Page 1 of 2

Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:25 pm
by Guy Debord
Manchester City's owners have injected another £80m into the club, taking Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan's investment since buying City in 2009 to more than £573m.

According to documents released to Companies House last Monday, Mansour purchased 37,547,169 new shares in the Eastlands club on 30 September, each costing him £2.12. It amounted to £79.6m of fresh investment. The sum is small change for the Abu Dhabi billionaire, but it raises fresh questions about City's capacity to meet new regulations coming in to force from next season.

Uefa's financial fair-play rules require that no club should make an aggregate loss of more than €45m (about £39m) over the three seasons from 2011-12, or it will face being excluded from European competition. City are taking steps now apparently in an attempt not to fall foul.

"Clearly our intention is to comply," says Garry Cook, the City chief executive, in an interview with the Guardian. "Our two-year plan was to take a budget and build a competency to compete at the highest level, not forgetting the need for succession planning in every position. We are pleased with how that worked, and will not be signing players to the same level of intensity in the next transfer windows. Financial fair play is on our conscience, we talk about it at every board meeting, and it's part of our long-term plan."

Those who believe City will escape the rule's effect by having spent extravagantly before it comes in to force misunderstand simple accounting mechanisms. The exact dates when cash changes hands on transfer fees are not relevant; instead there is a balance-sheet instrument known as amortisation by which the total value of the fee is written down according to the length of the contract, causing a natural lag in the financial impact of transfer activity.

When David Silva joined City for £26m on a four-year contract in June, it added £6.5m a year to City's amortisation charge. By the end of last season the total charge had already reached £71m — almost 57% of the club's £125m turnover. Between them the additions of Jérôme Boateng, Yaya Touré, Mario Balotelli and James Milner added close to £17m, which the departure of Robinho and his £8.125m a year in amortisation charges could only partially offset.

Unless more of City's expensively acquired superstars join Robinho in going through the exit door, it is safe to say that their 2011-12 amortisation charge will be close to £90m. Wages, the drain demanding so much cash support from Mansour, further compound City's difficulties.

That bill reached £133.3m last season, with Touré alone having added another £10m in the meantime. Given the summer arrivals, even conservative estimates would assume the club's basic wage bill is now beyond £150m.

The 2009-10 season at Eastlands brought no trophies, or even great success in the Premier League, and this meant no significant bonuses were payable. But if City transform their early-season form into something more tangible this term, it is more than possible their wage bill will hit more than £165m by the time the next accounts are released.

That would mean expenditure and accounting fees on players of £250m a year, against total incomes last year of £125m. Even the £25m that Champions League participation might yield would not dent that significantly, and City are likely to face a £100m-a-year deficit come 2011-12.

If the club remain that far in the red for even that season alone, it would seriously threaten future participation in Europe unless they can transform their current player-related losses into a £30m-a-year profit from football operations. That means raising the current £125m Eastlands turnover to the same level as Manchester United's has been in recent seasons — £280m and more — within two years.

Sheikh Mansour's billions cannot help here either – Uefa has placed restrictions on what "related companies" — such as the Abu Dhabi-owned Etihad airlines, whose name appears on City's shirts — may offer in sponsorships to "market rates".

The realities of the financial situation at Eastlands appear to have been overlooked by their rivals across Manchester. The Old Trafford hierarchy's decision to capitulate and commit at least £9m a year to Wayne Rooney upon renewing the England striker's contract last week had all the hallmarks of the fear that their best player could soon be turning out in a sky-blue shirt, as Sir Alex Ferguson's rather strange soliloquy about cows in fields suggested.United seemed to be fixating on concerns about the apparently close relationship between Brian Marwood, Manchester City's chief football administration officer, and Rooney's agent, Paul Stretford.

Yet as City attempt to demonstrate to Uefa that they will ultimately comply with the financial fair-play rules, they could never have gone through with an acquisition that would comfortably have amounted to £100m in transfer fees and wages.

Rooney's rumoured £250,000-a-week wages at City would have amounted to a £62.5m liability over five years. And United would surely not have been persuaded to relinquish a player with even only 12 months on his contract to their biggest and richest rivals for less than half the £80m for which Cristiano Ronaldo was sold to Real Madrid last year. In the new regulatory environment, these sums were beyond even City's reach.

So now United must find more than £4.5m a year just to stand still. Their chief executive, David Gill, says United have £150m in the bank, but projections by analysts at the club's banker, JP Morgan, suggest they must retain £70m in a restricted-cash account in line with the terms of their bond borrowings.

Matt Scott in The Guardian

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:26 pm
by Beefymcfc
So what he's saying is that we are going to have problems qualifying for Champs League as we will never be able get inside the 'Fair Play' rules, and that United have just added to the burden with the upgrade of Rooney's deal?

Tell us something we already don't know will you instead of re-jigging old news. I bet he's a southern-shandy-sipping-puff who supports the Arse!

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:10 pm
by MaineRoadMemories
Manchester City's owners have injected another £80m into the club


It's amazing how quickly I've become so blasé to such statements. I read it and said to myself; that's nice.

Every other club in the country, bar Chelsea/QPR, would be over the blue moon to see such stories about their club.

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:35 pm
by blue wine
words will never be enough to express how much i luv you and how thankful i am...thank you from the bottom of my heart sheikh mansour for letting me live my dream...

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:43 pm
by Beeks
He is a benchmark as to how owners should run a football club and we all appreciate his efforts in making our City the best in the world

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:14 pm
by ronk
There's an element of double counting there (surprised?). Add up transfer fees in terms of money already spent by Sheik Mansour and then start wondering about amortisation charges. Somebody doesn't understand what they are (and it's not me).

Amortisation losses (or gains) from transfers before the 2011-2012 season count towards 0% of FIFA Fair Play. We don't need to boost revenue by the expected £90m. It's already history, an accounting ghost on the balance sheet that doesn't count for anything to anyone.

Instead we need to boost revenue to cover wages, and only wages, and not even all the wages at that.

We've also unloaded costs off the wage bill to a greater extent than realised. If the reported figures were true then even Yaya Toure's ludicrously notorious £190k/wk only represents £1.5m/yr more than Robinho. We can add Bojinov, Petrov, Benjani Ireland, Bellamy, Ned, Garrido, Caicedo to the list of people off the wage bill at the moment. These guys weren't on the big headline figures but we can still estimate Ireland 60k, Bellamy 100k, Ned 60k, Petrov 60+k, Benjani 60k, Garrido 20-30k and realise that it's hardly negligible. Look through our squad in detail and it can readily be seen that there's actually scope to reduce wages in terms of players who are unlikely to make many appearances but may actually be fairly well paid. Given must surely be on huge money and we could get a cheaper replacement keeper. Logan, Etuhu we might even get fees for (probably not). A Bridge here, a Santa Cruz there. Suddenly there's room for salaries (and in the squad) and all that's before revenue actually increases.

We know the foreign TV deal will kick in with a major boost, ticket sales have been strong and the Europa Cup will already have been worth millions. I can't imagine that we're not going to see strong growth of commercial income.

Funnily enough, I take the opposite conclusion, I don't think we actually need CL revenue that badly (though we do still need it if we want to continue to grow so quickly and it may create issues for certain members of the squad).

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:49 pm
by mr_nool
Good post Ronk, but I got two questions/remarks:

1. When letting people like RSC, Bridge etc. go, we will more than likely bring in other players on equally high wages or even higher.
2. Aren't we paying the wages- or at least part of the wages- for quite a few of our players on loan?

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:55 pm
by Beefymcfc
Forgot to say - Thanks Sheikh.

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:17 pm
by Blue Toy
It seems certain powers would prefer clubs to do a Portsmouth than a City. Ludicrous.

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:25 pm
by Blue Since 76
ronk wrote:There's an element of double counting there (surprised?). Add up transfer fees in terms of money already spent by Sheik Mansour and then start wondering about amortisation charges. Somebody doesn't understand what they are (and it's not me).

Amortisation losses (or gains) from transfers before the 2011-2012 season count towards 0% of FIFA Fair Play. We don't need to boost revenue by the expected £90m. It's already history, an accounting ghost on the balance sheet that doesn't count for anything to anyone.


Whilst I agree there's double counting, I thought the amortisation had to be included, as it's done over the length of the contract? Therefore Tevez, for instance, will cost us c£5m a season for the length of his 5 year contract, as far as the accounting is concerned, regardless of Kia being paid in one go.

Not sure what happens if he was to sign a new contract with 2 years left on this one i.e. does the amortisation happen over the original 5 years or the 8 years he'd now be an asset? Marwood made a point about Milner being with us 10 years and therefore only cost £2.5m a season - is that a potential loophole and the reason the club are so keen on younger players? Keep them 3 years and then either sell them for at least what they'll cost you in amortisation for the next 2 years or extend their contract and reduce the annual cost?

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:30 pm
by ronk
Blue Since 76 wrote:
ronk wrote:There's an element of double counting there (surprised?). Add up transfer fees in terms of money already spent by Sheik Mansour and then start wondering about amortisation charges. Somebody doesn't understand what they are (and it's not me).

Amortisation losses (or gains) from transfers before the 2011-2012 season count towards 0% of FIFA Fair Play. We don't need to boost revenue by the expected £90m. It's already history, an accounting ghost on the balance sheet that doesn't count for anything to anyone.


Whilst I agree there's double counting, I thought the amortisation had to be included, as it's done over the length of the contract? Therefore Tevez, for instance, will cost us c£5m a season for the length of his 5 year contract, as far as the accounting is concerned, regardless of Kia being paid in one go.

Not sure what happens if he was to sign a new contract with 2 years left on this one i.e. does the amortisation happen over the original 5 years or the 8 years he'd now be an asset? Marwood made a point about Milner being with us 10 years and therefore only cost £2.5m a season - is that a potential loophole and the reason the club are so keen on younger players? Keep them 3 years and then either sell them for at least what they'll cost you in amortisation for the next 2 years or extend their contract and reduce the annual cost?


Amortisation is just a form of accounting that balances out big spikes in profit/loss due to large one-off investments. It's fairer to call the transfer fee a depreciating asset. From a business and tax point of view it's better to spread out the loss.

A new contract wouldn't affect amortisation but a departing player would. Leaving would force the rest of the unamortised transfer fee to have to be counted in the accounts. Marwood's point is valid, but is a different treatment than the financial reporting rules used.

Amortisation is acceptable to deal with transfers that happen after the spending limits come into play, before then, it's irrelevant. Otherwise it wouldn't have made sense to spend so much money on transfer fees. Why should a spending restriction that starts next season and really only counts years down the road care about purchases like Robinho, who'd be in the 3rd year of a 4 year deal and who was bought before these rules were even being hinted at?

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:48 am
by Beefymcfc
Blue Since 76 wrote:
ronk wrote:There's an element of double counting there (surprised?). Add up transfer fees in terms of money already spent by Sheik Mansour and then start wondering about amortisation charges. Somebody doesn't understand what they are (and it's not me).

Amortisation losses (or gains) from transfers before the 2011-2012 season count towards 0% of FIFA Fair Play. We don't need to boost revenue by the expected £90m. It's already history, an accounting ghost on the balance sheet that doesn't count for anything to anyone.


Whilst I agree there's double counting, I thought the amortisation had to be included, as it's done over the length of the contract? Therefore Tevez, for instance, will cost us c£5m a season for the length of his 5 year contract, as far as the accounting is concerned, regardless of Kia being paid in one go.

Not sure what happens if he was to sign a new contract with 2 years left on this one i.e. does the amortisation happen over the original 5 years or the 8 years he'd now be an asset? Marwood made a point about Milner being with us 10 years and therefore only cost £2.5m a season - is that a potential loophole and the reason the club are so keen on younger players? Keep them 3 years and then either sell them for at least what they'll cost you in amortisation for the next 2 years or extend their contract and reduce the annual cost?

I'd assume that whatever is left over from the actual cost is then spread over the new period. Ie. Milner costs 25 mil over 5 years = 5 mil per year, signs new contract over 3 years leaving 10 mil to amortisation meaning that 10 mil would be then spread over the next 5 years = 2 mil per year.

That is an assumption of course.

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:10 am
by CitizenYank
Excuse me, but the rule STARTS when you show your tax report!!! What are we, a public urinal or something!!

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:01 am
by lets all have a disco
I cant begin to think where we would be without this man,i really cant.
If i could buy him a drink i would,but sadly i doubt ill ever get chance.

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:57 am
by DoomMerchant
lets all have a disco wrote:I cant begin to think where we would be without this man,i really cant.
If i could buy him a drink i would,but sadly i doubt ill ever get chance.


There's hope. cookie bummed a fag off me. And i don't even really smoke.

Cheers

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:12 am
by Beefymcfc
DoomMerchant wrote:
lets all have a disco wrote:I cant begin to think where we would be without this man,i really cant.
If i could buy him a drink i would,but sadly i doubt ill ever get chance.


There's hope. cookie bummed a fag with me. And i don't even really smoke.

Cheers

What do you mean 'You don't really smoke'?

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:22 pm
by Dameerto
Beefymcfc wrote:
DoomMerchant wrote:
lets all have a disco wrote:I cant begin to think where we would be without this man,i really cant.
If i could buy him a drink i would,but sadly i doubt ill ever get chance.


There's hope. cookie bummed a fag with me. And i don't even really smoke.

Cheers

What do you mean 'You don't really smoke'?


I'm guessing he talks too much to inhale.

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:40 pm
by Alioune DVToure
DoomMerchant wrote:
lets all have a disco wrote:I cant begin to think where we would be without this man,i really cant.
If i could buy him a drink i would,but sadly i doubt ill ever get chance.


There's hope. cookie bummed a fag off me. And i don't even really smoke.

Cheers


Good job you sorted that typo out. I could picture the libel suit being drawn up!

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:42 pm
by Beefymcfc
Alioune DVToure wrote:
DoomMerchant wrote:
lets all have a disco wrote:I cant begin to think where we would be without this man,i really cant.
If i could buy him a drink i would,but sadly i doubt ill ever get chance.


There's hope. cookie bummed a fag off me. And i don't even really smoke.

Cheers


Good job you sorted that typo out. I could picture the libel suit being drawn up!

I think someone's being mischievous there.

Re: Sheikh Mansour takes spending past half-a-billion

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:43 pm
by Alioune DVToure
Beefymcfc wrote:
Alioune DVToure wrote:
DoomMerchant wrote:
lets all have a disco wrote:I cant begin to think where we would be without this man,i really cant.
If i could buy him a drink i would,but sadly i doubt ill ever get chance.


There's hope. cookie bummed a fag off me. And i don't even really smoke.

Cheers


Good job you sorted that typo out. I could picture the libel suit being drawn up!

I think someone's being mischievous there.


Haha right ok. Get it. I thought he'd missappropriated our Blighty slang.

Still funny.