There has been much talk about #FFP Financial Fair Play.
Most fans do not understand it - I will simplify it
Currently there are 115 allegations against Manchester City for over the last decade. Some of which they have probably already paid/served penalties for.
For simplicity,I am going to not consider any foul play and delve deep into these allegations,but just explain it very simply
FFP was created to make sure there is growth in Football but to limit the level of unfair advantage due to the financial strength of the clubs, more specifically the owners of the clubs.
As per FFP £5 mil losses per year were allowed or up to £35 mil if the owner could afford it
This means, a club can spend £35 mil more than it brings in as revenue in the year. There is also another rule with regards to accrued loss over a 3 year period, but again, I will try to keep it more simple
Lets compare Man U income/revenue compared to Man City income since 2012
As you can see from below for 2012 to 2022 the respective earnings were:
Man City: £4.5 bil
Man Utd: £7.7 bil
Now, what this means is that @ManUtd, over the same period have had the ability to spend approximately £3 billion more; whether on player wages or buying players, facilities, etc..
For our purposes, lets just consider that Man U, over this time has spent £2.5 billion extra on player wages, facilities, share holder dividends etc
So they would still have the ability to spend £500 million MORE than Man City within that same time frame on players
However, what has happened is that as of last year, there was only a £80 mil difference in Net Spend on players between Man U and Man City.
I have seen people showing this statistic and saying why are Man U not being called out for financial doping. But they are not comparing like for like (not over the last 10 year period)
If all else being equal, Man U could probably spend an extra £350-500m in same period vs City
So, on the face of it, at very high level, it looks like something is not quite right about Man City spending.
However, there are clever commercials with City have done to defer payments for players for example (£250 mil of their spend is deferred as it stands)
However,something still seems a little off.Thats where the clever accounting comes into play
Or then the allegations with regards to sponsorships from the owners own companies etc or coming in as loans etc (I would have2look at all the accounts&I havent got the headspace4it lol)
Now, let's come onto the topic of the FA.
Why has it taken so long to look at these allegations? It's quite a serious offence if indeed any truth.
It could have changed the course of this premier league race entirely (not to mention the last 4 or 5 too) where @LFC suffered
How does the FA make its money?
- Television rights and broadcasting revenue
- Football ticket sales
- Sponsorship deals
So what increases or decreases this?
- You guessed it - a huge portion of it is the PLAYERS that play in the premier league.
NOT having @ErlingHaaland playing would lose them revenue
NOT being the worlds most watched league, would lose them revenue in television rights and sponsorship deals
Why does this matter?
- Power - just like we've seen from @UEFA and @FIFAcom - football power matters
So are FA likely to actually do anything about these issues (if there is anything that is found against regulations)?
Not really.
FA does not have any vested interest in putting sanctions against clubs spending ££££
This is why, the likes of @Arsenal will most likely not be able to compete the way they have this year in future years, unless they shift their model and go into private ownership for example with @eldsjal.
Fair? I do not know.
Good for the future of the sport? Probably not
But I reiterate, putting all this aside, this @ManCity side are the best at least I have ever witnessed in the premier league.
Amazing work by @m8arteta and the lads to push them this hard
Agency spend in the @NHSuk is 6.5% of the wage bill. This is a stark diagnostic indicator of a failing NHS.
A private nursing home/care provider (from my experience of running over 400 beds in the UK) would be deeply worried if agency spend was over 1.2% of wage bill
- Lack of continuity of care for patients
- Shows a clear problem in staff recruitment and retention
- Problem in culture could be underlying cause
- Less knowledge of systems and processes
- Less ownership of care; impacting documentation, communication
- Leading to more medical errors and complications
- Reduced team bonding and morale
- Reduced efficiencies due to the above
- For a private operator: wipes out 5% from the bottom line - which could pretty much make the business unsustainable
- Poor patient feedback and reviews