The mancityfans.net football forum

Expect the naming rights to the ground to be sold off to Etihad or some such, for £300m over 10 years, or some such deal.

COMS can be renamed Etihad, Up Yours Platini, Stadium" - job sorted.

The bloke who wrote that is a rag. Fact. Feel free to question his neutrality on twitter, @andersred

Why do they always assume that we will spend 100s of millions in every transfer window? Obviously our losses will go down just from the simple fact that we will NOT spend that kind of money anymore.

Their "financial expert" also fails to mention how drastically our turnover has increased already, the % rates are actually quite impressive.

And yea, naming rights, selling players in this summer... we will be fine.

we're aware of it, we have the legal clout and business nous to do something about it and apparently we're "very happy" with the new ruling
I think we'll be fine

a) Journo writes a piece.
b) Interviews another journo who says we're in trouble.
c) Quotes the secretary of UEFA who has actually met with City and I assume knows what he is talking about, he says we're fine.
d) Conclusion: Title reads 'Manchester City in European ban risk'.

We will fix it so that it appears we are getting huge revenue from all over the shop, when in actual fact, it is coming from the same source. Then we will use the developments around the ground to vastly increase turnover etc in the future.


We'll just make sure any investment by HRH goes through enough channels to pass the UEFA criteria first so it can't be linked directly. If they then try to make a special case of us, we will challenge it & the shit will hit the fan as many of the top clubs will turn out to be on our side, not theirs. In the meantime we will expand our influence in sport, media, politics etc to make sure we're a set of toes nobody is willing to tread on.

Dont worry.

If it all goes tits up the Sheik will bankroll a European superleague of the top 20 clubs.

Done.

[strike]David silva[/strike] The sheikh buys europe (western europe) and builds a car park over france. That soft twat moves to australia and ruins australian rules football and leaves proper sport well alone. We go on to dominate the sportin world for the next 48 years.

The Man In Blue wrote:The bloke who wrote that is a rag. Fact. Feel free to question his neutrality on twitter, @andersred

Exactly right - type Andy Green football finance into google and it brings up his blog. Then within his blog, if you click 'MCFC' tag on right-hand side, you can see all City-related articles he has done in past. Some of them especially last season, the way its written, it doesn't hide his hatred for City in my opinion. Pathetic really.

However, a study of recent accounts by BBC Sport shows Chelsea and Manchester City would fall well short of the rules if they were being applied today.

We'll also fall foul of the rule insisting one player must be female and another from Mars, which comes into effect in 3552. However, as that's in the future, I don't think it matters yet either.

Uefa general secretary Gianni Infantino said he was optimistic that English clubs would be able to comply with the rules though.
"I don't think it will be difficult for the English clubs to comply because they are very well managed and very well aware of what is coming," he told BBC Sport.
"There is sufficient time in order to implement the regulations. The English clubs are among those generating the highest revenues in Europe.
"The basic rule is the break-even rule that says you cannot spend more than you generate, so if you generate more than the others you have an advantage. So I am not worried at all about the English.
"I'm sure the managers of the English clubs are thinking about this, because they know the regulations are coming into force.
"They know what these rules mean and how we will implement them. I am sure that tomorrow they will put their finances in order so they are able to break even.
"Our president spoke to Manchester City's owners over a year ago when we started with this process and they were very happy with it."

To sum this up - UEFA has spoken to City and both are happy that City will comply.

Brilliant bit of journalism all round then. Why let facts get in the way of a bit of bile.

Ted Hughes wrote:We will fix it so that it appears we are getting huge revenue from all over the shop, when in actual fact, it is coming from the same source. Then we will use the developments around the ground to vastly increase turnover etc in the future.


We'll just make sure any investment by HRH goes through enough channels to pass the UEFA criteria first so it can't be linked directly. If they then try to make a special case of us, we will challenge it & the shit will hit the fan as many of the top clubs will turn out to be on our side, not theirs. In the meantime we will expand our influence in sport, media, politics etc to make sure we're a set of toes nobody is willing to tread on.

I know the article is completely biased, but what about the suggestion that non-football revenue doesnt count?

My understanding was that all revenue from all sources counted, but all expenditure on non-football/youth infrastructure didn't.

It is important to note that being banned by UeFA from their competitions is considered by UeFA to be a "LAST RESORT" punishment, doled out to clubs that not only fail to comply but who have made no significant improvements in their financial position.
It was quite clearly stated by a UeFA officer that banning a club from UeFA competitions was only the final option, after many others including a transfer ban.

It seems quite clear that given the time span, the plans already in place to increase revenue streams, the other options open to UeFA and the fact that over the intervening period, City will have made vast improvements in our financila position, the chance of City being banned from any UeFA competition are somewhere around nil.

Our owners are not idiots, they have already met with UeFA and are well aware of what is needed and will be well advised on how to comply....We are through the gate...It will possibly be shut behind us,

Would it even be possible for UEFA to enforce a ban on transfers? Surely that comes under the FA's area of control?

Dameerto wrote:Would it even be possible for UEFA to enforce a ban on transfers? Surely that comes under the FA's area of control?

TBH, I have no idea of who has power over whom or what. The guy from UeFA seemed quite certain and confident about what he was saying and I suppose if it is their competition, they can set the rules for it.

john68 wrote:

Dameerto wrote:Would it even be possible for UEFA to enforce a ban on transfers? Surely that comes under the FA's area of control?

TBH, I have no idea of who has power over whom or what. The guy from UeFA seemed quite certain and confident about what he was saying and I suppose if it is their competition, they can set the rules for it.

If they say transfer ban and we sign players anyway, we have to remember that the european competitions are by invitation.

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:We will fix it so that it appears we are getting huge revenue from all over the shop, when in actual fact, it is coming from the same source. Then we will use the developments around the ground to vastly increase turnover etc in the future.


We'll just make sure any investment by HRH goes through enough channels to pass the UEFA criteria first so it can't be linked directly. If they then try to make a special case of us, we will challenge it & the shit will hit the fan as many of the top clubs will turn out to be on our side, not theirs. In the meantime we will expand our influence in sport, media, politics etc to make sure we're a set of toes nobody is willing to tread on.

I know the article is completely biased, but what about the suggestion that non-football revenue doesnt count?

My understanding was that all revenue from all sources counted, but all expenditure on non-football/youth infrastructure didn't.

It appears to leave open possiblities for many streams of revenue in the document.

I'm no lawyer or accountant but when I read through the detailed document laying out these rules, it appeared to me to be absolutely riddled with loopholes, which imo are there for the express purpose of allowing clubs like Real Madrid & AC Milan & the old guard to carry on as they are but make it difficult for new teams to bridge the gap. We have already bridged most of it & can use the same loopholes to keep improving.

I think the main purpose of this was partly to stop us from paying £400m for Lionel Messi etc but much more to do with stopping the likes of the Russians & the 2nd tier PL clubs from doing what we've been doing. There are one or two Abramovic type characters out there, & the last thing Berlusconi & his ilk want is a load of top players going to play in Russia for huge wages, that AC Milan & Juve can't afford, then knocking them out of Europe in the early stages. Same thing with the established order here, if someone like Newcastle or Villa was sold to Qataris etc & suddenly Arsenel or rags slip up & start to regularly miss out on the Chump's Lg. Liverpool are in big danger as it is.

We have now been largely accepted by the so called 'elite' as one of them. They don't want any more clubs joining though.

This will make it very difficult & very very expensive for another club to do what we have been doing. They will need to have an awful lot of money & an awful lot of assets to be able to sponsor the building of a team by channeling money through other companies, like we're starting to do, rather than just direct investment. Luckily for us, HRH has exactly that.

I'm not sure these rules will work in the long run though. It's desperation imo & unfair & someone will challenge it.

Wooders wrote:we're aware of it, we have the legal clout and business nous to do something about it and apparently we're "very happy" with the new ruling
I think we'll be fine

Read that piece on BBC and was worried at the start and then got to the part where it says that we were "very happy" and thought no worries then, Khaldoon and the boys have it under control.

I think you guys haven't quite got it right. There is nothing in the rules stopping clubs from spending up big. You spend a shitload getting the squad up to standard, then when you are good enough to make the chumps league, you balance the books.

"United made a pre-tax loss of £79m in 2010 but, by Uefa's measure, actually returned a positive break-even result of £42m."

Well that seems fair. Well done UEFA.