Czarnikjak

We just need to accumulate more than 55 points and the league position will take care of itself.

Expected deflation of transfer fees due to COVID making players less valuable. For example, in their 19/20 accounts Everton took an intangible assets ( in other words players) impairment charge of £26m and attributed it to COVID. I fully expect us to do the same in 20/21 accounts. It’s a free FFP hit.

You are correct, we might never find out exactly how much we paid for him, my logic was as follows: 1. Highly unlikely Chelsea would let him go without a loan fee at all 2. £6m was the only reported figure 3. Chelseas valuation to sell him was about £30m last year which equates to £6m a year amortisation if signed on 5 year contract.

Hello, Loan fees PAID are classified as amortisation. £11m total cost for Barkley was widely reported, and looks very plausible to me. Loan feed RECEIVED are classified as revenue (usually bundled under commercial revenue label with other commercial income ) Taylor and Elmo amortisation would be negligible, so I ignored them.

As far as I can tell from the information available, we have met the FFP limit last season, but only just. The main change that occurred was the continuation of COVID and the ability to write off player's residual value (thus reducing amortisation costs) in the books, while treating this impairment as a FFP excluded covid induced cost.

A lot has happened in the last few days, good time to look at where we are with FFP. In this post I will give my assessment of the situation before Jack left, and what were our options if he had stayed. Reminder, I am making 2 assumptions here: 1. We didn't break FFP in 20/21 2. We have no intention on breaking it in 21/22 To the best of my knowledge and information publicly available, our situation as of May 2021 (looking back at last 3 FFP monitoring periods) was near or right at the limit: Our transactions since then: This is a deficit of about £4m. However, particularly bad 17/18 season will drop off from our FFP calculations now, releasing another £10m of FFP budget for wages and amortisation. That gave us only about £6m left to play with if Jack decided to stay (which was probably already reserved for Sanson incoming and Jack wage increase that is not shown in my calculation). So in my estimation, the bottom line is that Buendia and Bailey were bought regardless of Grealish staying or going (Ings is already coming for Grealish money though). However, any further purchases would need to be funded by player sales. Departures of the likes of Hourihane, would give us enough money to bring in a decent cover in CB position for example. Once the dust settles on Grealish and Ings transfers, I will provide my assessment of the new scenario that unfolded now, and what we can do £100m kitty.

5 separate injuries last season

Easily. One word: amortisation If Jack signs 5 year contract, his accounting cost to City is only £20m per season plus wages. Not a biggie for a club with £500m yearly revenue.

Spurs fans not happy that they missed out on Ings...they apparently wanted him at the club. Interesting development

Second that. Looks like very well informed article by Guardian, predicting bright future for us, with or without grealish.

Technically we could even spend more than £200m this summer(on top of what we already spent) if grealish is sold and still be complaint from FFP standpoint this season. The problem is we would be saddling ourselves with amortisation and wages we cannot sustain. That would force us to sell somebody for top dollar every year in the future just to keep complaint. It really is a fine balance. Once the grealish saga is finished and Bailey is officially signed we can reassess our situation.

Don't posses the necessary radio voice and my non British accent could prove to be a bit too much for the listeners. But if you DM me i will be happy to provide you with some info and pointers before the podcast.

Lol, sound like you describing us bidding £25m on JWP

It's not that simple. For example you can spend £0 on 5 free transfers but their wages will eat your whole FFP allowance. Let's see the outcome of Grealish saga first and then reassess. But if everybody stays, I wouldn't expect any more big incomings.

Another 2 months injury layoff...unfortunately constant injury issue mean he simply cannot be relied on in any shape or form. We just need to hope he will stay fit in one of the future transfer Windows and try to sell him sad for the lad

Link to the chart source would be appreciated

Thanks, all good points. @blandy explained contract extensions perfectly, no need to add anything to it. Your Ross Barkley example would be correct if our combined £64m FFP loss for last 2 seasons ( £32m average) was very heavily skewed towards 20/21. Let's say 44-20. But in reality it will be much more evenly spread, limiting the "average" effect you mentioned. Untill full 20/21 accounts are published (march/April 2022), we can only estimate obviously. Thus my calculations have margin of error in them. But I am fairly confident my numbers are not widely off the mark (within £5-10m)

@Czarnikjak What are your thoughts on this? Our income improved massively the season we got promoted. But not since then. It improved by about £12m last season due to higher league position, but commercial revenue would see only very modest increase if at all. This season again, the commercial revenue will see little increase, we didn't sign any new major sponsor deals. If we finish the league in let's say 6th position, our broadcast revenue will go up by another £10m or so. I wouldn't call these increases "massive" PS. I am ignoring any revenue lost to covid as that's excluded from FFP calculations anyway.

The point you are making is a minor implementation detail that could be argued the way you see it. Overall though, covid and the FFP regulations around it, gave teams with owners willing to plough the money in (villa, city and Chelsea mainly) massive advantage. Namely the provision to not include any losses caused by covid in FFP calculations. While other teams had to tighter their belts and reign in spending, we continued like covid doesn't exists thanks to injections from our owners. Overall i estimate that gave us about £60m advantage over the likes of West ham or Wolves.

Why would you say that? There's no suggestion that their current spending puts them anywhere near breaking the limits. The ongoing premier league investigation into ManCity looks at events from 2014, the outcome of it and possible penalty remain to be seen. Look at Everton, they pushed FFP to the limits over last few seasons and now ended up only being permitted to sign freebies like Townsend and Grey for £1m. They are desperate for someone to buy some of their players so they can sign Dumfries.

If you look at that Premier League PSR rule closely it's average of last two years, so: (70/2) + 13 + 13 = 61 4 by 3 formula is what EFL decided to use in the championship

Agree with everything you said. But make no mistake, this wasn't part of the plan. It's first big setback for NSWE regime. It will be interesting to see how the owners, management, players and fans react to it.

Did he carry big suitcase that fits £100m notes?

Yes, they pumped about £100m every year so far. Problem is that FFP calculations are based on revenue generated by the club not on the amount of money you pump in through shares. That’s why Man City are now being investigated by Premier League as they disguised some of their owners money as fake commercial revenue to cheat FFP. That was back in 2014 mind you, Premier League is more wise now to tricks like that, so no, we wouldn’t get away with it now.

The more you spend in previous seasons the less leeway you have left, unless your revenue increases significantly. See my calculations on how much we can spend in the FFP thread.