FFPR in a nutshell

Prestwich_Blue

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 Jan 2006
Messages
59,056
Location
Wherever I lay my hat that's my home
OK - here's my guide to FFPR which is as concise as I can make it. Mods - any chance of making this a sticky?

When does FFPR kick-in?
This is one of the most complicated bits. The first season that UEFA will do the sums will be in the 2013/14 season (the first “monitoring period”) and this will be based on accounts for the financial years ending in the previous 2 seasons. As our accounts run from 1st June to 31st May, the first accounts that will form part of FFPR will be the ones for the financial year 2011/12 starting next week. From 2014/15, it will be 3 years accounts that get considered. The results will determine if a club gets a licence for European competitions in the following season.

What do clubs have to do?
FFPR talks about breaking even but you can make an aggregate loss of €5m in the accounts making up the monitoring period. So you can make a loss in one or even two years as long as these are covered by a profit in the third. You are also allowed to make a further aggregate loss of €45m in 2013/14 and 2014/15 if the owners are prepared to cover it. After that it drops to €30m for the next 3 monitoring periods. After that is still to be decided.

What income is allowed?
The usual match-day, commercial & media income counts as well as profit on disposal of assets and players. In addition, we can count any non-football income from operations in or near to CoMS or that use the club branding as part of their operations. So income from any hotels or other leisure/commercial facilities in Eastlands owned by the club can count.
A lot of talk about excluding commercial deals above “fair value” but this only applies to related party transactions. These are tightly defined so the Sheikh buying a box for £50m would be excluded but a £50m sponsorship from Etihad probably wouldn’t. If Jaguar were to pay us £100m that would be OK as well.

What expenses can be excluded?
Any expenditure on the youth system and infrastructure can be excluded. Also, if you would have been in profit but for player amortisation incurred on players bought before June 1st 2010, then this can be excluded as well. As that was £71m in those accounts, that’s good for us.

Are there any other get-outs?
Yes. UEFA can ignore any losses if they think you are on track to be profitable up to three years ahead. So if we’re making losses and they’re getting smaller or we can demonstrate we will be profitable in a few years’ time, they can grant a licence.

How do we stand at the moment?
Our accounts to 31 May 2010 showed a loss of £121m, of which £71m was related to player amortisation. Increasing income by just £35m in the forthcoming financial year (to 31 May 2012) should allow us to meet the requirement and a decent CL run could give us most if not all of that.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
OK - here's my guide to FFPR which is as concise as I can make it. Mods - any chance of making this a sticky?

When does FFPR kick-in?
This is one of the most complicated bits. The first season that UEFA will do the sums will be in the 2013/14 season (the first “monitoring period”) and this will be based on accounts for the financial years ending in the previous 2 seasons. As our accounts run from 1st June to 31st May, the first accounts that will form part of FFPR will be the ones for the financial year 2011/12 starting next week. From 2014/15, it will be 3 years accounts that get considered. The results will determine if a club gets a licence for European competitions in the following season.

What do clubs have to do?
FFPR talks about breaking even but you can make an aggregate loss of €5m in the accounts making up the monitoring period. So you can make a loss in one or even two years as long as these are covered by a profit in the third. You are also allowed to make a further aggregate loss of €45m in 2013/14 and 2014/15 if the owners are prepared to cover it. After that it drops to €30m for the next 3 monitoring periods. After that is still to be decided.

What income is allowed?
The usual match-day, commercial & media income counts as well as profit on disposal of assets and players. In addition, we can count any non-football income from operations in or near to CoMS or that use the club branding as part of their operations. So income from any hotels or other leisure/commercial facilities in Eastlands owned by the club can count.
A lot of talk about excluding commercial deals above “fair value” but this only applies to related party transactions. These are tightly defined so the Sheikh buying a box for £50m would be excluded but a £50m sponsorship from Etihad probably wouldn’t. If Jaguar were to pay us £100m that would be OK as well.

What expenses can be excluded?
Any expenditure on the youth system and infrastructure can be excluded. Also, if you would have been in profit but for player amortisation incurred on players bought before June 1st 2010, then this can be excluded as well. As that was £71m in those accounts, that’s good for us.

Are there any other get-outs?
Yes. UEFA can ignore any losses if they think you are on track to be profitable up to three years ahead. So if we’re making losses and they’re getting smaller or we can demonstrate we will be profitable in a few years’ time, they can grant a licence.

How do we stand at the moment?
Our accounts to 31 May 2010 showed a loss of £121m, of which £71m was related to player amortisation. Increasing income by just £35m in the forthcoming financial year (to 31 May 2012) should allow us to meet the requirement and a decent CL run could give us most if not all of that.

Yeah, but can we still sign Messi?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
OK - here's my guide to FFPR which is as concise as I can make it. Mods - any chance of making this a sticky?

When does FFPR kick-in?
This is one of the most complicated bits. The first season that UEFA will do the sums will be in the 2013/14 season (the first “monitoring period”) and this will be based on accounts for the financial years ending in the previous 2 seasons. As our accounts run from 1st June to 31st May, the first accounts that will form part of FFPR will be the ones for the financial year 2011/12 starting next week. From 2014/15, it will be 3 years accounts that get considered. The results will determine if a club gets a licence for European competitions in the following season.

What do clubs have to do?
FFPR talks about breaking even but you can make an aggregate loss of €5m in the accounts making up the monitoring period. So you can make a loss in one or even two years as long as these are covered by a profit in the third. You are also allowed to make a further aggregate loss of €45m in 2013/14 and 2014/15 if the owners are prepared to cover it. After that it drops to €30m for the next 3 monitoring periods. After that is still to be decided.

What income is allowed?
The usual match-day, commercial & media income counts as well as profit on disposal of assets and players. In addition, we can count any non-football income from operations in or near to CoMS or that use the club branding as part of their operations. So income from any hotels or other leisure/commercial facilities in Eastlands owned by the club can count.
A lot of talk about excluding commercial deals above “fair value” but this only applies to related party transactions. These are tightly defined so the Sheikh buying a box for £50m would be excluded but a £50m sponsorship from Etihad probably wouldn’t. If Jaguar were to pay us £100m that would be OK as well.

What expenses can be excluded?
Any expenditure on the youth system and infrastructure can be excluded. Also, if you would have been in profit but for player amortisation incurred on players bought before June 1st 2010, then this can be excluded as well. As that was £71m in those accounts, that’s good for us.

Are there any other get-outs?
Yes. UEFA can ignore any losses if they think you are on track to be profitable up to three years ahead. So if we’re making losses and they’re getting smaller or we can demonstrate we will be profitable in a few years’ time, they can grant a licence.

How do we stand at the moment?
Our accounts to 31 May 2010 showed a loss of £121m, of which £71m was related to player amortisation. Increasing income by just £35m in the forthcoming financial year (to 31 May 2012) should allow us to meet the requirement and a decent CL run could give us most if not all of that.
The sponsorship has to reflect the success of the club aswell doesnt it? It still cant be humongous
 
Our wage bill is sure to drop soon isn't it? Adebayor is on far more than Dzeko, I'd guess Dzeko's wages to be around Santa Cruz level and Santa Cruz is another we'll get rid of. Baines would probably command less wages than Bridge which is absurd but when we signed Bridge we were desperate for that sort of player. Very important we produce some youngsters in the coming years to help our wage bill. Boyata is a good start, already looks classy to me.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
OK - here's my guide to FFPR which is as concise as I can make it. Mods - any chance of making this a sticky?

When does FFPR kick-in?
This is one of the most complicated bits. The first season that UEFA will do the sums will be in the 2013/14 season (the first “monitoring period”) and this will be based on accounts for the financial years ending in the previous 2 seasons. As our accounts run from 1st June to 31st May, the first accounts that will form part of FFPR will be the ones for the financial year 2011/12 starting next week. From 2014/15, it will be 3 years accounts that get considered. The results will determine if a club gets a licence for European competitions in the following season.

What do clubs have to do?
FFPR talks about breaking even but you can make an aggregate loss of €5m in the accounts making up the monitoring period. So you can make a loss in one or even two years as long as these are covered by a profit in the third. You are also allowed to make a further aggregate loss of €45m in 2013/14 and 2014/15 if the owners are prepared to cover it. After that it drops to €30m for the next 3 monitoring periods. After that is still to be decided.

What income is allowed?
The usual match-day, commercial & media income counts as well as profit on disposal of assets and players. In addition, we can count any non-football income from operations in or near to CoMS or that use the club branding as part of their operations. So income from any hotels or other leisure/commercial facilities in Eastlands owned by the club can count.
A lot of talk about excluding commercial deals above “fair value” but this only applies to related party transactions. These are tightly defined so the Sheikh buying a box for £50m would be excluded but a £50m sponsorship from Etihad probably wouldn’t. If Jaguar were to pay us £100m that would be OK as well.

What expenses can be excluded?
Any expenditure on the youth system and infrastructure can be excluded. Also, if you would have been in profit but for player amortisation incurred on players bought before June 1st 2010, then this can be excluded as well. As that was £71m in those accounts, that’s good for us.

Are there any other get-outs?
Yes. UEFA can ignore any losses if they think you are on track to be profitable up to three years ahead. So if we’re making losses and they’re getting smaller or we can demonstrate we will be profitable in a few years’ time, they can grant a licence.

How do we stand at the moment?
Our accounts to 31 May 2010 showed a loss of £121m, of which £71m was related to player amortisation. Increasing income by just £35m in the forthcoming financial year (to 31 May 2012) should allow us to meet the requirement and a decent CL run could give us most if not all of that.

Also

Grey Areas

What is 'fair market value' - and who decides?

The whole proposition of controlling what is acceptable in terms of income and fair market value is a hot topic for FFPR.

For example if BP wanted to sponsor City and pay £200m per season to have their name on the shirts would that be OK?

Some are suggesting that the 'fair market' value for City shirt deals is far below that as even Barca only get about 1/5 of that.

But if a company IS willing to pay can UEFA argue with such a commercial decision?

Surely not.

Why would BP be willing to do something as crazy as that though?

Well City are owned by very wealthy and important people whom companies want to be close to. There are also other countries who want to be 'in' with Sheikh Mansour and of course some are relatives and friends of the Sheikh and his family.

It could be argued that City are indeed unique in terms of 'fair market value' because of who controls the club.

Therefore commercial income could well be the panacea for all of City's FFPR ills.

Could UEFA fight that?

Of course they could but I suspect that that would be a fight UEFA (and perhaps City) wont want and as such the fair market value will mean that City will get away with whatever they want to.
 
LoveCity said:
Our wage bill is sure to drop soon isn't it? Adebayor is on far more than Dzeko, I'd guess Dzeko's wages to be around Santa Cruz level and Santa Cruz is another we'll get rid of. Baines would probably command less wages than Bridge which is absurd but when we signed Bridge we were desperate for that sort of player. Very important we produce some youngsters in the coming years to help our wage bill. Boyata is a good start, already looks classy to me.

Wages has killed us since the move there is average players on some huge somes of money in the squad. Will we be able to off load players that we dont need is the big question. How much of a hit are we going to take on some of the players. Saying that we should make some money on Ned and brake even on Given if we sell to the highest bidder the rest looks like we could be taking a major hit on. Yes it will be great to get them off the wage bill but you would want to see some sort of decent fees coming in for all of them.
 
The Pink Panther said:
You are also allowed to make a further aggregate loss of €45m in 2013/14 and 2014/15 if the owners are prepared to cover it.

Is that in total or 45M per season?
That's total aggregrate loss over 3 seasons.<br /><br />-- Sun May 29, 2011 12:00 am --<br /><br />
fbloke said:
For example if BP wanted to sponsor City and pay £200m per season to have their name on the shirts would that be OK?
As long as anyone at BP was not someone, or a close relation of someone, that had control over City then yes it is. Fair value only applies to related party transactions, not arms-length ones.

Even Etihad probably wouldn't count as a related party even though two of Sheikh Masnsour's half-brothers are on the board and one of their directors is a non-exec at City.
 
Would the Champions League be tainted if the Champions of England were excluded? ITV and Sky who control the biggest TV market would be well pissed if that happened. UEFA manipulate everything to suit what they want. FFP is all about protecting the elite group of clubs of which we are now a member, just in time
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.