Man City and FFP

[Darbyand]

That doesn't really stack up when the allegations are the way they minimise losses is by their owners paying their sponsors to sponsor them.

I am interested in this idea of no questions, no limits. Is anything unacceptable? The Taliban put £5bn into Rangers? Isis put £10bn into Millwall? There has to be a point when the idea of the plucky underdog putting one over the big boys is replaced by the fact that they're now creating an unfair playing field, yes, even unfair on the cartel.

[forestfan]

That doesn't really stack up when the allegations are the way they minimise losses is by their owners paying their sponsors to sponsor them.

I am interested in this idea of no questions, no limits. Is anything unacceptable? The Taliban put £5bn into Rangers? Isis put £10bn into Millwall? There has to be a point when the idea of the plucky underdog putting one over the big boys is replaced by the fact that they're now creating an unfair playing field, yes, even unfair on the cartel.

Who is politically acceptable to own a club is another issue... I know, Middle Eastern state-backed organisations are always controversial. There's a "fit and proper persons" test, but we've already seen it's a complete chocolate teapot with some of the crooks who have taken control of English clubs in the past, although they've usually run said clubs into the ground rather than turned them into financial powerhouses.

I'd rather have a level playing field salary cap across Europe that applies equally to Arsenal, Accrington Stanley and Alaves... but that's pretty unlikely, so we have to allow new investment to allow the clubs at the top to be challenged. Otherwise there's no point in the rest bothering. If you want a closed shop, why not formalise it and create your breakaway ESL, and allow the rest of professional football to wither away through lack of interest?

[liquidfootball2]

That doesn't really stack up when the allegations are the way they minimise losses is by their owners paying their sponsors to sponsor them.

I am interested in this idea of no questions, no limits. Is anything unacceptable? The Taliban put £5bn into Rangers? Isis put £10bn into Millwall? There has to be a point when the idea of the plucky underdog putting one over the big boys is replaced by the fact that they're now creating an unfair playing field, yes, even unfair on the cartel.

The malpractice you speak of 'owners paying sponsors etc....' is an attempt to circumvent the rogue barriers constructed by FFP. If FFP wasn't there they wouldn't try and get around it.

Undesirable and generally unwanted investment has always been an issue, not specifically an FFP related issue, but an important one nevertheless. Rules regarding unwanted owners or 'blacklisted' states investing in football aren't working. They do, after a fashion, try to impose such rules now, although those rules have been shown to be completely ineffectual and worthless, they urgently need reform. This to me is a completely different issue from FFP and needs completely different legislation.

[Maldini]

Whether you agree with FFP or not, there are rules in place and they have deviously broken those rules to gain an advantage over the competition.

In my opinion they should be banned from Champions League football for a year and fined heavily. I doubt they’ll get more than a slap on the wrists and a pittance of a fine though.

[murf]

What high assured returns? City are living beyond their means due to overpaying 'sponsors' and financial doping by their owners. Put sane owners in charge (eg those at Liverpool or Arsenal or even modern day Abramovich) and they soon make a big loss - they just don't have the pull of the established clubs. There is a reason Sky put Liverpool and Man U on TV more than City.

[liquidfootball2]

What high assured returns? City are living beyond their means due to overpaying 'sponsors' and financial doping by their owners. Put sane owners in charge (eg those at Liverpool or Arsenal or even modern day Abramovich) and they soon make a big loss - they just don't have the pull of the established clubs. There is a reason Sky put Liverpool and Man U on TV more than City.

Taking ALL their annual running costs into account these are the current figures.

- They are so obviously NOT living beyond their means its untrue.

(Deloitte's are a top accounting firm who do compile such an annual list, possibly one that maybe a tiny bit more accurate than you or I could do too)

Manchester City confirm breaking £500m revenue barrier, entering fourth consecutive year of profit as 2017-18 Annual Report is published.

The world's richest football clubs 2019: 

Real Madrid replace Manchester United at top of Deloitte Football Money League

1 Real Madrid.

2 Barcelona

3 Manchester United.

4 Bayern Munich 

5 Manchester City. (568 m €uros = around 500 m pounds )

6 PSG.


Their owners enormous financial support helped them run large deficits for the initial years which helped them achieve this highly profitable position.

500 million plus PROFIT per year! This is the current trading position and such profits now generated dwarf previous losses.

The profits are massive and growing. So 'financial doping' by their owners may have covered the years of losses but they are now more than being paid back.

500 million per year in 2017/18, compared to losses of say 500m every three years in the worst of the initial years is payback big time and this is where they are at right now with profits only growing too.

[murf]

Learn the difference between revenue and profit before you make posts like that.

500m revenue resulted in a £10m profit - and I fail to believe they don't get £10+m of doping in that.

[mikeg13]

Football finance has in my time of following game has always been a grey area, but never as questionable as now. The swiss ramble is worth a google if interested in subject though does not seem to write as much these days. There has to be rules and they need to be applied who ever clubs are, fines not answer ban or points punishment only way

[liquidfootball2]

Learn the difference between revenue and profit before you make posts like that.

500m revenue resulted in a £10m profit - and I fail to believe they don't get £10+m of doping in that.

Accepted i should not have said profit but revenue, but they are still in the world's top ten for match day profit with $63m or approx £50m and their huge success has them on an upward spiral, their overall figures will only improve, its an ongoing success story.

Profit alone for a single year can be misleading as it does include transfers fees and some very substantial ones too. For example Liverpool's £88m includes £71m received for Coutinho, obviously there's the converse of this with money spent but it is illustrative of how profits can vary greatly between years.

When Leicester won the league they broke the profits record with €98m (£85m), now noone would claim Leicester as the biggest club in England on one season's profit figures.

Revenue better indicates the upward trajectory and in which direction they're heading and City are heading upwards to the very top and are extremely likely to get there

[Zimmerman]

@Liquid

They’ve not made £550m profit

They’ve attained that turnover by pumping money in to their sponsors to then pay it in to the club

You say the rules would be torn to bits in court by the massive legal teams... and yet everyone across Europe is trying (or pretending) to play along and isn’t just blatantly ignoring the them.

[liquidfootball2]

@Liquid

They’ve not made £550m profit

They’ve attained that turnover by pumping money in to their sponsors to then pay it in to the club

You say the rules would be torn to bits in court by the massive legal teams... and yet everyone across Europe is trying (or pretending) to play along and isn’t just blatantly ignoring the them.

Inflating sponsorship proceeds is just an effective way to try and get through FFP blockages which shouldn't even exist, it's FFP which is the root cause of profitable clubs having to seek out ways of attaining further success.

Further success brings further profitability and won't lead to bankruptcy, the whole basis for inventing rules that punish ambition, hinder further success and stop thriving clubs growing is sheer lunacy.

FFP was brought in by Michel Platini and his cohorts under the guise of stopping smaller clubs like Portsmouth, or not so small clubs like Leeds (granted a big club) overstretching and burning themselves, but for me was really aimed at the burgeoning finances of the Premier League - which had been pricing other leagues out of the transfer market. To stop English football getting too predominant was it's real primary purpose.

It was an effort to stop Chelsea who had Abramovich and others who soon followed. It hasn't succeeded with Manchester City as its too late they've made it through their loss making years and now will increase in profitability.

Platini's favourite club the Qatari owned PSG flouted rules for years and its only since he was disgraced has any minimal action been taken.

[Zimmerman]

Am I being really dumb....

Clubs are having to find back doors to get money in to the ‘profitable club’.

If they are profitable, why do the need subsidising via covert deals?

I’m confused.

[Zimmerman]

And for the record I’ve long defended the right of clubs to be financially doped. Like you say, the rules were put in place to stop anyone else gate crashing the party.

But hey ho... the rules are there.

So they should be followed (or punish those that flaunt them).

[liquidfootball2]

Am I being really dumb....

Clubs are having to find back doors to get money in to the ‘profitable club’.

If they are profitable, why do the need subsidising via covert deals?

I’m confused.

FFP rules only allow certain revenues to be counted in the calculation on total spending on players and their wages, that can be offset by money from other sources including sponsorship, it's a way of allowing more leeway to sign players for large fees.

- that's miles oversimplified but it in a nutshell -

The restraining effects are exacerbated by former years of having to grow no faster than the pace FFP has allowed. Its a vicious circle, you can't grow fast enough to keep up with transfer inflation and spend your own money through restrictions, which means you will miss out on your targets, which means you may get less success, which can mean less profitability ...etc etc

[Zimmerman]

My understanding was that all incoming money is counted (tv, sponsorship, gate receipts) ie money the CLUB generates.

I don’t know if owners are allowed to pump anything in?

One of the defences of FFP is that it will prevent another Glazer or Hicks and Gillet. That’s a good thing surely?

[liquidfootball2]

My understanding was that all incoming money is counted (tv, sponsorship, gate receipts) ie money the CLUB generates.

I don’t know if owners are allowed to pump anything in?

One of the defences of FFP is that it will prevent another Glazer or Hicks and Gillet. That’s a good thing surely?

Sponsorship can be offset against it, there is a distinction on types of revenue...tbh watching the rugby but may look it up later

[murf]

My understanding was that all incoming money is counted (tv, sponsorship, gate receipts) ie money the CLUB generates.

I don’t know if owners are allowed to pump anything in?

One of the defences of FFP is that it will prevent another Glazer or Hicks and Gillet. That’s a good thing surely?

Excuse me for being dumb but how does FFP save us from anither Glazer, Hicks Gillet etc? Glazer is still doing the same leeching as ever isn't he?

[forestfan]

My understanding was that all incoming money is counted (tv, sponsorship, gate receipts) ie money the CLUB generates.

I don’t know if owners are allowed to pump anything in?

One of the defences of FFP is that it will prevent another Glazer or Hicks and Gillet. That’s a good thing surely?

Yeah, if they just ban debt-based funding models, that’s fine.

[Zimmerman]

My understanding was that all incoming money is counted (tv, sponsorship, gate receipts) ie money the CLUB generates.

I don’t know if owners are allowed to pump anything in?

One of the defences of FFP is that it will prevent another Glazer or Hicks and Gillet. That’s a good thing surely?

Excuse me for being dumb but how does FFP save us from anither Glazer, Hicks Gillet etc? Glazer is still doing the same leeching as ever isn't he?

What he says

My understanding was that all incoming money is counted (tv, sponsorship, gate receipts) ie money the CLUB generates.

I don’t know if owners are allowed to pump anything in?

One of the defences of FFP is that it will prevent another Glazer or Hicks and Gillet. That’s a good thing surely?

Yeah, if they just ban debt-based funding models, that’s fine.

[Zimmerman]

Pep not reacting well when being question about whether or not he's been paid in a similar fashion to how Mancini was paid.

A simple "no" would have done Pep

[blahblah]

Obviously they, and others, are financially doping... But:
Are they actually going to get "done" for it?
And are there any Tax implications, and would any Govt take action?

[thebillfella]

Pep not reacting well when being question about whether or not he's been paid in a similar fashion to how Mancini was paid.

A simple "no" would have done Pep

Must have missed that? How was "Mancini paid"?

[Darbyand]

Two salaries:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... kh-mansour

[murf]

Pep not reacting well when being question about whether or not he's been paid in a similar fashion to how Mancini was paid.

A simple "no" would have done Pep

Must have missed that? How was "Mancini paid"?

City paid him £1.45m p.a. through the books above board and he (allegedly) also got £1.75m p.a. direct from the Sheikh as "a consultant with Al Jazira Sports and Cultural Club", which is controlled by City’s owner. According to Der Spiegel, City executives agreed a deal whereby the holding company that controlled City, the Abu Dhabi United Group, would circulate funds to Al Jazira which would then be paid back to Mancini via an offshore company in Mauritius named Sparkleglow Holdings.

Nothing dodgy there at all. Clearly not masking any spending to get round FFP...

[Darbyand]

There's plenty on here who've said the FFP rules are the problem and City shouldn't have to worry about circumventing them. I wonder if the scales are falling from a few eyes with City winning 5 of the last 6 domestic trophies and yesterday's mis-match.

[murf]

Genuine question to ponder...

How much more do you think City would spend (on players, wages etc) if there was no FFP?

[blahblah]

How much would it take to beat Lpool and Spurs in the CL?

[Zimmerman]

They probably don’t need to ‘spend’ that much more than they already are.

I think they would like the option of being able to splurge now and again without worry.

However, the issue for City isn’t so much the spending, it’s the income that hampers them.

They don’t sell out their stadium (although gate receipts don’t actually contribute ‘that’ much to overall income).
I’m not sure how their kit and sponsorship deals compare to the likes of United or Liverpool?

I’m sure their Far East fan base (definitely the Middle East) is growing all the time though. So maybe the kit and sponsorship deals will increase a bit more.

[Zimmerman]

A quick google... their latest kit deal is rumoured to be worth £65m pa (compared to £12m they got from Nike).

Uniteds is worth £75m pa (and Liverpools a pauperesque £45m but it’s due for renewal in 2020).

[Darbyand]

Genuine question to ponder...

How much more do you think City would spend (on players, wages etc) if there was no FFP?

Winning the Champions League always has an element of luck and it being your year. They'll do it eventually. I think with FFP/extra spend there's an element of shutting the stable door there. They're now in the enviable position of Liverpool 70/80s or United 20 years ago of "2-3 in, 2-3 out and the ones coming in are better than the ones going out". They need to avoid the modern day equivalents of signing David Speedie or being taken over by the Glazers.

More seriously, we need them to appoint bad manager(s) when their current good one goes. Even with everything else in place that's still the dominant factor in how well a club does IMO.