Financial Fair Play Explained | Page 2 | Vital Football

Financial Fair Play Explained

Should our new owners just pay the fine for FFP and get on with it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 55.6%

  • No

    Votes: 16 44.4%
  • Total voters
    36
mike_field said:
Merlin - cash in would be utilised, tickets sold on finance will be money to come in - it wouldn't have been spent yet as he hasn't factored it.
Click to expand...

The problems with the whole thing is what we dont know Mike e.g
How big is the overdraft,how much of it is covering what assets if there is a big overdraft. I have seen a few comparisons on FFP and McParland
and others seem to agree on figures of 30-35 mill. Not including the cuts to this years wage bill already incurred. As others have stated the problem is we cant pay the current bills the Mirror are running a story we need 9 mill by the end of the month my question is if we sell Jack for 20 mill are we fulfilling part of the requirements off FFP and can that cash then be used to pay running costs at the same time .?
 
Re Man City - any deal is possible as long as it's judged as being within commercial market conditions and not an unfair balance based on the companies having a linked owner. That's how Man C did it and if xia had money in recon they'd have sponsored both the stadium and Bodymoor but for a fee that wasn't out of line with other fees for similar 'non linked' sponsorships.

Ie we could've looked at Brighton, other recent stadium/training ground sponsorships etc.

Separate FFP from cash flow Merlin. They are 10000% different issues.

9m by end of month is not FFP related.

30-35m hole is not cash flow related.

Where you are right is that they can exist side by side, any transfer payment in helps to both satisfy FFP but also gives us cash in the bank for cash flow. It wouldn't count towards one or the other, money in as revenue is revenue.

FFP is not a separate pot/account - it's a spreadsheet at EFL HQ.
 
Yup, all transfer deals can be spread over length of new contract - we can negotiate a lower top end fee/or reduce clauses for a greater upfront fee.

That then is split for FFP purposes, true debt purposes as credit etc blah blah and real accounts but initial instalment forms part of cash flow.

Again - as long as my understanding is right - this is where FFP is pointless as they enacted it because if Grealish goes for £20m that's £20m of rebalance on FFP but at best in normal circs we're actually only £4/5m better off if he signs a 4yr deal, until the next instalment cycles round.
 
Again in terms of cash flow and FFP in reality - if we sell an additional 7million pies this season it has exactly the same effect in basic senses, it boosts cash flow from day 1 and down the line it's extra revenue on pie sales from 2016/17 so it chips away at the FFP hole as well.

FFP at the moment is the 'big figure' that's why the press conflate it - our issue is cash flow only. That's what we have to worry about, FFP is irrelevant until the Jan window closes.
 
mike_field said:
Again in terms of cash flow and FFP in reality - if we sell an additional 7million pies this season it has exactly the same effect in basic senses, it boosts cash flow from day 1 and down the line it's extra revenue on pie sales from 2016/17 so it chips away at the FFP hole as well.

FFP at the moment is the 'big figure' that's why the press conflate it - our issue is cash flow only. That's what we have to worry about, FFP is irrelevant until the Jan window closes.
Click to expand...


Sorry Mike no chance of selling the pies Gabbys left.
 
lol

If our owner had money you could even be inventive - personal gift to every fan - free and exclusive 3rd strip shirt - Xia pays full retail, no accountancy kickback on stock taken for personal use etc - just a true personal gift to how many fans around the globe as a thank you.

Oh why did we create a 3rd strip he'd give away, we're doing a limited 1000 one off run only, framed, souvenier etc as a marketing ploy based on new arrangement with Fanatics and Roper this year. Shirts all signed by full playing staff with certificate of authencity + framed team photo for £500.

I believe that would be passable under FFP as well as long as the retail fee was market sensitive and we didn't claim they were suddenly £75 quid.
 
Yup, Man City's parent company sold a stake in the business to a Chinese based PR/broadcast company? or something along those lines in terms of industry to better guarantee them coverage, press, growth in that market a few years back.

With the shares coming from the holding company, it gave them exclusive rights in the Far East to Man C, Melbourne C, New York C etc - she whole shebang and I'm sure it was in the region of £200 odd million for some....

Found it - https://manchestercity.vitalfootball.co.uk/city-gain-chinese-investment/
 
Re overdraft, from memory in the last (2016-17) accounts it was £1m and I believe largely unused.

Don't think banks would be too keen on large overdrafts. Something to smooth out the flow a bit maybe, but otherwise they'd look for bank loans.
 
McParlandTheGreat said:
Re overdraft, from memory in the last (2016-17) accounts it was £1m and I believe largely unused.

Don't think banks would be too keen on large overdrafts. Something to smooth out the flow a bit maybe, but otherwise they'd look for bank loans.
Click to expand...
Given his statement the additional thing we know as true is we have no bank debt, so I assume OD - we might have the function but undrawn. I can't imagine him saying no bank debt and somebody not leaking we did in fairness.

As most of us spotted from the getgo though 'bank debt' isn't debt.
 
Spot on, Mike. We breath a big sigh of relief.

There are still FFP questions, but they are questions not statements of fact. None of us know the actual size of the hole, and the possible ways of dealing with it. I'd be surprised if we still have to lose our best players though.

The word "sustainable" appears in their statement. Good. That's what many of us wanted last time around. We need a CEO with a good knowledge of the game but a firm hand on the tiller.
 
Yup, it's now about thinking outside of the box and what fans can swallow - £20m for Jack, or £20m for the stadium to be sponsored for example.

It opens up options that simply weren't available to Xia - but he can now win back a lot of faith by his decisions in some ways.
 
Would be good if the Basketball team could buy Grealish & Chester for mega bucks then rent them back to us on the Cheap.
Or Even the sports interest company of theirs to buy them & become their agent doing what seems to be similar to what Wolves did.
The various companies belonging to them could sponsor different stands etc. There must be a way around ffp
 
The Mail has it we still have to sell our best players to meet FFP. Looking in detail at the figures they're using, it seems very odd.

We lost £14.5m in 2016-2017, the last year for which accounts are available. So how much did we lose last year? The Mail say that financial experts predict that it could be more than £50m.

That's staggering. As far as I can see we reduced our wage bill by about £15m, from around £61m to £46m. On the other hand our broadcasting revenue (parachute payments) went down by about £10m. Other income might have dropped a bit. I wouldn't expect the loss to much different from the previous year.

Another thing, if the loss was £50m then the loss over the two years would be £64.5m. So those two together come to the allowed FFP loss over 3 years of £65m. This means to meet FFP this last year, which we did, we must have broken even in 2015-2016. Nuts. Surely we must have lost far more that year than in subsequent years.

We can't really tell, but it looks to me as though the Mail's figures can't be right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.