My bad. That makes it even tougher. They need to look hard at buying an English left back in Baines, Shaw, Gibbs or Cole. Getting rid of one of Dzeko, Negredo or Jovetic might be necessary to bring in the defensive midfielder they need to, since there are no good English options. Then maybe buy an English CB not at a top club like Caulker, Jagielka, Stones, Curtis Davies.
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.
My bad. That makes it even tougher. They need to look hard at buying an English left back in Baines, Shaw, Gibbs or Cole. Getting rid of one of Dzeko, Negredo or Jovetic might be necessary to bring in the defensive midfielder they need to, since there are no good English options. Then maybe buy an English CB not at a top club like Caulker, Jagielka, Stones, Curtis Davies.
Good to see the punishments upheld, even if fining them really is pointless. It will be interesting to see what they do now with the squad limitations and whether they target people that fill the home grown criteria etc.
Remind me when city were founded?
The fine comes out of their prize money, so it's actually quite an imposition for them, particularly if they make a further breach.
Just had a PM outlining that we're struggling because inter-group transactions and the Etihad deal have been removed, and we've basically applied the lube for future years of FFP punishments - but that's not quite true - while both were mentioned in the settlement, the restrictions on them aren't severe at all.
Certain non-material aspects (e.g. the sale of intellectual property rights) of the group structure have been discounted from future revenues - but since they've already been sold they are exceptional items, the club couldn't re-sell them. It's important to note that they haven't been removed from last years revenue, because last years revenue is no longer being judged and becomes completely irrelevant for FFP - the club have clear targets to meet for £16.28m losses this year, and £8.14m losses next year. If those are met, the club then operates under no restrictions after next season.
The Etihad deal actually stays by the way, all revenues from the Etihad deal are counted as revenue, UEFA didn't even challenge it as an RPT (related party transaction). They only consideration the club have to make for sponsorship income is that 'two second tier commercial partnerships cannot increase in size during next season' - not stating which two - but given the Etihad deal is a 10 year sponsorship it's unlikely that the club had expectations to increase it this coming year. It doesn't restrict the club from signing other sponsorship deals either, as seen with Arabtec announced just a few days ago.
The agreement in place doesn't stop any potential challenges in future years if the club decide a punishment is too harsh, the announcement was worded very clearly to indicate that the club weren't happy with everything, but in the interest of certain commercial deals it will accept a settlement in this instance. This was by far the toughest period for the club to pass FFP and UEFA have effectively paved the way for the club to get off relatively scot free. As well as increasing revenues through TV deals and natural growth of matchday income (increasing capacity and prices), one of the most important aspects of the clubs expenditure next season will be the disappearence of some big amortisation costs for the players signed 3-5 years ago for big money on 4-5 year deals.
Certain non-material aspects (e.g. the sale of intellectual property rights) of the group structure have been discounted from future revenues - but since they've already been sold they are exceptional items, the club couldn't re-sell them. It's important to note that they haven't been removed from last years revenue, because last years revenue is no longer being judged and becomes completely irrelevant for FFP - the club have clear targets to meet for £16.28m losses this year, and £8.14m losses next year. If those are met, the club then operates under no restrictions after next season.
The Etihad deal actually stays by the way, all revenues from the Etihad deal are counted as revenue, UEFA didn't even challenge it as an RPT (related party transaction). They only consideration the club have to make for sponsorship income is that 'two second tier commercial partnerships cannot increase in size during next season' - not stating which two - but given the Etihad deal is a 10 year sponsorship it's unlikely that the club had expectations to increase it this coming year. It doesn't restrict the club from signing other sponsorship deals either, as seen with Arabtec announced just a few days ago.
The agreement in place doesn't stop any potential challenges in future years if the club decide a punishment is too harsh, the announcement was worded very clearly to indicate that the club weren't happy with everything, but in the interest of certain commercial deals it will accept a settlement in this instance. This was by far the toughest period for the club to pass FFP and UEFA have effectively paved the way for the club to get off relatively scot free. As well as increasing revenues through TV deals and natural growth of matchday income (increasing capacity and prices), one of the most important aspects of the clubs expenditure next season will be the disappearence of some big amortisation costs for the players signed 3-5 years ago for big money on 4-5 year deals.
They will pay the fine, sell some non-vital players and bring new ones in. I don't think this will hurt them very much. Maybe affect their bench somewhat though.
Surprised at those saying. Uefa have allowed city to get off "free". They were never ever going to expel city/psg/ anzhi/zenit and those other European giants from the champions league. The point of the ffp isn't to kick clubs out of europe, its to put them in line, curb their spending etc. Citys average spend for the last five years is 100 million per season. They're going to reduce that to 50, that will make a big difference, as will a salary cap. Its also something they're not used to. They've also got nobody in their squad who's expendible and can command a 20/30 million fee so 'net spend' goes out the window. If there is one thing proven in the last three years its that city have to spend big to maintain their success. For the first time they're not going to able to do that so it'll be interesting to see the approach they take. Will they finally give youth a chance? Will they look to english talent? Can they afford english talent? New contracts etc..
Yeah very nice sanctions. Well done UEFA.
It's about time some took a stand against these sugar daddy clubs.
So What!?
Football is all about money today...City have it! and they should be allowed to spend it how they like!
Madrid spend £80 million on Bale and Barca spend god knows how much on Neymar...so it it not like City are doing anything completely unheard of.
Fact is United have a huge world wide fan base so we can stand proud on this issue, but every other club in the country would never get close to wining the league without huge investment from foreign owners.
City's average spend for the last 3 years is £50m, but there's a big difference between the spending then and the spending now regardless, we already have a title challenging squad - so the need isn't there to splash out £100m anymore. I think the transfer restriction is the least damning of all the restrictions mentioned. You could add £50m talent to this squad and it will probably still be the best in the league next season.
You mention new contracts, on a day that it's just been announced that we've offered new contracts to 6 players - the wage restriction is pointless because it doesn't include 'performance related bonuses', our new contracts are simply being restructured to be more performance incentivised in line with the Barcelona model, bringing the base wage down, which is specifically where the restriction is placed - convenient.
The only two material impacts on the club are a £16m loss of revenue over two seasons, and a restricted CL squad for one year. Had the settlement been announced as such I think many would be disappointed with the punishment overall - it's a good piece of window dressing really.
But this causes massive wage inflation. If you ask a player do you want to play for Utd or City on the same money they will say United because we are a bigger club. So what City do is change the equation and say Utd or us and an extra 50 grand. Then we have to follow which just pushes player wages up. It happened with us in the late 90's we tried our best as a club to keep the £30000 ceiling but what could be do when Middlesbourgh where paying £50000 a week to inferior players. Its the smaller club that push wage inflation up trying to catch up.
Do you still believe that?
Probably 90% of players in each club will say United. 95% of Liverpool.
Ok so last year we were champions then one horrific year and now players want to sign for City over united (when offered same wages) are you that fickle or just dumb? No offence but its a no brainer United would be 99% of players choices.
They're still suffering from superiority complex delusion.
This is indeed a non-punishment, which immediately renders FFP utterly meaningless. I wonder if we can expect any legal challenges?
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...sure-uefas-ffp-rules-take-effect-8451600.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...sure-uefas-ffp-rules-take-effect-8451600.html
Still time for some clubs to complain about perceived lenience.
Not sure how you've worked out that your average spend the last three years is 50 million when you've spent over 90 million in two of the last three seasons. And if you meant net spend, as I mentioned before city aren't in a position where they'll be able to sell a balotelli for 20 million now. If you sign a new player, you have to factor in wages and signing on fees, especially for any top talent and that will have an impact on your overall salary. Its funny because most people were running uefa down saying they' d do literally nothing and that city would appeal any penalties and so on and so forth. This is theinitial stage, this is the first year of ffp, there were never going to be point deductionsand exclusions. Its at the complying stage and you guys are going to have to comply which was the entire point so I don't see what exactly city are "getting away with" here.
City's average net spend has indeed been £50m over the last 3 years on average. But it's that's not really the whole story. Their wage bill is £233m a year. Their turnover which includes close over £50m of intellectual property sales (to itself) that UEFA discount, is £271m. So essentially they have a wage bill higher than the entire company turnover. Not withstanding the probability that even City don't make whole lump-sum payments for transfers it's possible that last seasons £89m net spend will still have to be at least partially financed going forward.
Now the answer on paper seems simple - sell players. Yet who do you sell them to? Other sugar daddy clubs such as PSG may well be in the same situation and who else will be willing to pay the wages? If you do what City have done which is loan but still foot the wage bill it doesn't really solve a problem.
Now the answer on paper seems simple - sell players. Yet who do you sell them to? Other sugar daddy clubs such as PSG may well be in the same situation and who else will be willing to pay the wages? If you do what City have done which is loan but still foot the wage bill it doesn't really solve a problem.
Is the 21 man CL squad still insistent on the 8 homegrown players?
If so, who would that include out of City's squad?
If so, who would that include out of City's squad?
It does. At the start of the season the list of home-grown players were:
Boyata
Clichy
Hart
Lescott
Milner
Richards
Rodwell
Tchuimeni
Wright
Thanks for that.
The future for most of those players seems uncertain.
Boyata, Richards, Milner, Richards especially.
Lescott is definitely gone.
I'm not sure who the other two are they must be part of their academy.
It'll be interesting to see if they keep those players to fulfil the quota.
They'll be grand once they expand the stadium to allow all those extra ticketless fans in.
It made me laugh how City thought that they deserved a lesser punishment than PSG because they tried harder to obscure their financial doping.
The sanctions are pretty strong for a first offence. It will complicate and restrict City's movement in the transfer market this summer.
The sanctions are pretty strong for a first offence. It will complicate and restrict City's movement in the transfer market this summer.
That's a bit rich coming from an Arsenal fan.
The fine is pocket change for the owner-and he can pay for it out of his own funds without the expense being accounted for on City's books.
The requirement that City lose no more than €10M seems like something that will have some bite-especially as they will be prohibited from counting some of the revenues that are disguised subsidies. In addition-transfer market restrictions will make it harder for City to refresh the squad.
So-I wouldn't say the penalties are meaningless. I'm curious to see how City balance their books over the next two years without using creative accounting.
The requirement that City lose no more than €10M seems like something that will have some bite-especially as they will be prohibited from counting some of the revenues that are disguised subsidies. In addition-transfer market restrictions will make it harder for City to refresh the squad.
So-I wouldn't say the penalties are meaningless. I'm curious to see how City balance their books over the next two years without using creative accounting.
Hehe.
Yeah, it's a disgrace the way things are at the moment - most of the city forming a line from Piccadilly to the Etihad on a match day, only a pittance of their vast support allowed in to watch their heroes perform. They should aim for a Maracana style capacity, really.
Sharp ticket price increases must be one way to claw the revenue back. Their stadium could be looking emptier still soon.
Because legally it is not considered a related party transaction. Nothing UEFA can do about it.
Great news. Don't know what ppl were expecting. That they are kicked out of the CL? That they are forced to sell Silva and Aguero to us?
It all had to start somewhere and it's still a harsher punishment than I expected and it in future if they don't obey the punishments will get stricter.
It all had to start somewhere and it's still a harsher punishment than I expected and it in future if they don't obey the punishments will get stricter.
You'd think ticket price increases would be an automatic decision for them to make as a means to legally inject some cash into the coffers but so far, City have refused to - publicly at least - consider it. Season tickets in the newly-developed areas of the stadium are being marketed at ~£300 per season. There's no way on earth they could justify charging £500 per season for those tickets as they wouldn't have the demand for them. The club and the fans know this yet still harp on about being the best-supported club in Manchester.
Hilarious.
Hilarious.
Yep. Despite what people think, the objective of FFP is not to nuke City but genuinely to try and make clubs obey the rules and start spending responsibly. This 'punishment' is not for punishment's sake, it's a way to hold City more strictly to the rules. If they break them again, UEFA will have given themselves the grounds to consider more serious punishments - transfer bans, competition bans etc - without City having much room for complaint.
How sharp are you talking? Even raising them £500 would only work out at £25m a year. That wouldn't even get you a Fellaini.
Every little helps.
I'm not sure. City will claim they've charged those 250,000 fans on that famous hill in Blackburn £500 a head and miraculously post ticket sales of £125,000,000 next season. Throw in the £375,000,000 they've earned from selling their "intellectual property" to their ground-staff, it will really be a marvellously profitable year for the Berties.