The mancityfans.net football forum

can't see a thread on this?

anyway, here they are at last

http://www.bluedays.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/uefa_financial_fair_play_reg.pdf

seems they have thought of all the loopholes people on here have been insisting will be possible for us to cheat them - any deals, sales or sponsorships with related parties will be revalued on an arm's length basis, the person deciding what they are really worth having been appointed by Platini. So if, for example, the Sheikh was to buy an executive box for £100 million, it would be revalued at the same as the other executive boxes that had been sold for the purposes of UEFA's calculations.

surely it wouldnt stop a 'presidential box' being built which could then be sold for a significant sum.

Those rules are so blatently aimed at City it's not even funny.

And yea the part about the "fair value" is worrying. I just hope that City, being a business as well and our business savvy owners have a plan for that because right now our revenue doesn't even cover our wage bill I think...

Ok someone give me a glimmer of light cos this ain't sounding too good right now

What it means is we need an expanded stadium as soon as possible.

iced_blue wrote:surely it wouldnt stop a 'presidential box' being built which could then be sold for a significant sum.

wouldn't stop it being sold for a significant sum but only part of that significant sum would be allowed for UEFA's turnover calculation and the recalculated turnover must be more than total spending. An amount decided by the former Prime Minister of Belgium!

Socrates wrote:can't see a thread on this?

anyway, here they are at last

http://www.bluedays.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/uefa_financial_fair_play_reg.pdf

seems they have thought of all the loopholes people on here have been insisting will be possible for us to cheat them - any deals, sales or sponsorships with related parties will be revalued on an arm's length basis, the person deciding what they are really worth having been appointed by Platini. So if, for example, the Sheikh was to buy an executive box for £100 million, it would be revalued at the same as the other executive boxes that had been sold for the purposes of UEFA's calculations.

We need to hire that 'Mr Loophole' lawyer who gets the celebs off when they've been speeding whilst pissed, just because the copper hadn't sharpened his pencil to the regulation angle.

Thing is, how does any PL club make money - shirt sales, ticket sales, corporate and TV, plus prize money. We will be in the top 6 for shirt sales and number of tickets, although we might struggle due to relative price of tickets. If we're top 4, our TV money will be the same as others and therefore sponsorship deals should be similar. The only thing missing (initially) is CL prize money. I can't believe our wage bill is bigger than the rags wage bill plus interest charges, so I'm still struggling to see how they can pick on us without hurting most teams.

What this sort of thing will lead to though is an increase in the price of tickets and merchandise, plus the end of the block TV rights. If you look at how much Barca and Real make from TV compared to any PL team, there's a huge difference. So FIFA will ultimately damage the smaller teams and enshrine the existing cartel of big teams to be there for ever. If another team is lucky enough to find a Sheikh, there will be no point, as you won't be able to show you can afford a CL player without winning it first.

Blue Since 76 wrote:

Socrates wrote:can't see a thread on this?

anyway, here they are at last

http://www.bluedays.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/uefa_financial_fair_play_reg.pdf

seems they have thought of all the loopholes people on here have been insisting will be possible for us to cheat them - any deals, sales or sponsorships with related parties will be revalued on an arm's length basis, the person deciding what they are really worth having been appointed by Platini. So if, for example, the Sheikh was to buy an executive box for £100 million, it would be revalued at the same as the other executive boxes that had been sold for the purposes of UEFA's calculations.

We need to hire that 'Mr Loophole' lawyer who gets the celebs off when they've been speeding whilst pissed, just because the copper hadn't sharpened his pencil to the regulation angle.

Thing is, how does any PL club make money - shirt sales, ticket sales, corporate and TV, plus prize money. We will be in the top 6 for shirt sales and number of tickets, although we might struggle due to relative price of tickets. If we're top 4, our TV money will be the same as others and therefore sponsorship deals should be similar. The only thing missing (initially) is CL prize money. I can't believe our wage bill is bigger than the rags wage bill plus interest charges, so I'm still struggling to see how they can pick on us without hurting most teams.

What this sort of thing will lead to though is an increase in the price of tickets and merchandise, plus the end of the block TV rights. If you look at how much Barca and Real make from TV compared to any PL team, there's a huge difference. So FIFA will ultimately damage the smaller teams and enshrine the existing cartel of big teams to be there for ever. If another team is lucky enough to find a Sheikh, there will be no point, as you won't be able to show you can afford a CL player without winning it first.

rags income is way way more than ours don't forget, what good is a fancy lawyer if the final decision rests with a Platini appointee? I agree with the effect but that doesn't mean it won't happen - in fact it has already been happening on a regional basis thanks to the change in ECL qualification seedings that has ensured the gap between the top club and the rest has grown in many smaller countries.

Can´t stop us winning the P.L. five times in a row - then what would they do, keep the English champs out for 5 years? - some Champions league that would be! The clamour to reppeal it would be overwhelming surely?

I think we'll be ok considering the following rule:

Article 61 – Notion of acceptable deviation

1 The acceptable deviation is the maximum aggregate break-even deficit possible for a club to be deemed in compliance with the break-even requirement as defined in Article 63.

2 The acceptable deviation is EUR 5 million. However it can exceed this level up to the following amounts only if such excess is entirely covered by contributions from equity participants and/or related parties:

a) EUR 45 million for the monitoring period assessed in the licence seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15;

b) EUR 30 million for the monitoring period assessed in the licence seasons 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18;

c) a lower amount as decided in due course by the UEFA Executive Committee for the monitoring periods assessed in the following years.

yes the equity part means we'll be fine

right ?

Wooders wrote:yes the equity part means we'll be fine

right ?

Yeah, seems that way to me.

...then there's this which is a bonus:

Examples of activities that may be reported in financial statements as nonfootball operations but for the purposes of the calculation of relevant income and expenses would not normally need to be adjusted include:

• Operations based at, or in close proximity to, a club’s stadium and training facilities such as a hotel, restaurant, conference centre, business premises (for rental), health-care centre, other sports teams; and

• Operations clearly using the name/brand of a club as part of their operations.

Socrates wrote:can't see a thread on this?

anyway, here they are at last

http://www.bluedays.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/uefa_financial_fair_play_reg.pdf

seems they have thought of all the loopholes people on here have been insisting will be possible for us to cheat them - any deals, sales or sponsorships with related parties will be revalued on an arm's length basis, the person deciding what they are really worth having been appointed by Platini. So if, for example, the Sheikh was to buy an executive box for £100 million, it would be revalued at the same as the other executive boxes that had been sold for the purposes of UEFA's calculations.

You see Socs - no matter how hard some of us tried to make people see the facts they just found it easier to simply 'assume' that it would be all OK - there is a clear intent to look at the CITY model and close those loopholes

Shouldbe in line with our plans if everything goes well then? Max one more summer mad spending spree, then the sheikh converts all his loans again. Hopefully success by then is developing more revenue and we only need to make the occasional signing

City ruining football, you're having a laugh! They need to look closer to home, fools.......or are they?

One thing that many would've noticed was the great timing of the French Euro bid, which was hushed in under the cover of the Triesman affair and the build up to the World Cup. I'm no business wizz but even I can see the implications of them getting to host the Championship. The French teams will be financially aided by the government and FIFA to upgrade their stadiums and with the new set-up with of 24 teams, that will mean more upgrades for poor standard grounds and more money revenue from the increased teams. This may not mean that the club benefits directly, but what it does do is help them to save the money that would've been spent on their stadia for upgrades and allow them to spend it elsewhere, ie. players and wages.

Although this is a decent proposal in theory, the whole thing is flawed from top-to-bottom. The regulations stop any form of competition which will lead to stale and tiresome leagues where only those with the capacity and a current large global fanbase, any chance of challenging.

So all and all, the powers that be are ruling to extinguish all competition, only allowing those clubs currently at the top to have any chance of achieving real success, leaving those who have 100s of years of history to succumb to the greed of the dictatorship.

Wankers!

I think this financial year will be our last for big spending irblinx. Player purchases are not counted wholly the year they occur but rather are amortised over the length of the contract. So if we spend £160m on players in this and the January windows and the players are all on 4 year contracts, that will count as £40m added to our other expenses for each of the 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 year ends - and there will already be a lot of amortisation to go through in the first 3 of those years! I think the plan will be to be at a biggish loss still in 2013, closer to break even in 2014 and then in profit in 2015 to produce a balanced book across those 3 years. To get enough income to even cover that we will need to qualify for the Champions League each season. Expect also to see a bit more wage restraint and slightly shorter contracts for players.

Academy spending is excluded so I expect to see a massive investment in players and facilities over the next 4 years.

Income from surrounding projects counting may be a help - but obviously only if those projects actually make money! You will have to add in the expenses and depreciation of assets from that side of operations as well as the income...

To those above referring to the equity clauses, there are two hurdles to be jumped and they only solve one not the other. Yes they help in part as they ensure we will have no problem with rules on debt but they won't help with the rules on breaking even!

I still dont see any reason why the owner couldnt deposit a couple of bn into city's accounts, convert the debt to equity and city then get it on money market or invest wisely and cream the interest/growth off as income.

That would be completely within the rules, and would cover the wage bill quite easily.

The last paragraph of the last page of the Financial Fair Play Regs was put in just for us - all will be well!!

"Players under contract before 1 June 2010
If a licensee reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the
acceptable deviation and it fulfils both conditions described below then this
would be taken into account in a favourable way.
i) It reports a positive trend in the annual break-even results (proving it has
implemented a concrete strategy for future compliance); and
ii) It proves that the aggregate break-even deficit is only due to the annual
break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 which in turn is
due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010 (for the
avoidance of doubt, all renegotiations on contracts undertaken after such
date would not be taken into account).
This means that a licensee that reports an aggregate break-even deficit that
exceeds the acceptable deviation but that satisfies both conditions described
under i) and ii) above should in principle not be sanctioned."[/quote]

As football clubs are now part of the entertainment industry, stopping us from recieving sponsorship which allows us to compete with our competitors in the entertainment industry (ie buying/paying players that bring people into our ground or help sell our product,s whilst other areas of the entertainment industry eg Sky TV are allowed to go into debt for scores of years) will open up a whole can of worms on it's own.

I don't think we will be stopped from investing at all. How does someone decide how much our brand is worth per year to the country of Abu Dhabi or 20 of their companies?

Does anyone think these rule's are what made the owner build the City street and are new traing facilities?