I predict nothing will happen.
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.
Correct ! Because this is a piece of newspaper click fodder. No quotes, no substance.
UEFA are in possession of all the facts regarding City's accounts as they are for all other clubs participating in their tournaments. The no mark journalists who have written this tosh have only focused on one side of the equation. City have, in fact, been charged for the services of these subsidiary companies but these sums do not appear under staff costs because they are not. Slagging City gets a lot of clicks from teams of the red variety whose supporters are the most numerate, therefore do not be surprised when the upstanding members of our sporting press take the opportunity to write a load of bollocks about City. It's good for business !
I can assure you, that there is a lot more teams that generate more clicks than city. If they wanted to lie they'd probably pick a big team.
Haha you would think so ! However, lies they are. I wonder why they don't lay into LVG and United. I can only imagine the stick City would be getting !
City attracts a lot of unwanted attention because they conduct business in a way that attracts unwanted attention. The Lampard saga alone is a PR nightmare of their own making.
£42million for Mangala? Wow.
I agree that the Lampard situation was badly handled but no rules have been broken and it really is a storm in a teacup. Other than that I think City conduct their business very well. But they are clearly a target for the largely Utd, Pool, Chelski and Arse supporting press whose supporters love to read anything anti City.
Wait, wait and wait!
Weren't City only allowed to spend 50M in the summer window that just went as per FFP regulations? Well if they spent £42M on Mangala and the reported £15M on Fernando, haven't they breached the regulations? Combined they cost them closer to £60M?
Weren't City only allowed to spend 50M in the summer window that just went as per FFP regulations? Well if they spent £42M on Mangala and the reported £15M on Fernando, haven't they breached the regulations? Combined they cost them closer to £60M?
Who says that City paid £42 for Mangala ? Just because the press write it doesn't make it true. The Press have City signing around 100 players every season, Sky Sports have Bony joining up with the City squad for the Arsenal game (he will be at ACON). The media write and talk more shit than truth.
Sly posted links to Porto's financial accounts. That has nothing to do with the press.
Suggest you take a read.
If City conducted their business very well they wouldn't have been sanctioned by UEFA for breaching the Financial Fair Play rules to begin with, would they?
The being unfairly targeted by the biased media issue is bollocks. Even by sugar daddy clubs' standards City had it much easier than Chelsea by virtue of getting their huge investment years after Abramovich & CFC had done it.
What?
Fernando's transfer is also very strange. He spent the year saying he wouldn't renew, that he wanted to move to a top european league, he could have signed for City on january for free. But then in the last minute he renewed and City pay 15 million euros for him. I can understand his renewal out of gratitude for Porto, but both Fernando and Porto's positions were so far appart (he was not being called or playing for Porto), that i think City could have bargained a better price. I think his sudden renewal had a connection to the future Mangala deal and was a sign of good faith from City to Porto. With his contract running out, i'm sure City could have bought him for a substancial lower sum or even for free, if it wasn't for City's interest to remain in Porto's good grace.
Someone is getting their € and £ mixed up. The Porto statement says €30,500,000 which is roughly £24,400,000. So quite how that is proof that City paid £42m I have no idea unless you are a member of the press of course.
There is no mix up. City pay 30 million euros to Porto for 56% of Mangala's rights. It probably reached the £42 millions because City had to pay the rest to Doyen. So £42 million which is approx 54 million euros as global value makes sense (30 million to Porto 24 million to Doyen).
Translating the important part:
" acordo com o Manchester City para a
cedência, a título definitivo, dos direitos de inscrição desportiva, e dos 56,67% dos direitos
económicos que detinha, do jogador profissional de futebol Eliaquim Mangala, pelo valor de
30.500.000 € (trinta milhões e quinhentos mil euros)"
"reached a deal with Manchester City for the transfer of the player's sporting rights, and 56,67% of his economical rights, of the professional football player Eliaquim Mangala, for the value of 30.500.000 € (thirty million and five hundred thousand euros).
30 millions for aprox 50% of Mangala? What a bargainEh the rest must have went for the fund and agent fees. The typical Doyen shady deal.
That is what City paid Porto for around 50% of Mangala, the rest would have been paid to the third party company that owned the rest of his playing rights.
@Sly
Sorry I didn't see you there!
City were on course to pass FFP until UEFA altered their guidelines meaning they could not discount the £80m from contracts which pre-dated FFP.
At no point have I said that City had it harder than Chelsea but there is clearly an anti City message right now. Why no discussion that Ambramovich hasn't actually turned his loans into equity but they are held by CFC's holding Co. Fordstam Limited to the tune of a £1billion interest free loan (FFP anyone ?) Maybe a look into why Utd are now a Caymen Island based Co might be interesting too. But no, our glorious press continue to focus on City.
BTW I understand that Mark Ogden the Northern Correspondent for the Telegraph used to edit a United Fanzine and so I guess we can expect balanced reporting from him.
I don't expect anyone to agree with me on here, it is after all a United forum. Just my two penneth
Nope I still don't see the confirmation that City paid £42m unless of course you are making the somewhat lazy assumption that City automatically paid the 43.33% to his 3rd party owners with no negotiation. This may, of course, be correct but I don't see any proof which makes it the bread and butter of sports journalists in this country - pure speculation !
Eh? Those figures are from Porto's official accounts. The Premier League does not allow third party ownership. City will have had to buy the rest of his rights?!
Are you alright? It's basic reading and understanding for God sake!
That CMVM communication only displays info concerning Porto obviously. But i have no doubt that you pay approx that value because every deal where Doyen is involved goes that way. Whether it was with Porto, Atlético Madrid or Benfica. You expect a fund to work out of charity? If they had that percentage of Mangala's rights, they did get pay. Might have been £42,41 or 40 millions, City pay more than 30 millions, that's a certain even without confirmation. Just out of curiosity, don't Manchester City discloses the values of their transfers? Aren't you a PLC? Don't the City supporters ask questions regarding those aspects or they just don't care as long as they win? And cmon you pay 15 million for a player who's contract was about to end in a couple of days and you are surprised City pay the vaule for 43,33% of Mangala's rights to Doyen without negotiation?
Of course they will but that will have been a separate negotiation (which is why the transfer took so long) and need not have been pro-rata with the €30,500,000 paid to Porto. Everyone is making assumptions and regurgitating as the truth !
Yeah, I am sure that City paid Doyen £8.5m for 44% of his rights just like they said.
I think all most supporters care about is what happens on the pitch. City are a privately owned Co but still have to produce public accounts. However, the details of individual transfers are not generally itemised which means that £42m is a guess, maybe an educated guess but a guess nonetheless.
Anyway it is all rather moot as whatever was paid will be in the accounts and subject to UEFA's scrutiny. If City are spending beyond the limits set by UEFA they will face further punishment, unless, of course, Mr. Dupont wins his case.
Ah ok so Doyen invested on Mangala and helped Porto buy him, see him get good valorization, watch Porto get 30 million for a player from their portfolio and then out of charity, neglects their capitalization and accepts a value lower than the estimate City accepted to pay to Porto?
Fair enough. Didn't know those details. I don't think that's very transparent but each country and their respective football have their own set of rules.
If they did officially then you can bet for sure that they will be getting some kickback from the web of football clubs that City are creating across the world.
Whatever the truth of the transfer being debated I think football fans pay way too much attention to the dross that is printed in the press. We now have 24hour blanket coverage and clicks make money. It's not surprising that the standards have dropped beyond belief.
I am OT and this could be a discussion for another thread and so I will leave it there
I am OT and this could be a discussion for another thread and so I will leave it there
Oh i completely agree with that and in Portugal the quality of the football media is way worse than in the Uk.
Poor little City. They're getting it so tough.
Things look pretty good from where I sit
Yeah, FFP is so bad and nasty that the two sugar daddy clubs are first and second in the league, just how will you cope!
Do you honestly think they would do something as so overtly obvious in the pitiful hope that UEFA might not notice? That the strategy would be "do some dodgy deals and hope UEFA don't notice"?
Do bear in mind that part of the settlement agreed with UEFA was that UEFA would scrutinize City's accounts in detail going forward, so I think it HIGHLY unlikely that City would do something against the rules just hoping UEFA don't notice, don't you?
Hopefully that small little club goes back to where it came from. Really is tragic when you see a team full of unreal players paid for by arab oil money being watched in a half empty stadium by a load of Stockport window lickers.
There's logic in what you say but I don't see any logical explanation for what the hell they were doing with that Lampard deal. Something isn't right.
That I do have to agree with. Why on earth they had to tell the world he'd signed for NYCFC and was on loan to City is beyond me. They will have had to tell the PL he was a City player when then registered him to play this season in the league. So at very least they were telling the press one thing and the league another. Very odd.
Come on, it's clear the Lampard deal was nothing more than a PR disaster. Contract wise, it was no different to City signing any other free agent. We registered him with the PL on a 12-month contract. That's all there is to it.
There's a reason they didn't do it and announce it the same way any club would with a free agent. What reason did they have for the lies?
Come on, it's clear the Lampard deal was nothing more than a PR disaster. Contract wise, it was no different to City signing any other free agent. We registered him with the PL on a 12-month contract. That's all there is to it.
I've already covered why I think the clubs lied over it, but the lies to the press have nothing to do with the reality of Lampard's contract so it's a silly debate. Lampard, regardless of what crap was fed to the public, was a City player just as Kompany, Aguero and Silva are City players.
Basically, the most likely reason is Lampard only had the offer to join City AFTER signing for NYCFC and been paraded as their player. If City then came out and said we had actually now signed him on a 12-month contract it would have undermined everything. Now Lampard has decided to stay it has undermined it anyway, and with added effect because of all the lies.
It's quite simple. CFG wanted to use Lampard to sell season tickets for NYCFC. He signed a 12 month contract with City with a break clause after 6 months which would have enabled him to Join NYCFC in Jan 2015.
However, the plan changed as Manuel Pellegrini wanted to keep him for the whole season and so the break clause was removed and Lampard has now signed a contract to join NYCFC in July once his City contract has ended.