failed FFP by well over £100m rather than an FFP submission showing a boarder line FFP pass to a maximum FFP loss of about £6m.

As the usual suspects in the media with links to Utd & Arsenal haven't said a discky bird about a proposed fine for City, I'm rather hopeful that UEFA are not going to be able to shaft us this year. That said if there is any possibility of us being shafted then we will be,