Manchester City reveal £121m loss
- Thread starter BBC Sport
- Start date
- Replies 26
- Views 1K
What has that (^) got to do with anything?
I wonder how much impact this will have on City..
Also @gavstacey, not really, since they've lost £121 million I doubt they can make that up in interest, especially not every month :S
Also, they spent more on wages since last season than their entire turnover.
Will Mancini finally stop spending, and settle with a team of ready-made world class players?
I wonder how much impact this will have on City..
BBC SPORT said:
Also @gavstacey, not really, since they've lost £121 million I doubt they can make that up in interest, especially not every month :S
Also, they spent more on wages since last season than their entire turnover.
Will Mancini finally stop spending, and settle with a team of ready-made world class players?
Financial fair play means, ManCity cant afford losses in 2 seasons. They have a long way to go to cover it up. They might stop spending but their wage bill is very huge, so still might end in red.
to he honest, you should have put in a link to the article on fair play rather than two images that will probably annoy city fans
It was not to annoy anyone tbh. Everyone has read that article, so just posted pic and second one is that **** Platini hates English clubs so thats another sign of warning for City.
This is what i was thinking.. I just didn't really understand as well though lol...
UEFA set to introduce new financial fair play rulings from next year
"It means rich owners will have to have an equitable stake in a club rather than loaning it vast sums of money.
Clubs also agreed that they will not be able to owe each other money, nor will they be allowed to compete in Europe if salaries have not been paid to players or non-playing staff."
Last edited:
Ah I see, still though, their wages are ridiculous, especially now Tevez has been made captain and given an extended deal - I imagine he is one of the top 5 if not the top earner in the country.
Surely if we looked at Chelsea in the first few Roman years we would see something along these lines?
Man City won't spend like this every season, once they start making champions league money we will see a massive difference in the turn over.
Like every developing company, at first you need to make a loss before you make a profit.
Man City won't spend like this every season, once they start making champions league money we will see a massive difference in the turn over.
Like every developing company, at first you need to make a loss before you make a profit.
Their losses are a record:
"The financial losses, up from £92.5m for the previous year, represent one of the heaviest in Premier League history.
Wage costs of £133m exceeded a turnover of £125m, which in the vast majority of businesses would be unsustainable."
And who says they'll be in the Champions League in the near future?
This must be really worrying.City's wages for the period were £133million, which was actually £4million more than the club's turnover of £129million.
The figures also do not include the summer expenditure, or the wages, following the arrivals of the likes of Yaya Toure,David Silva,
Jerome Boatengand Mario Balotelli.
martinbissett
The Blue Named Mod !
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 864
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Surely they cant keep going like this
Yeah I am not disputing the losses, but stating that Chelsea would have had the record before Man City got money. Yet now that Chelsea have been about with the big guns for 6-7 years everyone forgets about that.
very true, but then chelsea at that point didnt have to comply with upcoming financial rules, im sure theres a ruling on wages being linked to turnover?
Jack Fulham
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I'm not a 100% clear on the financial fair play rules but surely if the club is not in debt, then it should be fine. I mean it all the cash comes out of Sheik Mansour's pocket, not some loaned money from some bank. You should probably worry about your own club before you start looking into Man City's.
nope actually the rules arent anti-debt, as long as the debt is being serviced, the club is fine, however city are in danger of falling foul of the rules
The Basics
It should be borne in mind that the new FFPR relate only to Champions League and Europa League, and not to domestic league, participation. Each club that believes it can qualify for that season’s European competitions must, prior to the beginning of that season, apply for a UEFA Club Licence. From the 2013-14 season, the licence stipulations will include adherence to the FFPR. Until the 2013-14 season, there are no sanctions for breaching the FFPR.
The FFPR will therefore start to bite from the 2013-14 season. The rules need to be borne in mind from the 2011-12 season onwards because the 2011-12 and 2012-13 season accounts are used to determine a club’s licence application in the 2013-14 season. For Liverpool, it means the club is unlikely to take advantage of the loophole that clubs like Manchester City are using for their benefit (i.e. buying this season so transfer spending does not appear in their 2011-12 accounts). Manchester City may still have break-even problems if their wage bill is as astronomical as most newspapers speculate.
The rules also encourage investment in youth development and infrastructure. Such infrastructure includes stadium and training ground development and expenditure in a club’s academy. Any club has the incentive to spend in these areas, should they wish to participate in European competition, because the FFPR does not count such investment as expenditure for the purposes of its break-even calculation. Therefore, any new funding for the proposed Stanley Park stadium will not impact on Liverpool’s ability to pass the FFPR because such finance would be excluded.
As any potential stadium is not included in UEFA’s break-even calculation, Liverpool’s next owners will be free to plant the first shovel in the ground, safe in the knowledge that higher levels of income will be generated which should aid Liverpool with their break-even requirement. The greater the commercial revenue growth funded by long-term infrastructure investment, the larger the revenue to balance against expenditure.
UEFA has also been at great pains to stress that they are not anti-debt. With Manchester United’s huge reported debt and our own debt inching towards it, Platini placated various debt-ridden clubs with the distinction that so long as the debt is being serviced (i.e. profit is covering interest payments) UEFA does not have a problem. Issues become more delicate when interest payments to service the debt do not cover the profit made. Sound familiar/worrying? From Liverpool’s latest published accounts, its trading profit of £27.4m fell someway short of the £40.1m required to service the interest payments due. The latest accounts certainly show Liverpool Football Club in the wrong type of red.
Chaz Sexington
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
People are confusing debt with loss.
Jack, I'm worried about my club, but Financial fair play is not debt. It is all about spend when you can earn and also you cannot spend more than 70% of the total revenue (Turnover) on wages.