Financial Fair Play

[Jype 6,398]

II don't remember City's loss - I do remember it was astonishing - and it wasn't caused only because of insane high and many new signings.

£150m total losses for the first FFP monitoring period, first a loss of £100m in 12/13 and then £52m last season. Last time they only got a better (yet still pretty bad) result because of the 'sale of intellectual property' for £47m. Whatever the fuck that intellectual property might be, they did state it was only a one-time thing, and without that they'd still have been down by a £100m last season.

For the ongoing financial year City, like every other PL team, will get a massive boost in their broadcasting revenue but will that itself be anywhere near enough to get them closer to breaking even? I wouldn't be so sure...

[pakito 17]

These ffp rules hurts us too in case some have forgotten to notice. So all fans that expect Chelsea to make record breaking signings can forget about it, cause Roman wont be able to pay it himself anymore. So that means that teams that make more money will be able to spend more than us ( curently 5 by far + City also - remember this )

What sucks for everyone is that MC commercial sponsors are deemed to be ok, so that will probably mean soon they will have many new arab sponsors lol, which will only increase their revenue by a lot. If I am not mistaken their owners(family) like almost own Abu Dhabi and they can pretty much order any business to Sponsor Man City if they want, crazy. All in all no wonder why they were saying that they want FFP rules all these years, they are now part of elite clubs and FFP makes sure that another Man City / Chelsea /PSG is harder to come by.

I am glad PSG are fucked a bit since their 200 million or whatever sponsor is deemed not fair value (surprise, surprise ) and fuck off Monaco with your 100 average attendance you are fucked.

And lol @ Barbara, you remind me of those kids who are million miles away from team they ''support'' but they fight between each other and attack other fans, and post crap comments on youtube videos. Emptyhad, Manure, Chelshit etc. Sounds really bitter knowing the fact they sell out every game and have bigger attendance by like several thousands and they are building even bigger stadium. All that while no one really knows how many more people we would have if we had bigger stadium, maybe some part would even be ''empty" ?

[Barbara 15,149]

And lol @ Barbara, you remind me of those kids who are million miles away from team they ''support'' but they fight between each other and attack other fans, and post crap comments on youtube videos. Emptyhad, Manure, Chelshit etc. Sounds really bitter knowing the fact they sell out every game and have bigger attendance by like several thousands and they are building even bigger stadium. All that while no one really knows how many more people we would have if we had bigger stadium, maybe some part would even be ''empty" ?

Are you really sure *I* am the one that remind you of them? Because based in your answer, I may have doubts.

Fact is City stadium often have many empty seats... it was only a joke that you seem to be particularly offended by it...

@Jype, that intellectual thing was one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen, especially given the amount it was paid for it.

How much did City spend in the last window, do you know? And thanks for breaking down their losses for me.

As for the broadcast rights, I posted how much every team made this season in the English Football Thread, but I have no idea how much they used to do. Was the difference that significant?

[Rmpr 8,977]

Ridiculous!

[Rmpr 8,977]

PSG with a big LOL to UEFA and all those people who think FFP is anything but a way Platini created to collect money and leave the already stablished clubs happy...

[Clevemayer 764]

We are fifth Place in turnover only 46 behind Bayern and 35 infront of City so only 4 can spend more than us and ARSENAL and CITY can't

[Fernando 6,458]

Manchester City's plans for next season's Champions League campaign have received a huge boost after it was confirmed the club will only need to name five rather than eight home-grown players in their reduced 21-man squad.

Pressure from the players' union FIFPro has forced UEFA to agree to water down its sanctions imposed against City and Paris St Germain for breaching financial fair play rules.

UEFA had intended that both clubs would only be allowed to have 21 players with eight of those having come through the youth system in their home countries.

UEFA's general secretary Gianni Infantino has now confirmed that instead the clubs will only have to name five home-grown players, a decision which could have a significant impact on City's transfer plans.

Last season, City registered 23 players and used only 21 due to the eight home-grown players rule, so to have this reduced to five means the effect of the sanction on the club has been greatly diluted.

Infantino, in Sao Paulo for the FIFA Congress, told Press Association Sport: "It came after a request from the players union FIFPro saying when you take these kind of sanctions and measures you cannot harm the players and the rights of a player who has a contract for the behaviour of the clubs.

"So we looked at it and it was felt appropriate there for the number to be proportionally reduced as well."

Manchester City and PSG were each fined £49million (60million euro) over three years, which could be reduced to a single year if financial targets are met in the following years.

City said their summer transfer plans would be unaffected by a restriction limit of their transfer spending to a net £49million.

The clubs also have to cap their Champions League squad wage bills at their 2013/4 levels for the next two seasons.

The reduction in the home-grown players limit means City will be able to cope with the expected departure ofJoleon Lescott on a free transfer, with Micah Richards and James Milner also being linked with a move.

Goalkeeper Joe Hart, midfielder Jack Rodwell, left-back Gael Clichy and defender Dedryck Boyata were also named as home-grown players in last season's Champions League squad.

[Madmax 9,219]

What a farce. On what planet is a reduction from 8 to 5 'proportional' to a reduction from 25 to 21?

[Jype 6,398]

Didn't really know where else to put this so here goes. Transfer business of the calendar year 2014 so far, with the assumption that the club manages to finalize the Costa and Luis signings.

OUT: Mata £37m, KdB £18m, Luiz £48m, Eto'o 0m, Lampard 0m, Cole 0m

=£103m

IN: Matic £21m, Zouma £12m, Salah £11m, Fabregas £27m, Costa £32m, Luis £19m

=£121m

Amazing business by the club really, get rid of three good yet still very much unwanted players for a total of over 100m and buy a new spine for the team for roughly the same amount. The club's total wage bill shouldn't be going any higher either with the release of Eto'o, Lampard and Cole who were all definitely on wages of around 150k a week and of the new signings only Costa and Fabregas get close to those amounts. Getting rid of some of the remaining unwanted players such as Ba, Mikel, Moses, Romeu, Marin, Bertrand will also fetch the club a decent amount of money and also free plenty of room in the wage bill so even without any important sales we can make a signing or two while quite possibly still ending the transfer business of the year in profit.

FFP-wise things should be getting interesting because the sales are counted as lump-sum profits after the remaining book value has been taken into account but new buys are amortized over the length of the players' contracts so even with break-even spending the books will still show a significant transfer profit for the year. Add that to the increased broadcasting revenue and other commercial income and I wouldn't be surprised to see the club ending the 14/15 financial year with a profit of over £50m. First is of course the financial year 13/14 where I would also expect the club to be posting a small profit, given the new broadcasting deal as well as the sales of Mata and KdB in January. Time will tell, I guess.

Gone are the days when Chelsea were splashing the cash on players that weren't thoroughly scouted and then sold them for a massive loss when they didn't live up to expectations. Now even the ones who don't make it are sold for hefty profits and the successful players are wanted by every top club in the world! Feels good to be a Chelsea fan at the moment.

[Madmax 9,219]

^ Spot on post and just to quantify this part :

Amazing business by the club really, get rid of three good yet still very much unwanted players for a total of over 100m and buy a new spine for the team for roughly the same amount. The club's total wage bill shouldn't be going any higher either with the release of Eto'o, Lampard and Cole who were all definitely on wages of around 150k a week and of the new signings only Costa and Fabregas get close to those amounts. Getting rid of some of the remaining unwanted players such as Ba, Mikel, Moses, Romeu, Marin, Bertrand will also fetch the club a decent amount of money and also free plenty of room in the wage bill so even without any important sales we can make a signing or two while quite possibly still ending the transfer business of the year in profit.

We've now freed up a staggering 1.009 million per week (Ba 80k, Luiz 75k, Mata 67k, KdB 30k, Essien 100k, Hilario 12k, Cole 120k, Lampard 125k, Eto'o 135k, Benayoun 80k, Sturridge 65k, Malouda 80k, Ferreira 40k) from the wage bill in the last three windows, with just over half : 516k per week (Fabregas 156k, Willian 85k, Schurrle 78k, Matic 70k, Zouma 40k, Salah 30k, Atsu 12k, Traore 25k, Schwarzer 20k) being reinvested into the team, all the while making the squad as a whole much stronger.

Costa and Luis numbers are as yet unavailable, but much of those will be covered anyway by the prospective sales of Lukaku (40k), Moses (30k), Marin (35k), Bertrand (40k), Kakuta (25k), PvA (15k), and who knows, maybe even Cech (100k) and Mikel (75k).

Astounding business by the club.

[Jype 6,398]

We've now freed up a staggering 1.009 million per week (Ba 80k, Luiz 75k, Mata 67k, KdB 30k, Essien 100k, Hilario 12k, Cole 120k, Lampard 125k, 135k, Benayoun 80k, Sturridge 65k, Malouda 80k, Ferreira 40k) from the wage bill in the last three windows, with just over half : 516 million per week (Fabregas 156k, Willian 85k, Schurrle 78k, Matic 70k, Zouma 40k, Salah 30k, Atsu 12k, Traore 25k, Schwarzer 20k) being reinvested into the team, all the while making the squad as a whole much stronger.

Costa and Luis numbers are as yet unavailable, but much of those will be covered anyway by the prospective sales of Lukaku (40k), Moses (30k), Marin (35k), Bertrand (40k), Kakuta (25k), PvA (15k), and who knows, maybe even Cech (100k) and Mikel (75k).

Astounding business by the club.

Quite expensive, the bolded part. Not sure if the club can afford to be paying the new signings £516m / week.

Back to being serious, it really is amazing how much the club has progressed in the last couple of years. Can't even begin to imagine how different things would have turned out if we had lost the CL 2012. Not being able to get players like Hazard would only have been the tip of the iceberg, missing out on the CL money and not being able to negotiate such fantastic sponsorship deals would have been a much bigger loss IMO. Now the club is set for the years to come even without getting a dime from the owner's pocket and it's starting to look more and more likely that even with a lot of big name signings the club will still be profitable. The groundwork for all this was set on that night in Munich little over two years ago.

[Madmax 9,219]

[MichaelDance 552]

I wonder if it's cheaper to show all matches on Chelsea TV instead of Sky sports, etc for our matches. Would be nicer to save money.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

I wonder if it's cheaper to show all matches on Chelsea TV instead of Sky sports, etc for our matches. Would be nicer to save money.

we'd also lose out on a lot of money. being on a major carrier like skysports brings in a viewership CTV could never generate alone. You think neutral fans would buy CTV when they've already got Skysports or BT?

Not to mention broadcasting rights aren't dealt with by the club. iirc, it's the Premier League itself who organises these things, leaving no room for breaking away.

[Term-X 7,891]

we'd also lose out on a lot of money. being on a major carrier like skysports brings in a viewership CTV could never generate alone. You think neutral fans would buy CTV when they've already got Skysports or BT?

Not to mention broadcasting rights aren't dealt with by the club. iirc, it's the Premier League itself who organises these things, leaving no room for breaking away.

True, and even if we put the economic reasons to aside for a second..

The coverage on Chelsea TV is horribly presented, they ruin every season review dvd with their shitty commentary. Competition from Sky/BT etc results in better coverage..

[MichaelDance 552]

we'd also lose out on a lot of money. being on a major carrier like skysports brings in a viewership CTV could never generate alone. You think neutral fans would buy CTV when they've already got Skysports or BT?

Not to mention broadcasting rights aren't dealt with by the club. iirc, it's the Premier League itself who organises these things, leaving no room for breaking away.

Ah so we generate a hefty lot form them alone.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

True, and even if we put the economic reasons to aside for a second..

The coverage on Chelsea TV is horribly presented, they ruin every season review dvd with their shitty commentary. Competition from Sky/BT etc results in better coverage..

Yeah definitely. it's tolerable for preseason, but it really is dull commentary and the coverage could use a massive refurb. Thank fuck FAYC is on ITV4 because even ITV > CTV commentary.

I used to love season reviews by a video uploader called Carefree Chris, who's since gone awol unfortunately.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Ah so we generate a hefty lot form them alone.

Yep, and each season this continues to increase. it's not like Spain where Barca and Real dominate the TV shares, which I think is a flawed system (and why so many Spanish clubs are in the red). It's why promotion to the PL means so much for championship clubs who don't have a massive cash reserve. the TV shares give them a payday tenfold of what they get in lower leagues.