Mr Popodopolous

Thought we were solid today. Compact. Norwich had their moments of course and a fair bit of the ball but for all their possession were not really threatening for the most part. Scott should've had a penalty for sure and the wait goes on. 70-30 in favour of Norwich as far as the ref was concerned it felt like.

£0.60 to print a ticket in colour at the library. You can get a smart phone for a relatively cheap amount in the grand scheme but it doesn't sit well. I have a smart phone , sure we all do on here- fully cognisant with how it all works but why take away the option. Doesn't sit well.

If demoted, chatter seems to be League 2. Haaland? Read he's on £900k per week so maybe less than a fortnight wages if accurate. Dunno if gross, net etc so maybe stick wirh month. @downendcity mentioned a while ago. Definitely the case it has most in common with is the Derby one IMO, from a few angles. I've pointed this to a few well informed Man City fans or at least some with a lot of followed on Twitter, ones who express shock or scepticism that validity of the accounts could be called into question. Maybe they're right but radio silence to my points when I point out that Derby had to restate 6 years worth of accounts albeit for different reasons. Complex accounting, creative accounting, lack of cooperation, multiple companies...should some of those I listed the other day be 'captured' for FFP purposes. This case is much bigger but this and Derby seem the closest match to date.

I do know what you mean although v Cardiff in August? Won handily. Display v Watford was also food back just before the international break too, they brought a few-atmosphere was good especially 2nd half, two (team and fans) fed off each other quite well.

Having double checked it does appear to be 19 and not 18 for Birmingham in the League. 214 games- 19 penalties for them. 213 games- 8 penalties for us. It becomes even more mental when you adjust it cor big chances, but remember the period run from August 2018 to January 10th 2022. 1 per 58 big chances to them, vs 1 per 91 big chances to us. Dread to think what it is now for us!

Two big saves/interventions v us 1st half tbh. Not the best but clearly their best. ...vs a BCFC too @Jerseybean

Birmingham who were next to us at this level have had 18 in 214 games including tonight set against our 8. 1 per 1,070 mins assuming League only whereas 1 per 2,396.50 for us. A fair next stage of analysis then is those sides who were ever present at the level from 2018-19 to now and these are- League only. 1) Birmingham City- 18 or 19 but sources wise it is certain which. 2) Blackburn- 30 3) US- 8 4) Middlesbrough- 24 5) Millwall- 21 6) Preston- 30 7) QPR- 22 8. Reading- 32 9) Stoke City- 20 10) Swansea City- 25

A very quick calculation suggests that if League only...it was. 1 penalty per 1,834 mins. Now it's and I'm not including stoppage time in this. 1 penalty per 2,396.50 mins. Put another way it was 1 per 20.3778 games whereas now it's 1 per 26.625 games. Won't even try to bother with any other clubs! 8 in 163 games became 8 in 213 games in layman's terms.

It's not new. https://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2021/wp364/en/ However I wonder what we are at now- for this only went up to Jan 10th 2022. Am assuming was League only?

Let's not go nuts but we would definitely be better off...maybe next season it'll even out combined with our continued development as a side and playoffs here we come!

My thoughts were that it was the stamp that got it pulled back and him retrospectively banned.

Correct. Had one v Swansea at home a couple of games before. Last with fans present at home was final game of 2019 v Luton. 29th December 2019 maybe?

When we get one the pressure, the nerves, the anticipation- especially if it's at a meaningful part of the game. Football being football it... Will be skied into Row Z, out the ground or disturb sleeping seagulls etc on the stand roof! We'll get one some day, somehow but not a chance it'll be scored!

Good spot that, that was very much the cowardly bit I referred to. It's not immediately visible without watching a few times but nasty, cowardly.

I will leave others who contributed or whose work contributed to share it @Pezza or @Olé or whoever.

Just on a general note, I believe that the certainly at PL level ie the £105m plus allowable, any breaches there won't be present day IMO but long and medium term historic. In other words probably legit bow, but on the way up? Not so much. As trophies won, success gained etc then naturally revenue will legitimately rise in all areas, likewise player sale profitability. One thing I did notice though, certain companies that appear under City Football Group but not the cost...hmm I wonder if they are 'captured' or have been correctly in the FFP transactions. The following... 1) City Football Marketing Limited 2) City Football Image Rights Limited 3) City Football Investments Limited 4) City Football U.K. Holdings Limited 5) City Football Services Limited. 6) Fordham Sports Image Rights Limited- may have been defunct for a while anyway but bow officially wound up. Was between 2012 and 2013 known as Manchester City Football Club (Image Rights) Limited. All of the first 5 came under City Football Group but now interestingly there is a new Controlling Company of these called City Football Group (Midco) Limited. Unsure which other companies come under this banner, these accounts for the first time will be made up to end of June 2023 and are due by 20th February 2014- company was founded on 20th May 2022. Perhaps this will be to separate out the UK operations from the global ones. A question I guess is, are amounts recharged between these companies and Man City? If so that sort of nets off a lot of the stuff about allocation of costs.

Correct outcome- watched it a few times now- cowardly. Would have made the last 10 plus stoppage time markedly easier had the correct decision been made at the time.

An important test might be, based on the Image rights claims and I assume potential for excessively valued RPTs, does the excess in amount paid above fair value affect the FFP numbers and by how much? Talking the 3 year P&S regs. Quite hard to fail these the, £105m which I believe is added to the youth, community etc over 3 years. UEFA at €30m is much tighter margins. In simple terms, £105m adjusted loss allowed and club makes a 3 year aggregated pre tax profit of £25m. Then they have £15m per season in allowable costs thst is a surplus of £175m. In simple terms... T-2. Profit pre tax £10m and £15m Allowable costs. T-1. Profit pre tax £5m and £15m Allowable costs. T. Profit pre tax £9m and £15m Allowable costs. Therefore the League would need to see a combination of costs hidden and inflated revenue of £175m in that 3 year period...for UEFA that is £25.42m as per a stated exchange rates of £1/€1.18. £95.42m. In other words it is possible that costs and revenue overstated but not by enough to tip Man City into an FFP overspend at PL level- UEFA might differ. Suppose the simple example would be if some commercial revenue was £100m per year but the Fair Value was an aggregated £40m per year. Suddenly a £5m FFP 3 year overspend.

It does smack a lot of Derby albeit far bigger and for far longer if proven but it has some similar ingredients. Some are arguing that if made to restate accounts it would constitute an accusation of fraud but Derby were made to restate without punishment for the auditors (as far as any of us know) so club punished over account doesn't necessarily lead to consequences for the auditors in q.

Talking of persecution complexes, jealousy of their wealth, excellence is one thing but tbis is the wildest yet that I've seen.

Continuation of my cautionary tale, saw this on my feed. A thread but basically Sheffield United still having issues with SAG etc over persistent standing or overcrowding. Think some restrictions in play. Great atmosphere excellent but people do need to be sensible too.

A lot out of contract which may help, perhaps they can pay decent wages for said free agents. If course the new 90-80-70 rule will affect clubs but in different ways.. Wondered thst myself. Have until end of May/June as with all clubs. Under what circs would an FFP deduction for the existing season be activated during said season around April- are there any? Based on the strength of the Projection and the two actual I mean.

Stoke fans are reasonably bullish and from the bits I've been reading they didn't need to sell Souttar for FFP, indeed their technical director has implied this? When their final accounts are out for last season, Stoke City Holdings a clearer picture will emerge- SwissRamble also had suggested their usual FFP allowances (academy etc) are £9m per sesson which certainly helps. What about Fulham and Nottingham Forest sorted do you think or still a live issue? I now have full confidence that we are clear to 2023, Semenyo sale has dome the job. Reading must have gone some really gone some given their likely turnover to fall in line with the Business Plan.

Should probably add too, think Stoke are compliant now in any event owing to Bursik, Collins, Souttar- all academy, all profit and didn't Souttar have a sell on clause roo- Fulham made major losses, £161m across 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 with 2021-22 still to come...we know at minimum they sought to add £20m impairment as a Covid cost in 2020-21.

One for @Hxj Before I forget, IIRC unless I imagined it wasn't it said that Stoke's Covid add-backs were being investigated? Presumably that has all been rubber stamped or is that still a live issue. Sure you mentioned it once but maybe I was mistaken.