Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

UEFA has been in permanent dialogue with the European Commission about financial fair play and has received continued support for this initiative. There is also a joint statement from the UEFA President and the EU commissioner for competition, emphasising the consistency between the rules and objectives of financial fair play and the policy aims of the EU commission in the field of state aid.

Joaquín Almunia, Vice President of the EU Commission in charge of competition policy: "I fully support the objectives of UEFA’s Financial Fair-Play rules as I believe it is essential for football clubs to have a solid financial foundation. The UEFA rules will protect the interests of individual clubs and players, as well as football sector in Europe as a whole. I would like to congratulate President Platini for his leadership on this issue."

Alasdair Bell, Uefa's legal affairs director, said he expects legal challenges to be made by clubs on whom sanctions are imposed and maintained that Uefa will fight them. "We are not afraid of [Uefa decisions] being contested."

http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/sports/joint_statement_en.pdf

http://m.uefa.com/news/1772173/

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/feb/28/uefa-challenges-financial-fair-play
 
BobbyManc said:
Exactly, Sheikh Mansour is much more beneficial to football than the Glazers are.
Click to expand...

We might also argue that the FFP rules are a way to protect City from itself...

If the Sheikh were to go bankrupt, or to lose interest in his plaything and cut off the financial support, or sell the club to another owner who does not have ties to the questionable sponsors and loads of cash, where would that leave your club? Unprofitable, unsustainable, and tumbling back down the table.

If the Glazers sold the club, the machine keeps running. Profits continue, legitimate sponsorships continue, matchday revenue continues, because the club can sustain itself financially.

No investor would want to buy City, because it is not profitable and does not have the potential to be. Even with fake sponsorships you are losing millions. Imagine the losses if you had non-Abu Dhabi commercial partners? Back to Thomas Cook.
 
Americano said:
We might also argue that the FFP rules are a way to protect City from itself...

If the Sheikh were to go bankrupt, or to lose interest in his plaything and cut off the financial support, or sell the club to another owner who does not have ties to the questionable sponsors and loads of cash, where would that leave your club? Unprofitable, unsustainable, and tumbling back down the table.

If the Glazers sold the club, the machine keeps running. Profits continue, legitimate sponsorships continue, matchday revenue continues, because the club can sustain itself financially.

No investor would want to buy City, because it is not profitable and does not have the potential to be. Even with fake sponsorships you are losing millions. Imagine the losses if you had non-Abu Dhabi commercial partners? Back to Thomas Cook.
Click to expand...

The Etihad deal is a reasonable one. It works out at £40m a year. That is perfectly reasonable. Juventus get £35m a year and we have a greater revenue than them.

Do you think UEFA would care if Mansour pulled the plug on City? FFP isn't to protect City, it is to protect clubs like United.
 
BobbyManc said:
The Etihad deal is a reasonable one. It works out at £40m a year. That is perfectly reasonable. Juventus get £35m a year and we have a greater revenue than them.
Click to expand...

At the time City signed the £40m per year Etihad Campus deal, Chelsea and Tottenham were reportedly looking to source similar deals in the region of £10m-£15m per year, and had found no takers. Arsenal's Emirates deal was at that time was worth £6m per year (of which just £2.8m per year was naming rights).

To put it into further context, at the time it was signed, City's Etihad deal was the largest deal of it's kind, in the history of sport, worth more than twice the previous record (J P Morgan Chase's deal with Madison Square Garden). All this, for a football club, which at that time had won one major trophy in the preceding 30 years.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways


The Etihad deal has since been labelled 'improper' by the Council of Europe's Culture, Science, Education and Media Committee:

Clubs will no doubt try to supplement their income if possible. They could for example call on sponsors to invest more so as to reduce or eliminate their deficits. Care will have to be taken to prevent any circumvention of the financial fair play rules in this way.

A case in point is Manchester City, which has entered into a contract estimated at £400 million with the airline Etihad. Etihad belongs to the Abu Dhabi royal family, and the Abu Dhabi United Group, which is led by Suleiman Al-Fahim, owns Manchester City.

In order to avoid improper transactions of this kind, Uefa should prohibit clubs from sponsoring themselves or using associated bodies to do so. There is also a need to monitor the 'purchases' of sponsors, who should not overpay for the rights they acquire.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-as-Uefa-urged-to-outlaw-close-contracts.html
Click to expand...


The Nike deal City signed a year later however, came in at £12m per year, or less than half the size of the deal a non-Champions League Liverpool signed with Warrior, and about a fifth of the size of the deal United are expected to imminently agree with Nike. That's what you get when you can't deal with Abu Dhabi.
 
Last edited:
Infra-red said:
At the time City signed the £40m per year Etihad Campus deal, Chelsea and Tottenham were reportedly looking to source similar deals in the region of £10m-£15m per year, and had found no takers. Arsenal's Emirates deal was at that time was worth £6m per year (of which just £2.8m per year was naming rights).

To put it into further context, at the time it was signed, City's Etihad deal was the largest deal of it's kind, in the history of sport, worth more than twice the previous record (J P Morgan Chase's deal with Madison Square Garden). All this, for a football club, which at that time had won one major trophy in the preceding 30 years.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways


The Etihad deal has since been labelled 'improper' by the Council of Europe's Culture, Science, Education and Media Committee:




The Nike deal City signed a year later however, came in at £12m per year, or less than half the size of the deal a non-Champions League Liverpool signed with Warrior, and about a fifth of the size of the deal United are expected to imminently agree with Nike. That's what you get when you can't deal with Abu Dhabi.
Click to expand...

"Etihad's deal includes a 10-year extension to their shirt sponsorship at City, as well as financial backing for what will be known as the Etihad Campus, a vast area of land around the stadium that already includes the City Square fans' village, and has other major development planned, including a new training ground and sports science centre."

The deal involves more than just sponsoring the shirt and stadium. If UEFA are happy to only halve the value of PSG's sponsorship deal then they can have no problem with the Etihad deal.
 
BobbyManc said:
"Etihad's deal includes a 10-year extension to their shirt sponsorship at City, as well as financial backing for what will be known as the Etihad Campus, a vast area of land around the stadium that already includes the City Square fans' village, and has other major development planned, including a new training ground and sports science centre."

The deal involves more than just sponsoring the shirt and stadium. If UEFA are happy to only halve the value of PSG's sponsorship deal then they can have no problem with the Etihad deal.
Click to expand...

PSG's deal is obviously completely ridiculous, and the Etihad deal will now likely be given a pass due to the size of legitimate deals secured by other clubs in the intervening years (eg United's DHL training kit deal, which was larger than the vast majority of Premier League clubs' main kit deals at that time). Not sure anyone could ever label the Etihad deal 'reasonable' though, and manage to keep a straight face.
 
Infra-red said:
the Etihad deal will now likely be given a pass due to the size of legitimate deals secured by other clubs
Click to expand...

The examples you cite are for deals between unrelated parties - one key difference with the Etihad sponsorship. I daresay there were no other serious commercial partners willing to sponsor a "soccer campus of the future" for the club. I think there is limited commercial value in such a sponsorship anyway - what other clubs have such an arrangement? They are literally inventing ways for sister companies to give them money.
 
Americano said:
The examples you cite are for deals between unrelated parties - one key difference with the Etihad sponsorship. I daresay there were no other serious commercial partners willing to sponsor a "soccer campus of the future" for the club. I think there is limited commercial value in such a sponsorship anyway - what other clubs have such an arrangement? They are literally inventing ways for sister companies to give them money.
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent, but the general point I was seeking to make was that other clubs such as United and Bayern have set the benchmark for legitimate commercial revenues at £150m per year, and as long as City continue to have the same owners, you'd expect them to continue meet that benchmark. Ultimately it will be quite difficult for UEFA to argue that Man City's £40m per year Etihad deal is unfair, if they are Premier League Champions, and we, the 7th placed team, are signing £60m per year kit manufacturing deals with Nike.

PSG's outlandish £167m per year contract with the Qatar Tourism Authority is clearly a different case though.
 
Sky sources: City been fined £50 million and had their squad for next seasons champions league limited to 21.
 
BUGGS said:
Sky sources: City been fined £50 million and had their squad for next seasons champions league limited to 21.
Click to expand...
plus no increase in the salary for the champions league squad (really no idea how they can implement that)
 


Seems very strict. Hopefully they're enforced.
 
£50m is a huge fine! PSG should be hit much harder though, but at least something is being done. Good start I think.
 
20 million each year over three years is absolutely feck all to City or PSG though.
 
I was sceptical when i first heard about FFP. Thought it would be nothing but lip service , but this sends a strong message.
 
I'm assuming that even with the CL squad restriction, they can still put in B list players on top of the 21?
 
Wow, that is a much bigger fine than I expected. Doubt they'll take that lying down.

What I haven't read explicitly is whether the fine is permitted expenditure or not. Anyone know for sure?

If not the fine would be remarkably pointless. But £50M is like a quarter of their turnover, that's a really big deal. Even if they were due to break-even before (unlikely) they now have to make £50M worth of savings or so - and that's before we know about which income deals were permitted and which weren't. Could be more like £70M of savings to be made if they were heading for a loss, even allowing for CL and PL income. (They may be able to do that with fringe player sales, but you'd have to look through City's squad to know for sure.)

Squad size limitation doesn't seem so bad, til you read that you need 8 locally trained players in that squad. Other than Hart, none of the first teamers are home grown (that I can recall), so they will be missing a few first teamers (or first choice subs, Navas-type players)

Edit: Read the MEN article, its over three years. Still steep but £50M in one season seemed extraordinary.
 
50M is a rediculous amount of money to be fined.
The problem is, that wouldn't put off these owners with daft amount of money. Don't get me wrong, 50m is a lot to anybody, and nobody wants to just hand that over, but if an owner has a dream of spending big, and making waves, 50m probably won't put them off.

As for the wage bill for European players. I don't get that. Does that mean if Aguero wants a new contract with more money, he aint allowed it :s
 
shaggy said:
20 million each year over three years is absolutely feck all to City or PSG though.
Click to expand...

You don't get it do you?

It has to come out of club funds. This will then impact their ability to meet targets for FFP over those three years.

If this stands, then city are fecked. They will have to massively reduce their wage bill. And at a time when they only have two established English 'qualified' players in Hart and Milner. The 21 players will have to include 8 'home-grown' players and this may be they will have to either keep Barry, Lescott, Rodwell and Richards, or sell them and replace them with home-grown players on lower wages.
 
Hopefully this will leading them to cutting down on their spending this summer.
 
That fine is more like it; will definitely curb the spending now. If PSG get the same then they won't have any chance of getting Hazard.
 
SteveJ said:
Then they should be told to forget about entering any UEFA competitions.
Click to expand...
the problem is uefa Want PSG in thier compertitions,they want there big stars like ibrahimovic and cavani in their matches. so while the want to tackle overspending by some clubs they don't want to actually suspend them.
which puts uefa in a pretty weak position
 
Having a think, their only home grown decent players are Hart and Milner (not including Richards, Lescott, Rodwell). So with only 21 players for Champions League, 8 must be home grown, then that leaves only 13 non home grown players. THey'll have a tiny squad for Europe next year. Injuries could batter them.
 
MPTutd said:
You don't get it do you?

It has to come out of club funds. This will then impact their ability to meet targets for FFP over those three years.

If this stands, then city are fecked. They will have to massively reduce their wage bill. And at a time when they only have two established English 'qualified' players in Hart and Milner. The 21 players will have to include 8 'home-grown' players and this may be they will have to either keep Barry, Lescott, Rodwell and Richards, or sell them and replace them with home-grown players on lower wages.
Click to expand...
Nope I didn't know that, cheers.
 
They are laughing and saying "is that all you can do?"

50m is not a lot in the owner's eyes. Imagine you were billionaires, exactly.

21 man squad in CL is nothing. You do know you field a ln 11 man team each game?!

Wage limit is that you can't field players next that have a higher wage bill in total than this year. Are they stupid?!? Man city have the highest wage bill in the world! If they 2-3 players, there will be more than enough wages to go around.

If any of you is satisfied with this 'fine', you need to get yourself checked out.

People say they didn't thin Uefa will do anything and thus any fine is great. It is your fault that you were ignorant enough to suggest that such an organisation will not stand by its own rules.


There are plenty of english talent out ther to meet the 8 playets required.
 
Andy_Cole said:
Having a think, their only home grown decent players are Hart and Milner (not including Richards, Lescott, Rodwell). So with only 21 players for Champions League, 8 must be home grown, then that leaves only 13 non home grown players. THey'll have a tiny squad for Europe next year. Injuries could batter them.
Click to expand...
That's actually a good point.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
the problem is uefa Want PSG in thier compertitions,they want there big stars like ibrahimovic and cavani in their matches. so while the want to tackle overspending by some clubs they don't want to actually suspend them.
which puts uefa in a pretty weak position
Click to expand...

If PSG & City left, their stars would just go to teams that were still in the competition, so that's not an issue. Neither of those teams are a big enough draw that the best players would be happy to miss out on European competition in order to play for them.

However UEFA really won't want to expel teams. It's such as last resort I doubt they ever will unless someone is completely recalcitrant.
 
Bader said:
21 man squad in CL is nothing. You do know you field a ln 11 man team each game?!
Click to expand...

As below..

Andy_Cole said:
Having a think, their only home grown decent players are Hart and Milner (not including Richards, Lescott, Rodwell). So with only 21 players for Champions League, 8 must be home grown, then that leaves only 13 non home grown players. THey'll have a tiny squad for Europe next year. Injuries could batter them.
Click to expand...
 
Bader said:
They are laughing and saying "is that all you can do?"

50m is not a lot in the owner's eyes. Imagine you were billionaires, exactly.

21 man squad in CL is nothing. You do know you field a ln 11 man team each game?!

Wage limit is that you can't field players next that have a higher wage bill in total than this year. Are they stupid?!? Man city have the highest wage bill in the world! If they 2-3 players, there will be more than enough wages to go around.

If any of you is satisfied with this 'fine', you need to get yourself checked out.

People say they didn't thin Uefa will do anything and thus any fine is great. It is your fault that you were ignorant enough to suggest that such an organisation will not stand by its own rules.


There are plenty of english talent out ther to meet the 8 playets required.
Click to expand...
Have you read any of this thread? at all? the 50m must come out of club revenue of which City make roughly 100m a year if that.Over three years thats roughly 20m a year leaving them with a turnover of 80m based on todays market meaning they cant spunk all their cash on superstar players since it would hamper them for the next FFP year.

They are in trouble with this.
 
Bader said:
They could replace those duds with 3 quality English players. Then you will have 5 if you include Hart and Millner. Then promote 2 from the youth.

You can get around these things.
Click to expand...

And where do these three quality English players come from, the transfer market? What's the going rate for 3 quality CL standard English players? Good luck getting that with change from £50m if you're a side like City. Would a way to get around this punishment for breaching FFP really be to spend MORE money?

This is the first offence. I'd doubt City want to risk pissing UEFA off a second time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.