The mancityfans.net football forum

Now I know this has been done to death, but it does seem to be a rather fluid and developing situation as time goes on.

What interests me is a throw-away comment by one of the journos on Sunday Supplement about 3 weeks ago, during one of their regular attacks on City.

Wooly-head brought up the new rules and another guy quickly dismissed it with:

" ...yes, but if income from the owner is deemed a regular source, it's not a problem..", or something very close, to which the others nodded sagely in agreement and moved on to Mancini losing his job in 8 games etc.

So therefore is it now the accepted case that if an owner agrees (in some binding form) to put in X amount per annum to make up revenue whilst it builds (whether fixed or variable) for a number of years, then that is agreed as a regular revenue for the club??

Seems reasonable to me. If my old granny had left me 10K pa for life, then that would legally be a regular income (if only).

Ideas?

We have an entire nation at our disposal to come up with the required income, I think we'll be okay.

Does anyone really think so little of the Sheikh, Khaldoon and their army of advisors that they haven't already got a 100 ways around this situation? And if they don't the spending this summer can only be classed as reckless and stupid. Do they seem reckless and stupid to you?

Slim wrote:We have an entire nation at our disposal to come up with the required income, I think we'll be okay.

Does anyone really think so little of the Sheikh, Khaldoon and their army of advisors that they haven't already got a 100 ways around this situation? And if they don't the spending this summer can only be classed as reckless and stupid. Do they seem reckless and stupid to you?

Not to me.

I think officially that owners from next June are allowed to put 45m euros for 2 years running directly into their clubs if they wish, that amount then reduces year by year until 2018. After 2018 owners can still put money directly in their clubs but the amount has yet to be announced. Will probably be a small amount though, probably in the region of 10m euros or so per annum.

If that's true it makes no sense whatsoever

There aren't that many owners who can shell out €10,000,000 per annum and even fewer cubs who actually generate that sort of profit so we will end up with an ever widening gap with wealthy owners and profitable clubs being the only ones who compete

However from a city perspective, if we reduce our overhead now in any areas possible, buy the ground, develop as many cash producing sidelines and businesses as possible, use crystals such as large diamonds to improve our karma and decorate the boardroom with renaissance masters, all before the restrictions we should end up with healthy revenue streams and a couple of sailable (yachts as well) assets to tide us to global domination

Can I have a job as FD oh glorious Mansour, working from home of course?

Job lot of 50 million blue plated City mugs at 10 notes a piece should see us right for a while.

Chelsea are opening a nightclub. They'd have the facilities to for opening on non match days and some of the really big clubs generate huge incomes. Stadium entertainment could easily draw on a crowd of 3-4k in a single venue on matchdays. That would be great at concerts too but would also bring in a lot of other business.

Keeping that corporate entertainment stuff full 24/7 is what brings in huge money. There's plenty of parking, noise wouldn't be a problem.

Buy the planned tramline, call it the City line and count all revenue as club revenue. The funding from the council could be a part-exchange with the ownership of the stadium. Everyone wins.

Patrick wrote:If that's true it makes no sense whatsoever

There aren't that many owners who can shell out €10,000,000 per annum and even fewer cubs who actually generate that sort of profit so we will end up with an ever widening gap with wealthy owners and profitable clubs being the only ones who compete

Isn't that what these rules are there for though? They have got nothing to do with financial fair play and everything to do with protecting the positions of clubs already at the top. UEFA wanted clubs with a turnover of less than 50m euros exempt from the rules, the big clubs of the ECA (which City are now a member of for the first year) said no and forced UEFA's hand.

I think thet`ll get bored and pull out leaving us in the shit big time....











































Daft rag cunts.

I have been following this quite closely and I think that whilst it remains 'to be tested' the position is pretty clear.

Yes - the old guard clubs have pushed for this - they do not want any new boys 'on the block'

Yes - forget paranoia - it is aimed at us - we are a good test case - stop us and you will stop similar threats to the old guard - therefore a lot of the clauses seem to be targeted specifically at us

Yes - it is tailored not to offend the usual suspects - those with big debts - indeed to protect them

Yes Chelsea have been specifically 'courted' because they have 'broken through' and Roman is happy because he now wants to reduce spend and is as happy as the old guard to see a block on other clubs 'doing a Chelsea'

I really feel that all these simple ideas of raising revenue - i.e. a special box for £zillions simply will not work - the 'scrutiny' group will easily recognise such anomalies and rule them out - the facts are that we are going to have to beat them with their own rules

So the steps are.......

1/ Top 4 and CL revenues are an absolute must - else we are royally fucked!! - last year would have been better - this year absolutely needed - next year as an absolute last resort. This so that the wage bill etc is met by the time the rules bite

2/ Spend big big big now - we seem to have lost some ground in the 2009/10 season spending - so we have gone big again - probably one more shot at such spending - but then act to get the assets as fully depreciated as possible by the time the rules bite

3/ Major drive on increasing other football related revenue - sponsorship - increased attendances etc - (did you note the Disney announcement last week - must have pissed Chelsea off massively) - hence IMO Cook is as important as Mancini in the long run and we should all be fully behind him and his business acumen - the gaffes are trivial crap

4/ Major drive on 'other' related revenues - hence the drive to expand other business interests in the area - develop with MCC etc - we have vastly more scope to do this that any other club in the PL - and only Chelsea seem to be driving in similar vein)

These rules are a major threat - if we just had 3 more years before this happened IMO we would be 'home and hosed' - we now need to keep our fingers crossed and hope Mancini delivers on the pitch (we should all be behind him - there is no time for change) and Cook delivers off the pitch (we should all be behind - there is no time for change)

Had a look at some things I have saved and the owners are allowed to cover debt. From 2013 owners can cover 45m euros of debt 2 years running and then 30m euros of debt for three more years. The debt that can be covered after 2018 is as yet unknown but will be less than 30m euros per annum (so could be far greater than the 10m I said in another post). Clubs without rich owners who can't cover debt are only allowed 5 million euros debt in each of these years.

ronk wrote:Chelsea are opening a nightclub. They'd have the facilities to for opening on non match days and some of the really big clubs generate huge incomes. Stadium entertainment could easily draw on a crowd of 3-4k in a single venue on matchdays. That would be great at concerts too but would also bring in a lot of other business.

Keeping that corporate entertainment stuff full 24/7 is what brings in huge money. There's plenty of parking, noise wouldn't be a problem.

Buy the planned tramline, call it the City line and count all revenue as club revenue. The funding from the council could be a part-exchange with the ownership of the stadium. Everyone wins.

Now that is exactly the sort of thinking that is necessary - and - like Slim - I have confidence that our owners and management team are able to come up with such ideas - notice how quickly Cook et al were in cahoots with the local authorities - these things take years to develop

mcfc1632 wrote:

ronk wrote:Chelsea are opening a nightclub. They'd have the facilities to for opening on non match days and some of the really big clubs generate huge incomes. Stadium entertainment could easily draw on a crowd of 3-4k in a single venue on matchdays. That would be great at concerts too but would also bring in a lot of other business.

Keeping that corporate entertainment stuff full 24/7 is what brings in huge money. There's plenty of parking, noise wouldn't be a problem.

Buy the planned tramline, call it the City line and count all revenue as club revenue. The funding from the council could be a part-exchange with the ownership of the stadium. Everyone wins.

Now that is exactly the sort of thinking that is necessary - and - like Slim - I have confidence that our owners and management team are able to come up with such ideas - notice how quickly Cook et al were in cahoots with the local authorities - these things take years to develop

I'm confident that the Sheikh will find a way of investing as much money as he wants to & will sign players for big money when he wants to, until eventually, quite some years in the future, we are able to operate at a profit.

this is why the stadium will be expanded. You could sell tickets for £10 a game for now, get more into the habit of going then raise prices as necessary.

The Disney thing is interesting, as it opens up new markets to city but could also allow a disney themed something to be built, 'owned' by the club, thu increasing revenue when there isn't a match. Can you inagine a rag's face when he has to come all the way from Watford, just to take his kid to Disneyland that we own? Could be curtains for Moonchester though.

The other thing we need is to become one of the official sides on FIFA/Pro Evo, with Tevez's mug on the cover and a perfect recreation of our 90,000 seat stadium. That's how to attract the glory hunters you can milk for revenue.