Lionel Messi | Joins Inter Miami (pg4111)

[pavelsrnicek]

Can someone explain how Messi would be self financing?

Say £200m transfer fee is amortised to £50m a year and £15m annual salary (conservative) is £65m a year

Can anyone point to an example of where a clubs revenue has gone up by £60m due to the signing of one player. Granted Messi is top of the shop so can has increase of £30/40m been attributed to the signing of one player? Did Madrids go up significantly after any off their buys?

It wouldn't be £200m but much closer to £100m, probably £120m. I believe that's his buyout clause for a non-Spanish club. So that amortises to £24m a year. Let's say Nike & Etihad put in an additional £10m a year each. That reduces net amortisation to £4m. If he earnes £250k a week, a lot of that could be tied into commercial sponsorships (as happens with Rooney) plus we'd attract additional sponsorships from companies wanting to be associated. Let's say we sign up 4 new sponsors for £3m a year each, that effectively pays his wages.

The problem we seem to have is the net spend restriction, which carries on into 2015/16 according to UEFA. We'd probably have to sell two or three of our better players but if we can raise £60-70m then we'd probably be OK.

I would think if we signed Messi we would look at a 6+ year deal due to the cost.

I understood that if we can show something close to break even (using FFP rules and allowable deductions) from our last set of accounts released we should be clear of restrictions next summer. Is that not the case?

 

[LevyBee76]

Can someone explain how Messi would be self financing?

Say £200m transfer fee is amortised to £50m a year and £15m annual salary (conservative) is £65m a year

Can anyone point to an example of where a clubs revenue has gone up by £60m due to the signing of one player. Granted Messi is top of the shop so can has increase of £30/40m been attributed to the signing of one player? Did Madrids go up significantly after any off their buys?

It wouldn't be £200m but much closer to £100m, probably £120m. I believe that's his buyout clause for a non-Spanish club. So that amortises to £24m a year. Let's say Nike & Etihad put in an additional £10m a year each. That reduces net amortisation to £4m. If he earnes £250k a week, a lot of that could be tied into commercial sponsorships (as happens with Rooney) plus we'd attract additional sponsorships from companies wanting to be associated. Let's say we sign up 4 new sponsors for £3m a year each, that effectively pays his wages.

The problem we seem to have is the net spend restriction, which carries on into 2015/16 according to UEFA. We'd probably have to sell two or three of our better players but if we can raise £60-70m then we'd probably be OK.

I was lead to believe that we will be restriction free come next season as we've behaved this season... the club stated we should be restriction free when the Annual report was released

 

[johnmc]

It wouldn't be £200m but much closer to £100m, probably £120m. I believe that's his buyout clause for a non-Spanish club. So that amortises to £24m a year. Let's say Nike & Etihad put in an additional £10m a year each. That reduces net amortisation to £4m. If he earnes £250k a week, a lot of that could be tied into commercial sponsorships (as happens with Rooney) plus we'd attract additional sponsorships from companies wanting to be associated. Let's say we sign up 4 new sponsors for £3m a year each, that effectively pays his wages.

The problem we seem to have is the net spend restriction, which carries on into 2015/16 according to UEFA. We'd probably have to sell two or three of our better players but if we can raise £60-70m then we'd probably be OK.

I assume that the £120m is hearsay?

Also what reasons would Nike have for putting £10m in? Barca sell far more shirts than us so to pay us a further £10m a year on top of what they already give us to get our shirt shales up whilst at the expense of Barca shirt sales (also Nike) doesnt make sense - would they not just be better served offering Messi a further £2m/£5m (whatever) to stay at Barca? I understand why Etihad would but where would this fall in FFP - would the 10 year deal be ripped up and a new started?

Also as stated £250k is after tax it would seem - if you were Messi you would surely insist on being the top paid player in the league especially given the amount of money you are about to make your club. So moire like £350/£400k.

I appreciate shirt sales would go up and there would be increased commercial interests but when you are in the champions league, you have players like Aguero already I just dont see how the siugning of Messi would add essentially 20% to our turnover

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Can someone explain how Messi would be self financing?

Say £200m transfer fee is amortised to £50m a year and £15m annual salary (conservative) is £65m a year

Can anyone point to an example of where a clubs revenue has gone up by £60m due to the signing of one player. Granted Messi is top of the shop so can has increase of £30/40m been attributed to the signing of one player? Did Madrids go up significantly after any off their buys?

£150 million amortised over five years (both of which are closer to the mark imo) makes it £30 million pa. That brings the deal much more within the bounds of being self-financing. Also the wage figure needs to be offset against who would make way for him (Jovetic?) bringing the net wage figure down by circa £4 million (plus amortisation write-off).

 

[jonmcity]

Can someone explain how Messi would be self financing?

Say £200m transfer fee is amortised to £50m a year and £15m annual salary (conservative) is £65m a year

Can anyone point to an example of where a clubs revenue has gone up by £60m due to the signing of one player. Granted Messi is top of the shop so can has increase of £30/40m been attributed to the signing of one player? Did Madrids go up significantly after any off their buys?

It wouldn't be £200m but much closer to £100m, probably £120m. I believe that's his buyout clause for a non-Spanish club. So that amortises to £24m a year. Let's say Nike & Etihad put in an additional £10m a year each. That reduces net amortisation to £4m. If he earnes £250k a week, a lot of that could be tied into commercial sponsorships (as happens with Rooney) plus we'd attract additional sponsorships from companies wanting to be associated. Let's say we sign up 4 new sponsors for £3m a year each, that effectively pays his wages.

The problem we seem to have is the net spend restriction, which carries on into 2015/16 according to UEFA. We'd probably have to sell two or three of our better players but if we can raise £60-70m then we'd probably be OK.

I was lead to believe that we will be restriction free come next season as we've behaved this season... the club stated we should be restriction free when the Annual report was released

If we break even we are released from restriction.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It wouldn't be £200m but much closer to £100m, probably £120m. I believe that's his buyout clause for a non-Spanish club. So that amortises to £24m a year. Let's say Nike & Etihad put in an additional £10m a year each. That reduces net amortisation to £4m. If he earnes £250k a week, a lot of that could be tied into commercial sponsorships (as happens with Rooney) plus we'd attract additional sponsorships from companies wanting to be associated. Let's say we sign up 4 new sponsors for £3m a year each, that effectively pays his wages.

The problem we seem to have is the net spend restriction, which carries on into 2015/16 according to UEFA. We'd probably have to sell two or three of our better players but if we can raise £60-70m then we'd probably be OK.

I was lead to believe that we will be restriction free come next season as we've behaved this season... the club stated we should be restriction free when the Annual report was released

If we break even we are released from restriction.

From restrictions on the wage bill and CL squad size only. Not net transfer spend.

We had this discussion in the FFP thread.

 

[stony]

Can someone explain how Messi would be self financing?

Say £200m transfer fee is amortised to £50m a year and £15m annual salary (conservative) is £65m a year

Can anyone point to an example of where a clubs revenue has gone up by £60m due to the signing of one player. Granted Messi is top of the shop so can has increase of £30/40m been attributed to the signing of one player? Did Madrids go up significantly after any off their buys?

It wouldn't be £200m but much closer to £100m, probably £120m. I believe that's his buyout clause for a non-Spanish club. So that amortises to £24m a year. Let's say Nike & Etihad put in an additional £10m a year each. That reduces net amortisation to £4m. If he earnes £250k a week, a lot of that could be tied into commercial sponsorships (as happens with Rooney) plus we'd attract additional sponsorships from companies wanting to be associated. Let's say we sign up 4 new sponsors for £3m a year each, that effectively pays his wages.

The problem we seem to have is the net spend restriction, which carries on into 2015/16 according to UEFA. We'd probably have to sell two or three of our better players but if we can raise £60-70m then we'd probably be OK.

You're not taking into account the wording on the statement about our FFP punishment. We agreed to significantly reduce spending. Even if we use the years of our highest spending as our average, that still only equates to an average of £83M, and we have agreed to "significantly reduce" that amount, and that is the best case scenario. If they use the last few years average, then our spend comes down to £43M. Depending on how UEFA interpret their own punishment, we could have less than last summer to spend.
Not a chance Messi will be coming this year.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Can someone explain how Messi would be self financing?

Say £200m transfer fee is amortised to £50m a year and £15m annual salary (conservative) is £65m a year

Can anyone point to an example of where a clubs revenue has gone up by £60m due to the signing of one player. Granted Messi is top of the shop so can has increase of £30/40m been attributed to the signing of one player? Did Madrids go up significantly after any off their buys?

It wouldn't be £200m but much closer to £100m, probably £120m. I believe that's his buyout clause for a non-Spanish club. So that amortises to £24m a year. Let's say Nike & Etihad put in an additional £10m a year each. That reduces net amortisation to £4m. If he earnes £250k a week, a lot of that could be tied into commercial sponsorships (as happens with Rooney) plus we'd attract additional sponsorships from companies wanting to be associated. Let's say we sign up 4 new sponsors for £3m a year each, that effectively pays his wages.

The problem we seem to have is the net spend restriction, which carries on into 2015/16 according to UEFA. We'd probably have to sell two or three of our better players but if we can raise £60-70m then we'd probably be OK.

You're not taking into account the wording on the statement about our FFP punishment. We agreed to significantly reduce spending. Even if we use the years of our highest spending as our average, that still only equates to an average of £83M, and we have agreed to "significantly reduce" that amount, and that is the best case scenario. If they use the last few years average, then our spend comes down to £43M. Depending on how UEFA interpret their own punishment, we could have less than last summer to spend.
Not a chance Messi will be coming this year.

We don't know what they mean by "significantly reduce" spending so you could well be right. But we could have more or the whole thing could be a massive fudge. I know we want to do this deal and the figures add up but the FFP sanctions could be the sticking point this summer.

 

[jonmcity]

Very ambiguous. if we are breaking even with the net transfer spend, we are compliant as the "central purpose of the settlement is to ensure that Manchester City becomes break even compliant within the meaning of the CLFFPR in a short space of time.

Decision of the Chief Investigator of the CFCB Investigatory Chamber:
Settlement Agreement with Manchester City Football Club Limited
Following an investigation under the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play
Regulations (“CLFFPR”) a settlement agreement was concluded between the UEFA Club
Financial Control Body (“CFCB”) Chief Investigator and Manchester City Football Club
Limited ("Manchester City") on the basis of Article 14 (1)(b) and Article 15 of the
Procedural Rules governing the CFCB.

The settlement was concluded on 16 May 2014 and covers the three sporting seasons
2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. For the duration of the settlement, Manchester City will
be subject to on-going restrictions which have been agreed by the club and which are
described further below.

A central purpose of the settlement is to ensure that Manchester City becomes breakeven
compliant within the meaning of the CLFFPR in a short space of time.

 In this regard, Manchester City undertakes to report a maximum break-even
deficit of EUR 20 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2014 and a maximum breakeven
deficit of EUR 10 Mio. for the financial year ending in 2015. In this context
certain commercial partnerships were subject to examination. In order to avoid
dispute and for the avoidance of doubt, Manchester City has agreed that for the
period of the settlement it will not seek to improve the financial terms of two
second tier commercial partnerships.

 Furthermore Manchester City agrees that revenues from the sale of assets within
their group structure will not be included in future break-even calculations.

 Manchester City accepts that employee benefit expenses cannot be increased
during the next two financial periods (2015 & 2016). If Manchester City meets the
annual break-even requirements outlined above, this spending limit will be
removed for the 2016 financial period.

 Manchester City accepts that for the duration of the settlement it will be subject to
a limitation on the number of players that it may include on the “A” list for the
purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. Specifically, for season 2014/15
Manchester City may only register a potential maximum of 21 players on the “A”
list, instead of the potential maximum of 25 as foreseen in the relevant
competition regulations.

If MC manages to comply with the annual break-even target the club shall be released from the restriction as regards the registration of
players in UEFA club competitions for the 2015/16 season.

 Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for
seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Manchester City further accepts a calculated
limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List
for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based
on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by
this agreement.

 Manchester City agrees to pay a total amount of EUR 60 Mio. which will be
withheld from any revenues it earns from participating in UEFA competitions
commencing in season 2013/14. Of this EUR 60 Mio. an amount of EUR 40 Mio.
will be withheld conditionally and will be returned to Manchester City if the club
fulfills the operational and financial measures agreed with the UEFA CFCB.

The compliance with the Settlement Agreement will be subject to on-going and in depth
monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules. In this connection, Manchester City
also undertakes to provide the CFCB with a Progress Report evidencing its compliance
with all relevant conditions agreed on a six monthly basis.

 

[pudge]

Messi signing for us is as likely as Gerrard winning the league.