• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Financial Fair Play

japenesegardenlover said:
No I was not but what is the relevance of that in regards what I wrote. I suspect instead of replying to the points made is because you know deep down how your club has behaved has been immoral which makes your continue support of them immoral in my opinion.

Were the same to happen at Tottenham and we were brought by a free spending billionaire we would have choice to make and I understand it would be a dilemma as we all want to see our team successful. But as when the mooted move to Stratford was talked about I would have been part of the group that would have formed and been a fan of FC Tottenham.

The fact that you stayed and supported City does not make you a bad person but it does show your attitude towards ethics especaily regarding money and rather debunks any opinions you have the subject as it smacks of self interest and one wonders whether your actually employed by City in some capacity such is your haste in always defending the indefensible.
Click to expand...

I think it is interesting that you mention morals in your argument. I have a different view of the likes of Sheikh Mansoor and Abramovich. Yes they have used their money to buy success but then at least they spend on the team in order to win trophies so the fans of those clubs ultimately benefit. Not sure if I deplore them more than the likes of Stan Kroenke who take the fans money by charging exorbitant ticket prices, sell off their best players, chase massive sponsorship deals all to line their own pockets. They only care about finishing 4th so the money keeps rolling in while never re -investing that money. These clubs have no soul imo. That is why I have so much time for Daniel Levy, he is ambitious while trying to keep the club on a sustainable footing.
 
Rorschach said:
Not gray enough for City and PSG it appears.

Real are pulling a fast one too by selling their training ground to the city for 400mil. State aid by another means.
Click to expand...

They are being investigated by the EU for that.

They along with Barca and athletico bilbao (i think) are also being investigated by the eu for some tax set up which saves them a few mil a year. Apparently they are the only 3 clubs in Spain left with that structure now.
 
Emirates Marketing Project have finally agreed to accept their much leaked punishment for failing FFP...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/10837079/Manchester-City-accept-world-record-50m-fine-for-breach-of-Uefa-Financial-Fair-Play-rules.html

Emirates Marketing Project accept world-record £50m fine for breach of Uefa Financial Fair Play rules

The new Premier League champions ended their fight against the biggest financial penalty ever imposed on a sports team – and a cut in their Champions League squad for next season to 21 players – by agreeing a ‘settlement’ offer with European football’s Club Financial Control Body.

Announced more than a month after The Daily Telegraph first revealed they were set to fail Uefa’s FFP test, the deal ended a tense stand-off between City and the CFCB’s investigatory chamber over the sanction they should face for failing to comply with rules aimed at combating “greed, reckless spending and financial insanity”.

The Manchester club threatened to fight to the bitter end to avoid their penalty by taking their case to the CFCB’s adjudicatory chamber and beyond.

They were granted multiple extensions to the deadline for settling their case before eventually backing down, allowing Uefa to announce all nine clubs found guilty of FFP breaches had settled with the investigatory chamber.

As well as City and Paris St Germain, they are Zenit St Petersburg, Rubin Kazan, Anzhi Makhachkala, Galatasaray, Trabzonspor, Bursaspor and Levski Sofia.

The clubs all exceeded the losses of £37.2 million permitted by Uefa in their 2011-13 accounts after various deductions.

The CFCB’s decision on City’s punishment, reached by chief investigator Jean-Luc Dehaene before his death on Thursday, included several caveats which could see City avoid paying two-thirds of their fine if they comply.

To achieve this, the club must report a maximum break-even deficit of £16.2 million in 2014 and £8.1 million in 2015. They must also avoid increasing “employee benefit expenses – essentially wages – during 2015 and 2016, although that sanction could be lifted for the final year.

The European squad size reduction from 25 to 21 players – eight of whom must be homegrown – will be imposed for two seasons if they fail to comply with their annual break-even target.

As part of their settlement, City agreed to “significantly limit spending in the transfer market for seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016”.

The CFCB confirmed City’s fine would be levied by the withholding of any revenues it earns in Uefa competitions from next season.

The CFCB said in a statement: “The compliance with the Settlement Agreement will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules. In this connection, Emirates Marketing Project also undertakes to provide the CFCB with a Progress Report evidencing its compliance with all relevant conditions agreed on a six monthly basis.

“In case Emirates Marketing Project fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, the UEFA CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the Adjudicatory Chamber, as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) of the Procedural Rules.”

City’s settlement may not be the end of what has proven a tortuous process. Any party affected by the sanction has 10 days to appeal, with Arsenal and Everton possible beneficiaries of any successful challenge.
 
So essentially the financial penalty for breaking the rules is only getting £20-30m from the CL next year instead of £30-40m.
 
There are a few other restrictions too
...maximum losses of €20m in 2014 and €10m in 2015, to cap their wage bill at current levels for the next two seasons
Click to expand...
The second one of these is not as bad as it sounds as the wage restrictions don't apply to "performance-based bonuses ". So basically that restriction means almost nothing in reality as does the 50mil fine which when spread over a number of years won't hurt them at all really.

It's the maximum losses one I find the most interesting and probably the one which they are most likely to **** up on. If they are not contesting the sponsorship thing does this not mean their revenue going forward is also significantly impacted and in turn their chance of generating a loss that much higher? Any financial gurus out there that could explain the implications of this.
 
Way I read it they need to find a new sponsor to cover the loss of the dodgy sponsor or infact make up the difference from what UEFA feel was the right figure that sponsor should be valued at.

That gap could be filled by the new money from the EPL rights this year.

Not sure if they still need to reduce there overall spending though. I hope so.
 
braineclipse said:
If they comply with the rules from now on. And if you ignore the CL squad limit as a punishment for some reason.
Click to expand...

It's a limited punishment as they will be allowed about the same size quad as that they used this season.

City made this point themselves when announcing their agreement:

The MCFC Champions League squad for the 2014-15 competition will be limited to 21 players. In 2013-14 the club registered 23 players for the competition and used 21.

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2014/May/Club-statement-16-May
Click to expand...
 
Rorschach said:
There are a few other restrictions too

The second one of these is not as bad as it sounds as the wage restrictions don't apply to "performance-based bonuses ". So basically that restriction means almost nothing in reality as does the 50mil fine which when spread over a number of years won't hurt them at all really.

It's the maximum losses one I find the most interesting and probably the one which they are most likely to **** up on. If they are not contesting the sponsorship thing does this not mean their revenue going forward is also significantly impacted and in turn their chance of generating a loss that much higher? Any financial gurus out there that could explain the implications of this.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

They're essentially being limited to a smaller loss than other clubs will be allowed in the same period? Or am I misreading that.

jts1882 said:
It's a limited punishment as they will be allowed about the same size quad as that they used this season.

City made this point themselves when announcing their agreement:
Click to expand...

Not exactly surprising that City are trying to make themselves look good and content in this situation.

They only used 21 players, but to keep to the same squad next season they will have to find room for one more home grown player amongst those 21 I believe (Boyatta didn't play). In addition any home grown player they ship out has to be replaced by another home grown player. Seeing as many of their squad players that they might want to upgrade on are the players making up their home grown quota that's an issue for them. And this season Jovetic didn't play (primarily because of injury).

Or put in other words, in their 25 man squad they were allowed 17 non-home-grown players. With a 21 man squad they are allowed only 13 non-home-grown players. If you look at their squad the issue seems pretty clear and it will most likely be a limitation for them in the transfer market. Fernandinho, Aguero, Kolarov, Toure, Silva, Zabaleta, Nasri, Navas, Kompany, Dzeko, Nastasic, Demichelis, Negredo, Garcia, Pantilimon and Jovetic. That 16 non-home-grown players already. Garcia and Pantilimon are probably the easiest to get rid of. Say they get rid of one more like Nastasic, that still only leaves them just within. For every non-home grown player they bring in after that they have to drop one.

Of course they could just say "**** it" and leave some of their top players out of their CL squad and place most of their focus on the league. How happy will those players be though? It's not a great situation for them, I do think it's a punishment and I think they're well aware of it.
 
Superhudd said:
Way I read it they need to find a new sponsor to cover the loss of the dodgy sponsor or infact make up the difference from what UEFA feel was the right figure that sponsor should be valued at.

That gap could be filled by the new money from the EPL rights this year.

Not sure if they still need to reduce there overall spending though. I hope so.
Click to expand...

I don't think that will help. For FFP the income from the sponsor was cut to market value for a club their size and that market value was generous.

No way a non-related party will sponsor them for that much.
 
bit of a tangent but who are UEFA to decide what's a reasonable value for a sponsorship deal?

perhaps they can sort our cpo for the new stadium as well
 
galeforce said:
bit of a tangent but who are UEFA to decide what's a reasonable value for a sponsorship deal?

perhaps they can sort our cpo for the new stadium as well
Click to expand...

I think it's quite easy to judge the financial equivalent size of a non-doped club.

For City, just pretend the oil money isn't there and compare their sponsorship to that of Palace or Southampton.
 
that's not the way it works though is it, city's sponsorship deal (and SCBC and palace), is worth what someone is willing to pay for it
 
galeforce said:
that's not the way it works though is it, city's sponsorship deal (and SCBC and palace), is worth what someone is willing to pay for it
Click to expand...

I think there's a fair market value for everything. You can at least make a reasonable comparison to clubs of a similar size/following.

There are so many football clubs around that only 2 or 3 clubs globally are able to command whatever price they want. Anyone else and there's other clubs the sponsors can go to instead - City are certainly one of them.
 
I love the sport but it reminds me of cycling in its doping heyday. Couple of cyclists died through over use on the drugs, only hope the same fate befalls certain football clubs.
 
Fingers crossed that City have not yet developed there overseas fans to the extent of Chelsea, as it's this that keeps Chelsea from failing FFP in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back