The mancityfans.net football forum

If we are to any realistic hope of re building our ageing squad its time City took on UEFA. I can't see it sticking if it was taken to court. Its anti competitive and against employment regulations. Would also be great to see that smug twat Platini shot down.

If we turn a profit this year, as is probable, does that mean we can disregard FFP or are the sanctions from last year still on place?

nottsblue wrote:If we turn a profit this year, as is probable, does that mean we can disregard FFP or are the sanctions from last year still on place?

no it means we still have to live within our means but we are on the right track to be able to spend a decent amount

It's already in court.

No point in us interfering at this stage. Decent chance it'll be gone, or drastically changed, by this time next year. But we will have loads of money anyway. And Sheikh Mansour doesn't want to spend 100 mil pa on City. He wants us to be self sufficient & to bring through a good percentage of our own players.

He may treat himself to a Messi every now & then, but he doesn't want to prop us up every year.

We dont need to challenge FFP. we can more than work within our means from now on.

Assuming we break even this year then with a few sales we should have a sizeable transfer kitty. If we were to bring in £80mill in sales, then we could possibly have a trasfer kitty of up to £400mill. If new players were on similar wages to outgoing players and new players signed 5 year contracts)

This would be before we renegotiate any major sponsorship deals

Let's just play the game for a while and once it has been fucked off we can bask in the glow.

If it was me in charge, I'd have challenged this corrupt bollox from the off. It's that transparent a fucking blind man could see through it for what really is

Saying that, we're lucky we don't have a rash cunt like me in charge. Instead we have classy, intelligent owners with a long term plan who are trying to avoid being the ones to challenge something with the name "Fair" in it (very clever move by UEFA) and thus being made out to be the devil of the football world.

The problem is that we are hated anyway. Just like Chelsea were. The only time that is going to go away is when the current bitter cunts in the media and such like retire and are replaced by younger, more open minded people, who didn't have their beloved cartel breached by "new money".

We are at a very pivotal point in our project and this has to be handled to perfection. We are not in a crisis, but we are at a fork in the road, whereby we need to flex our muscles in probably the biggest way possible since the takeover.

Which route to take in order to do this is the head scratcher. Either we stand up to FFP by challenging it, or we simply ignore it, act like it doesn't exist and leave the arguing to those already challenging it in court.

I think we'll probably see us lean more towards ignoring it, or certainly large elements of it, while we recruit the best in the world that are for sale. We can no longer go for second tier players because we want to fit in with a corrupt plan made up by those who have had their pick of top players for fucking years.

No. The time is now. This is a huge summer for us and I was leaning towards the count going, but the more I think of it, the more I want us to recruit MASSIVELY this summer and let him do what he did last year and blitz teams.

Can you imagine what we'd be like with even three more world class players to go with the two we currently have?

New goals record without a doubt.

So we need to challenge it, but most likely through ignoring it at this stage.

FA cup winners 2006 wrote:We dont need to challenge FFP. we can more than work within our means from now on.

Assuming we break even this year then with a few sales we should have a sizeable transfer kitty. If we were to bring in £80mill in sales, then we could possibly have a trasfer kitty of up to £400mill. If new players were on similar wages to outgoing players and new players signed 5 year contracts)

This would be before we renegotiate any major sponsorship deals

i agree with your first two sentences but stop pulling numbers out of your arse.

Dameerto wrote:

FA cup winners 2006 wrote:We dont need to challenge FFP. we can more than work within our means from now on.

Assuming we break even this year then with a few sales we should have a sizeable transfer kitty. If we were to bring in £80mill in sales, then we could possibly have a trasfer kitty of up to £400mill. If new players were on similar wages to outgoing players and new players signed 5 year contracts)

This would be before we renegotiate any major sponsorship deals

i agree with your first two sentences but stop pulling numbers out of your arse.

I am not pulling figures out of my arse, but they are hypothetical figures as i have no idea what our transfer kitty will be.

My understanding of FFP is that any income from sales can be accounted for as a total in the year of the sales and any money spent on transfers is to be spread out over the length of the contract of the player signed (amortisation).

For example, if we were to sell Yaya, Dzeko, Jovetic, Kolorov, Nasri and a few others for a total of 80mill then that goes into our income for the accounting year. So if we broke even on everything else then we would have £80mill profit and saved a few hundred thousand of the wage bill. We would then be in a position to use this £80mill for transfers.

So just to point out why i dont think we should be against FFP is that we could buy the following players and still be under the FFP cap

Messi - £150mill (£30mill per year over 5 years)
Pogba - £60mill (£10mill per year over 6 years)
Reus - £40mill (£8mill per year over 5 years)
Isco - £30mill (£6mill per year over 5 years)
LB - £20mill (£4mill per year over 5 years)

So a total transfer outlay of £300mill but under FFP this would show as a total of £58mill per year*

I dont for a second believe we will spend these kind of figures but we should be more than capable of being able to compete within the FFP constraints.

*This is my understanding of how we need to account for the transfers under FFP, if this is incorrect then i withdraw my whole post but if it is correct then it puts us in an even stronger position as our owner will be able to pay for alot of these transfers up front and the amortisation costs is what UEFA will be looking at

No need to withdraw anything, just leave it as - we will have a substantial transfers fund available, to which we can also add any fees for outgoing players. (which is all any of us can reasonably know outside of the club).

http://www.sport.co.uk/football/owner-i ... ZYj74CQ.97

Decent piece

Original Dub wrote:http://www.sport.co.uk/football/owner-investment-at-clubs-like-city-and-chelsea-isnt-evil/5996785/#S1re2ceLgZYj74CQ.97

Decent piece

Thanks for posting that. The more articles like this that are written, the quicker FFP will be nothing but an aberration that will be the downfall of Platini

nottsblue wrote:

Original Dub wrote:http://www.sport.co.uk/football/owner-investment-at-clubs-like-city-and-chelsea-isnt-evil/5996785/#S1re2ceLgZYj74CQ.97

Decent piece

Thanks for posting that. The more articles like this that are written, the quicker FFP will be nothing but an aberration that will be the downfall of Platini

There are quite a lot tbf.

But that is possibly because we have been held up whilst the rags, Arsenal etc spent money & vastly improved their chances of competing with us.

All the short term fucks probably think that's us fucked now 'the boys' are back. So why not let us spend a few quid?

The Glazers & Arsene Wenger won't agree. They know the true situation.

FA cup winners 2006 wrote:

Dameerto wrote:

FA cup winners 2006 wrote:We dont need to challenge FFP. we can more than work within our means from now on.

Assuming we break even this year then with a few sales we should have a sizeable transfer kitty. If we were to bring in £80mill in sales, then we could possibly have a trasfer kitty of up to £400mill. If new players were on similar wages to outgoing players and new players signed 5 year contracts)

This would be before we renegotiate any major sponsorship deals

i agree with your first two sentences but stop pulling numbers out of your arse.

I am not pulling figures out of my arse, but they are hypothetical figures as i have no idea what our transfer kitty will be.

My understanding of FFP is that any income from sales can be accounted for as a total in the year of the sales and any money spent on transfers is to be spread out over the length of the contract of the player signed (amortisation).

For example, if we were to sell Yaya, Dzeko, Jovetic, Kolorov, Nasri and a few others for a total of 80mill then that goes into our income for the accounting year. So if we broke even on everything else then we would have £80mill profit and saved a few hundred thousand of the wage bill. We would then be in a position to use this £80mill for transfers.

So just to point out why i dont think we should be against FFP is that we could buy the following players and still be under the FFP cap

Messi - £150mill (£30mill per year over 5 years)
Pogba - £60mill (£10mill per year over 6 years)
Reus - £40mill (£8mill per year over 5 years)
Isco - £30mill (£6mill per year over 5 years)
LB - £20mill (£4mill per year over 5 years)

So a total transfer outlay of £300mill but under FFP this would show as a total of £58mill per year*

I dont for a second believe we will spend these kind of figures but we should be more than capable of being able to compete within the FFP constraints.

*This is my understanding of how we need to account for the transfers under FFP, if this is incorrect then i withdraw my whole post but if it is correct then it puts us in an even stronger position as our owner will be able to pay for alot of these transfers up front and the amortisation costs is what UEFA will be looking at

I don't think you're a million miles away with your logic. Of course the problem with that is that we would struggle to make signings in the years ahead as we would have fully allocated the transfer budget for the next 5 years and could only really spend as money is brought in.

What I think complicates things on your suggestion above is the strategy of giving key players new extended contracts, as I think this has been done specifically to extend the amortisation period of the transfer fees for aguero, silva, nasri etc, so technically from an FFP accounting perspective we are still paying for transfers we made 4 or 5 years ago

Who knows what the real situation is? It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over the summer though.

When is the court ruling on this due ? Anyone know ? I thought it was supposed to early April - ?

The president of the European governing body has admitted that changes are afoot, with clubs set to be cut more slack

Uefa could be set to relax its Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations, with president Michel Platini admitting a decision will be made in June.

The rules, which were first implemented in 2011, forbid clubs from spending beyond their means, with significant fines, squad limits and suspensions enforced across the Champions League and Europa League for those guilty of breaching the designated guidelines.

But the Uefa chief has told RTL that Europe’s governing body has agreed to review the agreed boundaries and could well decide to allow a relaxation of the financial controls.

“I think the regulations that have been made are fine, but FFP was voted in by the clubs,” Platini explained.

“The French press have questioned it since Roman Abramovich at Chelsea can buy players while in France they cannot.

“Today in France they want another system, but if Qatar [owners of Paris Saint-Germain] had bought AC Milan they would want stricter enforcement. As it is, the Italians also say they want a lighter FFP.

“I understand that we are in a world of false bottoms, but we say this openly. I think we’ll lighten things up.”

However, Platini went on to say it will not be his decision to make alone.

“This will be for the Uefa Executive Committee to decide. You’ll know the outcome at the end of June.”

The latest revelations come after a recent Uefa meeting with the European Club Association, which represents many of the biggest clubs across the continent who are most effected by the FFP controls.

http://www.goal.com/en/news/755/europe/ ... x-ffp-laws

Possibly translated as the rags might be in danger of breaching it, so we will change the rules to benefit them?

Well if they relax it we better get our fine back and an apology.

We have bent over backwards to satisfy those cunts and put our club development back years.

lets all have a disco wrote:Well if they relax it we better get our fine back and an apology.

We have bent over backwards to satisfy those cunts and put our club development back years.

It's a pity we couldn't take out some litigation against UEFA, claiming retrospective compensation.

I am really curious about this scenario, actually heard it on the radio this moment:

I find myself with a shitload of money, buy Bournemouth this summer and invest 200 mil pounds only on players, just in the summer that we have ahead.
So, after that, i manage to break the top 4 and qualify for the Champions Cup. Having that club, i won't have the same revenue and sponsorship like the big names have, so my income will be very limited.

The question is, in this scenario, can they ban you from their competitions? And why? Why people that bring money in the game are punished by UEFA, private parties like us or PSG i mean.

The Times has clearly got the steer that rules on owner investment will be relaxed ie equity investment. It's inside the pay wall so I can't access it till tomorrow. Huge for City if true.