Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

[BobbyManc]

If Real Madrid desperately want your player, you can make them pay through the nose. If United want your player, at some point they will say "No. That is too much." then it is the selling club's decision.
What United paid for Rooney 10 years ago, would have allowed Everton to strengthen in many positions. Much more than it would in today's market. So, you can see why Everton thought they had done good business. He could have turned out to be a Robinho! A bit of a disservice, calling Everton mugs.
Bilbao, Porto and Atletico have shown us and everyone else, that if they don't wish to sell, you'll have to bust the bank to get the player.
Did Rodwell not have that potential feel about him? Or were City just trying to be generous to Everton?

Real's money comes from many sources. One of them is a hugely skewed distribution of La Liga TV revenues. Quite how that affects Southampton or Everton, I don't know.

Real's tv money doesn't affect Southampton and Everton. But the money the clubs regularly in the Champions League in England earn does.

And it doesn't work like that. A big club goes in for a player, player tells club he wants to leave, then the club have to come to some sort of a deal. Look at Yaya Toure this summer. It seems he wanted to leave but City simply told him it isn't happening no matter what he said or did. How did we prevent one of our best players leaving? A sugar daddy owner. It's the only way it can be done in today's climate.

Ask Everton fans or Southampton fans if they think they've done good business; that is, selling their top players has benefited them on the pitch. The fact is, if they could keep their best players, naturally they would be a more competitive side. FFP will shut off the only route possible for them to reach the top in the same fashion City have done.

 

[Verminator]

Real's tv money doesn't affect Southampton and Everton. But the money the clubs regularly in the Champions League in England earn does.

And it doesn't work like that. A big club goes in for a player, player tells club he wants to leave, then the club have to come to some sort of a deal. Look at Yaya Toure this summer. It seems he wanted to leave but City simply told him it isn't happening no matter what he said or did. How did we prevent one of our best players leaving? A sugar daddy owner. It's the only way it can be done in today's climate.

Ask Everton fans or Southampton fans if they think they've done good business; that is, selling their top players has benefited them on the pitch. The fact is, if they could keep their best players, naturally they would be a more competitive side. FFP will shut off the only route possible for them to reach the top in the same fashion City have done.

Did Toure get a new contract then? If not, you have just contradicted your point that the player can force the move, regardless.
Ask United fans if they wanted Ronaldo or £80million. Fans want players.
When clubs at the top buy players, it is often as a finishing touch, or to appease fans, or to push further in competitions, as well as natural turnover.
For teams not getting UEFA's Euros, they are trying to survive, or get into the money making extra comps. This may involve strengthening in more positions.
Some of these clubs have been eeking the last out of older players. Using loanees and free transfers. If they can then replace one outstanding player with 4 or 5 very good ones, they have improved there chances.
If Everton had kept Rooney, and not bought other players, how would they have coped with the injuries and lack of form that he has had for United.
Eggs all in one basket.

 

[BobbyManc]

Did Toure get a new contract then? If not, you have just contradicted your point that the player can force the move, regardless.
Ask United fans if they wanted Ronaldo or £80million. Fans want players.
When clubs at the top buy players, it is often as a finishing touch, or to appease fans, or to push further in competitions, as well as natural turnover.
For teams not getting UEFA's Euros, they are trying to survive, or get into the money making extra comps. This may involve strengthening in more positions.
Some of these clubs have been eeking the last out of older players. Using loanees and free transfers. If they can then replace one outstanding player with 4 or 5 very good ones, they have improved there chances.
If Everton had kept Rooney, and not bought other players, how would they have coped with the injuries and lack of form that he has had for United.
Eggs all in one basket.

I don't see why the fact Toure didn't get a new contract contradicts my point? It would be worse if he got a new contract as it would demonstrate the power of the player, effectively saying pay me or sell me. City did neither (thus far).

It's all very good saying this but let's be honest, look at the league winners before Abramovich took over Chelsea. You really think it wouldn't have carried on in a similar fashion if it wasn't for sugar daddy owners?

 

[anchan1989]

You are a bit negative here.
That 5 players is bull and we know it. The rich players made pressure there and so on.
BUT you still have the spending cuts, the cuts in CL money and cuts into their salary.
AND if FFP would be a joke, clubs like Chelsea wouldnt take it seriously. But they do. And that is miles better then what we had last summer.
Even Monaco needed to sell James to buy someone. If they do it in the first place.
The situation got better. UEFA showed that they punish the big guys. Not as hard as I wanted it too.
But so what. As long as they keep it lower in the future.

 

[BobbyManc]

You are a bit negative here.
That 5 players is bull and we know it. The rich players made pressure there and so on.
BUT you still have the spending cuts, the cuts in CL money and cuts into their salary.
AND if FFP would be a joke, clubs like Chelsea wouldnt take it seriously. But they do. And that is miles better then what we had last summer.
Even Monaco needed to sell James to buy someone. If they do it in the first place.
The situation got better. UEFA showed that they punish the big guys. Not as hard as I wanted it too.
But so what. As long as they keep it lower in the future.

But FFP has just made it so instead of the sugar daddy clubs spending big money, it is now the established clubs who can spend big. Just as it used to be. How is that fair? It's just preserving the status of the elite clubs.

 

[Verminator]

I don't see why the fact Toure didn't get a new contract contradicts my point? It would be worse if he got a new contract as it would demonstrate the power of the player, effectively saying pay me or sell me. City did neither (thus far).

It's all very good saying this but let's be honest, look at the league winners before Abramovich took over Chelsea. You really think it wouldn't have carried on in a similar fashion if it wasn't for sugar daddy owners?

1) If City didn't pay to keep him, how does that prove that only a sugar-daddy club could? It proves my point re Bilbao, Atletico, Porto won't sell unless happy with the fee and won't be forced.

2) United and Arsenal may have remained in the top 4 (but for Moyes this is still the case), but other clubs switched to take the other places. Places that are virtually cemented by the richman's toys.
How many different teams finished top 4 prior to Chelsea's windfall, and more recently City's, and how many after?
I haven't the time, but I'd guess that there was more variety before, wouldn't you?

 

[BobbyManc]

1) If City didn't pay to keep him, how does that prove that only a sugar-daddy club could? It proves my point re Bilbao, Atletico, Porto won't sell unless happy with the fee and won't be forced.

2) United and Arsenal may have remained in the top 4 (but for Moyes this is still the case), but other clubs switched to take the other places. Places that are virtually cemented by the richman's toys.
How many different teams finished top 4 prior to Chelsea's windfall, and more recently City's, and how many after?
I haven't the time, but I'd guess that there was more variety before, wouldn't you?

I see what you're saying but I mean City could tell Toure he isn't going anywhere and he and his agent would know that the club are in a financial position to reject any bids for him. Let's say Barkley wanted to leave, could Everton tell him he isn't going anywhere with the same effect?

The fact there was more variety before is compensated by the fact there is more variety now in the league winners and it just goes to show that getting that 4th place isn't enough to turn you into title contenders if so many different teams were regularly finishing 3rd and 4th.

 

[Brightonian]

Barkley only fully proved his ability last season. He won't be there within a couple of season if he progresses as he should and that is a crying shame. How is it fair that Real Madrid can consistently spend over £50m on a player yet Everton are in a position where they nurture a player and make him world class only for him to be poached by an established side? The only way that can be prevented is a 'sugar daddy' owner taking over them. Look at Southampton right now. One way it can change is the redistribution of champions league money but as Platini admitted, in order to disband the G-14 he had to agree not to reconsider the way the champions league money is distributed for at least a few years.

Again you mention Southampton but you haven't addressed my point about the differences between Southampton's situation and Everton's which have made it possible for the latter but not for the former. You talk as if Barkley's already been sold but there's absolutely no indication he's going anywhere this summer, which, as I said, is the third summer in a row that big teams have initially started to sniff around him before being firmly rebuffed.

And you can't compare the Ronaldo situation to the Rooney one. United are hardly mugs, and they were in a position to dig their heels in. It's only because it obviously was more convenient for everyone if he left that it happened. Everton were not afforded that luxury.

What a load of bollocks. You think it was 'convenient' for us to lose Ronaldo. No. Given the choice, there's absolutely no way we would have sold him. Unfortunately Real were going to get him one way or the other. We managed to convince him to stay for another season and then sold him for a big fee. Similarly, Everton got a big fee from us for Rooney. The two situations are essentially the same. And if your only evidence that Everton are being 'ripped apart' is the sale of an eighteen-year-old Wayne Rooney for £30m ten years ago, you'll understand why I don't take that very seriously.

The problem with this argument is that people don't understand the difference between successfully bridging the gap between the big teams and 'the rest', and bridging it over the course of one or two seasons. Obviously you can't do the latter. If you could, there'd be no such thing as a 'big team', with an entirely different shape to the league every season. No-one wants that - there have to be some rewards for success, or the whole competition falls apart. But as Everton have shown, it is possible to slowly work your way up over time by sensible financial management and hard-won success on the pitch.

Obviously the system is by no means perfect. I believe the distribution of TV money should be much more even both in the domestic leagues and the CL. But it's incredibly defeatist to say 'it's hard for small teams to improve until they're up amongst the big boys, so we should scrap FFP and just let sugar-daddies be the sole route to success.'

 

[Verminator]

I see what you're saying but I mean City could tell Toure he isn't going anywhere and he and his agent would know that the club are in a financial position to reject any bids for him. Let's say Barkley wanted to leave, could Everton tell him he isn't going anywhere with the same effect?

The fact there was more variety before is compensated by the fact there is more variety now in the league winners and it just goes to show that getting that 4th place isn't enough to turn you into title contenders if so many different teams were regularly finishing 3rd and 4th.

Everton are under no obligation to sell Barkley. If they were then tempted, it would be because they were getting what they considered to be value.
If City got a reasonable bid for Toure they would sell regardless. He is coming to the end of his career, and while he may find interest, the money they would be offered, would not likely be enough for City to say yes. Purely that what they would lose from the team would not be sufficiently compensated.
If, say PSG offered them £40m now, I reckon they'd take it. If they offered £25m they might say "No" Liverpool refused £40m for Suarez because he was worth more to them. Then Barca met their valuation.

If the variety of league winners does not affect who is in the UEFA places, less clubs benefit from UEFA money (Which is more closely related to the original discussion. Which was not about league winners, but increased revenue from Europe)

 

[MoBeats]

That

But FFP has just made it so instead of the sugar daddy clubs spending big money, it is now the established clubs who can spend big. Just as it used to be. How is that fair? It's just preserving the status of the elite clubs.

That's bullshit to be fair, if you can achieve it within fair means then you will achieve it, financial doping is not fair means is it? Put simply, you won the jackpot, you did not achieve anything, you did not win your way to the top, you bought it, how is that fair on the likes of Everton and West Ham?

 

[Snow]

But FFP has just made it so instead of the sugar daddy clubs spending big money, it is now the established clubs who can spend big. Just as it used to be. How is that fair? It's just preserving the status of the elite clubs.

How is that fair? What do you mean? You think Nokia should be as big as Samsung because of fairness? It's fair because they did it on the same playing field as anyone else. That's why it's fair.

By your logic it isn't fair that other teams have to play against English teams in Europe. English football is a lot more popular and the TV money there is so much higher. No fair.

 

[BobbyManc]

How is that fair? What do you mean? You think Nokia should be as big as Samsung because of fairness? It's fair because they did it on the same playing field as anyone else. That's why it's fair.

By your logic it isn't fair that other teams have to play against English teams in Europe. English football is a lot more popular and the TV money there is so much higher. No fair.

So it's fair that the established clubs at the time football became commercially huge are effectively allowed to dominate simply because they were in the right place at the right time? Take away sugar daddy clubs and that's exactly what would have happened.

You can't compare a football club to a business like Samsung or Nokia because the whole point of football I'd like to think is to be entertaining. It isn't entertaining if the same two teams are competing for the title every season.

 

[Snow]

So it's fair that the established clubs at the time football became commercially huge are effectively allowed to dominate simply because they were in the right place at the right time? Take away sugar daddy clubs and that's exactly what would have happened.

You can't compare a football club to a business like Samsung or Nokia because the whole point of football I'd like to think is to be entertaining. It isn't entertaining if the same two teams are competing for the title every season.

Of course you can compare. Samsung went with Android. Nokia went with Windows. Blackberry stayed behind. You know how the story goes. They fail, they regroup, they rebuild. It's not set in stone which is the whole argument against you. United are on top because they are a well run club. Liverpool had the same opportunites from the get go but didn't do the same. Other were smaller so their starting position was a bit more behind but that doesn't mean there isn't a chance. Between 95-00 United weren't leavin other teams in the dust because of TV money or European money. The difference then wasn't nearly as big as it is now. A team that's relegated next season will get more TV and price money than Juventus or about the same.

It's not United's fault that their club is better run and more innovative than anyone else.

It baffles me that you argue about fair when your club is one of the biggest reasons that any of this is a problem at all. Perhaps we'd have seen limits if there weren't sugar daddy clubs but they wouldn't be nearly as drastic and we wouldn't have seen the transfer fees being broken a couple of times per summer. The money is ludicrous because of the sugar daddy clubs and the two clubs of the clubs that were able to fork out similar money.

Only United and Arsenal and Liverpool...Arsenal only got to the top for the same reasons as the other two. Good structure and management. They built their way to the top, they didn't buy themselves there. Atlético did it. Deportivo did it. Valencia did it. Stuttgart did it. Roma did it. Dortmund did it. Everybody did it except PSG, City and Chelsea and some other teams in smaller leagues. They are anamolies in football history.

 

[anchan1989]

But FFP has just made it so instead of the sugar daddy clubs spending big money, it is now the established clubs who can spend big. Just as it used to be. How is that fair? It's just preserving the status of the elite clubs.

Dortmund shows how you do it. Steady good work. Its hard but you get there.
And if Bayern, United or Real made good work for decades they deserve it. Like you when you built yourself a house and so on.

 

[Brightonian]

But FFP has just made it so instead of the sugar daddy clubs spending big money, it is now the established clubs who can spend big. Just as it used to be. How is that fair? It's just preserving the status of the elite clubs.

So fix the system. Don't just replace a hierarchy based on earned financial muscle with one based on the depth of an owner's pockets. That's defeatist, and despite the flaws in the first system the second is worse. FFP is a few stitches in a cut. Just because there are other bigger cuts to stitch up doesn't mean FFP is a bad thing. No sane person thinks sugar-daddy owners are a healthy answer to football's financial competition problem.

 

[Steve the Red]

Interesting to see how this commercial investment will be used for FFP, if at all.

£1bn investment into building 6,000 homes around Manchester. Great for Manchester either way.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/city-regeneration-plans-welcomed-new-7319549?

We should wait and see the real figures on how much city or aduig contribute to the project.
city fans talk about the £140m they spent on the community with their Etihad complex, when less than 10% of their money was not spent on city.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Manchester City FC have plans for global brand domination

The Sky Blues may have won the battle against arch rivals and neighbours the Red Devils on the pitch but now Manchester City wants to gain supremacy off it in the financial arena by building a profitable global sports business, even surpassing that built by Manchester United.

When Abu Dhabi royal and billionaire Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan bought the Mancunian football club in 2008 from its Thai owner Thaksin Shinawatra, City was in a precarious state. But from the outset it was clear that in Sheikh Mansour, the club had secured a fabulously wealthy owner with the vision and deep enough pockets to buy it the success its ardent fans had long desired.

A survey of Premier League clubs conducted by Telegraph Sport in 2012 found that between 2008 and the end of the 2011 season, Manchester City spent around £930m turning its franchise around.

Since then that figure will only have increased, along with the club’s stable of world-class players and its trophy cabinet, which now includes two coveted Premier League titles.

But the next phase of Manchester City’s transformation could be even more startling as it seeks to climb the game’s money tables by building an international network of teams from the North of England to New York and Melbourne in Australia.

“The journey from 2008 to 2012 is incredible and it’s very difficult to take the club from where it was, investing in players at a time when it was much harder to convince players to come here than it is now,” says chief executive Ferran Soriano in an interview with the The Sunday Telegraph. “That job was already done when I came here. Now we’re taking another step, building a winning team that we believe will not only win in Europe but also build this global organisation.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...C-have-plans-for-global-brand-domination.html

 

[Hemil]

Jesus Christ, How do Man City find their finances from?

Their turnover is 346.5mn from 2013-14 and only 23mn losses. ( which contains 16mn from FFP fine). Chelsea's turnover for same period is 318.9mn.

Matchday revenue - C - 71.5mn M-41.5mn

Broadcasting revenue - C - 129.7mn M-133.2mn

Commercial revenue - C - 119.7mn M-165.8mn

Where is this commercial revenue coming from?

Their revenue is more than Chelsea's and still they are at a loss when Chelsea are at 18mn profit.

 

[Flying_Heckfish]

Jesus Christ, How do Man City find their finances from?

Their turnover is 346.5mn from 2013-14 and only 23mn losses. ( which contains 16mn from FFP fine). Chelsea's turnover for same period is 318.9mn.

Matchday revenue - C - 71.5mn M-41.5mn

Broadcasting revenue - C - 129.7mn M-133.2mn

Commercial revenue - C - 119.7mn M-165.8mn

Where is this commercial revenue coming from?

Their revenue is more than Chelsea's and still they are at a loss when Chelsea are at 18mn profit.

They can basically write whatever number they like, if they need the money the owner and his pals back home will find it.

The real question is, will UEFA and FFP wave all of it through?

 

[NoLogo]

So they are going to buy Messi next year then?

 

[limerickcitykid]

They can basically write whatever number they like, if they need the money the owner and his pals back home will find it.

The real question is, will UEFA and FFP wave all of it through?

I imagine Uefa will be happy enough to just take the 16m from fines.

 

[antihenry]

So they are going to buy Messi next year then?

Messi would be a difficult get even for a brilliant team of marketing geniuses at City. However, if they manage to land a highly profitable sponsorship from ABU Dhabi Swanky Shoes I can definitely see it happening.

 

[Distracted Steward]

I remember reading that under FFP sponsorship deals are assessed as what their market value would be. In theory this would spot mega deals being pushed through to balance things out.

I wonder if that same [theoretical] scrutiny is applied to the smaller deals. If Abu Dhabi can't just have one or two bloated sponsorship deals, can they still have a host of smaller deals? Or is their a limit on how much the smaller deals could be worth individually as well as on aggregate? I mean, what's to stop them from having five capital funds and tourism funds five sponsoring them when that would cleary be too diluted for legitimate marketing?

 

[Deleted member 78215]

Jesus Christ, How do Man City find their finances from?

Their turnover is 346.5mn from 2013-14 and only 23mn losses. ( which contains 16mn from FFP fine). Chelsea's turnover for same period is 318.9mn.

Matchday revenue - C - 71.5mn M-41.5mn

Broadcasting revenue - C - 129.7mn M-133.2mn

Commercial revenue - C - 119.7mn M-165.8mn

Where is this commercial revenue coming from?

Their revenue is more than Chelsea's and still they are at a loss when Chelsea are at 18mn profit.

It's fishier than the Pacific, no doubt.

 

[antihenry]

Manchester City finances under scrutiny from Uefa

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...r-City-finances-under-scrutiny-from-Uefa.html

Spoiler

Manchester City's finances are facing renewed Uefa scrutiny after it emerged that the complex structure of its City Football Group parent company is being investigated.

The Premier League champions, who were fined £16million and forced to play with a reduced Champions League squad by Uefa last year for breaking Financial Fair Play regulations, have endured accusations of duplicity in recent days over the contractual situation of Frank Lampard, who will spend the rest of the season at the Etihad Stadium after initially appearing only to be on loan from New York City FC until the end of December.

After proclaiming Lampard’s arrival last August as a loan, the club has now confirmed that the 36-year-old actually signed a year-long City contract, despite fans in New York and Manchester being led to believe that the midfielder had signed for the newly-formed MLS franchise, which is also controlled by CFG.

While the Premier League and City claim that no rules were broken in relation to Lampard, Uefa’s probe into the finances of CFG could lead to further FFP-related sanctions if evidence can be found to prove that the formation of subsidiary companies allowed the club to under-report losses in their 2013-14 accounts.

Two subsidiary companies – City Football Marketing Ltd and City Football Services Ltd – incurred costs, including wages, of £36.7million in the year to the end of May 2014, posting combined losses of £25.9million in that period.

A City spokesperson said: "The examination of the Club's structure and subsidiary companies is a scheduled and routine part of the UEFA monitoring process."

City, who believe themselves to be on course to meet Uefa’s FFP target this financial year having halved losses to £23million, increased their transfer spending on Sunday by agreeing a deal worth up to £28million for Swansea forward Wilfried Bony.

The arrival of Bony takes City’s spending during the winter and summer windows to £83million, with the full fee for Porto defender Eliaquim Mangala now being confirmed as £42million, rather than the £32m reported by the club at the time of his arrival.

 

[Balu]

They spent £42million on Mangala ? Does that make him more expensive than David Luiz?

 

[Sly]

They spent £42million on Mangala ? Does that make him more expensive than David Luiz?

£42 million? I don't even know what to say but it doesn't surprise me when Doyen/Porto are involved. About 1/3 must have gone to the club and rest for the fund and comissions. Football these days...

 

[antihenry]

They spent £42million on Mangala ? Does that make him more expensive than David Luiz?

According to our recent financial report, Luiz cost PSG £40m. So if that article is true, Mangala must be the most expensive defender out there.

 

[Ish]

Why did they lie about the Mangala fee? surely it was always going to be found out, when audited?

 

[Sly]

Why did they lie about the Mangala fee? surely it was always going to be found out, when audited?

We can also find out from Porto's financial results. Porto has to communicate to the CMVM (stock exchange) since they are a PLC. This is probably the reason why they took so long to finish the deal and present him.

 

[JPRouve]

Why did they lie about the Mangala fee? surely it was always going to be found out, when audited?

I suspect that we did the same with Herrera, the transfer fees do not include the taxes and commissions.

 

[Ish]

We can also find out from Porto's financial results. Porto has to communicate to the CMVM (stock exchange) since they are a CMVM. This is probably the reason why they took so long to finish the deal and present him.

Yeah it's a strange one really.

 

[Ish]

I suspect that we did the same with Herrera, the transfer fees do not include the taxes and commissions.

 

[Sly]

Ah here it is, the CMVM link:

http://www.fcporto.pt/Comunicados/VendaMangala11082014.pdf

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 bargain Eh the rest must have went for the fund and agent fees. The typical Doyen shady deal.

 

[JPRouve]

Ah here it is, the CMVM link:

http://www.fcporto.pt/Comunicados/VendaMangala11082014.pdf

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).

Eh the rest must have went for the fund and agent fees. The typical Doyen shady deal.

So, MCFC payed 30m to Porto, only ?
The french press said that he was the most expensive defender but after the transfer i thought that they were maybe wrong. Apparently it was true.

 

[Sly]

So, MCFC payed 30m to Porto, only ?
The french press said that he was the most expensive defender but after the transfer i thought that they were maybe wrong. Apparently it was true.

Yes they pay 30 millions for Porto's part which was 56%. They still had to pay Doyen and agents fee. That's why it reached the 42 million £. A bargain like i said

 

[Balu]

And I thought Benatia was expensive, oh well.

 

[JPRouve]

Yes they pay 30 millions for Porto's part which was 56%. They still had to pay Doyen and agents fee. That's why it reached the 42 million £. A bargain like i said

For a player who played 60 games in 3 years ? That's not serious.

 

[Sly]

For a player who played 60 games in 3 years ? That's not serious.

Well this is the usual on the Porto deals. They don't get much scrutiny from their supporters because they win and this money ball strategy has been efective so far. Let's see the costs for the club in the future. With the FIFA fund prohibition, they won't have the same chances that's for sure. Porto always drove a hard bargain. The other clubs end up paying up to their excessive demands. It's not their problem.

 

[Paolo Di Canio]

So City are setting up subsidary companies to make it look like they are complying with Financial fair play? if true could be in huge trouble with UEFA