It's perfect timing, quick fine in January pays for the Summer hols another in Summer and thats Christmas sorted.
Thank you oil very much.
Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions
- Thread starter PlayerOne
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It's perfect timing, quick fine in January pays for the Summer hols another in Summer and thats Christmas sorted.
Thank you oil very much.
What makes everyone think it'll be so lenient? These rules are something they didn't have to implement, they could have turned the other cheek or accepted at face value these sponsorship deals. Indeed they didn't have to create FFP in the first place. I have a hard time believing UEFA would go to the trouble to draw up these guidelines and then decide they've not got the stomach for the fight to implement them. They've been willing to throw players, clubs and countries out of competitions before, I don't see why that would suddenly stop.
What if the intention all along was to create a tax on these big spending clubs to see that they get their share of the money? Currently there is a lot of money being floated around that everyone but UEFA is getting their hands on.
Today city are linked with a £250m for messi
I wonder how this would tie in to ffp?
Any other business would be allowed to speculate on ecceptional talent with a view to longer term results (trophies, prize money, bigger commercial deals)
Would make a mockery of ffp as it stands but with plattinis son working for psg im fully expecting the ffp rules to be unworkable
I wonder how this would tie in to ffp?
Any other business would be allowed to speculate on ecceptional talent with a view to longer term results (trophies, prize money, bigger commercial deals)
Would make a mockery of ffp as it stands but with plattinis son working for psg im fully expecting the ffp rules to be unworkable
Seems a long winded process that so far hasn't yielded any 'results' in terms of hefty fines to boast the coffers. At a time when TV rights and sponsorship money is soaring this convoluted, long-winded back door way of making a few quid seems unlikely.
Oh come on, a few quid? They could be set to make millions upon millions from it if the Oil clubs accept the fines over bans and continue as they have been.
Oh come on, a few quid? They could be set to make millions upon millions from it if the Oil clubs accept the fines over bans and continue as they have been.
UEFA makes $2bn a year of which they retain 20% after distribution to clubs. Why would they set up a lengthy and complicated set of rules so they could make a few million quid a few years down the line following lengthy appeals and the CAS?
Why would they bother when they could just simply announce fines are in proportion to club earnings and make money that way without having to draw up FFP or wait years to implement or benefit from it.
That wont look like its being used as a deterrent against financial doping though will it, in fact it will look like its actually condoning it.
I like to keep a skeptical view on these matters as it saves the human race disappointing me time after time.
If UEFA start fining clubs then then it could be a very sound way of extorting financial gain, your talking a few million quid but it's also future proof and the long term value has the chance to run into billions.
It might start out with small banning of some lowly clubs and a transfer embargo here and there but on e it's settled into the steady income of fining it will be impossible for the human race to turn back from that road.
Fair point - but I don't think it's the same thing.
If its an issue of dishonesty, then I dont think they have a lot of choice.
A club thrown out would ask why they get the same punishment fir spending their own money as they would for match fixing. Which is a fair point.
Interestingly - the whole Barca/Neymar thing looked a bit iffy. No ban for them though.
Totally agree.
Clubs have been "punished" so UEFA dont lose face. The clubs involved will I doubt promise to be better behaved in future.
CL still has all the star clubs and players, money keeps rolling in. Happy days.
Last edited:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...anchester-city-transfers-lionel-messi-7006058
Apparently City are preparing a £250m deal for Messi.
If that were to go through, they might as well throw FFP in the bin.
Not that it ever will happen, just the MEN pandering to City fans now that their season is probably over.
Apparently City are preparing a £250m deal for Messi.
If that were to go through, they might as well throw FFP in the bin.
Not that it ever will happen, just the MEN pandering to City fans now that their season is probably over.
The money spent on Messi isn't dead money as we have done the sums, spoken to commercial partners and he will more than pay for himself as well as raising our profile another level.
My understanding is that Nike and Etihad have both been brought into a possible deal and both will contribute towards it. And there is significant interest from other commercial partners or prospective partners as well. The money for Messi is in place, we have first refusal I believe and if we buy him it will have no impact on any other funds we spend.
- That's from a poster on Bluemoon, one of the few who appears genuinely ITK (I presume this place has some?). I'm refusing to believe it but thought I'd share it here.
From everything I've read, Chelsea are seriously concerned about FFP whereas City seem to think it'll all be evened out by another fraudulent stadium sponsorship for £400m.
A sensible policy.
That's not true at all. You only have to look at who we signed in the 12/13 season to see we are taking it seriously.
Yeah, I guess that the efforts you've gone to try and get money into the club in a 'legitimate cash injection' are evidence of your seriousness to the rules. However, there's transfer speculation about City spending big again in the summer. If you were planning on conforming with the rules I do not think you wouldn spend big this summer or at the very least, buy to sell.
Depends who we sign. A signing like Messi would be huge for the club. Raise the profile immensely, shirt sales, increased sponsorship, increased chances of progression in tournaments and league position (thereby bringing in more money and raising our profile). He would be invaluable to us.
Ye olde shirt sales myth. My understanding is that virtually no top clubs have a piece rate for shirt sales. They sell the rights to the manufacturer who then sells to stores for a profit. You might see a small increase in club shop sales but that won't cover £250m. I also don't believe that a "big name signing" increases shirt sales that much. If someone is going to buy a shirt, then they'll do it whether you sign that player or not. The only variable I can see is whether or not that they get that player's name printed on their back. Obviously an increase in shirt sales puts the club in a stronger position when it comes to renegotiating the next sponsorship deal but most of these are done long-term. United signed with Nike before Ronaldo signed for us and the deal didn't expire before he left. Therefore, we saw no benefit to having one of the top ten players realistically.
I think size of fan base and on the pitch success is much more important to the value of shirt sponsorship. I personally don't wear United shirts as I've grown out of wearing them other than when playing football or going to the gym. However, I remember being 16 and United having just beaten Chelsea in the CL final and that made me purchase the home shirt from that season. Conversely, I wouldn't have felt any motivation to have purchased this seasons kit for obvious reasons, it's been a year to forget.
Would Messi raise your profile? Yes.
Would their be a monetary benefit 'massive' enough to outweigh the effect his transfer fee would have on your FFP profile? No.
Some of you acting like £5m, even £1m, is spare change to these owners...
Too many big numbers are bandied around, meaning both the reality and effect become diluted and people start to think that City's owners actually have £200bn at hand.
For one, any such valuations of net worth are asset-based, and only a fraction of these assets will be liquid - i.e. stocks - and an even smaller fraction will be cash.
Most transfers are paid in instalments, it's extraordinarily rare for a club to pay out a lump sum at once. So, when you see City/PSG spending £100m in a transfer window that doesn't mean they've just done a quick bank transfer.
Another thing to remember with the Arab royal families is how the money is dispersed across the family. These families are enormous, with many stakeholders in the ruling family's wealth, meaning the concentration of wealth within individuals is relatively small. It's not the entire Abu Dhabi royal family that owns City, it's a minority.
As for City bidding for Messi at 250m, it's utter, utter nonsense. Not even worth entertaining.
Too many big numbers are bandied around, meaning both the reality and effect become diluted and people start to think that City's owners actually have £200bn at hand.
For one, any such valuations of net worth are asset-based, and only a fraction of these assets will be liquid - i.e. stocks - and an even smaller fraction will be cash.
Most transfers are paid in instalments, it's extraordinarily rare for a club to pay out a lump sum at once. So, when you see City/PSG spending £100m in a transfer window that doesn't mean they've just done a quick bank transfer.
Another thing to remember with the Arab royal families is how the money is dispersed across the family. These families are enormous, with many stakeholders in the ruling family's wealth, meaning the concentration of wealth within individuals is relatively small. It's not the entire Abu Dhabi royal family that owns City, it's a minority.
As for City bidding for Messi at 250m, it's utter, utter nonsense. Not even worth entertaining.
If only someone had thought of buying a player for this reason before!
The point is that what you stand to gain from a huge signing is irrelevant to FFP. Any club that spends a load of money is doing so because they think over the long run it'll pay off. That doesn't change the fact that under FFP you have to find that money amongst your earnings (plus the permitted €45m overdraft). City are already likely to be found to have missed FFP targets, they certainly can't afford to spend another £250 million on a single player.
And for those who think there's little desire at UEFA to actually enforce these rules against clubs that are bringing money into the Champions League, a damaging sugardaddy-powered raid stealing European darling Messi away from European darlings Barcelona might be received rather differently.
Link to that please. I need a laugh.
Of course that's why people buy players, I only emphasised it regarding Messi because he could make an exceptional difference to our progress in tournaments.
I don't know. But unless UEFA would be willing to try and ban us from Europe, I'm sure we would sign Messi if it the move was possible and could be financed in a way that didn't hit us immediately and in one go.
Just my opinion, but I think they would definitely try and ban you from Europe if you went out this summer, already probably appealing FFP penalties of some kind, and spent £250m on Messi. And I think they would have plenty of grounds to succeed in doing so. You'd be stupidly far into the red.
UEFA wouldn't ban a team with Messi in it from playing in their tournament. They're not stupid.
Not necessarily, it all would depend on the financing arrangement. Barca could, in theory, accept 50mil a year (+ interest) over 5 years. That would fit into City's financial model, even with FFP, however it would seriously limit their purchasing of other players within that 5yr period.
Plus, no bank would guarantee a transfer of £250m, so a straight payment is a nigh impossibility.
So what you are saying - Barcelona had a total revenue of about £430 million in 2013 with Messi in their side - City will finance £250 million extra with Messi in their side. Ehm...yeah right
Would anyone actually want their club to sign a player, even Messi, for 250m? It's obscene.
No, they'd establish a set of rules making it clear that if a team in City's position conjured £250m out of nowhere to buy Messi, they'd be banned from the CL. And as a result, the sale would never happen.
Why do fans really care what a club signs a player for? If City or PSG signed Messi for that much it's perfectly possible the long-term effect he would have on the club would outweigh the expenditure on him.
UEFA won't ban a top team from the Champions League concerning FFP. It simply won't happen. It's a bit pointless debating the issue involving Messi as it is so unlikely, but, if we did sign him, UEFA wouldn't ban us and they wouldn't conjure up some new rules just to prevent it happening.
Exactly. It would be horrific. Most fans like to at least maintain the semblance of a belief that they are supporting a team, not an ever-changing set of outrageously expensive human Pokemon cards.
Why on earth would you have first refusal on him?
If United signed Messi for £250m I doubt your first reaction would be one of outrage and disgust. I bet 99% of your fans would be ecstatic. And rightly so.
Agree that the Messi thing is a silly example and not useful in the discussion. I agree that UEFA would be highly wary of banning most top European teams from the CL, because it's a very slippery slope, especially given the dissatisfaction in some quarters (Spain and Germany, basically) with the current format of national league and European tournament. But I would think that if a team like City or PSG (or Monaco) blatantly broke FFP regs, they'd be exactly the sort of clubs that UEFA would be willing to ban. They'd be sending a strong message about the efficacy of FFP, whilst also avoiding taking any of the traditional participants out of the competition or pissing off the influential heavyweights like Bayern or Barca.
Not sure, not my information. There were reports in 2009 though that we had negotiated with Barcelona to have first refusal on him.
Nike and Etihad helping with the deal? Just like Nike and Chevrolet were supposed to help bring Ronaldo "home".
Monaco, they might be willing to ban, but even that is unlikely. They won't ban teams when they have players like Thiago Silva, Ibrahimovic, David Silva, Yaya Toure, Aguero in them.
Only a City fan would assume that everyone else thinks this way. I'd be furious if United did this. It'd be nice to see a player like that running out for us, but it would be utterly tainted by knowing that we'd so cynically bought any success he brought us. I don't think he'd ever really feel like our player, either.
It's a closed hypothetical, of course, difficult to imagine, because United would never pull a stunt like that.
That kind of transfer fee would actually be borderline offensive. If a club can afford to spend that much on one player then they'd be better off slashing ticket prices in half or something.
It's 250 million we're talking about here, just think about how ridiculous that is!
But slashing ticket prices in half wouldn't bring any more revenue to the club. Messi's impact on the club's profile in the long-term could be invaluable.