BlueinBosnia wrote:I thought there were certain expenditures excluded from FFP, which included stadium expansion, construction of infrastructure, etc. Would this somehow fall into such a category?
john@staustell wrote:BlueinBosnia wrote:I thought there were certain expenditures excluded from FFP, which included stadium expansion, construction of infrastructure, etc. Would this somehow fall into such a category?
Probably UEFA haven't even considered it. How far does'infrastructure' reach? Your own immediate club? Any subsidiary? If it's about 'Financial Fair Play' then it should be anywhere that brings in club revenue.
Herb wrote:I've dealt a lot with group finance down the years and, following standard patterns, my thought is that NYCFC will likely be a separate company under the ADUG umbrella but contractually tied to MCFC via a cooperation agreement.
Money goes into NYCFC and is then paid to MCFC for use of the MCFC support. Ergo; all MCFC senior staff will book a portion of the cost of their time and facilities to NYCFC such that the actual cost of setting up NYCFC can be correctly apportioned - no such thing as a free ride in business!
As NYCFC will be supported by MCFC in training, medical, scouting, etc. etc it means that maybe as much as 25% of the MCFC running costs may be attributable to NYCFC and therefore paid by NYCFC and thus the trade of MCFC expertise is paid for in return by cash hitting the MCFC books. Nice.
Ted Hughes wrote:+1 on this question.
I have been meaning to ask this, because it seems to be under the name of 'City' as owners rather than ADUG etc, as I thought it would be
Blue Since 76 wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:+1 on this question.
I have been meaning to ask this, because it seems to be under the name of 'City' as owners rather than ADUG etc, as I thought it would be
I'm certain the ownership is City, rather than the Sheikh. That does make it interesting as any turnover is also our turnover, same for profit (or loss).
MLS is a bit different though, so I'm not sure if, I don't know, maybe some rich middle eastern person wanted to sponsor NYCFC to the tune of several hundred million a year, does that have to be shared amongst all the clubs?
Herb's comments about some of MCFC's support costs being transferred though is interesting. If Aguero was to go and do some promotional work for them in our closed season, who pays his wages that week?
Herb wrote:Blue Since 76 wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:+1 on this question.
I have been meaning to ask this, because it seems to be under the name of 'City' as owners rather than ADUG etc, as I thought it would be
I'm certain the ownership is City, rather than the Sheikh. That does make it interesting as any turnover is also our turnover, same for profit (or loss).
MLS is a bit different though, so I'm not sure if, I don't know, maybe some rich middle eastern person wanted to sponsor NYCFC to the tune of several hundred million a year, does that have to be shared amongst all the clubs?
Herb's comments about some of MCFC's support costs being transferred though is interesting. If Aguero was to go and do some promotional work for them in our closed season, who pays his wages that week?
Whether MCFC and NYCFC sit under ADUG or whether NYCFC sits under MCFC, I think we'll find that they report separate accounts and that the NYCFC account will not be assessed under FFP because it's an MLS club.
Cost transfer will most definitely be managed between the accounts and that's to the benefit of NYCFC as they'll have the full support of the MCFC machine and to the benefit of MCFC as they can rightfully cross charge the cost of that support to NYCFC.
It's an 'efficiency' that MCFC will have to their advantage and it should serve to assist us with regard to meeting the FFP criteria.
It's more subtle than 2 fingers up to FFP and much more effective. This is more than about making MCFC successful in europe, it's about making the City brand the biggest thing to hit football . . ever! As things unfold I'm constantly and pleasantly surprised as our owners think bigger than I could ever have imagined, and they're serious about their aims and proving to be very effective at achieving them. All good stuff - it's great to be blue when dreams come true eh?!
Tesl wrote: Spot on and I agree with everything there. We are immensely lucky.
Herb wrote:I've dealt a lot with group finance down the years and, following standard patterns, my thought is that NYCFC will likely be a separate company under the ADUG umbrella but contractually tied to MCFC via a cooperation agreement.
Money goes into NYCFC and is then paid to MCFC for use of the MCFC support. Ergo; all MCFC senior staff will book a portion of the cost of their time and facilities to NYCFC such that the actual cost of setting up NYCFC can be correctly apportioned - no such thing as a free ride in business!
As NYCFC will be supported by MCFC in training, medical, scouting, etc. etc it means that maybe as much as 25% of the MCFC running costs may be attributable to NYCFC and therefore paid by NYCFC and thus the trade of MCFC expertise is paid for in return by cash hitting the MCFC books. Nice.
Tesl wrote:Herb wrote:Blue Since 76 wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:+1 on this question.
I have been meaning to ask this, because it seems to be under the name of 'City' as owners rather than ADUG etc, as I thought it would be
I'm certain the ownership is City, rather than the Sheikh. That does make it interesting as any turnover is also our turnover, same for profit (or loss).
MLS is a bit different though, so I'm not sure if, I don't know, maybe some rich middle eastern person wanted to sponsor NYCFC to the tune of several hundred million a year, does that have to be shared amongst all the clubs?
Herb's comments about some of MCFC's support costs being transferred though is interesting. If Aguero was to go and do some promotional work for them in our closed season, who pays his wages that week?
Whether MCFC and NYCFC sit under ADUG or whether NYCFC sits under MCFC, I think we'll find that they report separate accounts and that the NYCFC account will not be assessed under FFP because it's an MLS club.
Cost transfer will most definitely be managed between the accounts and that's to the benefit of NYCFC as they'll have the full support of the MCFC machine and to the benefit of MCFC as they can rightfully cross charge the cost of that support to NYCFC.
It's an 'efficiency' that MCFC will have to their advantage and it should serve to assist us with regard to meeting the FFP criteria.
It's more subtle than 2 fingers up to FFP and much more effective. This is more than about making MCFC successful in europe, it's about making the City brand the biggest thing to hit football . . ever! As things unfold I'm constantly and pleasantly surprised as our owners think bigger than I could ever have imagined, and they're serious about their aims and proving to be very effective at achieving them. All good stuff - it's great to be blue when dreams come true eh?!
Spot on and I agree with everything there. We are immensely lucky.
Ted Hughes wrote: NYC's books can't be included in ffp because ffp is a UEFA thing, but if 'we' have spent £300 mil on it, then that also must be exempt from the accounting as far as ffp goes or we'd be fucked. All very intersting & no doubt close to impossible for Platini & Co to regulate (as will many of our sponsorship deals be imo). Interesting ideas from Herb as to how we may benefit with expenses.
Im_Spartacus wrote:
The £300m is a capital investment, so the cash is simply converted into another type of asset, eg equity and this we still have £300m on the balance sheet after the transaction. As a result it is a totally neutral transaction for FFP purposes as it has no impact on operating profit, which is largely (though not entirely) the measure for FFP
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 128 guests