Kylian Mbappe

[SWP's back]

Umm where are you getting your figures.. did a search.. city's broadcasting revenue is 771 million vs PSG's 179 million right off the Forbes website. Seems a wee bit more than a few percent ;)

Where are you getting your figures.

Post the link as you've misread that. City's total turnover is less than £400m for their last published accoubts, PSG's are a few million behind.

http://www.skysports.com/football/n...ney-league-ahead-of-barcelona-and-real-madrid

City's broadcast revenue is certainly not 771m.

So it is within a few percent, I can just read is all ;-)

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

Your post has just proven you haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about. It makes all the difference that it's amortised for FFP purposes. I'm shocked a City fan seems clueless as to this.

Whether they have cash on reserve or not is simply immaterial. The cost (222m) is amortised over the life of the contract. It's 44.4m euros per year. That is the amount they have to be sure they can afford for FFP. UEFA aren't remotely interested whether they had the 222m in cash or whether they take on debt or an equity investment from the owner for the 222m. They have to show they can afford the 44.4m (plus wages) every year of the contract.

The fee does not show in this years accoubts, for FFP purposes as 222m spent.

I don't think they've done anything heroic. They have done exactly the same as City, which is to spend what they can afford.

I run enough businesses to know how amorisation works mate. I'm not questioning how it applies to FFP, I'm asking if they had it in one lump sum to pay la liga, because they did. To do this transfer, they must have probably double that in their accounts because they aren't going to do it and short themselves their operating money short term. It's only when the deal is done they look forward pertaining to FFP. But if the 222 isn't sitting there spare, they can't do the deal, and that's what I struggle to believe, not that they can account for it over 5 years.

 

[SWP's back]

So fucking what?

It's total revenue that counts. You don't get extra credit for TV revenue.

http://www.skysports.com/football/n...ney-league-ahead-of-barcelona-and-real-madrid

 

[bboy]

They have to show they can afford the 44.4m (plus wages) every year of the contract.

Right, and the wages are well over >30m. As previously established, the wage bill will have increased even before Neymar arrives.

75m is a big old jump, when they are already posting ahem rather large commercial incomes.

Right and wrong doesn't come into it for me, I'm only interested in what is likely to happen. This will be scrutinised heavily. There is nowhere near enough information for us to make any accurate judgement of our own on the sums pre-tax, let alone after agents fees, signing bonuses etc. The idea we can safely predict what UEFA's FFP lawyers will say... no. The devil is in the details, as we have seen previously with Neymar deals!

 

[Neville Kneville]

Heh, that's a rubbish argument if ever I heard one. No better than saying 'Oh, I'm sure it was above board' when the Neymar-Barca 'scandal' unfolded.

No it isn't.

If they piss Barca off & do it illegally, after already once being stitched up by UEFA, the likelihood is they will be banned.

Nobody will step in to challenge it, the cartel will all support it.

Imagine if we broke ffp now ? We would be fucking hung. And our bosses would be morons for doing it.

If we took it to court, we'd be banned until we got it overturned (if) & meanwhile Utd etc buy players, improve etc whilst we stand still (& our top players look for a way out).

It would be the most stupid & pointless thing ever, to break ffp rules at this moment.

 

[SWP's back]

I run enough businesses to know how amorisation works mate. I'm not questioning how it applies to FFP, I'm asking if they had it in one lump sum to pay la liga, because they did. To do this transfer, they must have probably double that in their accounts because they aren't going to do it and short themselves their operating money short term. It's only when the deal is done they look forward pertaining to FFP. But if the 222 isn't sitting there spare, they can't do the deal, and that's what I struggle to believe, not that they can account for it over 5 years.

You're still not getting it.

UEFA don't care if it was paid in one lump or in ten. The fee is amortised over the length of the contract for FFP purposes.

Whether they had 222m in cash or not just not matter 1 tiny little percent to UEFA. It isn't taken into account. It's not part of the calculation.

 

[Blue warrior]

That's confirmed it for me, missing out on a pasty, the guys a madman

True mate could be a deal breaker!

 

[SWP's back]

Right, and the wages are well over >30m. As previously established, the wage bill will have increased even before Neymar arrives.

75m is a big old jump, when they are already posting ahem rather large commercial incomes.

Right and wrong doesn't come into it for me, I'm only interested in what is likely to happen. This will be scrutinised heavily. There is nowhere near enough information for us to make any accurate judgement of our own on the sums pre-tax, let alone after agents fees, signing bonuses etc. The idea we can safely predict what UEFA's FFP lawyers will say... no. The devil is in the details, as we have seen previously with Neymar deals!

That's as may be but they should know as the heave the figures to hand and either way, a third party didn't pay the fee (i.e. A dodgy hedge fund for publicity purposes etc as was suggested).

 

[bboy]

No it isn't.

If they piss Barca off & do it illegally, after already once being stitched up by UEFA, the likelihood is they will be banned.

Nobody will step in to challenge it, the cartel will all support it.

Imagine if we broke ffp now ? We would be fucking hung. And our bosses would be morons for doing it.

If we took it to court, we'd be banned until we got it overturned (if) & meanwhile Utd etc buy players, improve etc whilst we stand still (& our top players look for a way out).

It would be the most stupid & pointless thing ever, to break ffp rules at this moment.

Still the exact same argument. We don't know what is going through their minds, apart from Qatar needed a 'good news' story. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that in pursuing that, they've cut a corner or two w/r/t the proper procedures. Someone else mooted that at this point, with maybe the number three commercially significant player in the world involved, the cost to Uefa in excluding him from the competition means their resolve re FFP would be tested. And you're discounting that people do silly things some times, or rational things for reasons that outwardly appear utterly irrational. And lie about it.

 

[Cityfan]

I run enough businesses to know how amorisation works mate. I'm not questioning how it applies to FFP, I'm asking if they had it in one lump sum to pay la liga, because they did. To do this transfer, they must have probably double that in their accounts because they aren't going to do it and short themselves their operating money short term. It's only when the deal is done they look forward pertaining to FFP. But if the 222 isn't sitting there spare, they can't do the deal, and that's what I struggle to believe, not that they can account for it over 5 years.

For FFP purposes though it really doesn't matter how they get cash, whether it's a soft loan equity injection or what.
The question is whether or not they can cover it over the length of the contract with income from allowable sources(TV revenue, allowable sponsorship etc, etc.)