bumbleblue
Well-Known Member
Sorry but "misnomer nights dream" fbloke hahah, genius needs a box of its own!!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
FFPR in a nutshell
- Thread starter Prestwich_Blue
- Start date
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)
Just bumping this to ask if it can be made a sticky as there are still threads being started on FFPR.
Just bumping this to ask if it can be made a sticky as there are still threads being started on FFPR.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)
What's to stop City going in to 'real debt'?
Borrow £500m plus from a couple of institutions, to service transfers/wages for the forseeable future (sure won't be a problem getting credit?)
First Gulf Bank, Barclays, anyone?
Sheik Mansour and his associates, simply appropriate the monies they have previously used, to then finance and sponsor the club in a variety of commercial tie-ups.
We have £500m sitting on the balance sheet and Sheik Mansour is free to use his personal fortune to maximum effect off the field.
There is absolutely nothing to stop Sheik Mansour in justifying what is 'fair value' is to him in terms of sponsoring the club he owns.
Either this, or float the entire club on the Middle East 'trading floor', with invites to 'private institutions' club could easily raise a billion on future development returns.
What's to stop City going in to 'real debt'?
Borrow £500m plus from a couple of institutions, to service transfers/wages for the forseeable future (sure won't be a problem getting credit?)
First Gulf Bank, Barclays, anyone?
Sheik Mansour and his associates, simply appropriate the monies they have previously used, to then finance and sponsor the club in a variety of commercial tie-ups.
We have £500m sitting on the balance sheet and Sheik Mansour is free to use his personal fortune to maximum effect off the field.
There is absolutely nothing to stop Sheik Mansour in justifying what is 'fair value' is to him in terms of sponsoring the club he owns.
Either this, or float the entire club on the Middle East 'trading floor', with invites to 'private institutions' club could easily raise a billion on future development returns.
mcfc2112
Well-Known Member
JoeMercer'sWay said:I wonder if the club has sought assurances on the branding regulations etc., as we've seen the not so subtle pushing of Blue Moon as an entity(if the new home kit design whispers are to be believed also), maybe brands related to the club can be used as naming rights as well...
e.g. we don't have to have Manchester City resort in Abu Dhabi, but we could have the "Blue Moon Resort", quizas...
Let's buy the "Blue Moon" beer brand off Coors too!
Gary James
Well-Known Member
Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)
I agree. This should be a sticky because there are so many wildly inaccurate rumours/stories/gossip/jealousy/nervousness etc. out there that it would be great if the excellent breakdown by Prestwich Blue can be permanently and easily available.
As always the media, rival fans, our own 'nervous' fans will focus on the negatives of the new rules but as PB accurately pointed out this is an irritant but not something that will ultimately kill off City's ambition.
As part of my research for "The Journey: Rebuilding Manchester City" I have interviewed various figures within the Club who have/are focusing on this. The message they give is that they have it well under control.
I've said it so many times in the past that City's current Leadership team are planning for every eventuality and for the long term, not knee-jerk. That makes a significant - and pleasant - change from the past and from almost every other club.
I don't know what plans Tottenham/Liverpool and any other CL hopeful have, but I bet they're not as robust as the ones City are making/have made.
Prestwich_Blue said:Just bumping this to ask if it can be made a sticky as there are still threads being started on FFPR.
I agree. This should be a sticky because there are so many wildly inaccurate rumours/stories/gossip/jealousy/nervousness etc. out there that it would be great if the excellent breakdown by Prestwich Blue can be permanently and easily available.
As always the media, rival fans, our own 'nervous' fans will focus on the negatives of the new rules but as PB accurately pointed out this is an irritant but not something that will ultimately kill off City's ambition.
As part of my research for "The Journey: Rebuilding Manchester City" I have interviewed various figures within the Club who have/are focusing on this. The message they give is that they have it well under control.
I've said it so many times in the past that City's current Leadership team are planning for every eventuality and for the long term, not knee-jerk. That makes a significant - and pleasant - change from the past and from almost every other club.
I don't know what plans Tottenham/Liverpool and any other CL hopeful have, but I bet they're not as robust as the ones City are making/have made.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)
We simply need to do what the rags have done and sign a number of commercial sponsorship/partnership deals for £5 or 10m a time. Plus we're carrying a significant number of players who are clearly surplus to requirements and whose wages contribute quite a sum towards our losses. Getting rid of them will help in two ways. First the wages will be off the P&L account and second, we may show a profit on sale, even though we don't get back what we paid. As an expampe, Jo was bought for something like £20m supposedly and is on a 5 year contract. His book value, 3 years in, will only be £8m so anything more than that will represent a profit.
If Tevez goes, it's even better FFPR-wise as his book value is currently probably £15m. Getting £50m for him would give us a profit on sale of £35m plus something like £10m+ per annum off the wage bill.
We don't need to. The interest payable would increase our losses and wouldn't give us any increase in income to offset it.tolmie's hairdoo said:What's to stop City going in to 'real debt'?
We simply need to do what the rags have done and sign a number of commercial sponsorship/partnership deals for £5 or 10m a time. Plus we're carrying a significant number of players who are clearly surplus to requirements and whose wages contribute quite a sum towards our losses. Getting rid of them will help in two ways. First the wages will be off the P&L account and second, we may show a profit on sale, even though we don't get back what we paid. As an expampe, Jo was bought for something like £20m supposedly and is on a 5 year contract. His book value, 3 years in, will only be £8m so anything more than that will represent a profit.
If Tevez goes, it's even better FFPR-wise as his book value is currently probably £15m. Getting £50m for him would give us a profit on sale of £35m plus something like £10m+ per annum off the wage bill.
Three_Hat-tricks
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 849
Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)
PB, you actually succeed in making all this sound interesting! You should go into after-dinner speaking. ;-)
Prestwich_Blue said:We don't need to. The interest payable would increase our losses and wouldn't give us any increase in income to offset it.tolmie's hairdoo said:What's to stop City going in to 'real debt'?
We simply need to do what the rags have done and sign a number of commercial sponsorship/partnership deals for £5 or 10m a time. Plus we're carrying a significant number of players who are clearly surplus to requirements and whose wages contribute quite a sum towards our losses. Getting rid of them will help in two ways. First the wages will be off the P&L account and second, we may show a profit on sale, even though we don't get back what we paid. As an expampe, Jo was bought for something like £20m supposedly and is on a 5 year contract. His book value, 3 years in, will only be £8m so anything more than that will represent a profit.
If Tevez goes, it's even better FFPR-wise as his book value is currently probably £15m. Getting £50m for him would give us a profit on sale of £35m plus something like £10m+ per annum off the wage bill.
PB, you actually succeed in making all this sound interesting! You should go into after-dinner speaking. ;-)
Gary James
Well-Known Member
Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)
And this is why all those loan departures (instead of sales) could prove to have been very sensible. Adebayor, for example, may be worth more now than he was a year ago, but in any case a sale next month/next financial year will help that year's profit - more significant than helping last year's because of the rules.
Prestwich_Blue said:Plus we're carrying a significant number of players who are clearly surplus to requirements and whose wages contribute quite a sum towards our losses. Getting rid of them will help in two ways. First the wages will be off the P&L account and second, we may show a profit on sale, even though we don't get back what we paid. As an expampe, Jo was bought for something like £20m supposedly and is on a 5 year contract. His book value, 3 years in, will only be £8m so anything more than that will represent a profit.
And this is why all those loan departures (instead of sales) could prove to have been very sensible. Adebayor, for example, may be worth more now than he was a year ago, but in any case a sale next month/next financial year will help that year's profit - more significant than helping last year's because of the rules.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)
You're dreaming if you think it's we will get anything above the 'book value' you have on people such as Jo.
The cold hard facts are very different. We have players who are worth more over their course of their contract duration, than what we would receive from any actual sale.
And all these sales are being prohibited by the fact none of these players will take a wage drop to move on.
So we either release them on a free, so they can negotiate their own signing-on fee to offset a drop in wages.
Or we pay them off...which is what they want. Something which would only add to our losses.
We are stuck between a rock and hard place and our transfer activity this summer will bear this out.
Bridge has two years left at say £90k a week...so that's best part of £8m he's owed.
If somebody is able to sell Bridge for anything above £3m, they deserve the difference, themselves.
Prestwich_Blue said:We don't need to. The interest payable would increase our losses and wouldn't give us any increase in income to offset it.tolmie's hairdoo said:What's to stop City going in to 'real debt'?
We simply need to do what the rags have done and sign a number of commercial sponsorship/partnership deals for £5 or 10m a time. Plus we're carrying a significant number of players who are clearly surplus to requirements and whose wages contribute quite a sum towards our losses. Getting rid of them will help in two ways. First the wages will be off the P&L account and second, we may show a profit on sale, even though we don't get back what we paid. As an expampe, Jo was bought for something like £20m supposedly and is on a 5 year contract. His book value, 3 years in, will only be £8m so anything more than that will represent a profit.
If Tevez goes, it's even better FFPR-wise as his book value is currently probably £15m. Getting £50m for him would give us a profit on sale of £35m plus something like £10m+ per annum off the wage bill.
You're dreaming if you think it's we will get anything above the 'book value' you have on people such as Jo.
The cold hard facts are very different. We have players who are worth more over their course of their contract duration, than what we would receive from any actual sale.
And all these sales are being prohibited by the fact none of these players will take a wage drop to move on.
So we either release them on a free, so they can negotiate their own signing-on fee to offset a drop in wages.
Or we pay them off...which is what they want. Something which would only add to our losses.
We are stuck between a rock and hard place and our transfer activity this summer will bear this out.
Bridge has two years left at say £90k a week...so that's best part of £8m he's owed.
If somebody is able to sell Bridge for anything above £3m, they deserve the difference, themselves.