Hypothetical Uwaffa b*ll*x

[Ted Hughes]

My reason for wanting to get the point across, as I made in the financial reports thread, is that we need to bear these realities in mind at every stage when considering the actions of the owner and board. No more, no less.

Agreed - as you did when reluctantly thinking that Hughes might have stay until the end of the season (unless there was a plan....) even though it was against your other thoughts in that area - I am just saying that we should all just be grateful for the hands our club are in and do the same

Whatever the owner does we can't meet those criteria IF Platini's panel has the powers which people are suggesting.

It is possible to meet the criteria - we need Champions League money very very quickly though and will have to be more prudent in the transfer markets and start producing more and more through the Academy. As 1632 says, these needs seem to be fully recognised by the board. They are definitely heading towards the compliance route rather than rebellion. It will mean people needing to be more understanding at that actions if they seem ruthless and hasty and also in future tempering their expectations of the owner in the transfer market.

We're apparently just adding a 33 year old midfielder on an 18 month contract whilst simultaneously paying off all the old coaching staff. I just can't see that fitting this plan. I think we're looking at 2 different situations; one being balancing the books so we have no significant debt which I believe we will comply with as will Chelsea but the second one regarding the Sheikh not being able to put money in, I believe we will test & I think Chelsea may do the same IF Platini tries to stop it. I don't think he will, provided it isn't shown as debt.

[Socrates]

My reason for wanting to get the point across, as I made in the financial reports thread, is that we need to bear these realities in mind at every stage when considering the actions of the owner and board. No more, no less.

Agreed - as you did when reluctantly thinking that Hughes might have stay until the end of the season (unless there was a plan....) even though it was against your other thoughts in that area - I am just saying that we should all just be grateful for the hands our club are in and do the same

Whatever the owner does we can't meet those criteria IF Platini's panel has the powers which people are suggesting.

It is possible to meet the criteria - we need Champions League money very very quickly though and will have to be more prudent in the transfer markets and start producing more and more through the Academy. As 1632 says, these needs seem to be fully recognised by the board. They are definitely heading towards the compliance route rather than rebellion. It will mean people needing to be more understanding at that actions if they seem ruthless and hasty and also in future tempering their expectations of the owner in the transfer market.

We're apparently just adding a 33 year old midfielder on an 18 month contract whilst simultaneously paying off all the old coaching staff. I just can't see that fitting this plan. I think we're looking at 2 different situations; one being balancing the books so we have no significant debt which I believe we will comply with as will Chelsea but the second one regarding the Sheikh not being able to put money in, I believe we will test & I think Chelsea may do the same IF Platini tries to stop it. I don't think he will, provided it isn't shown as debt.

Vieira is Mancini's idea of a leader,think we should let him have that as he hasn't chosen his own assistant don't you? Paying off the coaching staff is irrelevant to the plans as the 2010 accounts will already be a 9 figure loss whatever happens. Getting that loss in the 2010 accounts rather than risking having them in 2011 is actually very consistent with the situation...

[razor400]

Right I've got a question, does the club's income have to solely based in football or could the club set up a subsidiary (or whatever its called) and make an income from that, say investing in an oil company?

[Ted Hughes]

Vieira is Mancini's idea of a leader,think we should let him have that as he hasn't chosen his own assistant don't you? Paying off the coaching staff is irrelevant to the plans as the 2010 accounts will already be a 9 figure loss whatever happens. Getting that loss in the 2010 accounts rather than risking having them in 2011 is actually very consistent with the situation...

He can sign who he wants.

Seems to me we'll end up about £50M per season short assuming we don't sign anyone else. Chump's league won't cover it. Imo the Sheikh will continue to put money in one way or another & Platini will let him because Milan etc will be doing the same & without being obviously corrupt, he can't single us out. If he does we will cause all manner of shit. Also no one is taking into account that if we do start winning the PL both that body & the FA will have something to say about the champions being banned from Europe for being in a healthy financial position.

[Bianchi on Ice]

The key thing for me is, Did the takeover of City merely coincide with Platini's theory, that had been in discussion for some time, and was it merely bad luck (again) on our part, or was it this particular takeover and subsequent spending the straw that broke the camels back?. There are many people involved in football, without connection to City, even a lizard like Scudamore, who argue that new rules such as those discussed would be in essence a safeguard on the top 6-10 clubs in Europe dominating their domestic leagues and in turn European competition. I accept that in the not so distant past this argument would be out of our remit. But now, of all times, UEFA are talking of financial fair play whilst tying one hand behind any person rich enough to want to bankroll a club. This seems to me, as a cynic, rather convenient.
By all means, limit debt levels, limit salaries(try that in a capitalist world), limit club budgets, and by that I mean for every single club. Try to mirror the American league as regard to "star" players(they are itching to reverse that one, they changed the rules for beckham). Try things that make sense. But to pass a law to favour clubs with the biggest income from football, even though the biggest fishes are either broke, borrowing to stay afloat, or downright shady sounds like pseudo communism to me.
Platini needs to get his head around what financial fair play actually means. In the last year we thought we saw financial fair play with the great and the good of the worlds banks, but we are back to square one with that lot. Perhaps I've answered my first question myself. If you can't beat them, join them. No, not if its a bottomless pit of money youre playing with and you fuck with the food chain. THATS TOO EQUAL.

[Socrates]

Razor - I reckon they will have the investment angle covered! It will just be the club as an operating entity they will be considering.
T Hughes - Don't forget the Champs League money will lead to bigger and better sponsorships as well as direct marketing opportunities too and that player amortisation will drop over time if transfer spending does. Also we could expand the ground and get more in the gates. It is doable.
Bianchi - I think it was a straw/camel scenario

[Ted Hughes]

Razor - I reckon they will have the investment angle covered! It will just be the club as an operating entity they will be considering.
T Hughes - Don't forget the Champs League money will lead to bigger and better sponsorships as well as direct marketing opportunities too and that player amortisation will drop over time if transfer spending does. Also we could expand the ground and get more in the gates. It is doable.
Bianchi - I think it was a straw/camel scenario

I recon there'll be a lot sponsorship money & it will have a heavy Abu Dhabi feel about it such as the recently aquired German company.

[Socrates]

Razor - I reckon they will have the investment angle covered! It will just be the club as an operating entity they will be considering.
T Hughes - Don't forget the Champs League money will lead to bigger and better sponsorships as well as direct marketing opportunities too and that player amortisation will drop over time if transfer spending does. Also we could expand the ground and get more in the gates. It is doable.
Bianchi - I think it was a straw/camel scenario

I recon there'll be a lot sponsorship money & it will have a heavy Abu Dhabi feel about it such as the recently aquired German company.

The more the better.

[BlueinBosnia]

Right I've got a question, does the club's income have to solely based in football or could the club set up a subsidiary (or whatever its called) and make an income from that, say investing in an oil company?

If we sold oil as 'merchandise', then there shouldn't be a problem. Hope we get Puma to make the barrels...

[Lev Bronstein]

Right I've got a question, does the club's income have to solely based in football or could the club set up a subsidiary (or whatever its called) and make an income from that, say investing in an oil company?

Good point. About 12 years ago Utd was the biggest holder of milk quotas (can't be arsed with the details, google it for it's importance).

My point is that any company can set up, or be part of subsiduaries, can make investments or have an interest in any other business unrelated to the activity in question.

Years ago, loads of the Welsh rugby players were employed as brewery reps. Their caring employers would allow them lots of time off for training, games etc.

So, the Sheikh sets up ADUG Social Research Company, all City players are employed by them and pay their wages. All City players are allowed generous time off for training, matches etc. Officially Man City are now an amatuer club.

[Socrates]

Right I've got a question, does the club's income have to solely based in football or could the club set up a subsidiary (or whatever its called) and make an income from that, say investing in an oil company?

Good point. About 12 years ago Utd was the biggest holder of milk quotas (can't be arsed with the details, google it for it's importance).

My point is that any company can set up, or be part of subsiduaries, can make investments or have an interest in any other business unrelated to the activity in question.

Years ago, loads of the Welsh rugby players were employed as brewery reps. Their caring employers would allow them lots of time off for training, games etc.

So, the Sheikh sets up ADUG Social Research Company, all City players are employed by them and pay their wages. All City players are allowed generous time off for training, matches etc. Officially Man City are now an amatuer club.

Sounds horribly like our attempts to break the maximum wage rules 105 years ago. That turned out well...

[dazby]

My reason for wanting to get the point across, as I made in the financial reports thread, is that we need to bear these realities in mind at every stage when considering the actions of the owner and board. No more, no less.

I love it when you use your powers for good instead of evil. ;-)

[mcfc1632]

Thought this article was a reasonable layman's version of things:

Why Michel Platini and not a £92.6m loss is the cause for concern at City
7th January 2010
The release of the official accounts for the year to 31 May 2009 showed Sheikh Mansour has invested £395m in the club with £305m of loans now turned into shares. The £92.6m loss was the talk of the papers, but the real concern for the City project lies in UEFA’s upcoming financial rules.

Ploughing money into City in the early years was always part of the plan for Garry Cook’s “project”. The end result should be a leading football club on the global stage, and the cost should not be greater than that of buying an already established club.

Sheikh Mansour was rumoured to have looked at Arsenal and the shares bought by Alisher Usmanov this week values the Gunners at a whopping £900m. Buying Liverpool would be a little cheaper. A Real Madrid is said to be worth around £1 billion, but can’t be sold unless the club’s members vote for a change to the constition – which is highly unlikely.

The project which Garry Cook sold to Sheikh Mansour was to buy City, who were readily available, for a relatively cheap price, then invest in players and infrastructure in a similar way to Chelsea under the early years of Abramovich.

As a result, City are constantly compared to Chelsea, though the ultimate aim of Sheikh Mansour is likely to be closer to the model of Arsenal.

On the back of sustained on-field success Arsenal saw a 38,000 capacity Highbury become oversubscribed and have been able to move to the 60,000 capacity Emirates which they now fill. The huge match day revenues combine with Champions League money, Premier League money, and associated global commercial activities to make the club self-financing. This is also maintained by the emphasis on bringing through young players.

Abramovich is trying a similar policy with young players through the work of Frank Arnesen. It’s yet to bear fruit as the players haven’t been good enough, and he also has the problem of not being able to increase the capacity of Stamford Bridge.

Given time and the continued investment from Sheikh Mansour, City’s project could be a winner. The Independent claimed that Sheikh Mansour had earmarked up to £771m for our project, though goodness knows where they got that figure from.

City are in the process of buying a successful team in the short term, and are then looking to switch the emphasis to bringing through young players without need for the huge transfer spending. The fabulous track record of our Academy was a key attraction at City and it’s significance could return once the current spending spree is over.

On-field success will see Champions League income, increased commercial revenues from a global brand and increased match-day attendances. A new or expanded stadium could come into play once we have a waiting list for season tickets. This has been the case at Old Trafford and Highbury. City can’t charge London prices for tickets, so an increase in crowds would be necessary for the club to be self-financing in the long term.

Michel Platini and his new proposals for “financial fair play” are now looking like the biggest threat to City. These proposals have yet to be finalised and made public, but the talk is of clubs only being allowed to spend a percentage of their income from football related turnover. The Guardian gives details here. The 2013-14 season has been earmarked as the date for the new rules to come into play, though their has previously been talk of an additional three years before any clubs would face punishment by being excluded from the Champions League.

In the accounts just published City had turnover of £87m and operating expenses of over £120m. Turnover is set to increase, but will need to do so at incredible rate if we’re to break even in time for 2013.

For City to get their turnover up to the likes of Arsenal and Chelsea, never mind United and Real Madrid in three years would be a big ask. Maybe with the additional three years it would be possible with continued success. The pressure to get into the Champions League sooner rather than later is clearly on.

Quite possibly this was a factor in the dismissal of Mark Hughes. City may well have been on course for 6th place this season, but with a Champions League spot up for grabs and Platini’s proposals on the horizon, we need to go flat out for success now. Mancini says he can deliver it, and that’s what Sheikh Mansour wanted to hear.

As has been documented elsewhere, Platini’s ideas are full of flaws as they look to favour clubs with the highest turnovers. Rather than survival of the fittest, it looks more like a consolidation of the fattest.

As a consequence there could be a mad scramble get in the Champions League by 2013-14. The irony is that with no constraints in the meantime, a club like City would do well to spend what they can, while they can. Making big long-term signings prior to 2013 would be a priority for clubs without huge turnovers.

If we pip Liverpool to a Champions League spot this season, then a monster bid to get Torres makes even more sense.

[Ted Hughes]

I think the key line is; 'These proposals have yet to be finalised and made public'.

[Rag_hater]

Socrates - really admire your strength of character - in the face of so much head in the sand

No - there would be no money to be made if Sheik was to.... - because the TV companies would have already been in deep contract agreement with the old G14 clubs - there would be no one to play in this Sheik league

People just cannot get their heads around the seriousness - and the reality of the proposals

It is not just some Socs agenda - UeFA and the top g14 clubs have been so explicit about their plans - all this 2...the Sheik could do this..." or "...the Sheik could do that...." is just playground stuff to avoid the reality of what is being planned


Reality (IMO) is the name would be changed from Champions League - perhaps - "European League" with big deal done with SKY and others

qualification through individual country leagues would be a thing of the past (Perez has already been clear on this) - (the risk of which is why they will bottle it an support the proposals) etc etc - they is no rival Sheik league unless it is with Feyenoord, Wolsfburg, Rapid Vienna, Racing Santander and a couple of others - the TV rights will be queuing up for that!!

Far from burying heads in sand a lot of us can see that what Platini proposes is something that he is not going to be able to implement.Some watered down version of his ideas is as far as he will be able to get.
And what contracts do the G14 clubs have with SKY and the other European media companies cos I thought they had contracts with the leagues of the countries in the CL.Not individual clubs.What contract do Sky have with RM.They dont.So if these big formerly G14 clubs make their "Europa League" that is unlikely to be sanctioned by Uefa the media companies are under no contract to them and more than likely the G14 clubs will lose of major revenue stream if they form a break-away league.

[Socrates]

I think the key line is; 'These proposals have yet to be finalised and made public'.

and until they are,the club has to prepare for the worst case scenario - currently immediate implementation in Spring 2013 based on historical accounts in conjunction with submitted forecasts and business plans...

[Rag_hater]

I think the fact that we our adding to the wage bill,something that will be quite visible in future accounts shows that Platini's proposals are not even a hinderence to the Sheikh nevermind it might being something more serious.

[Socrates]

My reason for wanting to get the point across, as I made in the financial reports thread, is that we need to bear these realities in mind at every stage when considering the actions of the owner and board. No more, no less.

I love it when you use your powers for good instead of evil. ;-)

I always do, just sometimes people cannot see it...

[Ted Hughes]

I think the key line is; 'These proposals have yet to be finalised and made public'.

and until they are,the club has to prepare for the worst case scenario - currently immediate implementation in Spring 2013 based on historical accounts in conjunction with submitted forecasts and business plans...

Never said they don't. I have made one consistant point; that if Platini tries to stop us from recieving investment & therefore continuing to compete in the transfer market/wages with the elite, we won't stand for it. The comments from Ballugue today that the Sheikh is actually good mates with Perez & discussed transfer arrangement similar to the one Barca have where they agree to avoid competing for the same targets just falls in with that, as does the possibility of a 33 yr old on 100k pw added to the wagebill.

[mcfc1632]

Socrates - really admire your strength of character - in the face of so much head in the sand

No - there would be no money to be made if Sheik was to.... - because the TV companies would have already been in deep contract agreement with the old G14 clubs - there would be no one to play in this Sheik league

People just cannot get their heads around the seriousness - and the reality of the proposals

It is not just some Socs agenda - UeFA and the top g14 clubs have been so explicit about their plans - all this 2...the Sheik could do this..." or "...the Sheik could do that...." is just playground stuff to avoid the reality of what is being planned


Reality (IMO) is the name would be changed from Champions League - perhaps - "European League" with big deal done with SKY and others

qualification through individual country leagues would be a thing of the past (Perez has already been clear on this) - (the risk of which is why they will bottle it an support the proposals) etc etc - they is no rival Sheik league unless it is with Feyenoord, Wolsfburg, Rapid Vienna, Racing Santander and a couple of others - the TV rights will be queuing up for that!!

Far from burying heads in sand a lot of us can see that what Platini proposes is something that he is not going to be able to implement.Some watered down version of his ideas is as far as he will be able to get.
And what contracts do the G14 clubs have with SKY and the other European media companies cos I thought they had contracts with the leagues of the countries in the CL.Not individual clubs.What contract do Sky have with RM.They dont.So if these big formerly G14 clubs make their "Europa League" that is unlikely to be sanctioned by Uefa the media companies are under no contract to them and more than likely the G14 clubs will lose of major revenue stream if they form a break-away league.

I certainly was not meaning to be pointed towards groups or individuals - we are all just concerned about CITY - as is right

What I would say is that your comment "....is something that he is not going to be able to implement" is a little bit far too factual - you of course do not know that - as Socs does not know - as has been mentioned - the detail is yet to be announced - but in that be worried - I would read that has being that all sorts of thoughts are being tested to ensure that they cannot be successfully challenged (ie Sheik proof) before being announced - so as Socs says - prepare for the worse which is what the club appears to be doing.

Best to look at this as a spectrum - at the one end is Platini gets his way 100% - at the other - he gets 0%. Socs (for discussion is at at out 90% (so am I) - you are say 10% - we will see how it unfolds

On the contracts between Leagues and TV companies.......

If there is a person on this forum remotely as experienced in negotiating / managing major contracts than me I will be very surprised - they must indeed be a highly specialised contracts lawyer - I have negotiated / challenged / implemented many deals - often worth billions - and always under European Regulations - so yes - whilst I agree it is all about opinions I do think that mine is based on direct / relevant knowledge...

To keep it simple consider 3 groups:

1/ those with the money - TV companies
2/ those with the product - clubs at the end of the day - not leagues (although that is the case at the moment where there is a collective agreement)
3/ brokers / middle men / agents (I do not mean football agents) etc - UeFA - national leagues etc

In reality the important groups are those with the money and those with the product

All contracts have term (years) and conditions (clauses) - and these will need to be re-negotiated / extended / concluded etc during their life - so you can be clear that the existing deal between TV companies and the national leagues is under a negotiation on an ongoing basis - certainly way before the end

What I see as a highly experienced negotiator of major contracts is the sorts of soundings I expect to hear from parties who have key controls and vested interests - RM are clear they want more revenues and guarantees (closed shop) - the other G14 have been saying the same - Platini (IMO) is running scared - Again IMO - but the national leagues will run for cover very quickly if things start to escalate - they currently own the product - but they will cave into amendments on a European basis if it protects their right to continue marketing the product - they will not take on the muscle of the top clubs - not a chance

Sky will want to reduce its spend (or increase its market) and there may be a number of chances for them to do that here - reduced spend to EPL and a shiny new product to market worldwide - they will be very interested I would think

This is how it happens in the world of multi-billion dealing - private / vested interest agreement - mixed with some public statements / soundings - and then the deal is wrapped up to take over from the previous arrangement

...nothing I see going on here than just normal business practice - we need our seat at the table (IMO)