This guy determined we will fail FFPR

[S04]

This thread escalated quickly with SR making an appearance... :D
I hope he pops by when the numbers are released as well,

 

[Danamy]

Thank you for taking the time to come on here SR. I wondered if you'd be good enough to answer a question I've been struggling to elicit a response from others on, as I'm genuinely interested on your take on this, given your knowledge of FFP.

Given the new financial landscape imposed by UEFA, where do you see City sitting as a footballing force in five years time?

I personally believe that , if anything, FFP will assist City - the drawbridge effect - and that we will continue to grow as a club to the point where we are one of the top six clubs in Europe. I say this in light of the "FFP-Free" areas of committed expenditure in and around the stadium, the resources and commercial nouse of our owners, the continuing rise of English club football as a global brand and the fact that we are approaching compliance in any event.

I would really value your thoughts on the effects on my football club over the next few years of the subject that you write about with such authority. The "bigger picture" if you will.

On the cost side, City's hope would be that the investment in the academy will bear fruit, enabling the club to spend less on signing players or, more specifically, use the transfer budget primarily on world class players, as the squad would be bolstered by homegrown youngsters. Easier said than done, of course, but that's pretty much the strategy of Barcelona.

You can also add to that the money generated from selling players from the academy.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Seriously.This forum is by far the best on the internet.
So many diverse posters with so many different views. It is a credit to Ric and all members,each and everyone that we have this fantastic site.

PB called it bang on."Like having the queen pop in for a brew and a quick chat".

Swiss ramble on Bluemoon.Simply amazing.

 

[bluevengence]

This thread is like an episode of Only Fools & Horses in which some stranger is giving it the big 'un in the Nag's Head when suddenly the Driscoll brothers walk in.

Your right Bert . But Only Fools & Horses was a lot more fun .

He`s called Dave

 

[Mikeegrini]

This thread is like an episode of Only Fools & Horses in which some stranger is giving it the big 'un in the Nag's Head when suddenly the Driscoll brothers walk in.

Your right Bert . But Only Fools & Horses was a lot more fun .

He`s called Dave

Yes Trigger, he is, and always will be.........Dave

 

[blueinsa]

Really interesting interchange with Swiss Ramble.

Chaps, you will be pleased to here that I have updated the piece and the calculator.

It is now set at 'best case for City' scenario.

I have removed all the UEFA adjustments - should have done that in the first place. Just put them in if you think they will happen. And wages are now at £80m

The magic figure is £ £497740 (about £50m give or take).

I really didn't know that UEFA's RPT rules were a cut and paste from an accounting standard - genuinely thought they had carefully pulled them together - thanks to PB for that.

Interesting to see that Swiss Ramble think that, although Bridge/Santa Cruz could possibly be adjusted he thinks City can justify it and the £13m wont't be considered to be 'taking the mick'.

If I read him correctly, he seems to think that UEFA could adjust for Etihad the RPT but won't. That has always been my position on this board.

To make things easy, I have taken out the £12.8 RPT adjustment for Intellectual Property and Know How. The CFCB could contest that of course (some or all). Only add it in if you think they will (so you probably won't).

As you know it has always been my position that I thought City would fail the test. I still think that but understand that EVERYONE on the board thinks City will pass and I am in minority of one. I don't know of one person outside Twitter or Forums that has stuck their head up and said the numbers don't work. The title of this thread says is fairly well - this guy thinks City will fail FFP (still)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/all-eyes-on-manchester-city-s-ffp-results" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/late ... fp-results</a>

Nobody cares what you think any more has its been shown you really dont have a clue.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Really interesting interchange with Swiss Ramble.

Chaps, you will be pleased to here that I have updated the piece and the calculator.

It is now set at 'best case for City' scenario.

I have removed all the UEFA adjustments - should have done that in the first place. Just put them in if you think they will happen. And wages are now at £80m

The magic figure is £ £497740 (about £50m give or take).

I really didn't know that UEFA's RPT rules were a cut and paste from an accounting standard - genuinely thought they had carefully pulled them together - thanks to PB for that.

Interesting to see that Swiss Ramble think that, although Bridge/Santa Cruz could possibly be adjusted he thinks City can justify it and the £13m wont't be considered to be 'taking the mick'.

If I read him correctly, he seems to think that UEFA could adjust for Etihad the RPT but won't. That has always been my position on this board.

To make things easy, I have taken out the £12.8 RPT adjustment for Intellectual Property and Know How. The CFCB could contest that of course (some or all). Only add it in if you think they will (so you probably won't).

As you know it has always been my position that I thought City would fail the test. I still think that but understand that EVERYONE on the board thinks City will pass and I am in minority of one. I don't know of one person outside Twitter or Forums that has stuck their head up and said the numbers don't work. The title of this thread says is fairly well - this guy thinks City will fail FFP (still)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/all-eyes-on-manchester-city-s-ffp-results" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/late ... fp-results</a>

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzkBPbJczJU[/youtube]

 

[Cobwebcat]

Really interesting interchange with Swiss Ramble.

Chaps, you will be pleased to here that I have updated the piece and the calculator.

It is now set at 'best case for City' scenario.

I have removed all the UEFA adjustments - should have done that in the first place. Just put them in if you think they will happen. And wages are now at £80m

The magic figure is £ £497740 (about £50m give or take).

I really didn't know that UEFA's RPT rules were a cut and paste from an accounting standard - genuinely thought they had carefully pulled them together - thanks to PB for that.

Interesting to see that Swiss Ramble think that, although Bridge/Santa Cruz could possibly be adjusted he thinks City can justify it and the £13m wont't be considered to be 'taking the mick'.

If I read him correctly, he seems to think that UEFA could adjust for Etihad the RPT but won't. That has always been my position on this board.

To make things easy, I have taken out the £12.8 RPT adjustment for Intellectual Property and Know How. The CFCB could contest that of course (some or all). Only add it in if you think they will (so you probably won't).

As you know it has always been my position that I thought City would fail the test. I still think that but understand that EVERYONE on the board thinks City will pass and I am in minority of one. I don't know of one person outside Twitter or Forums that has stuck their head up and said the numbers don't work. The title of this thread says is fairly well - this guy thinks City will fail FFP (still)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/all-eyes-on-manchester-city-s-ffp-results" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/late ... fp-results</a>

The truth, ffplay is that nobody knows for sure. My own guess is that we might fall a little short but that we will not be punished or receive a warning.

It's nice that you have acknowledged other people's opinions and have adjusted the figures on your site even if you believe the outcome will be the same. Your site is a talking point at the very least.

Thanks to you and SW and I hope we can all carry on the chat going forward.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

If this doesn't end up in Classic Threads then nothing is deserving.

Amazing stuff. Loved reading your blog Swiss Ramble. Great to see you drop by.

 

[Cobwebcat]

.....and if PSG pass....the gloves are off ;-)

 

[rickmcfc]

Who is this Swiss ramble guy? Just read his post which was very interesting, but the way some of you are talking about him, it's like he is up there as one of the most famous people on the planet.

 

[S04]

Who is this Swiss ramble guy? Just read his post which was very interesting, but the way some of you are talking about him, it's like he is up there as one of the most famous people on the planet.

He is DA MAN if we talk writing about football clubs and their finances...

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

I can understand certain posters getting the pitchforks out as certainly the fellas original stance was one which we read with consternation and dismay in the rag loving redtop dailies on a regular basis. Whilst I deplore some articles by so called journalists at least he had the balls to come on here and try to defend his position. Despite his initial narcissistic inability to admit he was wrong in relation to some matters he's admitted to being unaware of some facts particularly and changed his opinion and website in relation to the others, namely:

- the EU (UK) accounting standards and UEFAs standards (being one and the same obviously to codify those standards for Non EU members)
- the 80 million (not 53mill) for pre 2010 contracts (still arguable about this amount being salaries and amortisation - nobody knows)
- an indicated initial loss of 75 Mill for the accounting period
- the likleyhood of RPT being applied to the 12.8 Mill IP amounts or indeed the Etihad deal (not sure if he's agreed that UEFA cannot counter items stated in the accounts as none RPT)

All in all its been worthy of debate and certainly raised my limited knowledge of the current subject and lots of other BM posters I hope.

 

[Ray78]

Fair enough if ffplay has changed his stance a little and credit for him in donning his flak jacket and tin helmet by coming back on the thread.

 

[oakiecokie]

I can understand certain posters getting the pitchforks out as certainly the fellas original stance was one which we read with consternation and dismay in the rag loving redtop dailies on a regular basis. Whilst I deplore some articles by so called journalists at least he had the balls to come on here and try to defend his position. Despite his initial narcissistic inability to admit he was wrong in relation to some matters he's admitted to being unaware of some facts particularly and changed his opinion and website in relation to the others, namely:

- the EU (UK) accounting standards and UEFAs standards (being one and the same obviously to codify those standards for Non EU members)
- the 80 million (not 53mill) for pre 2010 contracts (still arguable about this amount being salaries and amortisation - nobody knows)
- an indicated initial loss of 75 Mill for the accounting period
- the likleyhood of RPT being applied to the 12.8 Mill IP amounts or indeed the Etihad deal (not sure if he's agreed that UEFA cannot counter items stated in the accounts as none RPT)

All in all its been worthy of debate and certainly raised my limited knowledge of the current subject and lots of other BM posters I hope.

So if he was unaware of some of the facts,why put other figures into print as a so called "guesstimate figure" ? To try and enhance his reputation,when all he`s done is made himself look a complete twunt.City fans who log onto his site will now be able to disprove many other "variables" that he comes up with.
I said this very early on and I will not change my stance ... the guy is a COCKWOMBLE !!

 

[Blue Coop]

Great thread and if nothing else, has helped me, and many I am sure, to understand FFP that little further.

 

[TCIB]

I have enjoyed this thread, possibly the first thread i have actually learned from.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Pfft Expert....yeah.

He should change his personal blurb from expert to owned by PB and a bit of SR.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Thank you for taking the time to come on here SR. I wondered if you'd be good enough to answer a question I've been struggling to elicit a response from others on, as I'm genuinely interested on your take on this, given your knowledge of FFP.

Given the new financial landscape imposed by UEFA, where do you see City sitting as a footballing force in five years time?

I personally believe that , if anything, FFP will assist City - the drawbridge effect - and that we will continue to grow as a club to the point where we are one of the top six clubs in Europe. I say this in light of the "FFP-Free" areas of committed expenditure in and around the stadium, the resources and commercial nouse of our owners, the continuing rise of English club football as a global brand and the fact that we are approaching compliance in any event.

I would really value your thoughts on the effects on my football club over the next few years of the subject that you write about with such authority. The "bigger picture" if you will.

I've not looked at City for a while, but the big picture is substantial revenue growth, due to a number of factors:

a. Commercial deals - not just Etihad, but a raft of additional sponsors.
b. TV money - the new PL deal (from this season) and Champions league deal (from 2015/16 season) will substantially boost revenue - though City will have to continue to be successful on the pitch to benefit. Note that only a small amount of the new PL TV deal can go on increasing player wages.
c. Match day income - City have announced plans to increase the capacity of the Etihad stadium to 62,000.

On the cost side, City's hope would be that the investment in the academy will bear fruit, enabling the club to spend less on signing players or, more specifically, use the transfer budget primarily on world class players, as the squad would be bolstered by homegrown youngsters. Easier said than done, of course, but that's pretty much the strategy of Barcelona.

I hear what you say about the academy etc, but all of that is not on the cost side from the point of view of FFP. As far as FFP is concerned we can spend another billion on the academy and none of that expenditure counts towards our break-even result. Of course the money has to come from somewhere, but we are hardly likely to go bust any time soon, so that really isn't an issue.

This is why infrastucture investment makes so much sense. We get to reap the rewards (income resulting from the investment), without having to pay anything for it (as far as FFP is concerned).

 

[waspish]

Think our woman's team needs a big shirt sponsor or will that come under the nike one?