Financial Fair Play discussion

moomba

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Posts
52,241
Likes
15,632
Location
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City
Pretty much every response for comment from us has been met with the same reference to our original statement - club policy not to comment on alleged stolen or hacked emails etc etc.

I'd imagine that will be the case even if UEFA start an investigation.

They can ask specifics about contracts and things like that, but if the question is "are the emails real?" I suspect they'll get a "club policy is not to comment" type answer.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Posts
34,375
Likes
14,056
Location
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, Liverpool, Victory
Pretty much every response for comment from us has been met with the same reference to our original statement - club policy not to comment on alleged stolen or hacked emails etc etc.

I'd imagine that will be the case even if UEFA start an investigation.

They can ask specifics about contracts and things like that, but if the question is "are the emails real?" I suspect they'll get a "club policy is not to comment" type answer.
How do you get time to post on here with your role as official FFP club spokesperson?
 

WealstoneRaider

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Posts
12,862
Likes
7,194
AFL Club
Hawthorn

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Posts
34,375
Likes
14,056
Location
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, Liverpool, Victory
If that's true it really shows just how bad our game has become. Sponsorship deals are supposed to be genuine sponsorship deals - not funded by some rich arsehole in the ME who couldn't give two rats about 50m euros like it is $100 to you or I. Surely the UEFA CFCB won't allow the likes of PSG to launder their own money through other clubs as "sponsorship" with what they are already guilty of.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Posts
52,241
Likes
15,632
Location
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City
Unless the allegation is that Napoli will then sell on the cheap to PSG, any sponsorship deal won't affect FFP.

And if they did sell on the cheap, UEFA/FIFA are well within their rights to null the transfer.

All for an FFP benefit of less than £10m a year.

Sounds like bollocks to me.
 

Magma

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Posts
40,220
Likes
28,663
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide Bloods, Man City.
adl always wants money up front, and lots of it. if he's been turning down 100 mil for koulibaly, and after getting 50 mil for jorginho, he'd want about 70 mil upfront for allan. a dodgy sponsorship to pay off a transfer fee over some years would mean nothing to him.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Posts
34,375
Likes
14,056
Location
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, Liverpool, Victory
adl always wants money up front, and lots of it. if he's been turning down 100 mil for koulibaly, and after getting 50 mil for jorginho, he'd want about 70 mil upfront for allan. a dodgy sponsorship to pay off a transfer fee over some years would mean nothing to him.
Yeah you are probably right. ADL wouldn't give a shit about PSG's end of the deal, he just wants his big transfer fees in full and up front. No need for him to help them out selling their player at a dodgy lower value tied into a dodgy sponsorship deal.
 

ADL9798

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Posts
11,199
Likes
12,080
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool
adl always wants money up front, and lots of it. if he's been turning down 100 mil for koulibaly, and after getting 50 mil for jorginho, he'd want about 70 mil upfront for allan. a dodgy sponsorship to pay off a transfer fee over some years would mean nothing to him.
78DFE847-D836-44A9-8EDC-413DA8BEDFFE.jpeg
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Posts
52,241
Likes
15,632
Location
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City
I think the problem for Liverpool in this set of accounts (if there can be a problem with a £100m+ profit is that it's almost entirely down to a profit on player trading (£124m). You don't want to be selling a Coutinho, Mane, VVD, Salah etc every year.

And that was a year when they made a champions League final. This Bayern Munich tie might be more important to the bottom line than we think.

Especially as the wage bill would have increased a fair bit with the signings of Allison, Keita, Fabinho etc as well as a few increased/improved deals for existing players.

But £100m is going to make a fair dent in the cost of stadium redevelopment which will help the bottom line for years to come.
 
Last edited:

glenferry23

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
20,110
Likes
22,932
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Arsenal, New York Yankees
It’s very difficult to get an accurate gauge on City’s actual wage bill, given the number of entities in the Group that expenses are shuffled around in.

But Liverpool’s increase is understandable given the recent investment in their squad. Thought Arsenal’s would be a tad higher too.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2017
Posts
1,134
Likes
1,192
Location
All over the place
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool Boston Celtics Victory
It’s very difficult to get an accurate gauge on City’s actual wage bill, given the number of entities in the Group that expenses are shuffled around in.

But Liverpool’s increase is understandable given the recent investment in their squad. Thought Arsenal’s would be a tad higher too.
Man City taking the piss.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Posts
52,241
Likes
15,632
Location
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City
It’s very difficult to get an accurate gauge on City’s actual wage bill, given the number of entities in the Group that expenses are shuffled around in.

But Liverpool’s increase is understandable given the recent investment in their squad. Thought Arsenal’s would be a tad higher too.
From memory it's about £20m in wages that are paid by other companies (City Football Services and City Football Marketing) and charged back to the club.

2018 figures for the subsidiaries should be out in March.
 

ADL9798

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Posts
11,199
Likes
12,080
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool
I think the problem for Liverpool in this set of accounts (if there can be a problem with a £100m+ profit is that it's almost entirely down to a profit on player trading (£124m). You don't want to be selling a Coutinho, Mane, VVD, Salah etc every year.

And that was a year when they made a champions League final. This Bayern Munich tie might be more important to the bottom line than we think.

Especially as the wage bill would have increased a fair bit with the signings of Allison, Keita, Fabinho etc as well as a few increased/improved deals for existing players.

But £100m is going to make a fair dent in the cost of stadium redevelopment which will help the bottom line for years to come.
I highly doubt we received the full whack of the Coutinho transfer fee up front, and without having gone through the report with a fine toothed comb would expect more of the uplift in income came from our run to the CL final and associated broadcast revenue / prize money, but aside from that I agree with everything else you’ve said.

I’m grateful as a fan that the owners have chosen to re-invest so much of this short term windfall (the Coutinho sale, the CL final, etc) back into the squad, giving us a better chance to make this uplift more sustainable in the mid-long term, in turn giving us a better chance of continuing to challenge for and (with any luck) win silverware.

Looking at other clubs and indeed our own experience under Hicks & Gillett, owners don’t always operate like that. City fans are fortunate in that respect too, albeit through a slightly different business model.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom