Stuart Brennan: the truth about M.U.F.C.F.F.P.

[john@staustell]

John,
Although the level of turnover is obviously a major factor, the important figure is the FFPR break even result when all costs/income are taken into consideration.

Even with our greatly increased turnover, we still posted a loss of £-99.7M in that regard.
The figurefor 2010-11 (the latest I have) show;
Rags.....£53M, Arsenal £45M, Spurs £17M, Liverpool £23M, Newcastle £45M...all in credit.
City £-99.7M (2011-12 very latest figures) and Chelsea £-8M are the only 2 relevant clubs in a loss situation. I am certain that Chelsea posted recent figures showing they had moved into credit.

If a domestic FFPR were to be passed, all those other clubs would pass and we would fail.

Even with increased revenue you have added, and judging by the clubs public reaction to the domestic FFPR proposal, we could still be somewhere up shit creek. Much of this depends on the timescale (if any) should it get the required 14 votes.

I'm more inclined to look at it as the revenue increasing, with the losses falling. With extra income streams to come it wont be long before we make a profit. Extra TV money, extra CL money, ground expansion. I think reaching £231M by last season is a tremendous effort.

Course a lot of it depends on the academy turning starlets into stars! Otherwise we'll have to keep buying.

[Rag_hater]

EU competition law prohibits companies competing in the same industry from making agreements that restrain competitive behaviour.

IMO this along with some other arguments should be enough to stop this FFP being implemented.

[leomcfc]

Credit where it is due. Fantastic piece by Stuart . And also Martin Samuel , on another thread. Finally reporters speaking the truth . Much respect .

[Ted Hughes]

That bit about "thriving in a competitive environment" is NOT true.

They thrived because they gained control of that environment, manipulated the rules to suit themselves and make it uncompetitive. The angle of what was once a reasonably LEVEL playing field was not simply changed, it was tipped up and flipped over.

Stop being so pragmatic.. ;)

What gets me here is it will requie 14 of 20 teams, or in this instance, take out the 4 pushing this 10 from 16, and then take City and Chelsea out 10 from 14. What interest would Stoke, Norwich, Sunderland, etc have in this?? I am sure they all aspire for a white knight owner and this would shut it out. Not only the club for the future of winning, but a potential huge payday for current ownership. Nothing with the FA surprises me, but this seems a bit far-fetched as being plausible.

This is my feeling too. I know the opinion has been expressed that it will be perceived by a lot of club owners as a way of cutting costs, by costing less to compete, but that seems to me to assume that they are a bit dim.

Alternatively, this could be the moment (new TV deal) for owners to cut their costs and take some profit out of their clubs for themselves instead of paying it to players. Greed is a big motivator in football, as we know.

No question.

That's why the cartel are pushing this through. Most of the blokes involved in those clubs came into this expecting to make money & are working together to make sure that happens. City spend 300 mil on Messi & they have to put their hands in their pockets to keep up. Stop City from spending, enlarge the Champions League, & they can cruise along taking out profits & watching Utd win stuff.

The rest of the league chaimen know they have only two choices; be replaced by somebody with more money or stay, but win fuck all apart from the League Cup. Many would rather stay, win fuck all & pocket a few quid in profits/wages; like Swales would if he was around.

I think us City fans should target David Gill. His role in this is a conflict of interest. It's blatant corruption without even bothering to hide it.

Just to add: Randy Learner would be part of that but is apparently against it. Therefore, he's looking for a buyer.

[Beefymcfc]

Can anybody find the BBCs reporting of this?

[john68]

John,
Although the level of turnover is obviously a major factor, the important figure is the FFPR break even result when all costs/income are taken into consideration.

Even with our greatly increased turnover, we still posted a loss of £-99.7M in that regard.
The figurefor 2010-11 (the latest I have) show;
Rags.....£53M, Arsenal £45M, Spurs £17M, Liverpool £23M, Newcastle £45M...all in credit.
City £-99.7M (2011-12 very latest figures) and Chelsea £-8M are the only 2 relevant clubs in a loss situation. I am certain that Chelsea posted recent figures showing they had moved into credit.

If a domestic FFPR were to be passed, all those other clubs would pass and we would fail.

Even with increased revenue you have added, and judging by the clubs public reaction to the domestic FFPR proposal, we could still be somewhere up shit creek. Much of this depends on the timescale (if any) should it get the required 14 votes.

I'm more inclined to look at it as the revenue increasing, with the losses falling. With extra income streams to come it wont be long before we make a profit. Extra TV money, extra CL money, ground expansion. I think reaching £231M by last season is a tremendous effort.

Course a lot of it depends on the academy turning starlets into stars! Otherwise we'll have to keep buying.

Wasn't really trying to post an opinion John. More just trying to fill in some of the blank numbers for info.

[Slim]

John,
Although the level of turnover is obviously a major factor, the important figure is the FFPR break even result when all costs/income are taken into consideration.

Even with our greatly increased turnover, we still posted a loss of £-99.7M in that regard.
The figurefor 2010-11 (the latest I have) show;
Rags.....£53M, Arsenal £45M, Spurs £17M, Liverpool £23M, Newcastle £45M...all in credit.
City £-99.7M (2011-12 very latest figures) and Chelsea £-8M are the only 2 relevant clubs in a loss situation. I am certain that Chelsea posted recent figures showing they had moved into credit.

If a domestic FFPR were to be passed, all those other clubs would pass and we would fail.

Even with increased revenue you have added, and judging by the clubs public reaction to the domestic FFPR proposal, we could still be somewhere up shit creek. Much of this depends on the timescale (if any) should it get the required 14 votes.

I'm more inclined to look at it as the revenue increasing, with the losses falling. With extra income streams to come it wont be long before we make a profit. Extra TV money, extra CL money, ground expansion. I think reaching £231M by last season is a tremendous effort.

Course a lot of it depends on the academy turning starlets into stars! Otherwise we'll have to keep buying.

Wasn't really trying to post an opinion John. More just trying to fill in some of the blank numbers for info.

Speaking of blank numbers, does anyone know the increase in TV revenue for next season? I heard it was up by £70M, but might just have been one of the lads bullshitting.

[john68]

Slim,

Unable to say what the final figure may well end up mate. The previous deal was £3.51Bn over 3 years (2010-13).
The final figure for 2013-16 is expected to be over £5Bn but is wholly dependent on the overseas sales, which don't seem to be finalised yet.
The other thing to know is that the share out is being changed too so the bottom clubs get an improved share out. All in all, £70M pa may not be that far out.

Never had to do a link mate but am happy to point you in the right direction.

Try googling "SPORTING INTELLIGENCE" and putting "PREM TV REVENUES" in the search box. The 2nd item down "TV RIGHTS Q & As" Will give you more info than you need. It is dated from last June, so isn't fully up to date. Worth a read though.

[Slim]

Well if our revenue continues, our spending on new players has tapered and with that sort of extra money, I wonder how far financially we'd be away in 2014.

[john68]

Taking our previous real loss as £146M (not the quoted £almost £200M), we made around £50M progress towards balancing the books. The last figures showed a shortfall of around £97M. For obvious reasons, I am not getting involved in the FFPR argument....:-)

Solely looking at balancing the books, we know that club running costs are rising as are wages but I think next year we have about £40M pa to add from the Etihad Campus deal with the extra TV revenues the following year. Our present commercial income seems heavily loaded from ADUG and Abu Dhabi related companies, giving Soriano a global scope to develop which we have not really touched on yet.

Given about 2 years, we should be there or thereabouts.

[Slim]

Taking our previous real loss as £146M (not the quoted £almost £200M), we made around £50M progress towards balancing the books. The last figures showed a shortfall of around £97M. For obvious reasons, I am not getting involved in the FFPR argument....:-)

Solely looking at balancing the books, we know that club running costs are rising as are wages but I think next year we have about £40M pa to add from the Etihad Campus deal with the extra TV revenues the following year. Our present commercial income seems heavily loaded from ADUG and Abu Dhabi related companies, giving Soriano a global scope to develop which we have not really touched on yet.

Given about 2 years, we should be there or thereabouts.

I have read a stack of reports on what it's supposed to do, who it will affect in reality, where City lie(most experts seem to think we have nothing to worry about). And all I can come up with is that people smarter than me and paid a lot of money are making sure we are not going to get hit by MUFCWTUPWTCWOTPFFP, so we can sit here and worry, or trust in Khaldoon and his people to get things right so we never have to worry about it.

[Ted Hughes]

Taking our previous real loss as £146M (not the quoted £almost £200M), we made around £50M progress towards balancing the books. The last figures showed a shortfall of around £97M. For obvious reasons, I am not getting involved in the FFPR argument....:-)

Solely looking at balancing the books, we know that club running costs are rising as are wages but I think next year we have about £40M pa to add from the Etihad Campus deal with the extra TV revenues the following year. Our present commercial income seems heavily loaded from ADUG and Abu Dhabi related companies, giving Soriano a global scope to develop which we have not really touched on yet.

Given about 2 years, we should be there or thereabouts.

I have read a stack of reports on what it's supposed to do, who it will affect in reality, where City lie(most experts seem to think we have nothing to worry about). And all I can come up with is that people smarter than me and paid a lot of money are making sure we are not going to get hit by MUFCWTUPWTCWOTPFFP, so we can sit here and worry, or trust in Khaldoon and his people to get things right so we never have to worry about it.

Your last line is totally correct, but it will involve 'creativity' & more huge sponsorship.

The problem isn't that we get dumped out of the Champions League, & now the Premier League, the problem is that if our turnover is £250 mil & the rags' is £350 mil, they have money to spend on players without being sanctioned & we don't.

We have seen how that works in the short term with our decision not to go balls out for RVP (which I agree with).

Imagine say, five years of that. They keep growing, we stand still. Therefore our business growth slows, our income slows, meanwhile theirs goes through the roof, & they push up transfer fees & wages so that we can't compete (as they did with Leeeds etc), then we get another 5 years of the same, then they push up transfer fees & wages even further, then, when our brand new spanking acdemy produces players, they tap them up & sign them when their City contracts run out.

Scraping through ffp is no use to us. We have to blow it apart & that means heavy sponsorship short term & legal battles if they try to fuck us over.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Sadly, Ted, I think your analysis and prognosis is frighteningly accurate.

With that in mind, it could get quite messy in the next few years and we're going to get even more hatred directed our way when we initiate any legal action. Under those circumstances, all we can do is batten down the hatches and ride out the storm.

[Ted Hughes]

Sadly, Ted, I think your analysis and prognosis is frighteningly accurate.

With that in mind, it could get quite messy in the next few years and we're going to get even more hatred directed our way when we initiate any legal action. Under those circumstances, all we can do is batten down the hatches and ride out the storm.

I think we will use 'sponsorship' & the legal battle will only ensue if they act to stop us.

PSG will probably be ahead of us in this.

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

Ted, you speak the truth, they can afford to spend cash, so they'll be happy to push up wages to leave other clubs unable to compete. They've done it before and will be delighted to have the opportunity to do it again.

[Ted Hughes]

Ted, you speak the truth, they can afford to spend cash, so they'll be happy to push up wages to leave other clubs unable to compete. They've done it before and will be delighted to have the opportunity to do it again.

They can do that short term in order to blow us away & be in debt too if they wish, as debt is good as long as it's 'serviceable' but investment is bad.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

Will they have enough votes to get this passed in the Premier League?

Reportedly, ourselves, Chelsea, WBA, Fulham and Everton are against it.

I can't imagine QPR's owners being too keen on the idea.

That leaves one more to convince to join the light side of the force.

[Ted Hughes]

Will they have enough votes to get this passed in the Premier League?

Reportedly, ourselves, Chelsea, WBA, Fulham and Everton are against it.

I can't imagine QPR's owners being too keen on the idea.

That leaves one more to convince to join the light side of the force.

I had heard Villa were against.

It should be challenged anyway. It's blatant corruption & anti competitive. I don't believe Sky would be happy either.

[john68]

You are right Slim, as fans, we are powerless to do anything but spectate, speculate and maybe try and calculate and project what may or may not happen. Beyond that, we are wholly dependent on how the wise men you refer to at City act and respond to the situation as it changes. As fans we have the luxury of being able to sit and pick our arses, our wise men don't.

For me, the biggest and more important issue is the campaign by a small group of clubs to gain influence and control over the global game. Though the FFPR issues (domestic and Europe) seem to be more immediate, current and grabbing the headlines, this campaign is silently and subversively continuing successfully and not being addressed. I have tried to stress that the FFPR shit is only a small defensive tool being used to protect their bigger gains.

Though balancing our books and complying, coming up with extra income or mounting some form of legal challenge may be the immediate problem, this battle must be viewed in a much wider context. City are battling to be accepted. Balancing the books may get us through the door but we still remain at odds with football's major powers. We remain friendless at the top and therefore our longer term interests are vulnerable to future attack. Politically in football we are seen as pariahs that threaten the elite old order that must be stopped.

This latest round of domestic FFPR crap means our wise men have a long way to go yet.

[Rag_hater]

Will they have enough votes to get this passed in the Premier League?

Reportedly, ourselves, Chelsea, WBA, Fulham and Everton are against it.

I can't imagine QPR's owners being too keen on the idea.

That leaves one more to convince to join the light side of the force.

They can have as many votes as they like if a judge tells them its all bolloks it will not matter.