Manchester City

[Englander]

Looks like City are going to need instant success if theyre allowed to play European Football.

http://www.independe...re-2100900.html

Manchester City face a much tougher fight than they expected if they are to avoid a ban from European football from 2013 onwards because of a £250m burden that must remain on their books for the next five years.

Uefa has told The Independent that this nine-figure sum, accrued from recent transfers, cannot be written off as a loss on next year's accounts alone, but must be spread over the length of the relevant players' contracts. As a result, the club must rethink its strategy as it hopes to meet the terms of Uefa's Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations, which demand that, from 2013, clubs must lose no more than £13m per year or risk being shut out of all European competitions.

Uefa's calculations are made as an average over a rolling three-year period and, though this would allow some flexibility, City's recent spree means they will be starting each year until 2015 some £50m in the red, before they spend another penny. The club acknowledges privately that "a huge challenge" lies ahead to meet Uefa's break-even targets.

Uefa's head of club licensing, Andrea Traverso, the man in charge of monitoring, has told The Independent that any "wipeout" of historic spending would "be seen as a way to circumvent the rules, and that is not allowed".

The news comes as City's Manchester rivals, United, publish accounts today that are expected to comply comfortably with FFP, not least because they make enormous operating profits. A British record figure of more than £100m for 2009-10 is expected when United post their latest results, even though the overall losses are expected to be tens of millions as a result of interest payments, plus exceptional currency exchange losses and refinancing fees.

The FFP rules dictate that clubs must effectively break even from 2011-12 onwards, when monitoring begins. Two seasons of finances will be considered for entry into the Champions League or Europa League in the 2013-14 season. Initial losses averaging £19.6m per year will be allowed, but from 2012-13, losses will be capped at £13m per year (averaged over three-years), and from 2013-14, be capped at £8.7m per year .

The size of City's task is illustrated by the fact they made a loss of £121.3m in 2009-10, and expect losses of £130m-plus in 2010-11. The trend is hugely problematic and the transfer "backlog" is a damaging part.

Because City will not be allowed to clear that in one go, the £250m will have to be amortised (spread out) over five years. In simple terms, City will start every season between now and 2014-15 with a red hole in the accounts averaging £50m per season – for players they already own – before a ball is kicked. If they sign anyone else from now on, the deficit will only get bigger.

Amortisation of transfer spending is a necessary requirement under FFP regulations relating to British clubs. It makes no difference if City have actually already physically handed over all the money to the selling clubs for the players they have brought in. For accounting purposes, the fees need to be amortised over the length of the players' contract.

The £250m is an estimate calculated by The Independent from data within City's 2009-10 financial accounts, released last week, and has been corroborated by sources with insight into City's financial situation. City's net spending on players including Wayne Bridge, Gareth Barry, Carlos Tevez and Yaya Touré since June 2008 has been £332.6m and the gross spending far higher.

City hope to meet the FFP requirements by achieving giant leaps in income, especially from Middle East firms; by playing Champions League football for the next two years (a sizeable earner); and by producing their own young stars for the first team and for sale in the near future. But there are no guarantees of success – and other challenges. The biggest of those is a wage bill that grew to £133.3m in 2009-10, which alone was greater than City's entire income of £125m. That wage bill is expected to rise to around £160m in 2010-11; again that bill is expected to be close to the club's total income.

In 2009-10, the club's operating losses – income minus operating expenses, of which wages are the biggest single part – were £55.1m, and will rise.

City argue, with some justification, that owner Sheikh Mansour's investment of hundreds of millions is rebuilding not just a club but a community, with spending on everything from facilities to improved pies, a better website and an academy aimed at nurturing home-grown players. (No other club can better City's figure of fielding seven full England internationals in league games alone this season, albeit not all raised in Manchester).

And if City exceed Uefa's FFP limits solely because of spending before the rules were published, punishment may be reduced if not avoided. But even City insiders acknowledge they have actively chosen to keep on spending in 2010 – on players and wages – on the "if you don't spend, you don't grow" principle.

But as one Uefa source said: "While many clubs have been moving actively towards compliance, it is clear others are still deciding to go the other way... The rules are clear, and when they apply, they will apply."

Other European giants at risk...

Internazionale

The reigning European champions are also the continental kings of spending, with losses of £132m to June 2009, £126m to June 2008 and £178m the year before, or £436m in three years, underwritten by the Moratti family. Gargantuan transfer fees and wages need slashing.

Red Bull Salzburg

Bought by the Red Bull drinks firm in 2006, which has subsidised multi-million pound seasonal losses ever since. Titles have been consistent since (three in five years), under coaches and with players previously out of financial reach. But Uefa will take a keen interest.

Schalke

The Bundesliga deserves its reputation for being well-run financially but Schalke's debt climbed to £121m in their last financial year after losses of £14m. The parent company debt is bigger still at £212m, although that is partly due to stadium funding.

Zenit St Petersburg

Owned and bankrolled by Russia's largest company, the gas firm Gazprom, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on facilities, players and wages since 2005.The Uefa Cup win of 2008 was one result. The spending of £38m during the summer was typical, and unsustainable.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Englander

[Englander]

Bad Tackle for me, but this one below makes De Jong's look like an Aaron lennon tackle..

He ought to be banned for life for that, thats the worst foul ive ever seen, cowardly <deleted>.

[nev]

Looks like City are going to need instant success if theyre allowed to play European Football.

http://www.independe...re-2100900.html

Manchester City face a much tougher fight than they expected if they are to avoid a ban from European football from 2013 onwards because of a £250m burden that must remain on their books for the next five years.

Uefa has told The Independent that this nine-figure sum, accrued from recent transfers, cannot be written off as a loss on next year's accounts alone, but must be spread over the length of the relevant players' contracts. As a result, the club must rethink its strategy as it hopes to meet the terms of Uefa's Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations, which demand that, from 2013, clubs must lose no more than £13m per year or risk being shut out of all European competitions.

Uefa's calculations are made as an average over a rolling three-year period and, though this would allow some flexibility, City's recent spree means they will be starting each year until 2015 some £50m in the red, before they spend another penny. The club acknowledges privately that "a huge challenge" lies ahead to meet Uefa's break-even targets.

Uefa's head of club licensing, Andrea Traverso, the man in charge of monitoring, has told The Independent that any "wipeout" of historic spending would "be seen as a way to circumvent the rules, and that is not allowed".

The news comes as City's Manchester rivals, United, publish accounts today that are expected to comply comfortably with FFP, not least because they make enormous operating profits. A British record figure of more than £100m for 2009-10 is expected when United post their latest results, even though the overall losses are expected to be tens of millions as a result of interest payments, plus exceptional currency exchange losses and refinancing fees.

The FFP rules dictate that clubs must effectively break even from 2011-12 onwards, when monitoring begins. Two seasons of finances will be considered for entry into the Champions League or Europa League in the 2013-14 season. Initial losses averaging £19.6m per year will be allowed, but from 2012-13, losses will be capped at £13m per year (averaged over three-years), and from 2013-14, be capped at £8.7m per year .

The size of City's task is illustrated by the fact they made a loss of £121.3m in 2009-10, and expect losses of £130m-plus in 2010-11. The trend is hugely problematic and the transfer "backlog" is a damaging part.

Because City will not be allowed to clear that in one go, the £250m will have to be amortised (spread out) over five years. In simple terms, City will start every season between now and 2014-15 with a red hole in the accounts averaging £50m per season – for players they already own – before a ball is kicked. If they sign anyone else from now on, the deficit will only get bigger.

Amortisation of transfer spending is a necessary requirement under FFP regulations relating to British clubs. It makes no difference if City have actually already physically handed over all the money to the selling clubs for the players they have brought in. For accounting purposes, the fees need to be amortised over the length of the players' contract.

The £250m is an estimate calculated by The Independent from data within City's 2009-10 financial accounts, released last week, and has been corroborated by sources with insight into City's financial situation. City's net spending on players including Wayne Bridge, Gareth Barry, Carlos Tevez and Yaya Touré since June 2008 has been £332.6m and the gross spending far higher.

City hope to meet the FFP requirements by achieving giant leaps in income, especially from Middle East firms; by playing Champions League football for the next two years (a sizeable earner); and by producing their own young stars for the first team and for sale in the near future. But there are no guarantees of success – and other challenges. The biggest of those is a wage bill that grew to £133.3m in 2009-10, which alone was greater than City's entire income of £125m. That wage bill is expected to rise to around £160m in 2010-11; again that bill is expected to be close to the club's total income.

In 2009-10, the club's operating losses – income minus operating expenses, of which wages are the biggest single part – were £55.1m, and will rise.

City argue, with some justification, that owner Sheikh Mansour's investment of hundreds of millions is rebuilding not just a club but a community, with spending on everything from facilities to improved pies, a better website and an academy aimed at nurturing home-grown players. (No other club can better City's figure of fielding seven full England internationals in league games alone this season, albeit not all raised in Manchester).

And if City exceed Uefa's FFP limits solely because of spending before the rules were published, punishment may be reduced if not avoided. But even City insiders acknowledge they have actively chosen to keep on spending in 2010 – on players and wages – on the "if you don't spend, you don't grow" principle.

But as one Uefa source said: "While many clubs have been moving actively towards compliance, it is clear others are still deciding to go the other way... The rules are clear, and when they apply, they will apply."

Other European giants at risk...

Internazionale

The reigning European champions are also the continental kings of spending, with losses of £132m to June 2009, £126m to June 2008 and £178m the year before, or £436m in three years, underwritten by the Moratti family. Gargantuan transfer fees and wages need slashing.

Red Bull Salzburg

Bought by the Red Bull drinks firm in 2006, which has subsidised multi-million pound seasonal losses ever since. Titles have been consistent since (three in five years), under coaches and with players previously out of financial reach. But Uefa will take a keen interest.

Schalke

The Bundesliga deserves its reputation for being well-run financially but Schalke's debt climbed to £121m in their last financial year after losses of £14m. The parent company debt is bigger still at £212m, although that is partly due to stadium funding.

Zenit St Petersburg

Owned and bankrolled by Russia's largest company, the gas firm Gazprom, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on facilities, players and wages since 2005.The Uefa Cup win of 2008 was one result. The spending of £38m during the summer was typical, and unsustainable.

What city fans do not realise is the club runs at massive losses,what there chairman makes is personal and not what the club generates.

At the end of the day the club is worth shit and they do not even have there own stadium as collateral.

[mrbojangles]

What city fans do not realise is the club runs at massive losses,what there chairman makes is personal and not what the club generates.

Nev, for fekks sake you nutter. We City fans know EXACTLY what the situation is and how much the club generates. Once again it shows your arrogance that you can even contemplate knowing more than we know about our own club. We know that we are VERY lucky that we have an owner who is absolutely wadded and doesn't have to borrow money against the club's assets and paying massive interest rates to just keep afloat. You soooo wish that you were in a similar position. Go on. I dare you to say that you prefer to be in the current position you are in, to ours.

At the end of the day the club is worth shit and they do not even have there own stadium as collateral.

Nev, I am surprised at that amateurish response from you. At the end of the day, if Liverpools buyout is a success (which I personally hope it is)then that only leaves your bunch of muppets at risk of going absolutely broke. If you think you own your ground, you are truly in denial, as you well know, it is mortgaged up to the hilt and you know what a default on a mortgage payment means!!

You own your ground, less than we own ours because our owner could buy the ground outright if he wnated to. Could yours? See here, for what our owners plans are, to regenerate the area. It puts the cost of buying the ground into a total non event. http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/manchester_city_announce_billion-pound_investment/

He doesn't need to pump in all that money to the local area but he wants to. What have your owners done to the local area? I'll tell you what....NOTHING. Apart from make you all wear yellow and gold colours as a show of disgust. Unlike your owners, ours is a true businessman, the deal we have on renting the ground would make it madness to buy it outright.

[nev]

What city fans do not realise is the club runs at massive losses,what there chairman makes is personal and not what the club generates.

Nev, for fekks sake you nutter. We City fans know EXACTLY what the situation is and how much the club generates. Once again it shows your arrogance that you can even contemplate knowing more than we know about our own club. We know that we are VERY lucky that we have an owner who is absolutely wadded and doesn't have to borrow money against the club's assets and paying massive interest rates to just keep afloat. You soooo wish that you were in a similar position. Go on. I dare you to say that you prefer to be in the current position you are in, to ours.

At the end of the day the club is worth shit and they do not even have there own stadium as collateral.

Nev, I am surprised at that amateurish response from you. At the end of the day, if Liverpools buyout is a success (which I personally hope it is)then that only leaves your bunch of muppets at risk of going absolutely broke. If you think you own your ground, you are truly in denial, as you well know, it is mortgaged up to the hilt and you know what a default on a mortgage payment means!!

You own your ground, less than we own ours because our owner could buy the ground outright if he wnated to. Could yours? See here, for what our owners plans are, to regenerate the area. It puts the cost of buying the ground into a total non event. http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/manchester_city_announce_billion-pound_investment/

He doesn't need to pump in all that money to the local area but he wants to. What have your owners done to the local area? I'll tell you what....NOTHING. Apart from make you all wear yellow and gold colours as a show of disgust. Unlike your owners, ours is a true businessman, the deal we have on renting the ground would make it madness to buy it outright.

Touched a raw nerve there hey mate,only telling it as it is! no club has had a easier ride than city get given a free ground and a rich sugar daddy,and then laugh at there neighbors plight.

And tell me why khaldoon wants a change to european soccer(football <deleted>)to adopt a more american approach,european football is doing fine we do not need a rich arab comming in trying to change football as it is.

[mrbojangles]

Touched a raw nerve there hey mate,only telling it as it is!

Of course you touched a nerve. The pure arrogance that a United fan states "What city fans do not realise is the club runs at massive losses,what there chairman makes is personal and not what the club generates" as if you know everything about our club and we don't know nothing.

no club has had a easier ride than city get given a free ground and a rich sugar daddy,and then laugh at there neighbors plight.

A) 34 years of winning nothing is not an easy ride. B ) The Ground isn't free at all. We paid circa 30m pounds into it and we pay a % of gate reciepts of crowds over 35,000. C) Yes, we know we are lucky to have a rich sugar daddy, it's what most teams dream of. D) of course we're going to laugh at our neighbours plight. Just like you all did when we were getting relegated not long ago.

And tell me why khaldoon wants a change to european soccer(football <deleted>)to adopt a more american approach,european football is doing fine we do not need a rich arab comming in trying to change football as it is.

In fairness nev, I don't think he is trying to change football (as in the game), he was just commenting on the economic state of European football and I think he has a pretty valid point (although I don't know very much about the American financial model). However, the new rules instigated by Plattini and co. (who are not rich Arabs !!) coming in 2013, are coming in specifically for the reason he has stated. So blame it on them

Edited October 9, 2010 by mrbojangles

[carmine]

Touched a raw nerve there hey mate,only telling it as it is!

Of course you touched a nerve. The pure arrogance that a United fan states "What city fans do not realise is the club runs at massive losses,what there chairman makes is personal and not what the club generates" as if you know everything about our club and we don't know nothing.

no club has had a easier ride than city get given a free ground and a rich sugar daddy,and then laugh at there neighbors plight.

A) 34 years of winning nothing is not an easy ride. B ) The Ground isn't free at all. We paid circa 30m pounds into it and we pay a % of gate reciepts of crowds over 35,000. C) Yes, we know we are lucky to have a rich sugar daddy, it's what most teams dream of. D) of course we're going to laugh at our neighbours plight. Just like you all did when we were getting relegated not long ago.

And tell me why khaldoon wants a change to european soccer(football <deleted>)to adopt a more american approach,european football is doing fine we do not need a rich arab comming in trying to change football as it is.

In fairness nev, I don't think he is trying to change football (as in the game), he was just commenting on the economic state of European football and I think he has a pretty valid point (although I don't know very much about the American financial model). However, the new rules instigated by Plattini and co. (who are not rich Arabs !!) coming in 2013, are coming in specifically for the reason he has stated. So blame it on them

Its about time Mr BJ that you and Nev had your own thread

What should be deeply worrying for Utd fans is their obvious potential to go the same way as Liverpool. Little or no difference between the Glasiers, Hicks and Gillett.

[Englander]

Little or no difference between the Glasiers, Hicks and Gillett.

The difference is the Glaziers are racking up debt in a way the Hicks/Gillett could only dream of, and seem to have better bankster friends at organising finance.

Man City fans must be loving watching Manure slowly move into bankruptcy, 80 million a year after making 100 mill profit, and the cheeky <deleted> tries telling the fans everything is tickityboo,

[carmine]

Little or no difference between the Glasiers, Hicks and Gillett.

The difference is the Glaziers are racking up debt in a way the Hicks/Gillett could only dream of, and seem to have better bankster friends at organising finance.

Man City fans must be loving watching Manure slowly move into bankruptcy, 80 million a year after making 100 mill profit, and the cheeky <deleted> tries telling the fans everything is tickityboo,

Very true. And its very plain to see that Glasier does'nt give a #$%* what Utd fans think. Sadly they are not far behind Liverpool.

[Englander]

Little or no difference between the Glasiers, Hicks and Gillett.

The difference is the Glaziers are racking up debt in a way the Hicks/Gillett could only dream of, and seem to have better bankster friends at organising finance.

Man City fans must be loving watching Manure slowly move into bankruptcy, 80 million a year after making 100 mill profit, and the cheeky <deleted> tries telling the fans everything is tickityboo,

Very true. And its very plain to see that Glasier does'nt give a #$%* what Utd fans think. Sadly they are not far behind Liverpool.

I feel a little for Manure fans as they did protest against the Glaziers before the take over, but there is something inside that smiles at seeing Liverpool and Man U in so much trouble.

[carmine]

Little or no difference between the Glasiers, Hicks and Gillett.

The difference is the Glaziers are racking up debt in a way the Hicks/Gillett could only dream of, and seem to have better bankster friends at organising finance.

Man City fans must be loving watching Manure slowly move into bankruptcy, 80 million a year after making 100 mill profit, and the cheeky <deleted> tries telling the fans everything is tickityboo,

Very true. And its very plain to see that Glasier does'nt give a #$%* what Utd fans think. Sadly they are not far behind Liverpool.

I feel a little for Manure fans as they did protest against the Glaziers before the take over, but there is something inside that smiles at seeing Liverpool and Man U in so much trouble.

I think Liverpool will get out of the shit. Broughton is up to dealing with Hicks, but old man Glasier is a right piece of work.

Thanks to the good old FA for letting these odious franchise hoods (so right and proper) into our football league.

[nev]

Very true. And its very plain to see that Glasier does'nt give a #$%* what Utd fans think. Sadly they are not far behind Liverpool.

I feel a little for Manure fans as they did protest against the Glaziers before the take over, but there is something inside that smiles at seeing Liverpool and Man U in so much trouble.

I think Liverpool will get out of the shit. Broughton is up to dealing with Hicks, but old man Glasier is a right piece of work.

Thanks to the good old FA for letting these odious franchise hoods (so right and proper) into our football league.

True the FA is to blame for the mess,most of my mates have jacked it in watching united given up thee season tickets and will not pay a brass razoo to watch united to service the glazers debt.and a lot a united would gladly see unied win nowt for a few years even relegation if it meand getting rid of those parasites the glazers.

[LeungKen]

Very saddened to hear of your loss,

R.I.P. "Big Mal"

[carmine]

Sad news today about "BIG Mal" passing away. One of the truely great characters of the game.

[mrbojangles]

Indeed. One of the true great characters. But he certainly lived a long and colourful life. R.I.P Big Mal.

[mrbojangles]

Indeed. One of the true great characters and he certainly lived a long and colourful life. R.I.P Big Mal.

Edited October 16, 2010 by mrbojangles

[nev]

Indeed. One of the true great characters. But he certainly lived a long and colourful life. R.I.P Big Mal.

Yes R.I.P. he was a great character indeed!

[mrbojangles]

city doing what city do best.

Hey nev. Do you remember this post when we lost to West Brom Away, in the Carling Cup. They're not as <deleted> as you thought are they

[nev]

city doing what city do best.

Hey nev. Do you remember this post when we lost to West Brom Away, in the Carling Cup. They're not as <deleted> as you thought are they

No mate they are a good side and matteo is proving to be a good manager,fair play to them today to come to united and play like that.

I am more pissed off by the fans who booed the team off at the end,spoilt pricks just because we did not win,wish they would piss off and support another team,the real fans are staying away now,and we get glory hunting fans buying tickets at 40quid a pop and booing the team off.

Sorry to have a rant on the city thread mate.

Where is the man united in decline thread.

[JacknDanny]

Indeed. One of the true great characters. But he certainly lived a long and colourful life. R.I.P Big Mal.

RIP Big Mal. :jap:

I had the good fortune to meet him, and got to know him quite well around '96.

Used to share a bottle of wine on many an afternoon, in a place called Yarm.

The guy was as genuine as anything, and would talk for hours about everything. He was passionate as well as being hilarious.

A great raconteur..... sadly there are not too many that are like him anymore

[carmine]

Bit lucky yesterday chaps?

[MSingh]

Bit lucky yesterday chaps?

Not really, no Referee's over ruling perfectly good Lino decisions in that Game..

[mrbojangles]

I'll tell you what chaps. Any team that underestimates Blackpool, do so at their peril. They played out of their skins. What I am impressed about, is the way City ground out a result whereas last year we would have either drawn or lost that game.

[smokie36]

I'll tell you what chaps. Any team that underestimates Blackpool, do so at their peril. They played out of their skins. What I am impressed about, is the way City ground out a result whereas last year we would have either drawn or lost that game.

I'd agree with this. Blackpool are a good side to watch as well. A fine result for City yesterday.

[mrbojangles]

I'll tell you what chaps. Any team that underestimates Blackpool, do so at their peril. They played out of their skins. What I am impressed about, is the way City ground out a result whereas last year we would have either drawn or lost that game.

I'd agree with this. Blackpool are a good side to watch as well. A fine result for City yesterday.

Yeah they are a good side to watch. Holloway has them playing football, unlike the Stokes of the division (thugs with a good throw in). However, I do fear after xmas for Blackpool as they haven't got any depth. Hopefully they can bag a load of points before they get any injuries.

[MSingh]

They might be good to watch & they are, but they'll go down..

I'd be more concerned about City's performance yesterday which was awful..

Great to get the 3 Points of course but if you play like that against Arsenal next week, they'll rip you to shreads..

[Englander]

. What I am impressed about, is the way City ground out a result whereas last year we would have either drawn or lost that game.

Man City's players and the way they are set up means theyll only ever grind out results, its the Italian way.

[mrbojangles]

. What I am impressed about, is the way City ground out a result whereas last year we would have either drawn or lost that game.

Man City's players and the way they are set up means theyll only ever grind out results, its the Italian way.

Who is your team BTW Englander?

[alfieconn]

Bit lucky yesterday chaps?

Not really, no Referee's over ruling perfectly good Lino decisions in that Game..

Here's another rule that you have learnt today Singher, courtesy of Mr Poll :

The offside law states that a player who is in an offside position, as Gallas clearly was, must either interfere with play or an opponent or gain an advantage from being in that position.

FIFA has defined that a player must actually play the ball to be deemed to be interfering with play and referee Dean, from his better position, knew the deflection was by Baird and so Gallas could not have interfered with play.

He also saw that Gallas was not in the line of goalkeeper Mark Schwarzer's vision and so was not, in FIFA's terms, interfering with an opponent.

After sensible consultation Dean and Yerby agreed that the goal was legal. It was Dean and Yerby's experience which led to this correct outcome and not pressure from players as also suggested.

Edited October 18, 2010 by alfieconn

[Englander]

. What I am impressed about, is the way City ground out a result whereas last year we would have either drawn or lost that game.

Man City's players and the way they are set up means theyll only ever grind out results, its the Italian way.

Who is your team BTW Englander?

Im wanting Man City to win the league this year, its just theyre akin to getting head off an ugly girl, in that it feels nice at the end but its not very nice to watch, maybe Rooney and a creative central midfielder could change that.

He's left his boyhood club so ive no doubt he'd happily jump from red to sky blue.