FFP / Wages v Turnonover explanation?

[The Esk]

Buying a player initially affects the balance sheet hence does not impact STCC (NB the annual amortisation/depreciation of that asset over it's realistic 'life' feeds into the P/L account and will impact STCC)

The amortisation of a players contract obviously affects the P&L account. However in regulatory terms it does not effect STCC. A second regulation, 'profit and sustainability' applies. This permits a maximum loss of £105 million over three years. Losses above this level have to be met by capital injection or shareholder guarantees.

STCC only caps wage increases in line with increases in non broadcasting income plus £7 million a year for years 2016-19.

 

[bizzaro]

The amortisation of a players contract obviously affects the P&L account. However in regulatory terms it does not effect STCC. A second regulation, 'profit and sustainability' applies. This permits a maximum loss of £105 million over three years. Losses above this level have to be met by capital injection or shareholder guarantees.

STCC only caps wage increases in line with increases in non broadcasting income plus £7 million a year for years 2016-19.

Its the interaction with FFP that master Esk is referring to there.

Spot on. It means that there has to be regular regulatory monitoring within the business whilst we go for the commercial revenue improvements over the next 18 months that are absolutely necessary for the long term improvement of the business.

The sponsorship deals we have historically had have persistently lagged behind our competitors.

Which has to change.

 

[everton2004]

Would it be possible that the sale of Stones will be the trigger for the incoming transfers? Otherwise if we brought in Witsel and co and the Stones deal collapsed, we'd be in the doodoo over FFP?

 

[roydo]

Would it be possible that the sale of Stones will be the trigger for the incoming transfers? Otherwise if we brought in Witsel and co and the Stones deal collapsed, we'd be in the doodoo over FFP?

That has been my, uninformed, understanding.

Like, if we sign some ace players before we sell him, then City could be the bully in the playground, as we then have to sell him even more. If that makes sense.

 

[Rob17896]

Apologies my search skill are useless. I know it's on here, just can't find it.


Trying to get my head round how selling stones & paying the same for a replacement benefits us.


Ta.

When I saw the headline thought it was a request from the accountant.

 

[The Esk]

Would it be possible that the sale of Stones will be the trigger for the incoming transfers? Otherwise if we brought in Witsel and co and the Stones deal collapsed, we'd be in the doodoo over FFP?

No mate, we'd have the rest of the year to create income or sell in the Jaunary window at a profit.

 

[Angle c]

Hope this helps.

Ahhh! Now it all makes sense, that's what bill did with the arteta money!

 

[Efcjake]

Off the top of my head I can't recall the exact penalty Man City paid. Yes in theory we could pay a fine, but there's no defined penalty so you'd never be sure what the punishment would be.

@bizzaro