http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/07/manchester-city-dominate-yaya-toure Are they?..With the FFFP ruling set to be in place plus the fact that they will no doubt beat a Man Utd team to the title that,to be honest has not been the best this season, on goal difference are they really set for the kind of dominance set by the likes of us and Liverpool? I congratulate City on there achievement and all the best to them.But haven't we heard the same rumblings from Blackburn,Arsenal and Chelsea? No doubt the WUM's will regard this as being bitter but football is about winning whilst building for the future. A process we have in spades. (This is on the UTD board as no one's on the City board )
City might earn short term success but FFP will be the end of them. Look at Chelsea now a couple seasons after the billions stopped flowing in. They seem blissfully adamant FFP will not effect them, or their lawyers will find a way round it. But UEFA has it all stitched up nicely with the European courts.
How much more do City need to spend in order to maintain a challenge at the top, or even reside at the very top for the next few years? How much of this spending will not be hampered by the FFP? For example club infrastructure (ground development and youth development)? People think, or perhaps just merely hope, that the FFP will be the end of City. Only time will tell on that. But what has to be stated that had the FFP never been proposed, then City's spending wouldn't have been as much in such a short space of time. People tend to not realise this. In this respect, the losses that the club has posted so far, while undoubtedly huge, will have no bearing upon the club's ability to function within the FFP guidelines should they actually come to fruition.
Its cost £930million so far to finish level on points with a poor United side. I would think another £250million will be needed just to remain at that level and that means City will need to increase profits by about £500million. Its not happening. Anyway, the chance of Uefa banning City is very real, very high and with chairmen coming out and already putting pressure on UEFA to sort City out the chances of them existing as they do now in 10 years is slim. Leeds, Pompey, SOuthampton, Rangers......all clubs who spent well outside their means and look at whats happened to them. Only Saints have recovered. Uefa have always banned clubs who are not good with their finances. To think they wont do it because City are rich is laughable. Uefa are rich and have the backing of FIFA who inturn have the backing of Qatar who of possibly richer than Abu Dhabi. City have to raise 180million this year.....its not happening. With the rules being new then Uefa will have to act tough initially ( much like refs early in the season ) and that will mean the harshest punishments. I find it hard to believe that people dont realise that City are the reason for these rules and Uefa will take great pleasure in showing who is boss. Summer 2014 will be the summer of sales at City, every player they have will be sold. Of course they may choose to dominate the PL but the the PL and the FA would just adapt the same rules as the rest of football is doing...the FFP, meaning they would be stopped from doing that. All I can say is for now congratulate City and tell their fans to enjoy what remains of their club.
TBH..my point was this. Before FFFP a lot of clubs have challenged but haven't maintained an era of dominance. City will now try an do this but the key thing for me is Liverpool have a massive following, as well as United which helps maintain a clubs stability.(Bad buisness/management is a factor in this.)Will City, once they have a bit of success be able to maintain and bulid upon that? We have been able to become a worldwide "brand" due to personnel such as Best,Charlton,Law,Beckham,Giggs,Cantona,Ronaldo and Rooney as well as many others! Because FFFP will come into force and City may(if possible)be able to find a way around them.But,will this still make them evolve as a club to be able to dominate for years?
City are unsustainable. To be sustainable they would need to have more fans that United, Madrid and Barca combined.
City are liaising with UEFA in order to placate any concerns that UEFA may have in regards to the club. It is not so much a case of City having to find a way around them, simply a case of City being able to function within them should they come into full effect. With the current squad in place, only tweaking need now occur, and of course the club has many saleable assets. Further to this, the club has reported revenues that have almost doubled since the current owners took control, and that's before any revenue for the Champions League is taken into account, or indeed any increases in sponsorship/tv rights. This all points to a club that has in place a structure that can potentially dominate for a few years - the question will however remain -- how will the club be able to compete at the highest level once the current squad exceeds its peak. That's where the development of the clubs infrastructure comes into play, i.e. the longer term goals of the club and its owners. Only time will tell how productive that longer term investment (which isn't hampered by the FFP constraints) will become. Is City as a club as profitable as United? Clearly not. Will it ever be. Most probably not. Are City are more attractive brand than United? Again, I wouldn't say so, and I doubt City ever will be. At least not in our lifetimes. But one thing can not be ignored. City are evolving. City are expanding. Will this mean that the club will dominate forever (or for a few decades like United have done)? Only time will tell. I would suggest that it would be very difficult to do so, but not impossible.
If City dominating, means them finishing level on points with one of the poorest United sides ( injuries included ) in the last 10 years, then let them dominate. Surely you guys don't think that City will beat us home and away next season do you. A draw in one of those fixtures this season and we would have won the title. I'm not taking anything away from City, good luck to them, but don't write United off just yet, it's closer than you think !
This is a pretty fair analysis imo. Last season City spent around £320 million with revenues of around £150 million. Fair to assume that City have boosted revenue this year to around £200 million what with the CL, extra sponsorship etc, and probably maintained spending around the £320 million level. I doubt they will suddenly slash their spending and sell all their players next year, and I doubt they'll get an immediate ban, but UEFA will expect to see an ongoing improvement in their financial position if City are going to make any sort of case for complying with FFP. In short, I'd expect City to spend at a similar sort of level next year, probably around the £280-300 million a year mark for the next four or five years until they can grow their revenues to catch up. Over the same period, Utd should be able to maintain around a 7-10% revenue growth rate, so within a couple of years we should be up around the £400 million mark and able to comfortably spend the same as City per year. By that point Arsenal and Chelsea should also be back up to speed and knocking on the door. That'll be when it gets interesting. After all, as Chelsea showed in 2007 and onwards, it's not always enough to just tweak a winning squad if players get complacent or if form starts to drop.
To comply for the first season of FFP City need to slash losses of £194million down to £19million or less. Uefa have not made a decision on whether the stadium deal will be accepted and are the only plausible way for City to reach that level is to sell sell sell. Their wage bill is far more than their revenue and no matter what, until this changes they wont fair well under FFP. Offloading players will be tough aswell with only a handful of clubs willing to pay their players wages. Uefa will need to be seen to be acting tough with these rules and for clubs like City who have the money to make a mockery of a weak Uefa they will have little option but to ban them, possibly suspended for a year or 2 so they have a warning period where they literately sell everyone. Can they do without Champions League football under the FFP rules, will they beable to attract decent players or sponsors if they are banned or on the verge of being banned? Everything Uefa is doing points towards them using all their might to challenge overspending and careless spending in football. It could all be for show but what does that earn uefa in the future. FFP will be great PR for them if it helps even slightly clean up footballs financial mess.
That is quite simply not correct. Firstly, the losses reported by City in the clubs last disclosed accounts include the wages of every player signed and the contract that they signed. Every single contract signed (and not renewed) before June 2010 (which in City's case relates to players such as Tevez, Adebayor, De Jong, Barry, Lescott, etc) will NOT be included in the figures that are submitted to UEFA, and are discounted as part of UEFA's FFP proposals. Secondly, the losses that City have incurred (and that have been disclosed so far) have absolutely no bearing in regards to the FFP. The FFP came into effect for this season, meaning that it will be the next financial figures released that will be the first to come under scrutiny. Furthermore, there is a 3 year period in which clubs have to submit these figures. In this period, under the FFP guidelines, losses of no more than 45 million Euros will be accepted. What that means is that in the first year a club can make, for example, 100 million Euro loss, but in the next 2 years it has to reduce these losses so that over the entire 3 year period the losses IN TOTAL do not amount to more than 45 million Euros. Further to this, clubs have to post figures that show a year on year reduction in losses, and in turn a year on year increase in profits.
"Probably maintained spending around the £320 million level" -- on what basis do you make this comment. In terms of transfers, the last year spending on transfers shows a net spend of around £50 million (not taking amortisation into account). The previous year saw a net transfer spend of around £120 million (again, not taking amortisation into account). Between these two years, the revenue of the club had increased approximately 40%. In regards to UEFA expecting to see an ongoing improvement in a club's (any clubs) financial position, you are absolutely correct. One of the proposals put forward by UEFA in light of the FFP is that clubs do make a year on year improvement in their accounts. What is crucial in this respect, and this affects all clubs, is that even though UEFA's FFP proposals propose that clubs post losses of no more than 45 million Euros over the next 3 years, even if a club falls within this guideline, if, say, in year 2 of that period they post figures that are worse than they were in year one, they will not meet the FFP guidelines laid down and thus will be susceptible to a degree of punishment that has been clarified by the UEFA. That punishment could include a fine, or a banning of individual players from competing in UEFA-led tournaments, or expulsion from a UEFA-led tournament. In that respect, every single club is at danger of falling foul. Not just City. But people are seemingly not aware of this. They instead focus on the more transparent factors of the FFP, and in turn conclude that the only clubs who would ever suffer from it are clubs such as those run by rich owners. That is an incredibly short-sighted view, and one that is ignorant of the actual plans laid down.
I agree with this. It's a bit sad to see so many clinging to FFP when with a few half decent signings we can just simply beat them on the pitch.
The wages do not count for the first year only, then on top of Citys wage bill of £150million that will be counted another £50million will be added, next year all wages are added. City dont make any profits, they make massive massive losses and are only in existence now thanks to their owner, if his financial support was removed now City would be gone by tomorrow. The monitoring period started this season and Novembers accounts will almost certainly show City have made similar losses ( stadium deal is unlikely to be counted in Uefas FFP assessment as its massively over valued for a club like City ). Nice that you think a club can suddenly make more money than United, Real and Barcelona in just one season but its not happening, ever.
I think if we spend 60-80 mill this summer, regardless of what city do, we will be better than them next year. The problem is if/ WHEN we DONT
Any club posting huge losses is at risk. Not once, ever in the history of the earth has anyone ever given any indication they thought otherwise. United dont post losses, we dont spend well beyond our means as do a number of clubs.
Who is clinging to anything, City have tried to force an issue that other teams work ****ing hard for. **** them. They will get what they deserve on and off the pitch.
You're the one quoting figures (in as much as what City need to slash). So you tell me, what will City's wage bill be in the year after the next financial reports are issued? I don't want to hear any estimates, because quite frankly such figures mean nothing. Do not talk rubbish like this with me. Will it? You don't know that. You can assume, but never once should you present it as fact. Did you read my previous comments in this thread? I don't think that City can make more money than United. Do not create a straw man with me either.
