The mancityfans.net football forum

lets all have a disco wrote:

PeterParker wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33591332

Comedy.

He's a fucking wanker that guy.

Blatter?
The Comedian?
Both?
Mancini?

lets all have a disco wrote:

PeterParker wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33591332

Comedy.

He's a fucking wanker that guy.

Who? Brodkin or Bladder or both?

Talk of Platini being asked to go for the Fifa presidency, so there'll be no change there then. Of course that would leave Gill free to go for the UEFA spot.

iwasthere2012 wrote:

lets all have a disco wrote:

PeterParker wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33591332

Comedy.

He's a fucking wanker that guy.

Who? Brodkin or Bladder or both?

Talk of Platini being asked to go for the Fifa presidency, so there'll be no change there then. Of course that would leave Gill free to go for the UEFA spot.

As it goes both but that Simon Brodkin character needs a good slap IMHO if this had been a legit protest by someone who was calling Blatter out then it would have been great, but instead it's a fame hungry bell end thinking he is funny.

UEFA claims victory in financial fair play supreme court challenge

UEFA says it has won at the European Union's supreme court after a legal challenge to financial fair play (FFP) rules that curb club spending was thrown out.

UEFA says the European Union's Court of Justice ruled a Belgian court's request for a preliminary judgment was "manifestly inadmissible."

A statement added: "UEFA considers this to be a sensible and logical outcome and takes the opportunity to re-affirm its complete confidence in the legality of financial fair play, a system which is backed by the overwhelming majority of stakeholders in European football and which has, in a short space of time, already delivered real, concrete and tangible results which will help safeguard the future and longstanding prosperity of the game in Europe.

"Financial Fair Play has also been publicly supported on many occasions by the institutions of the European Union, including the European Parliament and the European Commission."

The case went through a local Brussels court after the European Commission decided it had no merit.

The case was brought by a player's agent in Belgium and fan groups linked to Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain. UEFA fined both clubs €20 million ($21.8 million) in 2014 for breaking FFP rules.

They argued that FFP protects elite clubs, and were represented by lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont. He helped win the landmark Bosman case on the contractual freedom of players 20 years ago.

http://www.espnfc.us/fifa-world-cup/sto ... -challenge

Ahhhhhh, I get it; got lost in the UEFA statement (not the courts). This ruling is on whether the next stage can be put in place as Du Pont wanted the limitations change put on hold. The full hearing still has to be heard.

Nothing really of value, we're already sorted.

Beefymcfc wrote:Ahhhhhh, I get it; got lost in the UEFA statement (not the courts). This ruling is on whether the next stage can be put in place as Du Pont wanted the limitations change put on hold. The full hearing still has to be heard.

Nothing really of value, we're already sorted.

This sounds as though it's been issued by UEFA's Orwellian style Ministry of Truth.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:Ahhhhhh, I get it; got lost in the UEFA statement (not the courts). This ruling is on whether the next stage can be put in place as Du Pont wanted the limitations change put on hold. The full hearing still has to be heard.

Nothing really of value, we're already sorted.

This sounds as though it's been issued by UEFA's Orwellian style Ministry of Truth.

I thought I was going daft when I read it, thinking it was coming from the courts! Glad to see you didn't have to do that second glance.

Piffle.

So the FA have given their full backing to Platini for FIFA Presidency?
YCNMIU.

Replace a corrupt cunt with a corrupt cunt. Nice work

Any cunt in UEFA who gave backing to FFP needs investigating as to what their motives were, let alone get fucking promoted to an organisation that needs to be completely overhauled and cleared out..

I'm honestly not sure if I'll ever live to see the clean game that I've craved from day one.

Original Dub wrote:So the FA have given their full backing to Platini for FIFA Presidency?
YCNMIU.

Replace a corrupt cunt with a corrupt cunt. Nice work

Any cunt in UEFA who gave backing to FFP needs investigating as to what their motives were, let alone get fucking promoted to an organisation that needs to be completely overhauled and cleared out..

I'm honestly not sure if I'll ever live to see the clean game that I've craved from day one.

Just think OD, if the Fat Frenchman does get the job, he might then go on a crusading mission to get FFP adopted world-wide.

If that proves to be the case, when the men in the white coats come to take him away, he'll probably be wearing his Napoleon outfit.

Napoleon, brilliant Mick.

I knew he was a ringer for someone, but couldn't put my finger on who.
He's a scumbag. Now that everyone is starting to see FFP for what we knew it to be from the beginning, putting its biggest advocate in charge of world football is mind blowing.

I'd actually be more nervous with this fat cunt in charge than the last shit bag.

Original Dub wrote:Napoleon, brilliant Mick.

I knew he was a ringer for someone, but couldn't put my finger on who.
He's a scumbag. Now that everyone is starting to see FFP for what we knew it to be from the beginning, putting its biggest advocate in charge of world football is mind blowing.

I'd actually be more nervous with this fat cunt in charge than the last shit bag.

Agreed. Blatter was corrupt and didn't like the English but Platini despises England and especially us and I've no doubt his snout would get well and truly ensconced in the trough

Not sure this is the best spot for this article, but...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2015/08/30/how-spending-228m-in-transfer-window-could-actually-improve-man-citys-financial-position/

How Spending $228M In Transfer Window Could Actually Improve Man City's Financial Position
Comment Now

It was likely no accident that Manchester City announced the signing of 24-year-old Kevin De Bruyne from Wolfsburg for close to $80M just as Manchester United kicked off against Swansea in the Premier League on Sunday.

Both Manchester clubs have been very free with the cash book over the last few seasons. Manchester City’s free spending ways can be tracked back to the 2007/08 Premier League season while the post-Sir Alex Ferguson hangover at Old Trafford has meant the Manchester United has also been spending big.

The latest signing brings Manchester City’s gross transfer spending to $1.4B since the 2007/08 season and net spending to over $1B.

The signing of De Bruyne from Wolfsburg of the German Bundesliga came only 18 months or so after Chelsea sold De Bruyne for $28M. De Bruyne had cost Chelsea $11M when they signed him from Genk in Belgium in 2012.

Genk, Chelsea and Wolfsburg have all pocketed a tidy profit along the way and now Manchester City are hoping that its club record signing can help take the team deeper into the Champions League as well as helping the club win back the Premier League from Chelsea.

If it’s true De Bruyne deal to City is done for €80m, I think we safely say FFP is dead and buried!

— Lynsey Hipgrave (@lynseyhipgrave1) August 26, 2015

This brings Manchester City spending during this transfer window to $228M gross and it has a lot of folks shaking their heads about how all this works into UEFA Financial Fair Play.

De Bruyne – £55M Sterling – £49M Otamendi – £33M Roberts – £11M Delph – £8M Total: £156M Financial fair play is a myth! — Football Jokes (@LaughingFooty) August 30, 2015

But transfer fees paid is only one part of the FFP equation. Other key pieces are transfer fees received and the overall salary budget.

Given the amortization rule clubs are allowed to take a charge based on the length of player’s contract. Signing a player for $50M on a five year contract means an annual charge to the financial statements of $10M.

But transfer fees received can generate a profit or a loss on sales. If after two seasons Juan Costa Lot is sold for $40M then a profit of $10M can be booked. Conversely, if he is only sold for $20M then the club needs to book a loss of $10M given that in both examples Juan’s contract would have been written down to $30M after three years.

One part of the secret sauce is making sure you have enough players you can sell at a book profit and ironically it has been Chelsea who has been the leading exponent of this financial model. Selling in a rising market has been relatively easy although the risk is if the transfer market turns downwards then the financial model is undermined.

Because the amortization method “rolls”, for every year added a year comes off. Players’ contracts are of varying lengths so it is impossible to be certain of the projections but by tracking back through Manchester City’s transfer dealings and assuming that contracts are of a five year duration you can come up with a pretty solid estimate.

The last financial statement published by Manchester City was for the 2013/14 season. The net charge to the statements for player amortization less profit on the sale of players for that year was $117M.

Based on five year contracts then the 2014/15 year should see an amortization reduction of nearly $40M based on signings made in 2009/10 having been written down to zero.

Added back would be a fifth of the transfer fees paid in 2014/15 – $27M based on $135M times 20%. You need to make some assumptions regarding the difference between transfer fees received and the value of unamortized contracts but a profit on player sales of $13M is not unreasonable.

Add and subtract all this and we get a net charge (amortization less profit/loss) of $93M – $24M less than 2013/14.

Moving on to this summer’s transactions and projecting to the 2014/15 you can see that despite City’s level of spending it will actually show another improvement in its financial position based on a reduction of the “net amortization charge” if no more moves are made.

Manchester City will take a charge of approximately $46M on new signings this summer. But the club will benefit from having any signings made in the 2010/11 written down to zero (based on an assumption of 5 year contracts). The year of 2010/11 happened to be a peak year for City signings.

Man City

Manchester City paid out $238M that season and the net saving in amortization should be around $47M. Then there is the profit on player sales this summer and that should round out to around $34M.

Starting with $93M add new amortization charge of $46M deduct 2010/11 write down of $47M and deduct a $34M profit on player sales and the net amortization charge comes in at $58M.


LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – AUGUST 23: David Silva signed for Manchester City in 2010 for a fee of around $40M (Photo by Clive Brunskill/Getty Images)

So rather than putting Manchester City offside in terms of financial fair play the City situation has actually improved based on net transfer dealings – $117M to $93M to $58M.

The once piece not accounted for is the club’s salary bill but given the wiggle room created by transfer dealings over the last two seasons Manchester City has some room for manoeuvre.

Pounds or riot.

Latest from the Swiss rambler

Warning, very long

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... rough.html

patrickblue wrote:Latest from the Swiss rambler

Warning, very long

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... rough.html

Thought it was an excellent read and if there's any misunderstanding regarding our situation, that should clear it up.

The likes of Karren Brady should have a gander.

Very very long. Very.

Good though.

patrickblue wrote:Latest from the Swiss rambler

Warning, very long

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... rough.html

A very good article and very thought provoking as it really shows UEFA had only one goal in mind don't let the new boys smash the cartel.

An accountant's wet dream.

That's an excellent piece. It's technically detailed but explained simply enough so that the layman can understand it.
Does this get out to a wider audience though?
Would the non-City layman want to trawl through it, I'm not so sure.

iwasthere2012 wrote:That's an excellent piece. It's technically detailed but explained simply enough so that the layman can understand it.
Does this get out to a wider audience though?
Would the non-City layman want to trawl through it, I'm not so sure.

It doesn't really matter mate, as long as you know it yoiu are well armed for when the fuckwits attack.

Use the force ;-)