A
A
Anonymous
Guest
If this is correct would that potentially mean the rules could not be implemented until a verdict is held?BlueAnorak said:
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.
Serious question relating to us and FFP(update P17)
- Thread starter Johnsonontheleft
- Start date
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 28,094
Just to point a few things out:
[1] There were two votes. The initial demands of the Cartel clubs (Rags, Arse, Spurs, Dippers) were rejected. Very few of the other clubs (if any) actually voted for these.
[2] The 'compromise' agreement that got through affects TWO things:
[2.1] It limits amount that wages can increase FROM TV money alone. We already have the biggest wage bill. EVEN if we buy 2 players on maximum wages City's wage bill will probably go down (as we lose RSC and Bridge off the books in the summer). Wages can go up from other forms of income as City want.
[2.2] The amount of losses are capped at £105m over a rolling three-year period. This allows an owner to pump in slightly more than the revenue currently received from the CL every season. This is actually good for us should we actually fail to qualify for the CL.
[3] Chelsea voted for the compromise deal. They did it to keep other Sheikhs away! They actually need to spend more than us to get a competitive team and they do not have the commercial income that we do.
[4] City already have the 2nd highest non-TV commercial income after the rags. As has been alluded to City's sponsorship income will probably rise substantially from both UAE, European, Indian & Chinese sources over the next year to more than match the rise in the rags income from the Chevrolet and DHL deals.
In short - no worries for City whatsoever.
Am I happy that the ladder has been pulled up to prevent other clubs fans living the dream? NO! YOU BET YOUR LIFE THAT I AM NOT HAPPY.
(terrible faux pas when originally posted - I must get my double negatives correct in future! Still it will cause some amusement).
[1] There were two votes. The initial demands of the Cartel clubs (Rags, Arse, Spurs, Dippers) were rejected. Very few of the other clubs (if any) actually voted for these.
[2] The 'compromise' agreement that got through affects TWO things:
[2.1] It limits amount that wages can increase FROM TV money alone. We already have the biggest wage bill. EVEN if we buy 2 players on maximum wages City's wage bill will probably go down (as we lose RSC and Bridge off the books in the summer). Wages can go up from other forms of income as City want.
[2.2] The amount of losses are capped at £105m over a rolling three-year period. This allows an owner to pump in slightly more than the revenue currently received from the CL every season. This is actually good for us should we actually fail to qualify for the CL.
[3] Chelsea voted for the compromise deal. They did it to keep other Sheikhs away! They actually need to spend more than us to get a competitive team and they do not have the commercial income that we do.
[4] City already have the 2nd highest non-TV commercial income after the rags. As has been alluded to City's sponsorship income will probably rise substantially from both UAE, European, Indian & Chinese sources over the next year to more than match the rise in the rags income from the Chevrolet and DHL deals.
In short - no worries for City whatsoever.
Am I happy that the ladder has been pulled up to prevent other clubs fans living the dream? NO! YOU BET YOUR LIFE THAT I AM NOT HAPPY.
(terrible faux pas when originally posted - I must get my double negatives correct in future! Still it will cause some amusement).
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 28,094
strongbowholic said:If this is correct would that potentially mean the rules could not be implemented until a verdict is held?BlueAnorak said:I have it on good authority that Fulham WILL challenge the ruling in the courts.
Al-Fyed will claim the deal is anti-competitive (which it is) and he will further state that the value of Fulham will be reduced as a result - if he wants to sell the club - as an investor will no longer be able to invest to allow the club to compete with the Cartel clubs (and us).
He won't lose.
blingy
Well-Known Member
BlueAnorak said:In short - no worries for City whatsoever.
Am I happy that the ladder has been pulled up to prevent other clubs fans living the dream. YES you bet your life I am.
This Not a personal dig at you pal,
That’s the kind of comment / opinion id expect from rag cafe,,,,
Not much difference from that to " lets stop everyone else spending so we can win it every year, I’m ok jack fk you "!
Surprised blues have that opinion, maybe my age...
Each to their own i guess..
Skashion
Well-Known Member
No, it is incidental. UEFA rules require a much lower amount so it means nothing for us.BlueAnorak said:This is actually good for us should we actually fail to qualify for the CL.
BertTrautmann'sParachute
Well-Known Member
Never mind us, what about the dreams of fans of other clubs?Skashion said:No, it is incidental. UEFA rules require a much lower amount so it means nothing for us.BlueAnorak said:This is actually good for us should we actually fail to qualify for the CL.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Look at it from Kenwright's point of view. He'll get up to £40m extra income from the TV deal in 2013/14 and only has to spend £4m of it. Why wouldn't he vote for it?Marvin said:Anti-competitive, but why did the majority of clubs vote for it?
blingy said:BlueAnorak said:In short - no worries for City whatsoever.
Am I happy that the ladder has been pulled up to prevent other clubs fans living the dream. YES you bet your life I am.
This Not a personal dig at you pal,
That’s the kind of comment / opinion id expect from rag cafe,,,,
Not much difference from that to " lets stop everyone else spending so we can win it every year, I’m ok jack fk you "!
Surprised blues have that opinion, maybe my age...
Each to their own i guess..
To be fair the majority on here have expressed their sadness at the others not getting their chance but sympathy is limited because the idiots voted for it themselves.
St Helens Blue (Exiled)
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2011
- Messages
- 13,743
So.....
Our income=over 200 million and rising.
Lets use say Fulham as an example=40-60 million at a guess.
Where is the level playing field anymore.
The premiership has shot itself in the foot with this one.
Our income=over 200 million and rising.
Lets use say Fulham as an example=40-60 million at a guess.
Where is the level playing field anymore.
The premiership has shot itself in the foot with this one.