Transfers, 2024-25 season

[Dazzler 11678]

9 hours ago, Chaser said:

Yeah the two of them together have pretty much fucked us. Barnes was supposed to be fit by Christmas and he's only just running by the sounds of it. 

Is his injury not similar to Targett's weird one from last season? His was also a seemingly vague and non-serious foot injury and yet barely made the bench the rest of the season. It's a weird one.

[The Fish 11313]

13 hours ago, Howay said:

It does depend though, I think winning the Europa League nets about €20m - fail to reach the final and you’d get just over half that - Kalvin Phillips alone would be over half that between fee and wages all hitting this year. There’d also still be a large chance we missed out with him. 

 

It's not just about the prize money though. Being in European competitions regularly makes us way, way more attractive to commercial sponsors. So while we might bomb out in the 1/4s and pull in £10m, we could sign commercial deals that eclipse that.

[RobinRobin 12431]

1 hour ago, The Fish said:

 

It's not just about the prize money though. Being in European competitions regularly makes us way, way more attractive to commercial sponsors. So while we might bomb out in the 1/4s and pull in £10m, we could sign commercial deals that eclipse that.

Also will make sponsorship from Saudi more palatable to premier league rules 

[LondonBlue 1021]

it was only a matter of time.....

 

 

[Holden McGroin 7516]

Will titles be stripped if you're found guilty?

 

If not we should just blow 10bn on players in the summer. Win the league then CL.....then take a relegation or 2.

 

Edited January 16, 2024 by Holden McGroin

[Dazzler 11678]

I reckon even if they were stripped of the titles officially I doubt their fans would give a shit. They still have the memories. 

 

So, even if we blow billions in the summer, win the league and then the CL only to be stripped of them and relegated to the Conference North I'd still remember the successes even if they aren't officially recognised. Also, imagine how fucking good Joelinton would be in the conference man. He'd smash them all to bits.

[PaddockLad 18947]

The PL are preparing a fudge on Man City, guilty on some not guilty on others so a points deduction for the season they eventually present their defence and a heavy fine. Can’t see them being stripped of their titles, that would make the PL look utterly fuckin incompetent

[Isegrim 10323]

They probably will get away because of lapse of time for those charges they are found guilty of.

[Dazzler 11678]

11 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

The PL are preparing a fudge on Man City, guilty on some not guilty on others so a points deduction for the season they eventually present their defence and a heavy fine. Can’t see them being stripped of their titles, that would make the PL look utterly fuckin incompetent

I want them to avoid a points deduction, purely and utterly to see the reaction of the Everton fans. It's already funny seeing them hold up their shitty little "corrupt" signs, it would be even funnier if those signs were dotted with the tears of the blue mackems.

 

That said, for consistency Man City should really have the book thrown at them with at least a 10 point deduction - they won't, but they should.

[LondonBlue 1021]

Seems Everton and Forest are guilty and have admitted as such and its the punishment that is being debated.

 

The key thing is are we guilty or innocent?

 

This from a good city source "Prestwich_Blue" on our forum sums it up nicely....

 

It's actually two offences when you break it all down.

1. We used artificially inflated sponsorship agreements to overstate our revenue, which led to us knowingly filing incorrect accounts.
2. We didn't declare payments made to Mancini, via the Al Jazira contract, and to players, via the Fordham image rights arrangements.

That's it. The rest is just window dressing

 

You'd think that point 1 would be quite easy to prove/disprove. Obviously City can only provide City's paperwork but can't force a Sponsor to provide anything. Still that should be enough? Remember it's up to the Premier league to prove their case first and foremost. CAS looked at some of that for the UEFA case and said there was nothing suspicious.

 

The Mancini payments whilst suspicious as they were between him for a couple of million with an Abu Dhabi club for consultancy pre joining City. Nothing techinically wrong but i guess we'll see.

 

The Fordham image rights payments i have no idea about.

 

As far as i'm aware there is no damning evidence out in the public domain. So not quite sure why the court of public opinion has us guilty.

 

For any thinking that CAS still left a non-cooperation fine on City, it's simple; we cooperated fully up until UEFA leaked confidential information about our business and then we stopped cooperating.

 

 

 

 

[LondonBlue 1021]

41 minutes ago, Isegrim said:

They probably will get away because of lapse of time for those charges they are found guilty of.

 

Man City haven't been found guilty of anything as yet. Many think that their is no time limit on the charges. Although Clubs have to operate under English Law so if the PL ignore that it gives us the opportunity to take it to the courts. Also the PL haven't suggested fraud (i know you didnt either) as that would imply a criminal offence and again give us recourse to the courts..

 

We won't challenge FFP itself (imo). But we will defend ourselves by putting our "army of lawyers" up against the PL's "army of lawyers". Both sides can afford the very best btw, not just us.

 

[Holden McGroin 7516]

19 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

Seems Everton and Forest are guilty and have admitted as such and its the punishment that is being debated.

 

The key thing is are we guilty or innocent?

 

This from a good city source "Prestwich_Blue" on our forum sums it up nicely....

 

It's actually two offences when you break it all down.

1. We used artificially inflated sponsorship agreements to overstate our revenue, which led to us knowingly filing incorrect accounts.
2. We didn't declare payments made to Mancini, via the Al Jazira contract, and to players, via the Fordham image rights arrangements.

That's it. The rest is just window dressing

 

You'd think that point 1 would be quite easy to prove/disprove. Obviously City can only provide City's paperwork but can't force a Sponsor to provide anything. Still that should be enough? Remember it's up to the Premier league to prove their case first and foremost. CAS looked at some of that for the UEFA case and said there was nothing suspicious.

 

The Mancini payments whilst suspicious as they were between him for a couple of million with an Abu Dhabi club for consultancy pre joining City. Nothing techinically wrong but i guess we'll see.

 

The Fordham image rights payments i have no idea about.

 

As far as i'm aware there is no damning evidence out in the public domain. So not quite sure why the court of public opinion has us guilty.

 

For any thinking that CAS still left a non-cooperation fine on City, it's simple; we cooperated fully up until UEFA leaked confidential information about our business and then we stopped cooperating.

 

 

 

 

 

It seems pretty simple when breaking it down like that, so what's the hold up? 

[Dazzler 11678]

17 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

 

It seems pretty simple when breaking it down like that, so what's the hold up? 

They are trying to figure out a way for Man City to get a slap on the wrist whilst also protecting themselves from a dry bumming, legally speaking, from Everton.

[wykikitoon 22687]

42 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

 

It seems pretty simple when breaking it down like that, so what's the hold up? 

115 different charges that take time.

[LondonBlue 1021]

Big Tony Soprano has us covered. Everton and that glass house of theirs.

 

 

[LondonBlue 1021]

9 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

115 different charges that take time.

 

There were leaks before Christmas that it would be November 2024. 

 

No idea if thats correct though tbf.

[wykikitoon 22687]

*phew* That's the midfield bolstered 

 

[Dazzler 11678]

"he's like a new signing" *shudders thinking about the Pardew days*

[Renton 23584]

So can't remember who, think it might have been Shay Given, that made the point a natural outcome of FFP is that clubs will have to sell their home grown talent, which I guess is true. How does that fit into clubs representing their local communities? 

[Dazzler 11678]

59 minutes ago, Renton said:

So can't remember who, think it might have been Shay Given, that made the point a natural outcome of FFP is that clubs will have to sell their home grown talent, which I guess is true. How does that fit into clubs representing their local communities? 

You can also do what Man City and Chelsea do, which is buy talented youngsters from overseas that cost buttons. Develop them knowing they are unlikely to ever play for the club and then sell them on for inflated fees because you have the best youth set ups so everyone just assumes the kids are class.

 

I think the profit is the key measure (stand to be corrected) - So selling Longstaff for £20m would be more favourable than selling Isak for say £75m as it is pure profit of £20m and we'd only get £15m of profit selling Isak for £75m since we paid £60m for him.

 

That's my limited understanding of it like and it could be wrong.

[Holden McGroin 7516]

16 minutes ago, Dazzler said:

You can also do what Man City and Chelsea do, which is buy talented youngsters from overseas that cost buttons. Develop them knowing they are unlikely to ever play for the club and then sell them on for inflated fees because you have the best youth set ups so everyone just assumes the kids are class.

 

I think the profit is the key measure (stand to be corrected) - So selling Longstaff for £20m would be more favourable than selling Isak for say £75m as it is pure profit of £20m and we'd only get £15m of profit selling Isak for £75m since we paid £60m for him.

 

That's my limited understanding of it like and it could be wrong.

 

Arent you accountant? 

[Dr Gloom 23536]

Just now, Holden McGroin said:

 

Arent you a so-called accountant? 

LM’d your post 

[Dazzler 11678]

1 minute ago, Holden McGroin said:

 

Arent you accountant? 

Aye but not for a fucking footy club and I don't have the patience or inclination to start looking at the ins and outs of FFP - I have limited storage space in my head and I am getting dangerously close to forgetting how to fasten shoelaces if I start fucking about with a new skill.

[The Fish 11313]

3 hours ago, LondonBlue said:

 

So not quite sure why the court of public opinion has us guilty.

 

 

Surely it's simply that you're successful? Nobody gives a shit about Reading's dodgy owners because who gives a fuck about Reading? People care about our sponsorship deals because we're a threat. The top 6 don't want another force to deal with, the chasing pack don't want another valuable European spot sewn up, and the rest don't want another pair of fixtures written off before a ball is kicked.

[The Fish 11313]

1 hour ago, Dazzler said:

You can also do what Man City and Chelsea do, which is buy talented youngsters from overseas that cost buttons. Develop them knowing they are unlikely to ever play for the club and then sell them on for inflated fees because you have the best youth set ups so everyone just assumes the kids are class.

 

I think the profit is the key measure (stand to be corrected) - So selling Longstaff for £20m would be more favourable than selling Isak for say £75m as it is pure profit of £20m and we'd only get £15m of profit selling Isak for £75m since we paid £60m for him.

 

That's my limited understanding of it like and it could be wrong.

 

Pretty much, Kane and Rice counted as pure profit as there is no fee to amortise. In FFP terms they cost nothing. 

 

So say we had two bids of €50m, one for Bruno, one for Barnes. The Bruno deal would be better in FFP terms than the Harvey Barnes one.