Call it £400m, on five year contracts, that’s £80m per year amortised. Sounds a lot (and it is to some extent) but take into account City’s player amortisation is £129m per year.Perhaps I am just looking at the sums involved regarding both Mbappe and Neymar, but I still don't understand how they can afford both players.
The bigger issue for FFP may come when negotiating contract renewals for them and others. I've said repeatedly wages and how it effects other players contracts is much more of an issue when targeting players than their fees as far as FFP is concerned.Call it £400m, on five year contracts, that’s £80m per year amortised. Sounds a lot (and it is to some extent) but take into account City’s player amortisation is £129m per year.
That £49m difference is the same as another £245,000,000 worth of players (on five year deals).
Plus having them both raises PSG’s profile and has in turn brought in bigger sponsors and increased their global appeal.
I have already explained the election of Nasser Al Khelaifi.Thanks for explaining that I get what you are saying about preconceived ideas based solely on one source or the press.
However the cynic in me says there are deals being done by UEFA behind closed doors that help some and hinder others. Is the guy you mention from PSG who is now something to do with UEFA a coincidence? Again the cynic in me says not.
I don't pretend to understand FFP regulations but in a nutshell you can only spend what you earn. City do that and then we're questioned as to where the money has come from, which is strange because it was said to be ok initially.
I really don't understand why UEFA have gone about this the way they have, any investigation is now flawed and will not stand up to scrutiny.
The fact that some quarters of the media are saying they know what we're guilty of because UEFA have told them are either telling the truth or lying. They would be silly to lie as they'd leave themselves wide open, but again why would UEFA divulge this information?
It seems for whatever reason UEFA are he'll bent on sullying our name and to me it defies logic.
I'll give you some ammunition about PSG potential circumventing of FFP about Neymar.The bigger issue for FFP may come when negotiating contract renewals for them and others. I've said repeatedly wages and how it effects other players contracts is much more of an issue when targeting players than their fees as far as FFP is concerned.
Yes, though I wasn't just talking about PSG. When Pep says we can't afford Greizman I think he's talking wages and the effect on KDB etc when they want to renew, not the transfer fee.I'll give you some ammunition about PSG potential circumventing of FFP about Neymar.
This year, he became the official worldwide ambassador of QNB, the Qatar National Bank.
I think we can see that as a potential wage raise without going through PSG accounts.
I have already explained the election of Nasser Al Khelaifi.
ECA can elect and nominate two people that will have a seat in the executive committee. UEFA merely ratifies the decision made by ECA. Before, it was Agnelli (Juve) and Gazidis (ex-Arsenal). When Gazidis left Arsenal for Milan AC, the rules states that the two seats can't be given to members from the same football association (here the Serie A). The consequence is Gazidis had to forfeit his position and a new election had to be done. Nasser, surprisingly, won that election. I'll not tell you how and why he won, i don't know, and i doubt anyone not in ECA know. The bottom line is he got elected by ECA members (the other clubs presidents and CEO) despite his vocal opponents like Tebas, the MU guy, etc. If i would hasard a guess, i would say that it involves the new Champions League format because PSG became vocal about ECA when there was that proposition (that i dislike) which will benefit the club greatly.
If you want to be cynical, you should note that tolmie said here that there is a guy from the Emirates in the CFCB chambers that is like secret services chief. Wouldn't a guy with such a prominent role in the UAE tip the balance in the CFCB dealings ? Why would UEFA be after City, then, since they have a guy inside the chambers that decide punishment ?
About the leaks, i have already shown they are quite frequent and usual. It can even be considered as usual practice for UEFA. The reason why ? Because it doesn't/didn't hurt them till now. UEFA considers itself as above everything as far as european football is concerned and as far as the old cartel is supporting them. Everyone is happy when there are news about PSG or City about to fail FFP : press, fans, other clubs. And it is an indirect sanction as it can hinder/lower some investment by potential sponsors. One thing that should be done first, imo, is to find a way to make all those fuckers like Tebas, Beckenbauer, Hoeness, Barca, Agnelli, Real shut the fuck up about other clubs matters. Why is it ok for Tebas and co. to pressure UEFA to do something about other competitors ? Even if we assume UEFA is neutral (they are not), it creates a climate where it becomes important or vital to sanction said clubs if one were to give a just ruling. When PSG escapes sanction, what is the sentiment, even here in a City fan club ? That FFP was not just and didn't sanction as it should. And the only explanation is PSG has bribed their way. No ones notice that by FFP regulation, when inflated deals are put in a fair market value, the club is not instantly punished. He is given the chance to balance his account if the 3 year period is not over. And this is exactly what PSG has done. So why are everyone so angry PSG didn't get punished when they have effectively breached no rule ! The UEFA statement is there is no wrongdoing !
In City case, it is not a matter of break even rule, it is about lying/misleading the monitoring inspectors. This is what Football Leaks said about your practices. In PSG Football Leaks, they only talked (as relevant facts for UEFA FFP) about the inflated sponsoring deals, which were already investigated by UEFA. Football Leaks didn't bring a new charge in PSG case.This is why i don't see why you want to compare two cases that have nothing to do with each other. The only similar trait is that UEFA wants you guilty and will use every method they can to achieve that goal.
Yeah. It is very hard to maintain a good wage structure. But i think it is mainly political. If City really wanted him, they can afford Griezmann. City was closely linked with Messi, at one point, and i doubt they would not pay him handsomely. Messi, smartly, used that interest to get his 100 M/year at Barca (i.e; the club that are telling the others how they should spend wisely their money...).Yes, though I wasn't just talking about PSG. When Pep says we can't afford Greizman I think he's talking wages and the effect on KDB etc when they want to renew, not the transfer fee.
I have already explained the election of Nasser Al Khelaifi.
ECA can elect and nominate two people that will have a seat in the executive committee. UEFA merely ratifies the decision made by ECA. Before, it was Agnelli (Juve) and Gazidis (ex-Arsenal). When Gazidis left Arsenal for Milan AC, the rules states that the two seats can't be given to members from the same football association (here the Serie A). The consequence is Gazidis had to forfeit his position and a new election had to be done. Nasser, surprisingly, won that election. I'll not tell you how and why he won, i don't know, and i doubt anyone not in ECA know. The bottom line is he got elected by ECA members (the other clubs presidents and CEO) despite his vocal opponents like Tebas, the MU guy, etc. If i would hasard a guess, i would say that it involves the new Champions League format because PSG became vocal about ECA when there was that proposition (that i dislike) which will benefit the club greatly.
If you want to be cynical, you should note that tolmie said here that there is a guy from the Emirates in the CFCB chambers that is like secret services chief. Wouldn't a guy with such a prominent role in the UAE tip the balance in the CFCB dealings ? Why would UEFA be after City, then, since they have a guy inside the chambers that decide punishment ?
About the leaks, i have already shown they are quite frequent and usual. It can even be considered as usual practice for UEFA. The reason why ? Because it doesn't/didn't hurt them till now. UEFA considers itself as above everything as far as european football is concerned and as far as the old cartel is supporting them. Everyone is happy when there are news about PSG or City about to fail FFP : press, fans, other clubs. And it is an indirect sanction as it can hinder/lower some investment by potential sponsors. One thing that should be done first, imo, is to find a way to make all those fuckers like Tebas, Beckenbauer, Hoeness, Barca, Agnelli, Real shut the fuck up about other clubs matters. Why is it ok for Tebas and co. to pressure UEFA to do something about other competitors ? Even if we assume UEFA is neutral (they are not), it creates a climate where it becomes important or vital to sanction said clubs if one were to give a just ruling. When PSG escapes sanction, what is the sentiment, even here in a City fan club ? That FFP was not just and didn't sanction as it should. And the only explanation is PSG has bribed their way. No ones notice that by FFP regulation, when inflated deals are put in a fair market value, the club is not instantly punished. He is given the chance to balance his account if the 3 year period is not over. And this is exactly what PSG has done. So why are everyone so angry PSG didn't get punished when they have effectively breached no rule ! The UEFA statement is there is no wrongdoing !
In City case, it is not a matter of break even rule, it is about lying/misleading the monitoring inspectors. This is what Football Leaks said about your practices. In PSG Football Leaks, they only talked (as relevant facts for UEFA FFP) about the inflated sponsoring deals, which were already investigated by UEFA. Football Leaks didn't bring a new charge in PSG case.This is why i don't see why you want to compare two cases that have nothing to do with each other. The only similar trait is that UEFA wants you guilty and will use every method they can to achieve that goal.
From the get-go, there is a vested interest to keep City and PSG in check. They quite didn't manage it, so they are going by hook or crook. On PSG they have nothing else than inflated deal, so it is the way. On City, they have nothing else than the non truthful reporting of financial affair, blah blah stuff, so it is the way. Other big clubs can't be threatened by FFP because it was designed in a way it could affect the City and PSG but not the cartel.Like I have said I am not having a go at PSG rather UEFA. The decisions they make don't make sense and seem to be based on a whim.
I am not getting into a debate with you but my view is that it all stinks, some clubs are treated differently than others. Whether there is corruption, back handed deals or whatever that's open to each individual's view.