If you cannot rely on investment from an owner then an alternative is to grab as much as you can from the supporters which is what the FFP rules will achieve.

Also on the implementation of FFP, Man city will comply without leaching off the fans..
--------------------------------------
This couldn't be further from the truth.... If the FFP rules are strictly enforced.... The City fans will be first to suffer, either being forced to pay a hell of alot of money to watch their stars play or watch the club fall back to their normal level (or worse, eg Leeds)

comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)

You're making out like it's our fault that United got lumbered with the Glazers and the debt..

comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)

United fans might say its not sustainable but man city will not have such an acute bout of spending again..
----------------------------------------------------

I think you are right there, City have had to spend big in a short period to catch-up up to United et al. However, do City generate enough revenue to pay the large wages that they pay?

comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 42 seconds ago
Vidicchin maybe just once you'll explain why you disagree with something

...........................

It isn't to do with me disagreeing with you, (everyone has disagreed with you) it is to do with the fact that you do not understand what the FFP rules are, and have written a thread about it.

Are you saying Utd won't pay off debt ?? We have a stock plan which the club aims to raise over 600 million, which looks like it may go ahead.

Thus hopefully no debt or a very small debt, leaving more money from our Massive revenue for transfers well within FFP as all our money is club generated, the glazers don't pump any in.

Also allll the prawn sandwich brigade haven't even touched on the fact their club goes against a charter that limits new kit to once every two years..

Wouldn't be too much of an issue had fergie not said anything about city's spending.

so in theory we'll continue to make money from success like we've always done rather than the other way around. great stuff.

'goes against a charter', like ten other clubs in the same division? scraping the barrel now.

Thickinthehead

Do you know how the United shirt deal with Nike works?

comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)

posted 1 minute ago

Also allll the prawn sandwich brigade haven't even touched on the fact their club goes against a charter that limits new kit to once every two years..

Wouldn't be too much of an issue had fergie not said anything about city's spending.
----------------------------------

1. As has been pointed out to you, many clubs bring out a new kit every season.

2. How does United bringing our a new kit every season have any relevance to City's transfer and wage spending?

It isn't to do with me disagreeing with you, (everyone has disagreed with you) it is to do with the fact that you do not understand what the FFP rules are, and have written a thread about it.

----
Actually I haven't written an article about FFP, it's about people using the FFP to say that city shouldn't be spending such sums of money.

And again... You haven't explained why you disagree

Why is man city spending 500m on players worse than man utd spending the same on debt?


comment by Very_Cleverley_Done. (U13761)
posted 47 seconds ago
Are you saying Utd won't pay off debt ?? We have a stock plan which the club aims to raise over 600 million, which looks like it may go ahead.
----
Stock plans that may go ahead doesn't sound like something sustainable...

Thickinthehead

Do you know how the United shirt deal with Nike works?

---

VC just give up mate he doesn't get it, clearly doesn't understand the point of FFP.

Are you saying Utd won't pay off debt ?? We have a stock plan which the club aims to raise over 600 million, which looks like it may go ahead.
----
Stock plans that may go ahead doesn't sound like something sustainable...

---

Beg your pardon ?

Wouldn't be too much of an issue had fergie not said anything about city's spending.
----------------------------------

1. As has been pointed out to you, many clubs bring out a new kit every season.

2. How does United bringing our a new kit every season have any relevance to City's transfer and wage spending?

-----
Read part of my post as above... Why does fergie mention (bitterly I might add) city's spending when the man utd operation isn't entirely ethical?

Cleverly... Relying on stock flotation plans which may or may not go ahead doesn't sound like a solid idea

there's an element of ffp that's there to stabilise the game. I don't know what the sheiks' reasons for adopting city were, why they felt the need to own a football club and what their long term plans are (or Malaga, Chelsea, PSG or the Russian club I can't spell). I don't know if the next generation will be as committed to city as the current one, or if they'll move out of football. No one does.

ffp should stop the scenario where an owner gets bored, has his own financial crisis, dies etc. and leaves a club with massive running costs and no investment (fcked, basically). Clubs will be living within their means, not an unpredicatable benefactor.

There is no denying they have spent a lot of money. I'm not particularly worried about FFP though

----------------------

The guidelines and leniency of the FFP for its first few years actually work a lot in our favour. The losses we disclosed in the last accounts don't matter in terms of the FFP, so those can be discounted straight away. It's the next accounts released where the FFP proposal kicks into gear.

Over the next 3 years, clubs can post losses of no more than £38m (45m euros). That's for the 3 years combined. Even if clubs fall within that figure, they still have to post year on year improvement in their accounts. What that essentially means is that a club could, for example, post £100m losses in the next accounts, £20m losses in the 2nd year, but as long as they post £85m profits in the 3rd year, they will meet the guidelines. However, if they post £100m losses in year one, £85m profits in year two, and £20m losses in year three, the club will fall foul of the regulations, even though the figures at the end of the 3 year period would be exactly the same.

This benefits City to the extent that it allows time for the development of the club. People (naturally) will point to the excess spending, but rarely do I hear mentioned that the revenue levels that the club generates has almost doubled since our owners arrived. And that's before Champions League revenue is taken into account (and indeed the recent sponsorship deals announced by the club). That's a huge improvement. Of course, that will start to level out, but then so too will the clubs spending. We've already seen a reduction in this - £50m net spend last season compared to £120m net spent the season before.

VCD

We are dealing with someone here, who can not swim, and has just jumped head first into the deep end using lead weights as a boyancy aid.

Do you know how the United shirt deal with Nike works?
***

if this has to be explained once more.........!

Cleverly... Relying on stock flotation plans which may or may not go ahead doesn't sound like a solid idea

---

And running at 200% loss, only being able to survive with a sugar daddy pumping hundreds of millions of his own money into the club is ?

What if he decides he's spent enough, and wants to cut back ? all them players on 200k per week might have to take a cut.

Fact is you don't know what's round corner, we might get taken over by Qatar and have even more money than you.

at vidic chin...

"Can't explain won't explain" eh VC?

Direct question..

Why is man city spending 500m on playing staff worse than spending 500m (or more) on debt?

comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)

posted 23 seconds ago

Wouldn't be too much of an issue had fergie not said anything about city's spending.
----------------------------------

1. As has been pointed out to you, many clubs bring out a new kit every season.

2. How does United bringing our a new kit every season have any relevance to City's transfer and wage spending?

-----
Read part of my post as above... Why does fergie mention (bitterly I might add) city's spending when the man utd operation isn't entirely ethical?
-------------------------------------

Selling football shirts is unethical? Even though many other PL teams do the same?

And running at 200% loss, only being able to survive with a sugar daddy pumping hundreds of millions of his own money into the club is ?

-----
Man city posted losses of 200m once.. Are you saying that will happen again?

Why is man city spending 500m on playing staff worse than spending 500m (or more) on debt?

----

My word

The 500 million you spend on staff is NOT you clubs revenue !!!!!!!

The 500 million debt which is actually a lot less than 500 million but lets go with what you say as clearly you are ignorant. That is serviced by the CLUBS revenue