City's 2016 financial results

Clubs were not allowed to count the players as assets until around 25 years ago, I remember the change announced in 1990 causing a stir, but I'm sure the exact date it came into force. I'm not sure how the amortisation was different pre-bosman, or how we deal with all these expensive youngsters where we would be virtually guaranteed some money at the end of the contract if they want to leave.

If we did get to a point where a load of big players were let go there could be a big spike in severance pay (Yaya next year etc?).
 
Daz_Blue said:
When do the figures normally come out ?
Click to expand...

From memory City's financial year end is the end of May. However the accounts need to be finalised, audited and all that jazz. The figures for year ending 31 May 16 won't be released for a good few months yet. My guess from previous years would be around November, but that is just a guess.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It's an interesting point actually. It's revenue in the sense that we receive cash but it's not revenue that we include in the P&L account and there is no way to identify specific fees received for individual players sold anyway. I've just written an article for City Watch about accounting for transfers and the financial considerations involved in how much we can spend. Clubs did used to treat transfer fees as income and expenditure but changed to treat contracts as assets. It's a little counter intuitive really as the buying and selling of players is really a core part of a football club's business.
Click to expand...
FFP treats it as revenue though doesn't it/they?
 
Wafty Cranker said:
From memory City's financial year end is the end of May. However the accounts need to be finalised, audited and all that jazz. The figures for year ending 31 May 16 won't be released for a good few months yet. My guess from previous years would be around November, but that is just a guess.
Click to expand...
When the results were poor it was November or later. Was a lot earlier last year as it was good news.
 
SWP's back said:
FFP treats it as revenue though doesn't it/they?
Click to expand...

Yes. They're forced to really as they've got a hard on for including player purchases. Investment in assets should never be held against a business in terms of profit and loss, that's why there's a separate section for it in a financial statement, it's less expenditure than it is conversion of liquid assets into fixed ones.
 
SWP's back said:
FFP treats it as revenue though doesn't it/they?
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. The only element of player trading that comes into the FFP calculation is any accounting profit or loss on the sale of players, which is part of the P&L account.

There's nothing in the financial statements that would directly tell you what the total fees received for players sold during the financial year are. The figures that refer to transfers would mainly be in the balance sheet and would show the cost of any additions and the original cost and accumulated amortisation of any disposals. So if we bought a player for £30m and sold him for £20m, the cost of disposals of intangible fixed assets would show £30m. The Cash Flow statement would show any cash received for outgoing players but these would be instalments rather than the gross fee. The notes to the accounts that deal with post-Balance Sheet events would normally tell you the net impact of any player trading after the year end. So it might say that after May 31st, we bought players A, B & C and sold players X, Y & Z for a net outlay of £50m.

You could in theory work out the fees received by taking the book value of players sold and adding in the profit or loss on the sales but the revenue itself doesn't come into FFP.
 
Wafty Cranker said:
From memory City's financial year end is the end of May. However the accounts need to be finalised, audited and all that jazz. The figures for year ending 31 May 16 won't be released for a good few months yet. My guess from previous years would be around November, but that is just a guess.
Click to expand...
It depends if there is any way UEFA can shaft us in terms if FFP? Yes = As close to April 1st as possible; No = Late Oct / Early Nov.
We submitted in Late Nov for 2010/11 and UEFA tailored changes to the FFP submission spreadsheet to hit us hard two months later when we could do nothing about it.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
No it doesn't. The only element of player trading that comes into the FFP calculation is any accounting profit or loss on the sale of players, which is part of the P&L account.

There's nothing in the financial statements that would directly tell you what the total fees received for players sold during the financial year are. The figures that refer to transfers would mainly be in the balance sheet and would show the cost of any additions and the original cost and accumulated amortisation of any disposals. So if we bought a player for £30m and sold him for £20m, the cost of disposals of intangible fixed assets would show £30m. The Cash Flow statement would show any cash received for outgoing players but these would be instalments rather than the gross fee. The notes to the accounts that deal with post-Balance Sheet events would normally tell you the net impact of any player trading after the year end. So it might say that after May 31st, we bought players A, B & C and sold players X, Y & Z for a net outlay of £50m.

You could in theory work out the fees received by taking the book value of players sold and adding in the profit or loss on the sales but the revenue itself doesn't come into FFP.
Click to expand...
Sorry I thin you're being a bit too precise for what I meant.

Whereas Deloitte don't feature it at all (for example Bale being sold for £85m) had Spurs been close to breaking the FFP rules, that sale would have helped them o er the line and then sum.
 
SWP's back said:
Sorry I thin you're being a bit too precise for what I meant.

Whereas Deloitte don't feature it at all (for example Bale being sold for £85m) had Spurs been close to breaking the FFP rules, that sale would have helped them o er the line and then sum.
Click to expand...
Well I find it helps to be precise when other people are being imprecise. The gross amount they received for Bale never appears explicitly in the accounts and in itself has no bearing on FFP. The fact that virtually all of it represented a book profit, with them having paid £6m for him a few years earlier, was the relevant factor. If they'd paid £120m for him the year before then sold him for £85m, they'd have made a small loss on sale, rather than a whopping profit and the fact they'd received that £85m would be neither here nor there.

It's the profit or loss on the sale of players that gets counted as part of FFP, not what you get for the player, which is never explicitly stated in the accounts.

As an example, if I look at City's last accounts, I can see we made a player trading profit of £13.8m. If I look at the notes, I can see that the original cost of the players we sold was £128.1m and the accumulated amortisation was £87.1m. That tells me that the book value of players sold within the accounting period was £41m. As we made a profit of £13.8m, the implication is that those players were sold for a total of £54.8m.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Well I find it helps to be precise when other people are being imprecise. The gross amount they received for Bale never appears explicitly in the accounts and in itself has no bearing on FFP. The fact that virtually all of it represented a book profit, with them having paid £6m for him a few years earlier, was the relevant factor. If they'd paid £120m for him the year before then sold him for £85m, they'd have made a small loss on sale, rather than a whopping profit and the fact they'd received that £85m would be neither here nor there.

It's the profit or loss on the sale of players that gets counted as part of FFP, not what you get for the player, which is never explicitly stated in the accounts.

As an example, if I look at City's last accounts, I can see we made a player trading profit of £13.8m. If I look at the notes, I can see that the original cost of the players we sold was £128.1m and the accumulated amortisation was £87.1m. That tells me that the book value of players sold within the accounting period was £41m. As we made a profit of £13.8m, the implication is that those players were sold for a total of £54.8m.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this thread, it is highly interesting information as ever. I highly appreciate your efforts (and that of the others) to explain these things to people like myself who doesn't have clue.
 
bugsyblue said:
Where's he ever said that? That's just assumed. He will eventually want city and the city group in general to be a money making business if you ask me.
Click to expand...

How much do you think the man has earned off the back of his investment? Out of interest...

City, which may come as a surprise to some, are a small spoke in the ADUG wheel.... An important spoke but companies like Mubadala have equity in the tens of billions..
 
Zin 'messiah' Zimmer said:
How much do you think the man has earned off the back of his investment? Out of interest...

City, which may come as a surprise to some, are a small spoke in the ADUG wheel.... An important spoke but companies like Mubadala have equity in the tens of billions..
Click to expand...
Mubadala is owned by the Abu Dhabi government through its sovereign wealth fund and is nothing to do with ADUG. ADUG is privately owned by Sheikh Mansour and CFG is by far its largest subsidiary.
 
Zin 'messiah' Zimmer said:
Check out a few of Mubadalas subsidiaries and tell me it has nothing to do with ADUG..
Click to expand...
I probably should have been more specific. In terms of ownership, it has nothing to do with ADUG. Mubadala may have strategic partnerships and interests in many of our sponsors and it may have the same CEO and have shared investments, but it doesn't mean ADUG owns them. Mubadala are not a "spoke in the ADUG wheel".
 
west didsblue said:
I probably should have been more specific. In terms of ownership, it has nothing to do with ADUG. Mubadala may have strategic partnerships and interests in many of our sponsors and it may have the same CEO and have shared investments, but it doesn't mean ADUG owns them. Mubadala are not a "spoke in the ADUG wheel".
Click to expand...
I think what Zin is saying that they're all different parts of the same group, namely the Abu Dhabi government. The fact that Sheikh Mansour is the 100% owner of ADUG is a bit of a red herring to be honest.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I think what Zin is saying that they're all different parts of the same group, namely the Abu Dhabi government. The fact that Sheikh Mansour is the 100% owner of ADUG is a bit of a red herring to be honest.
Click to expand...

They'll all be singing from the same hymn sheet, what is written on paper is merely that. Whether its a decision being taken for ADUG or a decision being made for Mubadala, you can bet that the people sat around the table making it will be in the majority the same. As far as making money from the club, I don't think taking money out is the way in which the sheik will do it.
 
west didsblue said:
I probably should have been more specific. In terms of ownership, it has nothing to do with ADUG. Mubadala may have strategic partnerships and interests in many of our sponsors and it may have the same CEO and have shared investments, but it doesn't mean ADUG owns them. Mubadala are not a "spoke in the ADUG wheel".
Click to expand...

I never suggested ADUG owned them, I think you misinterpreted what I was alluding to.... The way the CFG is structured is perfect for ADUG, however, I think you'd be extremely naive in thinking that our owner isn't benefiting from both sides, which was the original comment I was addressing!!!
 
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