FFPR in a nutshell

[CheethamHillBlue]

Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)

What's to stop City going in to 'real debt'?

We don't need to. The interest payable would increase our losses and wouldn't give us any increase in income to offset it.

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.

Put me down for £5 sponsorship if City do the treble in 2012 mate. :-)

 

[Braggster]

Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)

Quite right TH. Whichever pillock negotiated those contracts deserves shooting [Cook: I'm looking at you].

 

[blueinsa]

Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)

What's to stop City going in to 'real debt'?

We don't need to. The interest payable would increase our losses and wouldn't give us any increase in income to offset it.

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.

Pay them off, take the loss and then just spend whilst putting the fingers up at Platini...

...FFPR as you state on the other thread will fall flat on its face soon enough.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)

FFPR MY ARSE !!!!

That Platini fella is nothin' but a c#nt , like that Sepp Blatter ....... this plan should be known as MSCAAC ... "Must Stop City At All Costs"!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)

What's to stop City going in to 'real debt'?

We don't need to. The interest payable would increase our losses and wouldn't give us any increase in income to offset it.

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.

Maybe Jo wasn't the best example!

But you are right that wages are the issue and if FFPR brings some sense to wage structures then it will have been worthwhile. This is also made worse because players sign 5-year contracts. It's nothing to do with FFPR but I don't see why clubs don't offer 12-month rolling contracts or longer contracts with 3 or 6 month notice periods.

And wages shouldd be performance related, both with respect to the team and the individual. That way, there would be less incentive for out of favour players to stick around as playing more first team games would actually be beneficial for their income.

 

[trumpton]

Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)

[/quote]
Maybe Jo wasn't the best example!

But you are right that wages are the issue and if FFPR brings some sense to wage structures then it will have been worthwhile. This is also made worse because players sign 5-year contracts. It's nothing to do with FFPR but I don't see why clubs don't offer 12-month rolling contracts or longer contracts with 3 or 6 month notice periods.

And wages shouldd be performance related, both with respect to the team and the individual. That way, there would be less incentive for out of favour players to stick around as playing more first team games would actually be beneficial for their income.[/quote]

A 12 month rolling contract would certainly bring the transfer fees down!

 

[Mustard Dave]

You missed a critical point regards income though. It clearly states that you can include income from non-footballing operations, as follows:

• Operations based at, or in close proximity to, a club’s stadium and
training facilities such as a hotel, restaurant, conference centre, business
premises (for rental), health-care centre, other sports teams; and
• Operations clearly using the name/brand of a club as part of their
operations.

To me, this latter point is an enormous loophole. All ADUG has to do is to rename Abu Dhabi Airport, "Manchester City Abu Dhabi Airport" and basically the whole thing would be sorted.

What grade did you achieve in Geography at School :-)

The first post says you can include income from any of the bullet pointed items, so as long as the source of income comes from local enterprises or branded operations, it is all good.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)

12-month loan contracts can't work. It works for older players such as Giggs etc.

But a 12-month rolling deal has to be mutually agreeable.

So putting Carlos on a roller would have seen him simply leave for free to Real Madrid this summer.

Martin O' Neill had something similar in place and each year at Celtic, it was will he, won't he?

All contracts should be three years, tops.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

All ADUG has to do is to rename Abu Dhabi Airport, "Manchester City Abu Dhabi Airport and basically the whole thing would be sorted.

Let's not be giving Ryanair ideas eh? Some of their current airport "locations" are bad enough as it is.

 

[ST Coleridge]

Re: FFPR in a nutshell (MODS - Can this be made a sticky?)

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.

Hi folks!

Has anyone done any sums on where we are right now, and how this might impact this summer's transfers?

For instance, I think we paid out £133m in wages in 09/10, and brought in £125m in various revenue.

Comings and goings since then (I've just given them all either £100k or £80k p/w):

In: Silva (£5m p/y)
Yaya (5)
Dzeko (5)
Boateng (4)
Kolarov (4)
Balotelli (5)
Milner (4)
Total: 32m

Out: Robinho (5)
Ireland (4)
Petrov (1.5)
Benjani (1.5)
Sylvinho (1.5)
Caicedo (1.5)
Total: 15m

So a net gain of 17m takes us to £150m in wages per year.

If we add 30m Champions League money to our 09/10 earnings, that leaves us with a £5m profit (over wages). Hence 'breaking even on transfers/wages' = 'profit from shifting dead wood' + £5m.

Well, you see what I'm getting at - is anyone able to do a more nuanced (and well-informed) version of my rough and childish sums? I was just thinking how FFPR often (misguidedly) informs discussions in the Transfer Forum, and how this summer's activity could do with a clarified background.