Trimming the fat & FFPR (An alternative perspective)

[Impeccable One]

Sorry for another thread on FFPR, but this one addresses the disposing of unwanted players and I think from an alternative view point.

I think it's in City's interest NOT to sell Bellamy, Bridge, Cruz, SWP, etc. ! a loan is better, even allowing them to run down their contracts and leave for free.

Why ?

Well, as I understand it, having an extra 30 million loss (I guess this is the wages and amortization on the above, minus allowances for loans) on the accounts over the next two years, WOULD HELP US WITH FFPR !

The ONLY person this makes a difference too is our owner, as he has to cover the debt.

Exclusions from CL will only take place in the 2014-15 season.

But, FFPR has a very important clause; "Even if a club misses the break-even target, it can still be granted a license if it meets two criteria – the trend of losses is improving; and the over-spend is caused by the wages of players that were contracted before June 2010"

So, keeping them on the books and having worse figures this year and next, allows us to show a BIGGER improvement in the following years when they are off the books ! Where as selling now for little to no revenue will improve this year and next years results, but will show a smaller improvement in the following years.

I know this is an alternative view, but it would explain why City will not sell these players unless they are bought for sizable sum.

 

[mcfc1632]

good point that - thanks to HRH we are in a position where we can take the hit and the way Mancini has been clear that they are not in his plans been that we do not compromise on the playing side because basically - they are out of his squad

No other team could afford this approach but you are right it might be an astute (if perverse) strategy

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The wage overspend provision only applies to this financial year (2011/12) but that year is used in the first two two licensing seasons (2013/14 & 2014/15).

I believe that in financial year 2014/15 we will meet the break-even requirement anyway (for that financial year) so it's highly unlikely that UEFA would take action, even if we didn't meet the aggregate break-even requirement for the two proevious years as we could prove we were likely to be profitable for the foreseeable future.

There's another advantage in hanging on to them as if we can show these players are what's known as "held for sale" then we can also exclude their amortisation.

 

[jmdmc]

Two seasons ago we were looking for anyone who would come for 'mad money' ... duds were bound to happen, maybe not so many.

Funny our duds were the ones who were undisciplined as far as Mancini was concerned. What does that say about Hughes. He bought Ade as striker, RSC was a 'buddy' buy in my book, Bellamy a mercenary, he got his money; Bridge was a desperate attempt to fill in potholes, they saw us coming.

I'd say d'Sheikh knew how much he would 'lose' or is that spend to rebirth City. He gets the best fans in the league, with banana's, a great sense of humour and the Poznan for free.