They don't spend that every year. Their revenue from TV money, sponsorships dictate that they can spend upwards of that amount no? I mean, why can't City go and do that if they've the money? Just seems daft to me.
BBC Sport: La Liga asks Uefa to investigate Man City's financial fair play
- Thread starter #07
- Start date
Plus recouping half that in player sales, plus the highly paid players they released this summer due to being at the end of their contracts.
This is simply not true. Platini and UEFA were always very clear about their stated intentions. Reigning in expenditures from clubs who couldn't afford it and from those who got sugar daddy injections were both within their stated purview.
If they are giving you a pass without doubt. Also, most likely they audit accounts fairly but, ultimately, deciding whether certain arrangements comply with reality (in terms of amounts received for their sponsorship agreements) is not the part that they emphasize on. As long as numbers add up they give zero fecks about how unlikely comparable organisations are to receive similar deals.
Question to you, if City have unlimited money and it appears that they genuinely wanted Evans, why didn't they get him? Why did West Brom's asking price put them off? Could it be that they are operating on the same playing field as everyone else and trying to stay in budget?
Indeed.
So you have no answer?
See edited bit.
Well to be fair there's a big difference in a government bailing out their city's football team and some prince using unlimited money to build up a football club. The problem isn't that PSG and Man city owners have spent over a billion dollars, the problem is that it doesn't seem like this is going to end. In Madrid Real are a source of entertainment and jobs in city, so it's far fetched but understandable that a city would help their club in the time of financial troubles.
You're missing the point. I don't complain about City or PSG getting money from their owners. My problem isn't with those two clubs but rather with UEFA that seemed unable or unwilling to enforce their own rules.
When he took over, Abramovich was spending his money, just like many people before him, but there was no FFP back then, so it was legit. When it was announced, Chelsea took measures to change their approach altogether in order to meet the new guidelines by the time they will have been enforced. We have been living off our own generated income for years now, our sponsorships are connected to our success on the pitch, not to our owner's pockets. Of course, his huge investment in the beginning allowed us to break into the Europe's elite and win trophies, but he couldn't dip into his pockets even if he wanted to fo quite some time now because we'd be in trouble with FFP. Chelsea have to sell in order to buy and has a little net spend over the last few years. City, for example, can spend hundreds upon hundreds every summer because they're backed by an oil state. Remove all the companies related to their owners and they'll lose a lion share of their "income".
So, its not really comparable to Russian observers in the Crimea then?
With regards to your last sentence, how do you explain Uefa's decision to declare PSG's Qatar sponsorship as 'inflated'?
Similar.
Edit: oh and they were not Russian but rather "Independent" too, but you're not buying that because it is just ridiculous, right?
You probably one of those who believe that Credit Agencies were not involved in Global Financial Crisis because "Independent". You're naive on the purpose I guess.
Not only that, when Arsenal said the deal for Sanchez was off why didn't City up the £60 million bid to, say, £70m or £75m in order to try and force Arsenal's hand? Surely a club that supposedly doesn't care for FFP wouldn't have had any qualms about doing this but instead City walked away instead of going that extra mile to try and get the deal over the line.
The truth is that City are operating well within FFP parameters these days and a lot of the arguments on these pages, while perhaps being valid some years ago when our wages to income ratio was far worse than it is now, are outdated.
There's more than a little truth in @Chesterlestreet post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Financial_Fair_Play_Regulations
I do not see how this is even plausible after a £220m outllay on transfers in 1 summer.
I don't agree with FFP to be honest.
But PSG and City have been mugging UEFA off for years and the square route of feck all has been done about it. Not expecting anything to change.
But PSG and City have been mugging UEFA off for years and the square route of feck all has been done about it. Not expecting anything to change.
£100m in sales and 20 players being removed from the wage bill?
I'm curious to know which organisation you are going to cite next as being equivalent to one of the world's leading auditing companies?
Awwww, diddums. Your owner is on record as being one of the ones who went skriking to Platini about other clubs spending big money on players and that he and UEFA had to bring in something to curb it. Ironic much? I bet he wouldn't have been in favour of FFP if it had been brought in back in the summer of 2003.
And City don't get hundreds of millions of revenue from companies linked to our owner every year. The profile of the club has grown to such an extent that if we were to put the Etihad sponsorship deal on the open market today, we could easily get more money for it. However, there's not a chance Mansour will do that because both parties have benefitted hugely from that deal and he's hardly going to jettison the national airline of his own country in order to chase a few more quid.
Anyway, what are you going to do now that you can't sell your fringe players to Chinese clubs for hugely inflated fees?
City's annual wage bill is still in excess of £220m, add that to the £220m transfer outlay and it just doesn't add up.
How much was the airline sponsorship deal worth in the end, £350m wasn't it?
Around £100 million recouped in sales plus far more players have been sold/released than have come in. Amortisation is your friend on this and incoming transfer fees are amortised over the length of a player's contract. We won't be able to spend that kind of money every summer of course but there shouldn't be any need to as much of the squad re-building is complete.
Those were world's leading credit rating agencies? Almost forgot to reiterate "Independent" too as you highlighted.
It must be nice living in your world, hope you never experience a rude awakening.
It could be a case of la Liga deflecting attention from their clubs?
PSG is being investigated, the Spanish clubs are already in bother, so it might be a case of them not waiting for he knock on the door and they are saying to the FFP people, "never mind us, get over to rainy Manchester and find out what and who are Man City paying and where is the money coming from, you know they were giving away free tickets last season, oh and (Psst) whilst you're there, tell Man United to sell De Gea to RM, or we will 'stiff' the UK in the Brexit negotiations, we have good friends in the EU you know!"
Partially due to inflated sponsorship contracts with related parties?
Although, to be honest, I am not wholly convinced of the merits of FFP. United would obviously benefit in the short term but the league in the later Ferguson era would have been about as interesting as the SPL without the challenge of Chelsea and then City. And I doubt we would have won in 2008 without the spur provided by Abramovich and Mourinho.
This. It's a good battle to fight.
Further to my other post, a £220 million transfer spend will be amortised over the length of the contracts so assuming all are 5 year deals, the cost on the books is £44 million per year. This is standard accountancy practice. At the same time, incoming fees hit the books all in one go. Add in all the wages of outgoing players being removed from the books and City's transfer activity this summer isn't quite as extreme as some are pointing out.
Someone get a violin out, poor Real Madrid can't buy a Ronaldo or a Bale every year.
How on earth were a club like City ever going to challenge someone like Madrid without substantial outside investment? It's quite amusing to witness the likes of Madrid throw their toys out of the pram now they have to see what it's like when another club can afford to offer ridiculous sums of money.
I also keep seeing this second point getting made, but how true is it? Monaco won the French title last season and PSG are yet to reach a CL final, while City have won the league twice since the takeover and only once given a decent account of ourselves in Europe. Money does not guarantee success, and it's not like Madrid, United (who have a higher net spend than City this summer, I might add), and Barcelona still can't compete in the market. You know, City wanted Mbappe this summer, but got blown away by both the transfer fee and wages PSG were willing to offer (that's not to say Mbappe did not prefer a move to Paris anyway). Do I give a feck? No, that's football, that's business, and if PSG can afford to pay that and it's within the rules, then good luck to them.
I do, however, believe that a fairer system should be introduced to football, but it would never be accepted by the top clubs, and that includes the likes of City and PSG as well as Madrid and United.
Though it's already less than ours?
It's already reported UEFA are not going to investigate Manchester City anyway, UEFA can no more be seen to publicly pander to the will of La Liga than they can be seen to let PSG off the FFP noose.
What if, like last season, it doesn't work out as expected and City finish 4th once again? Surely with FFP firmly in mind, anything less than a league title to bring home will be considered a resounding failure. If, as you say, City cannot afford to go all guns blazing in the transfer market next summer, how will they improve the squad in order to challenge for that elusive title?
Unless you're hoping Abu Dhabi can find alternate means of investing vast sums of money back in to his club, rather than doing it via his airline.
As I said earlier for me city and psg mean feck all and I hope they are punished but I don't support spanish clubs in this case. The truth is they have acted like babies who didn't get their toys. I can't take them seriously.
It's like every rich guy who feel threatened the moment the other rich guy comes and refuses to be bullied .
It's clear FFP is a scheme to try to preserve the status quo. But in any business, sometimes there are investors who come in and have different plans and invest heavily in the long term, and established players need to shape up or be left behind.
Regardless of what Real and Barca have done in the past, they are right. Clubs like City and PSG are making like difficult for other clubs by inflating prices in the transfer market.
And yes, there is a huge difference between spending big money that you have earnt vs spending oil money. UEFA should either take action against such clubs or outright remove FFP. It's only fair that other clubs can compete too. If this continues, the only way I can see football heading towards is billionaires owning all the big clubs in the future.
And yes, there is a huge difference between spending big money that you have earnt vs spending oil money. UEFA should either take action against such clubs or outright remove FFP. It's only fair that other clubs can compete too. If this continues, the only way I can see football heading towards is billionaires owning all the big clubs in the future.
Funny you should say that as I was going to add that if most or all the new signings flop then we will have a problem for sure. There aren't any excuses for finishing 4th and way off the title pace.
Don't take the term unlimited money literally. Of course they will have a limit. It's just that the limit of City is so big compared to other clubs. They are definetly not operating on the same playing field because most clubs earn the money that they are spending. Not like City who are being funded by a state.
Absolutely.
United haven't exactly been shy with regards to money spent on transfers this summer and it's fair to assume the board, the shareholders and indeed the sponsors will be expecting something in the way of a reward for their investment.
Like how you dodged the last line, though
Not dodged it purposely. If City have a shite season relative to our squad strength, I can't see him doing that. The only extra money he'll be putting up is for Pep's and Txiki's one way plane tickets back to BarcelonaAbsolutely.
United haven't exactly been shy with regards to money spent on transfers this summer and it's fair to assume the board, the shareholders and indeed the sponsors will be expecting something in the way of a reward for their investment.
Like how you dodged the last line, though
I'm very comfortable living in a world where I don't believe there is any commonality between Manchester City's auditors and 'independent observers' in a Crimean referendum.
City and PSG will obviously be dead against the idea of altering the the current system as it would very likely have an adverse affect on their transfer outlay, but to suggest United and/or Real would be against it is flatout lunacy. Perez and the Glazer will be heading the the queue to see changes made.
I do think a "fairer system" is on the agenda, though. As to what that could be I have no idea.
I have always been against FFP (for rich clubs, not the intention of helping small clubs not going bankrupt), it is pretty much a political decision for me. And I know I am right considering that Barca and Madrid are on the other side.
The complaints from La Liga are nothing short of pathetic, and have nothing to do with the fair play, but everything to do about helping Barca and Real. Last year they complained about money on England (and there was nothing unfair about the money in England), next year they will complain that other clubs are out bidding the referees.
As far as I know, the clubs that have been mostly affected from City's spending (the traditional big English clubs like United and Liverpool) never complained about City's spending and called it unfair, but clubs thousands of km away throw their toys cause they are not the biggest bully in the football. As with Neymar's circus, I say, feck them.
"LaLiga, the association of Spain’s top football teams, is pleased that UEFA has opened a formal Financial Fair Play (FFP) investigation into Paris Saint-Germain (PSG). The investigation comes after LaLiga formally requested such probes into PSG and Manchester City FC (Man City) in August.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
“PSG is a habitual offender and has been violating UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations for years,” said LaLiga President Javier Tebas. “It is important that UEFA doesn’t just look at the most recent player transfers, but at PSG’s history of noncompliance. The transfers are merely the result of years of financial doping at PSG.”
LaLiga requested UEFA investigate the infringement of FFP regulations by PSG and Man City in separate letters dated Aug. 22, 2017. In the letters, LaLiga lays out that the financials of both clubs have no basis in the realities of the market. Specifically, both PSG and Man City benefit from sponsorships that make no economic sense and lack any fair value.
“PSG and Man City’s funding by state-aid distorts European competitions and creates an inflationary spiral that is irreparably harming the football industry,” said Tebas. “UEFA must enforce FFP regulations to avoid discrimination among clubs.”
LaLiga calls on UEFA to proceed with its investigation, taking into account the full history of PSG’s actions. Additionally, LaLiga calls on UEFA to open a similar investigation into Man City."
EDIT: Nothing new, I didn´t realize this is the statement that BBC was talking about