Citys wage bill in total is around £200million, £52million of it is not counted in the first monitoring period due to the timing of the signing but after that all wages of all players regardless of when they were signed. Their wage bill is more than their revenue, much more. Take away Citys owner right now, they wont exist for very long, how do they pay anyone, or buy anyone or even pay police for home games? He is propping them up, not just slightly but completely. Considering FFP rules are set out to stop owners pumping silly money into clubs how do you expect City, who are lets face it a small club with a very small fan base and currently making no profit at all, to exist without this man. They would be worse off than Pompey are. Players would leave in droves and City would owe these players millions in wages long after they left unless they agreed to wipe that debt. They dont own their ground so if it came to it then their training facilities could be sold in order to assess any problems but again it would be a short term solution. The chances of City becoming self sufficient by the time the FFP are implemented is zero. Chances are they will spend like mad again this year and the players who are likely to leave either will only go with City paying some of their wages or simply wont leave until their contract runs down. These players are on the whole mercs, money is the number one priority and playing is just a bonus. I said almost certainly, that implies its not a fact, just very likely. To meet the FFP regulation then City would have to make more profit than United, Real and Barcelona combined. Its not going to happen simply because these are the 3 biggest brands in football and if they cant reach that level yet, then like **** City will.
UIR, your post is littered with nothing but presumption. How will City continue to exist without their owners? Are you seriously asking that question? If the worst comes to the worst, they will sell off their assets at a reduced cost, may even struggle financially for a few years, which will no doubt hamper their ability to remain a Premier League club challenging for honours, or even a Premier League club at all. But cease to exist? Do not be over-dramatic here. Besides, the very premise is nothing but wishful thinking. City's owners are going nowhere, and even if they did decide to sell, they would sell to someone who could afford the club. You say that City are a small club with a (quote) "very small fan base". What planet are you on? Very small fan base? Just stop with such stupid comments. As for making no profit, it was always going to be the case, given the ambitious and expensive plans of the owners, that City wouldn't make a profit in the first few years of their ownership of the club. Does that mean that the club will never make a profit? No it doesn't. It is simply an example of a very common business plan that is evoked in many businesses in order to enable such businesses to grow and become successful. And City not owning the ground is completely irrelevant. It's on a long term lease, and earns both Manchester Council and the club itself x-amount in revenue. What, like they did last year? City's net spending last summer was not at all different to the spending of other clubs. A net spend of around £50m. In this day and age, there is nothing excessive about that, and in comparison to the previous spending seen at City can hardly be considered "mad". And I thought you were being ridiculous before. This comment really takes the biscuit. More profit than those three clubs combined? Just stop. Think. and then **** off with your ridiculous claims.
The first season of FFP will largely be a starting point imo. City will be able to avoid accounting for the costs of contracts signed before 2010 as well as the amortisation charges etc etc. And UEFA will want to be seen to be fair rather than going nuclear right from the off. Most likely scenario is that City are found to have made losses of around £80 million with all the exclusions they are allowed. UEFA will then agree a plan whereby City agree to get their losses roughly in line with FFP by the end of the first three year period and in return they get a fine or transfer restrictions rather than being banned from the CL. It'll be if they don't stick to that plan that they'll get banned from Europe. Sorry, I meant costs around the £320 million level. City in 2010/11 had revenue of £150 million, costs of £320 million, loss of £170 million. Assume around £40-50 million of that loss will be written off as excluded being pre 2010, assume costs will go up with the CL money by around £40-50 million this season, so losses next year of around £80 million. That will be outside the strict criteria, but like you say as long as City are making progress towards meeting FFP they are likely to only get a fine or similar for the first few years. I think they'd only get a ban if UEFA warned them and fined them, and they continued to spend like they didn't care. This is true, but remember that FFP is not against club's making losses, it is against those losses being funded by debt or equity injections from owners or . A club with a big cash pile, like the £160 million Utd had at the end of last season, could easily make short term losses as long as they aren't pumping external money into the club to cover them. Also, stuff like Utd's bonds and Arsenal's stadium debt costs would be excluded cos they relate to the cost of acquiring the club and the cost of the new stadium, so they aren't included in the footballing costs. Ironically enough, Utd and Arsenal could actually go into administration under the weight of their debts without falling foul of the FFP rules!
