Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

City spending overboard?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    City spending overboard?



    Sheikh Mansour takes spending at Manchester City past half-billion mark
    • Owner injects another £80m into Eastlands club
    • Funding raises fears over City's ability to meet Uefa rules

    Manchester City's owners have injected another £80m into the club, taking Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan's investment since buying City in 2009 to more than £573m.

    According to documents released to Companies House last Monday, Mansour purchased 37,547,169 new shares in the Eastlands club on 30 September, each costing him £2.12. It amounted to £79.6m of fresh investment. The sum is small change for the Abu Dhabi billionaire, but it raises fresh questions about City's capacity to meet new regulations coming in to force from next season.

    Uefa's financial fair-play rules require that no club should make an aggregate loss of more than €45m (about £39m) over the three seasons from 2011-12, or it will face being excluded from European competition. City are taking steps now apparently in an attempt not to fall foul.

    "Clearly our intention is to comply," says Garry Cook, the City chief executive, in an interview with the Guardian. "Our two-year plan was to take a budget and build a competency to compete at the highest level, not forgetting the need for succession planning in every position. We are pleased with how that worked, and will not be signing players to the same level of intensity in the next transfer windows. Financial fair play is on our conscience, we talk about it at every board meeting, and it's part of our long-term plan."

    Those who believe City will escape the rule's effect by having spent extravagantly before it comes in to force misunderstand simple accounting mechanisms. The exact dates when cash changes hands on transfer fees are not relevant; instead there is a balance-sheet instrument known as amortisation by which the total value of the fee is written down according to the length of the contract, causing a natural lag in the financial impact of transfer activity.

    When David Silva joined City for £26m on a four-year contract in June, it added £6.5m a year to City's amortisation charge. By the end of last season the total charge had already reached £71m — almost 57% of the club's £125m turnover. Between them the additions of Jérôme Boateng, Yaya Touré, Mario Balotelli and James Milner added close to £17m, which the departure of Robinho and his £8.125m a year in amortisation charges could only partially offset.

    Unless more of City's expensively acquired superstars join Robinho in going through the exit door, it is safe to say that their 2011-12 amortisation charge will be close to £90m. Wages, the drain demanding so much cash support from Mansour, further compound City's difficulties.

    That bill reached £133.3m last season, with Touré alone having added another £10m in the meantime. Given the summer arrivals, even conservative estimates would assume the club's basic wage bill is now beyond £150m.

    The 2009-10 season at Eastlands brought no trophies, or even great success in the Premier League, and this meant no significant bonuses were payable. But if City transform their early-season form into something more tangible this term, it is more than possible their wage bill will hit more than £165m by the time the next accounts are released.

    That would mean expenditure and accounting fees on players of £250m a year, against total incomes last year of £125m. Even the £25m that Champions League participation might yield would not dent that significantly, and City are likely to face a £100m-a-year deficit come 2011-12.

    If the club remain that far in the red for even that season alone, it would seriously threaten future participation in Europe unless they can transform their current player-related losses into a £30m-a-year profit from football operations. That means raising the current £125m Eastlands turnover to the same level as Manchester United's has been in recent seasons — £280m and more — within two years.

    Sheikh Mansour's billions cannot help here either – Uefa has placed restrictions on what "related companies" — such as the Abu Dhabi-owned Emirates airlines, whose name appears on City's shirts — may offer in sponsorships to "market rates".

    The realities of the financial situation at Eastlands appear to have been overlooked by their rivals across Manchester. The Old Trafford hierarchy's decision to capitulate and commit at least £9m a year to Wayne Rooney upon renewing the England striker's contract last week had all the hallmarks of the fear that their best player could soon be turning out in a sky-blue shirt, as Sir Alex Ferguson's rather strange soliloquy about cows in fields suggested.United seemed to be fixating on concerns about the apparently close relationship between Brian Marwood, Manchester City's chief football administration officer, and Rooney's agent, Paul Stretford.

    Yet as City attempt to demonstrate to Uefa that they will ultimately comply with the financial fair-play rules, they could never have gone through with an acquisition that would comfortably have amounted to £100m in transfer fees and wages.

    Rooney's rumoured £250,000-a-week wages at City would have amounted to a £62.5m liability over five years. And United would surely not have been persuaded to relinquish a player with even only 12 months on his contract to their biggest and richest rivals for less than half the £80m for which Cristiano Ronaldo was sold to Real Madrid last year. In the new regulatory environment, these sums were beyond even City's reach.

    So now United must find more than £4.5m a year just to stand still. Their chief executive, David Gill, says United have £150m in the bank, but projections by analysts at the club's banker, JP Morgan, suggest they must retain £70m in a restricted-cash account in line with the terms of their bond borrowings.
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________

    Seems to me that City are in a lot of trouble, they can't realistically keep their players, let alone add to the squad, AND expect to comply with the rules. Seems certain to end in tears IMO. With these rules in place we have to get the stadium reonvated or build a new one and then we need to get Rafa back!
    Last edited by The_weatherman; 26-10-10, 10:11 AM.
    * The above is posted in my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

    #2
    I don't think even the most optimistic United fan really believes they are going to be big spending in the transfer market.

    Comment


      #3
      This is good news if its true. What there doing is massivly unsustainable. But ive got a feeling that they will start to chop dead wood soon as Chelsea did. Filling the gaps with there promising young players.
      *Except Michael, who died.

      Comment


        #4
        Uefa are a bunch of clowns, but for a change, they're doing something very clever and very necessary. If these new rules are indeed enforced properly, they could very well rescue football, because as has been said, these expenses are unsustainable long term and would've resulted in the bubble well and truly bursting.

        Half a pat on the bag for Uefa, and if these rules are implemented and enforced properly, it'll turn into a whole one.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Alex View Post
          This is good news if its true. What there doing is massivly unsustainable. But ive got a feeling that they will start to chop dead wood soon as Chelsea did. Filling the gaps with there promising young players.
          But if they try to offload players such as Adebayor and others they will likely have to pay clubs to take them off their hands, no club can pay these wages, especially not ones who are trying to comply with the FFP regulations.

          Everyone who is mentioned alongside City expects at least 100.000 a week now so they have a problem on their hands IMO.
          * The above is posted in my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Craig_H View Post
            Uefa are a bunch of clowns, but for a change, they're doing something very clever and very necessary. If these new rules are indeed enforced properly, they could very well rescue football, because as has been said, these expenses are unsustainable long term and would've resulted in the bubble well and truly bursting.

            Half a pat on the bag for Uefa, and if these rules are implemented and enforced properly, it'll turn into a whole one.
            Hope they don't **** this up.
            * The above is posted in my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Craig_H View Post
              Uefa are a bunch of clowns, but for a change, they're doing something very clever and very necessary. If these new rules are indeed enforced properly, they could very well rescue football, because as has been said, these expenses are unsustainable long term and would've resulted in the bubble well and truly bursting.

              Half a pat on the bag for Uefa, and if these rules are implemented and enforced properly, it'll turn into a whole one.
              That seems unnecessarily intimate.
              .
              Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



              May the Lord bless this post.

              Comment


                #8
                It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Contrary to most people I think that in general UEFA have been trying to act in the interests of the game in recent years and in some areas even succeeding against some powerful vested interests. Obviously their handling of racist chanting and some of the violence seen at/around some games in European competitions needs to be improved. The financial fair play idea is certainly a step in the right direction in my view.

                I guess City are hoping that if they achieve CL football then they can increase revenue substantially. I'd imagine they would rather not be in the UEFA and concentrate on the league if not so the European ban might not be quite the threat that UEFA hope it to be in the short term.
                "The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind."
                -- William Blake

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by dww View Post
                  It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Contrary to most people I think that in general UEFA have been trying to act in the interests of the game in recent years and in some areas even succeeding against some powerful vested interests. Obviously their handling of racist chanting and some of the violence seen at/around some games in European competitions needs to be improved. The financial fair play idea is certainly a step in the right direction in my view.

                  I guess City are hoping that if they achieve CL football then they can increase revenue substantially. I'd imagine they would rather not be in the UEFA and concentrate on the league if not so the European ban might not be quite the threat that UEFA hope it to be in the short term.
                  But I reckon the players will want CL involvement so that could be an issue, they could wind up with disillusioned players on huge wages who don't want to take a wage cut.
                  * The above is posted in my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by dww View Post
                    It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Contrary to most people I think that in general UEFA have been trying to act in the interests of the game in recent years and in some areas even succeeding against some powerful vested interests. Obviously their handling of racist chanting and some of the violence seen at/around some games in European competitions needs to be improved. The financial fair play idea is certainly a step in the right direction in my view.

                    I guess City are hoping that if they achieve CL football then they can increase revenue substantially. I'd imagine they would rather not be in the UEFA and concentrate on the league if not so the European ban might not be quite the threat that UEFA hope it to be in the short term.
                    On the last part you say, this is not really a rule minded at city alone (which you obviously are aware of), so while it may not affect city in the short term it does affect the whole future of football and investors. It is not healthy for the sport to have these types investing in the game, it takes the fans and the clubs far from eachother.

                    I think UEFA are heading in the right direction with this, and it's perhaps a move in the direction of making a loft on wages, sign-on fees etc. to make the compition even fairer.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Craig_H View Post
                      Uefa are a bunch of clowns, but for a change, they're doing something very clever and very necessary. If these new rules are indeed enforced properly, they could very well rescue football, because as has been said, these expenses are unsustainable long term and would've resulted in the bubble well and truly bursting.

                      Half a pat on the bag for Uefa, and if these rules are implemented and enforced properly, it'll turn into a whole one.
                      But i have my doubts i really do.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
                        That seems unnecessarily intimate.
                        My bad

                        Should have obviously been 'back', not 'bag'

                        Comment


                          #13
                          It'd be worth missing 1 or 2 years of UEFA competitions while the investments are written down. They'd be eligible afterwards and City will have been elevated into the big boys club just before the ladder was pulled up.
                          "that is my opinion and that is more important than what anyone else has to say about it" - Mr A.Fergusson, Oct 2011

                          Comment


                            #14
                            anyone know how this could effect madrid and barca?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Uefa has placed restrictions on what "related companies" — such as the Abu Dhabi-owned Emirates airlines, whose name appears on City's shirts — may offer in sponsorships to "market rates".
                              I wonder what would happen if City challenged that in court?
                              Stop the cyberhate


                              from now on I will skip talking about our finances. That is a promise and will save myself from looking like a

                              Susan Black

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X