City worried by UEFA’s tough financial stance
Manchester City could be hit by UEFA’s tougher financial stance, with 23 clubs already having their prize money withheld by Europe’s football governing body. Metro reports.
City, bankrolled by Sheikh Mansour, will have to keep tighter tabs on their spending as European heavyweights; Atletico Madrid, Fenerbahce and Sporting Lisbon are all currently under investigation for failing to state any overdue payments by the end of June.
These clubs have until the end of this month to provide an update on these overdue payments, but will no longer be under investigation once payments have been made in full or a decision is made by the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB).
Malaga are the only Champions League club to be affected so far, but City will be worried, with their heavy annual losses likely to cost them when the Financial Fair Play regulations come into force.
The regulations begin as of next season and clubs are allowed a £36million loss over the first two-season period- a figure which City are set to rapidly exceed with a stated loss of £197million in 2011.
September 11th, 2012
City are not worried in the least. We have everything in order thank you. I suggest you look else where for a story.
September 11th, 2012
City Banned from Europe for posting another staggering $100+ millon pound loss.
September 11th, 2012
It doesn’t work like that. It’s easy to look at it as black and white but there is a lot in between. Relevant to City is the fact that UEFA offer exceptions for clubs who show a trend of decreasing losses. It’s 99% certain that City’s losses will progressively decrease rather than increase with spending having slowed, unwanted players like Adebayor gone, increased sponsorship, and of course further money from Premier League and Champions League participation.
September 12th, 2012
Yet Utd can buy as many players as they want even though they OWE 350,000,000. Surly Utd can not be considered to be balancing the books while they OWE 350,000,000. If Fair play was actually Fair play Utd would not be allowed to buy ONE SINGLE PLAYER until they payed back the 350,000,000. I’m getting dizzy typing at all them zeros.
September 11th, 2012
The clubs penalised by Uefa (not Fifa) are bad creditors/ payers – they don’t have the cash to pay their debts on player transfers mostly.
City pay hard cash for their players usually, and never default.
Also, City are on target to meet FFFP regs this year, forget last season’s spending, it’s irrelevant.
Champions.
September 11th, 2012
Soon come my friend–soon come
September 11th, 2012
Oh boy, are you in for a disappointing few years!
Let’s hope you’re as loyal to your club in the trophy wilderness as us City fans were.
September 11th, 2012
WTF has this got to do with City or any other club that pays cash up front for players?
September 11th, 2012
can’t we get a massive loan against the club and pay it back in small amounts like manure, we will go from no debt at all, to a massive debt, is that what uefa would rather us have?
September 11th, 2012
Don’t shitty already have a massive loan from their sugar daddy, I mean, none of the multi millions spent belonged to shitty did it.?
I mean, they don’t even have the fan base in manchester let alone the UK and the world to pay those prices for players..
I mean, why would you see debt as the alternate option to buy players, why not ensure you get a good manager who builds success rather than buys it..?
Sure, if your club has earnt the money, by its success on and off the field, then go for it, otherwise, live within your means…
September 12th, 2012
how many of manure’s players were not bought last year?
September 12th, 2012
Nav. It wasn’t (Isn’t) a loan you prick. Thats the whole point moron. The “sugar daddy” paid for everything, and absorbed Citys debt. City are in a far better financial place then Utd who OWE 350,000,000 yet UEFA dont go near Utd and come after City. Didn’t you read Cottys post, maybe we should get ourselves the same loan Utd have and UEFA might leave us alone.
September 11th, 2012
Don’t shi**y already have a massive loan from their sugar daddy, I mean, none of the multi millions spent belonged to shi**y did it.?
I mean, they don’t even have the fan base in manchester let alone the UK and the world to pay those prices for players..
I mean, why would you see debt as the alternate option to buy players, why not ensure you get a good manager who builds success rather than buys it..?
Sure, if your club has earnt the money, by its success on and off the field, then go for it, otherwise, live within your means…
September 12th, 2012
None of Mansour’s cash input is in the form of loans, Man City has zero debt.
September 12th, 2012
And none of it is earnt from football…
A part of the new regulations is that the club has to finance itself, and cannot count the personal wealth of its owner as club money…
But I’m glad you acknowledge that a suger daddy has bought your success..
If city has zero debt, then where are all these massive record losses coming from..? What are these losses being spent upon..?
Your owner is rich… But the club is not, there is a difference, you cannot count his pocket as the clubs wealth..
September 12th, 2012
A reply to the ‘we earned our money’ half-wits. The following article thankfully retained by Wikipedia was well known and having spent many years in the meat trade this was all common opinion amongst the older boys. The rest shows that United have never changed and no doubt never will: Manchester United
Louis Edwards made his fortune in meat packaging, and from the late 1950s was an investor in Manchester United. He became club chairman in 1965, overseeing United’s success in winning the Football League First Division and the European Cup, and by the 1970s was the majority shareholder.
Edwards died of a heart attack in February 1980, four weeks after a World in Action TV investigation into his alleged involvement in illegal share trading and slush funds, whic
h was broadcast on 28 January. His son Martin succeeded him as chairman.
Controversies
Meat contracts corruption and malpractice
Edwards’ meat packaging business was a financially successful enterprise in the 1970s, but an investigation by the Granada Television/ITV investigative journalism series World in Action alleged that such dominance had in fact been achieved through bribing school officials in order to win lucrative contracts in cities such as Manchester.
The Granada investigation also claimed that his company supplied condemned meat that was unfit for human consumption to be used in school dinners.
Youth team corruption
The investigation also exposed how Manchester United had a secret fund for bribing parents of young players the club wished to recruit. In one case in the early 1960s it was alleged that a bribe of £5,000 was paid to the parents of Peter Lorimer, a promising young player whom the club had wanted to recruit. The bung was in fact later returned when the player chose Leeds United instead though this was a clear breach of football association rules. Investigations by the police into Edwards’ dealings were never fully completed due to his death soon after the inquiries began. The FA decided against a formal investigation and merely discussed the issue instead.
September 12th, 2012
Errrr !
Funny unrelated comment to ffffp..!! Lol.. or ‘we earnt out money..!’ comments..
Half-wit..!
September 11th, 2012
Like i said City won’t be in any trouble with UEFA. All on target to meet new ffp rules.
UEFA brought these rules out to stop less well off clubs getting into debt to try and catch the established elite.
So that’s now it for the small club getting into europe unless it’s a fluke season. Well done UEFA you’ve ended free competition.They don’t want the smaller clubs to qualify as it’s less TV money for them.
September 11th, 2012
“UEFA brought these rules out to stop less well off clubs getting into debt to try and catch the established elite….
You mean clubs like City trying to catch up the established ‘elite’ ?..
Nothing wrong with spending money a club has earnt from their playing success, unlike city, psg and chelsea who have bought success through sugar daddies.. and are now increasing player wage demands and transfer fees for all, including to the detriment of the ‘smaller clubs..’.
September 11th, 2012
like Real aswell ? they didnt spend a load or man u did they ? how much did rvp cost again ? all clubs over spend.. its if it pays off, city have won the league, increased fan base and compete in champs league. I wouldnt worry about city we will be fine thanks. united however are ok for the next 2 3 years but when fergie and giggs, scholls, rio all go united will be shocking
September 11th, 2012
The difference is utd bought RVP with money they had and earnt through their success (defiantly not off the leaches that are the glazers), Real do indeed buy players for big money… but not all in 12 months or so… but spread out over the years..and they have amassed a lot of money throughout their own success on and off the field..
September 11th, 2012
Didn’t United buy RVP with some of the money from the recent flotation?
So that would be mug punter’s money, not money earned through footballing success.
Have you ever heard of the Real Madrid Galactico’s? They were paid for by the Govt buying their training ground for £200 million, then renting it back to Real for peanuts, literally.
Real bought their success you clump, more so than any other club in the history of football – get your facts straight son.
September 11th, 2012
I’m surprised you can even spell the word FACT..! Lol.
But talking of facts, you clump…, the money Utd paid for rvp, was funded through the clubs success on the pitch and off the pitch… NOT through a auger daddy! Which part of that do you not digest…you melon..! If they had to do business through shareholding, so be it… It’s their success and big name that creates the Sell..! DoH!
Madrid had something to sell…..to raise finance, just like some clubs in this world have to sell players to survive or buy others… I.e Everton & Rodwell.. Real did good business, they bought players… They did not get steam rollered by some egoistic oil merchant, showing off his new toy to his oil buddies..!
Is it starting to make any sort of sense to you yet….Melon..or Lemon..
September 11th, 2012
Oh…. Melon… One more thing…
19 times….
September 12th, 2012
Nav who owns Man Utd? The local bin man. Is your owner wealthy? Oh yes he is, but the cunt is too mean to put a penny into the club, instead he borrows borrows borrows, uses the “profits” to pay off the debt (which technically aint profits until the debt is paid) & occasionally throws you a few crumbs to pay for your prima donna’s (we all have them). Ask your self would you rather have our owner or the one you have? No dont answer, you’ve said enough lies today already.
September 12th, 2012
LOL…. Jern, which part is a lie?, Do you have a mortgage at home? does that stop you buying nice things for your home or repairs etc..? …NO! Because if you don’t replace or repair, it will get worse. But, your debt does not stop you, you spend what you earn on your mortgage or your items..
Man Utd’s owner is indeed wealthy… but does the club see any of that..? no. We spend what we earn, we put money aside for the debt, money aside to buy players and money aside to cream his pockets… (Yes he is a Cu*t..!)..
You may feel very comfortable at the moment with the sugar daddy, but is he going to stick around..? if he goes… bankruptcy and Division 2 could beckon again..! (this time without a dodgy ref adding 20 mins injury time until city scores..!!).
Ask yourself…. would you not rather have our continuing success, our history, our standing in world football, our fan base, THE most successful british manager of all time Sir Alex Ferguson….
(p.s. please highlight the lie’s you mention..!)
September 13th, 2012
The “Lie” “Myth” that Utd supporters (not all) put about that your team is built on footballing success alone & that you never spent more than you earn. Utd (and others) did what City are doing now (investing without profit) many years ago when there was no regulation. I’m a business man, my company is 8 years old i ran at a loss for 3 years watched money float down a bottomless pit, then started to break even before it started to click. Fair play denies any club inward investment therefore denies them any chance to grow in this league (as the premier is structured now). You are all in denial. I see you took my advice & didn’t answer the question.
September 11th, 2012
Nav did utd buy Rvp with the 33m profit that they made or with the 68m loss that red football(who own utd made) utd overall lost money last year so buying anyone makes them just as bad as the clubs your trying to ridicule.
September 11th, 2012
Please check the link for the last Tax year profit margins..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14741758
It might help with facts..
Let’s be real also about the debt, A lot of ppl own a home with a mortgage, some 100% mortgage, some just less, very rarely does the average joe buy his house outright cash… Joe gets his mortgage against the value of his house and how much he can repay etc..
Utd are valued,Somewhere near 2billion (or just below), meaning the debt, or mortgage of the club is well around 20% of the clubs worth,,,(it like borrowing 20,000 to buy a £100,000 house) when you consider the debt was £750mill just a few yrs ago, it doesn’t sound as bad you wish… Another few yrs, when the debt is paid, and the FFFP comes into play…. Financially, united will again be better off than the Stockports….. (city..!!)
September 11th, 2012
FFC removed from my NewsNOw list for wasting my time. Pointlessness.
September 11th, 2012
ManUre pain 30 mil for Rio 10 yrs ago and how much did Madrid pay for Zidane ?? was 75 mil. Get a grip you jealous scared muppets, City are here with a huge bag of sugar from our new arab daddy and it`s SSSWEEEEEEEET
September 11th, 2012
The idea of withholding money from clubs who are struggling to make payments is ludicrous. It doesn’t however have anything at all to do with financial fairplay,that policy doesn’t come into effect until the 2013/14 season. This “article” is completely groundless poorly researched.
September 11th, 2012
The £197m doesn’t come into it at all. Why do you think City posted that loss when they did !! They put money into that that they didn’t have to so that it was higher and not going through the following year when the accounting period kicks in. All the muppets talking about City being a club that spends, we had no choice, if we did it in the accounting period then we would have been screwed by these rules if they stand !!
Don’t forget that when the rules do bite EPL will have a far bigger prize pot ! The lowest relegated team in the EPL will get more than City did for winning it last year. Being in the CL gives more money too & of course the sponsorship deals etc etc. & whilst we are doing all that we are spending (allowably) £1bn on developing an academy which hopefully will save having to pay the transfer fees we have been to date !!