Pity that Liverpool will be handed the PL
One more title for SAF, one for Jose and one for Ole.
Imagine Jose at some random club in Saudi sticking up 4 fingers at the opposing manager rather than 3
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
One more title for SAF, one for Jose and one for Ole.
Imagine Jose at some random club in Saudi sticking up 4 fingers at the opposing manager rather than 3
The moment they get away with it, the moment the rules become worthless so some form of punishment for City will be applied.
No relegation, no stripping of titles maybe 20-30 point deduction for two seasons which will mean they will miss CL for one to two seasons but probably still make Europa League and after wining that they will be back in CL the following season.
Plus they will get a ridiculous unprecedented fine of maybe £250m which will be given as compensation to other PL clubs.
I highly doubt they'll do anything like expulsion or taking off titles etc.
Which is crazy given the scale of what they've done. The problem is, no one really cares - it's brought up in the media lightly when something new happens - some direct rivals fans talk about it in whispers. It's not like there's a mass acceptance of 'blatant cheating' that's mentioned by everyone all the time (it is in Manchester, as banter - but I don't think many fans around the world really mention it - or other fans in other areas?) like would happen in other sports had something similar happened. And that's the exact reason why nothing will happen except some points reductions.
Which is crazy given the scale of what they've done. The problem is, no one really cares - it's brought up in the media lightly when something new happens - some direct rivals fans talk about it in whispers. It's not like there's a mass acceptance of 'blatant cheating' that's mentioned by everyone all the time (it is in Manchester, as banter - but I don't think many fans around the world really mention it - or other fans in other areas?) like would happen in other sports had something similar happened. And that's the exact reason why nothing will happen except some points reductions.
The fact that our dogshit government and Abu Dhabi 'discussed' these charges does make me fear the govt will put pressure on the PL to lighten the sentence, which would be a spineless travesty. Can't pretend I'm shocked though.
The only hope is how powerful the PL is for us as a product. Abu Dhabi also isn’t Saudi. Those two things make me hope the judgement will be half decent albeit it won’t be what people think is fair.
From Abu Dabi's perspective, how important is the Man City project? Do you think they would set fire to their diplomatic relationship with the UK for a sports team? Further the PL as a brand is worth so much to the UK govt, not just economically but culturally football is basically the national religion, would the govt be willing to flush it?
I could have seen some kind of compromise if city were co-operative with the investigation, but the fact they are outright refusing to me seems like they are leaving the PL with no choice but to go in two footed. If they uncover systematic money laundering and only half the charges stick but they want a "lenient" sentence how the feck do they sell that to the public? Especially after Everton and now Forrest, both sides have left themselves little room for maneuver.
Everton and Forest charges will increase the pressure tenfold now. We know what the benchmark punishment is and there will be uproar if it isn't proportionate.
The government have been threatening the EPL with an independent regulator. You underestimate the leverage the UK government has.
There will probably be a Labour government by the time this is resolved. That might affect the 'diplomatic pressure' prognosis as they'll be slightly less likely to kowtow to the UAE? (I did say slightly)
Why should they uncover anything the CAS couldn't?
Just found an article, it was actually because they were time barred, so another technicality:
from https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...city-over-sponsor-money-time-barred-cas-rules
They cant be stopped. They cheated their way to becoming a big club. They can complete with United financially even if the Saudis pull out tomorrow. The punishment will be calculated to appease City and the other clubs. A compromise. Record points and fine. Which means jack sht to City except an inconvenience for a year. Its like the head of a drug cartel becoming a billionaire then being fined a few mill and one year probation. Its meaningless.
They obviously should be stripped of the titles, but personally I'm not sure about giving it to the teams who finished 2nd. Those titles would feel incredibly hollow to me.
Just leave those seasons vacated. The NRL in Australia did that when Melbourne cheated their way to a few titles in the late 00's.
City are owned by Abu Dhabi, not the Saudis.
It remains to be seen how harshly they will be punished. I think it needs to be severe otherwise the PL risk being superseded by another competition as I doubt the other clubs will be happy with a slap on the writs.
The PL is all about the product and the product is nothing without the top clubs. If the top clubs threatened to leave the PL would be nothing.
It only incentivises that for clubs already at their FFP limits. That could be bad enough on its own, but over time selling a player from the academy is the same as selling any other player. In some situations it incentivises keeping an academy product over a player with a high book value.
Am I being naive here, or does this ultimately come down to the other Prem teams coming togther and agreeing to kick City out of the Premier League? I always assumed this was just Daniel Levy organising a cartel of the old school big clubs and going full throttle after City and also making sure FFP is enforced after he'd spent 20 years on huge infastructure projects. No one benefits more from FFP than Tottenham. They go from also rans, to only behind us in terms of financial might. There is no way back for City and Chelsea if football gets tightly regualted as they just don't have the fan base or infastructure. The fans they've gained over the last 20 years will disappear as quickly as they came and neither club has appeal to sponsors once they aren't at the top of the table and in the CL for a sustained period. Then they just average stadium revenue's. Arsenal and Tottehnam will have massive incomce from their stadiums. Liverpool have a huge fan base and will always compete at the top. I just think the traditional post war big clubs have come together to restore order after the likes of Abramovich and Mansour shook things up for a couple of decades.
Er, how do you mean? How is that different for a club on their FFP limits than one not? Isn't profit/loss calculated in the same way? How is it the same over time? In which situations does it incentivise keeping an academy product, and how?
It's easier to demonstrate than explain, I guess. Say you consider selling an academy product for 50m. First row is sale, second is keep. Columns are seasons. Numbers are accounting profits. The academy player has a book value of 0.
| 50m | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Difference is 50m, all of it at the time of the sale.
Then take a player with a book value of 40m, 4 year contract. 50m bid.
| 10m | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| -10m | -10m | -10m | -10m |
Difference is 50m, spread over four years. This is better if FFP isn't a constraint at this moment in time, because it will give you more room to maneuver in the future where it might be.
Many thanks - this is a pretty unfamiliar logic if you've no grasp of accounting.
You cannot choose to spread the profit over several years?
Why does an academy player have a book value of 0?
Last edited:
When you buy a player, that player is valued on the books equal to what he was bought for. So, if you buy a player for 50m, that player is worth 50m. Accounting value then falls along with the contract, because when the contract runs out the player is obviously a worthless asset to the club monetarily because he's no longer at the club. If the 50m player is signed on a 5 year contract, for instance, book value falls with 50m/5 = 10m per year.
An academy player has never been bought. Initial value is 0, and with a similar 5 year contract it falls with 0/5 = 0 per year. If you sign someone on a free transfer, like Eriksen, the same applies.
I see - many thanks.
AFAICS, that provides a basis that is rather remote from the reality of the situation, and essentially rather abstract? I suppose this way of setting book value is also what causes your FFP situation to actually deteriorate if you sell a player for less than his book value? Which has the absurd consequence of forcing you to keep players you don't want and pay their salary, in a situation which should essentially be about increasing your income and decreasing your expenditure?
Wouldn't it actually make a lot more sense if this was based on the balance or money coming in versus money going out, rather than some abstract concept of player book value?
Surely other clubs in the top system also have a vote, right? Like clubs that were apart of the EPL during the years charged. Results against may have well resulted in those clubs being relegated and losing out on cup advancement, all of which is potentially lost revenue.
It's not really abstract at all, I don't think. It's by far the easiest and most reliable way to value players, and it's the same method you have to use in the actual accounts as well, which is nice.
If you simply go by cashflow, then a neutral year could be one where you sell a player for 50m cash in hand, and buy 10 players for 50m each where you pay 5m per year for the next decade. Cash wise you get 50m in and 50 goes out, but you've incurred 450m in liabilities (future payments owed).
Well, player values certainly are highly abstract? In real terms an academy player doesn't have 0 value, nor does a FT signee. This may be easier and more reliable in accounting terms, but that goes at the cost of any reflection of the actual value of the asset. And I would argue that if you're going to have a regulatory framework of this sort and this level of consequence, it needs to be structured in a way that enables rational decision-making. It doesn't seem to me that a system that punishes you for selling expensive players and cutting costs, but rewards you for selling any assets that you developed rather than bought, does that. If that's the result of using an accounts-based framework, then they shouldn't use an accounts-based framework.
Surely it would be possible to combine amortisation with a different approach to asset value? Why does player value need to factor into this at all? Why not simply regard players as a form expenditure, for FFP purposes - both wages and transfer costs?
You really think the reason City got exonerated by CAS is because, years into the process, the CAS suddenly realised that the alleged breaches were too long ago? And that nobody at UEFA or at City had noticed until then?
We probably have different interpretations of what abstract means here. If you want to estimate a player's value (which you have to do on the accounts, not talking about FFP here), then using transfer fees and contract length as estimates is by far the easiest and most accurate way. It's not perfect, for instance Rashford is obviously worth more than 0m regardless of bad form, but it's way better than any other option.
As I said, it doesn't generally reward you for selling academy players over other players. In some edge cases it does, and in some it punishes you.
How would you do this, considering the fact that the point of FFP is to limit spending. When you're talking about simply regarding players as a form of expenditure, are you still talking about cash flow? If so then I refer back to the example I mentioned with selling for cash and buying on credit. How should that be treated?
Well, the element that's missing here is wages, as you are alluding to - these also factor into FFP. Oftentimes homegrown / academy players will sign below-market deals as they break through that may render them cheaper than someone brought in - even with a potential transfer fee amortized.
This is more or less why we sold Koulibaly - even though we took a hit on FFP for this season due to the difference in transfer fees buying & selling him, it was worth the wage bill flexibility for this year and next.
Also not to be snarky but if you have a better & more accurate approach for determining player values then you'd be the most in-demand consultant ever!
Basically yes. Take for example Kepa Arrizabalaga at Chelsea. Signed for £70M in 2018 and given a 7 year deal till 2025 so an amortisation of £10M/y.
Once it became clear in about 2020 that the signing was a clear bust, his market value was but a tiny fraction of that initial £70M paid and Chelsea would have had to take a massive book loss if the club had sold him. After two years his remaining book value was still £50M so let's say two years in he was sold for £10M that would have meant instead of continuing with the amortisation £10M/y the club would instead have been forced to write off £40M in losses in a single financial year which could have had more immediate FFP ramifications as compared to continuing with the yearly amortisations and booking the losses over a longer period of time, but at least we'd have saved some money on his wages for the later years of his contract so overall it would have been just short term pain for long term gain (see @TheMagicFoolBus example of Koulibaly).
Though I suppose we wouldn't have been able to find a suitable buyer for Kepa even if we were willing to take the loss thanks to his large salary which no other club would have matched so we were stuck with him regardless.
Probably not. The way you're describing it sounds very chaotic. Let's use an example
Year 1: transfer profit £200M
Year 2: transfer loss £200M
Year 3: transfer profit £100M
Year 4: transfer loss £100M
FFP is monitored over a 3 year period. For years 1-3 you'd be posting a net 0 for transfer expenses and the club would pass pass FFP with flying colors (assuming other finances such as wages were in line to pass) but when the monitoring shifts to years 2-4 the club in question could be royally fecked with FFP penalties for being '£200M in the hole' even though they've not actually made any net losses and could even be described to be of a very healthy financial stature. The variance between years could be huge.
The current accounting system for player transfers seems most balanced and definitely the best for long term monitoring of club finances.
Okay. Thanks for the several replies above. It is probably abundantly clear to you that you're dealing with someone wholly unversed in accounting, and I appreciate your patience!
I'm satisfied from your replies at least that the current system makes good sense from an accounting perspective (and since FFP is based on accounts, that matters, to say the least). I appreciate that if players are sold for less than they are bought, that represents lost value that has to be written off as a loss in some way, at some point. I take it then that "book value" in effect represents the cost of acquisition rather than the inevitably more problematically vague notion of "sum the asset would fetch if sold".
I'm still not sure this seems like a suitable system, but what do I know. I certainly am not able to describe a better one. Again, thanks for the patience!
I'm satisfied from your replies at least that the current system makes good sense from an accounting perspective (and since FFP is based on accounts, that matters, to say the least). I appreciate that if players are sold for less than they are bought, that represents lost value that has to be written off as a loss in some way, at some point. I take it then that "book value" in effect represents the cost of acquisition rather than the inevitably more problematically vague notion of "sum the asset would fetch if sold".
I'm still not sure this seems like a suitable system, but what do I know. I certainly am not able to describe a better one. Again, thanks for the patience!
That's not what I think, it's what they've said:
Just in case reality hasn't bitten you hard enough:
I guess what will happen is that they will get a punishment, the biggest points deduction ever (something like 20pts), which will stop them from winning the league one season, maybe getting into the CL (though not sure), and a massive, "unprecedented" fine. It will all be perfectly unsatisfying and unfair considering the scope of what they've done and the fact that cheating for 15 years has ensured them a place of dominance, but the governing bodies can wipe their hands clean but using hyperbole formulas such as "biggest sanctions ever" etc. And it will be swept under the rug by all those sport journos with their inflated sense of self-importance given their inability to report anything on it and their desire to stay in the good books of City anyway.
As someone said before, that'd be like giving a cartel boss a fine and saying he can't deal drugs for a year. They already have the empire so why does this matter? There needs to be an incentive for another club not to do this, because any club aspiring to be like them will look at that and think that's worth it for the 'success' it brings.
I'm not arguing in any kind of way that it's right, it's just the gut feeling I have of what will happen.
Yeah I get you. I'm ready to be incredibly disappointed as well but you never know I guess. It needs to be something that strikes fear into the heart of any club who dare repeat what they've done.
Luton 2008-2009 got 30 points deduction for wayyyyyy less than even one of the City charges. Think Bolton got similar
Clear cut
Give them the Juventus treatment.
League 2.
Feck off into the dark crevices for at least 3 years.
Give them the Juventus treatment.
League 2.
Feck off into the dark crevices for at least 3 years.
Anything less than a relegation to the Championship will feel like a massive capitulation by the PL. They need to be made an example of, and hopefully that will give Newcastle second thoughts about going down the same route too.
Even that is small punishment. The damage has already been done. They should be kicked out of the football league full stop until their ownership is changed, and stripped of any titles.