Manchester City 17/18 discussion | "If you're here for the Champions clap your hands" (#6505)

[el magico]

UAE yes my bad.

I admire your desire to become better informed. Have a look at this if you are interested in City's finances:

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/manchester-city-my-aim-is-true.html

Its quite long so I have three quotes for you. On the Etihad deal:

'the groundbreaking 10-year £400 million deal with Etihad Airways, covering shirt sponsorship, stadium naming rights and the campus development, now looks to be under-valued, as other clubs have since raised the bar.'

On FFP:

'Although some mistakenly believe that FFP has been relaxed, City would now appear to have little to fear from UEFA, having reported profits in the last two seasons, even before excluding any allowable deductions. Although there is likely to be cost growth, this should be more than matched by revenue growth from the higher TV deals and potential uplifts in sponsorships.'

In summary:

'Financially, City have reached a level of maturity that few would have envisaged before the change in ownership. Ironically, given their rivalry with well-known City fans Oasis, the chorus in Blur’s song “To The End” describes the execution of City’s strategy pretty well, “And it looks like we might have made it.” It sure does.'

 

[robinamicrowave]

Nothing to do with Txiki or Pelle.
Are you going to name the guilty men for the calamity that was the 2012/13 window or not?

Somewhere between Mancini and Marwood. Although I think it was part of a coordinated campaign to gradually damage Mancini's reputation, diminish his role at the club and get Txiki Begiristain in. Begiristain was in by the end of September if you remember.

 

[namco]

'Financially, City have reached a level of maturity that few would have envisaged before the change in ownership. Ironically, given their rivalry with well-known City fans Oasis, the chorus in Blur’s song “To The End” describes the execution of City’s strategy pretty well, “And it looks like we might have made it.” It sure does.'

Investing a near £3 Billion to make a poxy £20 Million seems really mature.

 

[el magico]

Investing a near £3 Billion to make a poxy £20 Million seems really mature.

You may be correct namco but my understanding is that Sheikh Mansour has invested a total of £1.2 billion (as per the swiss ramble article). He recouped £265 million from selling a 13% share to the Chinese and the club (self-sufficient and making a profit) is now valued at over £2 billion. That sounds like decent business to me.

 

[JASR]

You may be correct namco but my understanding is that Sheikh Mansour has invested a total of £1.2 billion (as per the swiss ramble article). He recouped £265 million from selling a 13% share to the Chinese and the club (self-sufficient and making a profit) is now valued at over £2 billion. That sounds like decent business to me.

Don't bother discussing with namco.

He has more fake facts than the Orangeman. And similar blindness to detail and truth.

I'm sure last year he was spouting a 2b figure.

I look forward to his 1st post of 2018... and 4b.

 

[prtk0811]

I admire your desire to become better informed. Have a look at this if you are interested in City's finances:

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/manchester-city-my-aim-is-true.html

Its quite long so I have three quotes for you. On the Etihad deal:

'the groundbreaking 10-year £400 million deal with Etihad Airways, covering shirt sponsorship, stadium naming rights and the campus development, now looks to be under-valued, as other clubs have since raised the bar.'

On FFP:

'Although some mistakenly believe that FFP has been relaxed, City would now appear to have little to fear from UEFA, having reported profits in the last two seasons, even before excluding any allowable deductions. Although there is likely to be cost growth, this should be more than matched by revenue growth from the higher TV deals and potential uplifts in sponsorships.'

In summary:

'Financially, City have reached a level of maturity that few would have envisaged before the change in ownership. Ironically, given their rivalry with well-known City fans Oasis, the chorus in Blur’s song “To The End” describes the execution of City’s strategy pretty well, “And it looks like we might have made it.” It sure does.'

My point still remains , they sponsor their own companies via their own co owned companies. Strong case of money laundering in the buisness, Finding loop holes in the system.

 

[el magico]

My point still remains , they sponsor their own companies via their own co owned companies. Strong case of money laundering in the buisness, Finding loop holes in the system.

Ok, being blunt, your point is wrong in every respect. It is completely legitimate for an organisation that is close to the club's owners to sponsor said club. I put forward Stoke City of a better example of this but you chose to ignore it. City's sponsorship was ratified by Uefa at the outset and City's accounts are signed-off by an independent auditor every year to ensure they comply with european accounting standards.

So, two questions for you. Firstly, why do you believe there is a problem with Etihad sponsoring Manchester City when it is apparent to everyone that the sponsorship transgresses no rules? Secondly, money laundering, WTF, please elaborate?

 

[Cassidy]

Ok, being blunt, your point is wrong in every respect. It is completely legitimate for an organisation that is close to the club's owners to sponsor said club. I put forward Stoke City of a better example of this but you chose to ignore it. City's sponsorship was ratified by Uefa at the outset and City's accounts are signed-off by an independent auditor every year to ensure they comply with european accounting standards.

So, two questions for you. Firstly, why do you believe there is a problem with Etihad sponsoring Manchester City when it is apparent to everyone that the sponsorship transgresses no rules? Secondly, money laundering, WTF, please elaborate?

The point was that City found a loop hole which their owners could use to legally pump money into the club.

 

[el magico]

The point was that City found a loop hole which their owners could use to legally pump money into the club.

Sorry, I can't see a loophole anywhere. Etihad Airways have had value with the sponsorship. Manchester City have grown rapidly as one consequence of the sponsorship (see my figures above for the value of the club). Where's the loophole or wrongdoing?

 

[Cassidy]

Sorry, I can't see a loophole anywhere. Etihad Airways have had value with the sponsorship. Manchester City have grown rapidly as one consequence of the sponsorship (see my figures above for the value of the club). Where's the loophole or wrongdoing?

The key word in my post was legally. Not anything wrong with it, it was a good workaround to get past FFP

 

[cyberman]

Nobody would buy City because their sponsors would leave with their buddy.. A new owner would have to start from scratch. That's why their value is bullshit.
It's like Narcos where they had the most valuable cab service in the world despite owning three taxis. The real life value is bullshit

 

[padr81]

The point was that City found a loop hole which their owners could use to legally pump money into the club.

This is not true though, its a case of using business aquaintances (sorry bout the horrible spelling) that the owner knows and trusts. Maybe given the growth of the club Etihad just had better forsight than many as the deal looks quite cheap now.

If the Stadium and all that came with sponsorship was available for any takers bar Etihad do you think the new deal would be any less? Do you genuinely think we wouldn't get a far better deal then the current one today from just about any major player.

There was no twisting of finances, God knows Uefa would love to throw the book at us if there was. Everything was above board and legit. So, City's owner deals with his closest and dearest, not breaking any rules is a loophole.

Do you think for example Ed Woodwards first port of call in any business venture even United is not the people he's dealt with before, knows best and if he could his family? Its how he landed the job...

Daniel Levy, Roman Abrahmovic etc... Of course they would. Its not a loophole at all, its simply a close business aquaintance taking up a good offer.

 

[Cassidy]

This is not true though, its a case of using business aquaintances (sorry bout the horrible spelling) that the owner knows and trusts. Maybe given the growth of the club Etihad just had better forsight than many as the deal looks quite cheap now.

If the Stadium and all that came with sponsorship was available for any takers bar Etihad do you think the new deal would be any less? Do you genuinely think we wouldn't get a far better deal then the current one today from just about any major player.

There was no twisting of finances, God knows Uefa would love to throw the book at us if there was. Everything was above board and legit. So, City's owner deals with his closest and dearest, not breaking any rules is a loophole.

Do you think for example Ed Woodwards first port of call in any business venture even United is not the people he's dealt with before, knows best and if he could his family? Its how he landed the job...

Daniel Levy, Roman Abrahmovic etc... Of course they would. Its not a loophole at all, its simply a close business aquaintance taking up a good offer.

At the time you wouldn't have no.

 

[padr81]

At the time you wouldn't have no.

At the time it was stated as a long term investment, City were a CL club and the deal was weighed and measured to within an inch of its life by Uefa because of people saying Etihad payed over the odds which they didn't.
Breaking the deal down it was £20m per season for jersey sponsorship, the same as United and Liverpool who while being bigger clubs only United at the time had more to offer. Liverpool made the deal look fair because they didn't even qualify for the Europa League.

15m for the stadium and training complex. £10m of which was Stadium Naming rights.. Arsenal for example signed a Stadium Naming rights deal for £30m per season the season after.

To say the City deal was overpriced at the time is untrue.

 

[el magico]

At the time you wouldn't have no.

Why not? The sponsorship may have been over-valued initially but Etihad are currently benefiting from a sponsorship that is under-valued. As padr81 states they had the foresight to see that investing at the outset would be beneficial in the long-term. Abu Dhabi, as a state, has a long-term investment strategy. The partnership between City and Etihad will continue for a long time and appears to be part of that strategy.

I accept that understanding a long-term deal means thinking ever so slightly out of the norm, this isn't your bog-standard two year sponsorship. With regards to your loophole nonsense, nothing illegal has occurred and Uefa accepted the sponsorship at the outset.

 

[prtk0811]

City's sponsorship was ratified by Uefa at the outset and City's accounts are signed-off by an independent auditor every year to ensure they comply with european accounting standards.

And the same independent auditor also audits ethiad airways accounts headquartered in UAE who's royal family controls the law of the land and owns both businesses? Does European accounting standards also apply to UAE?

Sorry, I can't see a loophole anywhere. Etihad Airways have had value with the sponsorship. Manchester City have grown rapidly as one consequence of the sponsorship (see my figures above for the value of the club). Where's the loophole or wrongdoing?

Who could say the 400 m investment made my ethiad airways were legally theirs and not invested by the owner himself.

 

[prtk0811]

Nobody would buy City because their sponsors would leave with their buddy.. A new owner would have to start from scratch. That's why their value is bullshit.
It's like Narcos where they had the most valuable cab service in the world despite owning three taxis. The real life value is bullshit

Good point.

 

[el magico]

Nobody would buy City because their sponsors would leave with their buddy.. A new owner would have to start from scratch. That's why their value is bullshit.
It's like Narcos where they had the most valuable cab service in the world despite owning three taxis. The real life value is bullshit

Except the Chinese consortium, China Media Capital, did exactly that. They bought a 13% stake based on the quoted valuation of just over £2 billion. Sorry for disproving your comment but this stuff is in the public domain and no state secret.

 

[cyberman]

Except the Chinese consortium, China Media Capital, did exactly that. They bought a 13% stake based on the quoted valuation of just over £2 billion. Sorry for disproving your comment but this stuff is in the public domain and no state secret.

Disproving what?
Have City been sold? Yipee I suppose

 

[padr81]

Except the Chinese consortium, China Media Capital, did exactly that. They bought a 13% stake based on the quoted valuation of just over £2 billion. Sorry for disproving your comment but this stuff is in the public domain and no state secret.

Pipe down everyone knows that China (the whole country) belongs to the Sheik's brother and Nissan to his mother and EA Sports their uncle and Nike their granny but she's selling Nike to buy Under Armour. Also everyone knows Nexen Tire is from that little known part of Abu Dhabi called South Korea... or QNet from famous Abu Dhabi slum Hong Kong and Wix and Betsafe etc...

And we're called the bitters....

This place is going to explode when granny sheik's Nike deal at £20m per season expires and her new Under Armour one triples that.

 

[Beachryan]

I'm sure it's been said more eloquently, but to me the issue with City is twofold:
1. Being able to distort the market by not requiring to operate within the bounds all other clubs (except Chelsea) have to compete in
2. The primary revenue source is a privately held organisation very closely linked to the owners of the club

The problem with 1 is felt more by Spurs and Liverpool than United, and much more by every other club. While it's true that in about 2 of the last 10 seasons City have posted a small profit, the net profit is around 1bn in the negative. In isolation that's not a big deal, but this is supposedly a sporting league. How are Newcastle, Hull etc supposed to compete in that market?

The problem with 2 is somewhat one of Western/capitalist norms. Imagine if City's sponsor were United airlines. To create such a huge deal it would have to likely get very high boardroom if not shareholder approval. And, perhaps more importantly, there would be measures in place to ensure that returns are in line with spend. But with the current deal, who knows? That airline already undercuts most other airlines and is actually pretty similar to City in terms of profitability. In that, it claims to have posted profit for 30 consecutive years. Which is simply unheard of in that industry. But, because of the way it discloses (and doesn't) various operations, it is impossible to see how much money is being pumped in by the government.

In the end, City fans should enjoy the amazing luxury that they've been granted imo. What they should absolutely not do is attempt to justify their luck through business means. City is a vanity project, that will never pay back the 'investment' put in directly. And that's before we even speak about the way City's owners, erm, treat those working in the area.

 

[cyberman]

Pipe down everyone knows that China (the whole country) belongs to the Sheik's brother and Nissan to his mother and EA Sports their uncle and Nike their granny but she's selling Nike to buy Under Armour. Also everyone knows Nexen Tire is from that little known part of Abu Dhabi called South Korea... or QNet from famous Abu Dhabi slum Hong Kong and Wix and Betsafe etc...

And we're called the bitters....

This place is going to explode when granny sheik's Nike deal at £20m per season expires and her new Under Armour one triples that.

Why wouldn't investors take advantage of this situation? The profits are real money after all

 

[KM]

Except the Chinese consortium, China Media Capital, did exactly that. They bought a 13% stake based on the quoted valuation of just over £2 billion. Sorry for disproving your comment but this stuff is in the public domain and no state secret.

Yes and that was of City footballing group and not Man City alone.

 

[Powderfinger]

Except the Chinese consortium, China Media Capital, did exactly that. They bought a 13% stake based on the quoted valuation of just over £2 billion. Sorry for disproving your comment but this stuff is in the public domain and no state secret.

The issue isn't that the valuation is bullshit. As you imply, outside investors wouldn't buy if that was the case.

The issue is that the valuation is dependent on financial relationships with other UAE entities that are almost certainly intentionally disadvantageous to those entities.

If I have a grocery store and I force my suppliers (who I also own) to sell to that store at under market prices, then of course many other investors will want to buy a piece of my grocery store. It's a great business!

 

[padr81]

I'm sure it's been said more eloquently, but to me the issue with City is twofold:
1. Being able to distort the market by not requiring to operate within the bounds all other clubs (except Chelsea) have to compete in
2. The primary revenue source is a privately held organisation very closely linked to the owners of the club

The problem with 1 is felt more by Spurs and Liverpool than United, and much more by every other club. While it's true that in about 2 of the last 10 seasons City have posted a small profit, the net profit is around 1bn in the negative. In isolation that's not a big deal, but this is supposedly a sporting league. How are Newcastle, Hull etc supposed to compete in that market?

The problem with 2 is somewhat one of Western/capitalist norms. Imagine if City's sponsor were United airlines. To create such a huge deal it would have to likely get very high boardroom if not shareholder approval. And, perhaps more importantly, there would be measures in place to ensure that returns are in line with spend. But with the current deal, who knows? That airline already undercuts most other airlines and is actually pretty similar to City in terms of profitability. In that, it claims to have posted profit for 30 consecutive years. Which is simply unheard of in that industry. But, because of the way it discloses (and doesn't) various operations, it is impossible to see how much money is being pumped in by the government.

In the end, City fans should enjoy the amazing luxury that they've been granted imo. What they should absolutely not do is attempt to justify their luck through business means. City is a vanity project, that will never pay back the 'investment' put in directly. And that's before we even speak about the way City's owners, erm, treat those working in the area.

1. What about the early to mid 2000's when United could distort the market by not requiring to operate within the bounds all other clubs have to compete in.
2. Again a primary revenue source closely linked to the owner of the club who paid fair market value as judged by the people who laid out the criteria for what fair market value was.

I really don't see how this doesn't sink in. Would you all feel better if it said Honda or AIG instead of Etihad?

Was it a sporting league in 2005 when you and Chelsea simply dwarfed everyone else?
Of course it was because you were winning right?

You also spout £1bn but have not mentioned a single thing about how in the early 2000's it was your goodselves and Chelsea who drove the football market into overdrive and cause this crazy inflation. Of course City have spent more they started at a time when prices were tripled by the spending of others. I'll post this again and there is a nice little graph showing every clubs first XI spending given the inflation your goodselves and Chelsea caused.

https://sports.vice.com/en_uk/artic...ed-football-inflation-and-the-transfer-window

City for all intents and purposes are not doing anything only continuing the good work you guys laid down.

I'll put this clearly its Uniteds and Chelsea who created modern football spending in England by constantly pushing it (and fair play to you for using your dominace.).
At City we simply won the lotto and joined in. While we're not the solution we certainly didn't start the problem and yes the club is a legitimate business.
Your club partly created this monster in football so stop crying about it.

And you end with the typical play thing argument....

 

[el magico]

Yes and that was of City footballing group and not Man City alone.

I don't know what point you are making here. Sorry.

 

[Beachryan]

I agree and have always been more of a fan of North American style leagues where some attempt is made at it being competitive. It's also true that both United and Chelsea (and Blackburn) have outspent others. Though even you must see the difference between United's spending (its own revenue) and City/Chelsea (someone else's).

Listen, if you genuinely don't believe City is a marketing exercise, explain who would 'invest' 1.2bn to make 0.05m across 10 years. You claim that City's valuation justifies it, but come on - what sensible business person would expect to get the same sponsorship deal? Further, it ignores the reality that if said sponsorship deal were not to last, City could no longer keep the lights on. Which would instantly plunge the value of the club into nothing. As others have pointed out - City is only able to have the players it does because it is essentially subsidized by a government. The entire operating model is predicated on that. While Forbes may value the assets at a dollar amount, in no way is that business model going to work without the specific owners.

Put in much simpler terms: Newcastle have a similar historic standing and fan base as Manchester City. Why aren't Emirates 'investing' in them?

Finally, using UEFA as a barometer for financial or ethical sense...yeah.

 

[AmanNits04]

Why did the Shiekh specifically chose this club to buy and invest in, can anyone shed light on this? With due respect to Manchester City, they weren't exactly successful or famous prior to the arrival of Shiekh. So what was the thing that attracted him to this club?

 

[padr81]

I agree and have always been more of a fan of North American style leagues where some attempt is made at it being competitive. It's also true that both United and Chelsea (and Blackburn) have outspent others. Though even you must see the difference between United's spending (its own revenue) and City/Chelsea (someone else's).

Listen, if you genuinely don't believe City is a marketing exercise, explain who would 'invest' 1.2bn to make 0.05m across 10 years. You claim that City's valuation justifies it, but come on - what sensible business person would expect to get the same sponsorship deal? Further, it ignores the reality that if said sponsorship deal were not to last, City could no longer keep the lights on. Which would instantly plunge the value of the club into nothing. As others have pointed out - City is only able to have the players it does because it is essentially subsidized by a government. The entire operating model is predicated on that. While Forbes may value the assets at a dollar amount, in no way is that business model going to work without the specific owners.

Finally, using UEFA as a barometer for financial or ethical sense...yeah.

I do totally. I'll be the first person to say City won the lotto, in fact I did in my reply.
You simply stated it was denying Liverpool, Spurs etc.. success but that all began with you and Chelsea sending spending through the roof. Then you said how are Newcastle, Hull etc.. supposed to compete. How did they in 2003 and 2004? in 2003 or 2004 we were a Hull. The only way a Hull can ever compete is to be as lucky as we have been, but of course they would probably have to spend 1.5 times what we have because of inflation.

Cities owners are of course in it for PR but will it still be 0.05m in another 10 years? Or in 20 years?
Remember when you all said Roman would be gone by 2014... and Chelsea wouldn't be sustainable, they'd be gone.. Look at them now! City are no different.

If the Sheik did walk, how exactly would this bankrupt us? If you genuinely think no one would come in and take up said Etihad sponsorship deal than clearly your living in a fantasy world. The same deal in this day and age would probably net us 6-700m. Whether you guys admit it or not we are on the verge of being self sufficient. I think the Sheik leaving now would actually change feck all, just as Roman leaving Chelsea would change feck all.

Could we have got where we are without the Sheik? Not in a billion years, but now we are here if he does move on we'll be fine.

Uefa may not be a barometer for financial anything but they are the rule makers and those are the rules we like yourselves have to follow. So yes in the case of football Uefa's FFP and their judging of the criteria is exactly what makes financial sense for a football club.

 

[padr81]

Why did the Shiekh specifically chose this club to buy and invest in, can anyone shed light on this? With due respect to Manchester City, they weren't exactly successful or famous prior to the arrival of Shiekh. So what was the thing that attracted him to this club?

I think the idea of fighting against a giant helped his cause hugely. I think a part of the reason the Sheik chose us was United. I have no qualms admitting it. He was moving into a city with the 2nd or 3rd biggest club in the world and using his financial might to take them on. It was massive PR.

Had Liverpool been the dominant force in english football in 2008, I have no doubt Everton would be where we are now and we'd still be bottom half of the table and constantly fighting relegation.

 

[Beachryan]

a

If investing in the Premier League is such a worthwhile exercise for Etihad, why City? Why not Spurs? Or Palace? If the Sheikh left, surely Spurs would be a more valuable place to spend those marketing dollars? London-based, young, likeable. Levy would take it in a heartbeat.

 

[padr81]

If investing in the Premier League is such a worthwhile exercise for Etihad, why City? Why not Spurs? Or Palace? If the Sheikh left, surely Spurs would be a more valuable place to spend those marketing dollars? London-based, young, likeable. Levy would take it in a heartbeat.

I just said why in my last post. United. Plain and simple. What better rivalry to go into but to take the rival of a giant, in their shadow for 60 years, a team that generates more stories and clicks than the rest of England combined and try to match them. It was ready made news, PR and an easy club to make global because of said rivals.

As I said had Liverpool been Englands dominant club, Pep would probably be managing Everton. There was simply no massive giant to overthrow in London. Chelsea can compete financially with anyone and Spurs and Arsenal didn't have a United or Liverpool in their city. We did, we got lucky and now we are where we are.

Where I think the Sheik made a mistake PR wise, was he thought City would be loved and he would gain bucketloads of adulation for beating United, but in reality what happened was the media spout this bending the rules bullshit because it appeases United fans and they generate the most clicks and sales.

 

[BlueMoonOutcast]

Kelechi Iheanacho has confirmed he will be a Manchester City player next season. I'm actually delighted to read that.

 

[Gentleman Jim]

Somewhere between Mancini and Marwood. Although I think it was part of a coordinated campaign to gradually damage Mancini's reputation, diminish his role at the club and get Txiki Begiristain in. Begiristain was in by the end of September if you remember.

Yes I remember it.
Ferran had already arrived and Txiki was on his way but that disastrous window was hamstrung by the inability to spend the necessary money to kick on when United were reeling.
Mancini was asked to dispense with one of our 4 top strikers if we were to have a run at getting RVP but refused to do it.
We ended up with crocks and crap and Hey Presto United were Champs again.
My point is that there were a number of bad decisions made over the years post-takeover so to single out Txiki and MP is somewhat revisionist.
Some great moments too, so not all bad.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

Yes I remember it.
Ferran had already arrived and Txiki was on his way but that disastrous window was hamstrung by the inability to spend the necessary money to kick on when United were reeling.
Mancini was asked to dispense with one of our 4 top strikers if we were to have a run at getting RVP but refused to do it.
We ended up with crocks and crap and Hey Presto United were Champs again.
My point is that there were a number of bad decisions made over the years post-takeover so to single out Txiki and MP is somewhat revisionist.
Some great moments too, so not all bad.

Rodwell, Sinclair and Nastasic

 

[Gentleman Jim]

Rodwell, Sinclair and Nastasic

Maicon and Javi Garcia.
Talk about missing an open goal!

 

[Gee Male]

1. What about the early to mid 2000's when United could distort the market by not requiring to operate within the bounds all other clubs have to compete in.
2. Again a primary revenue source closely linked to the owner of the club who paid fair market value as judged by the people who laid out the criteria for what fair market value was.

I really don't see how this doesn't sink in. Would you all feel better if it said Honda or AIG instead of Etihad?

Was it a sporting league in 2005 when you and Chelsea simply dwarfed everyone else?
Of course it was because you were winning right?

You also spout £1bn but have not mentioned a single thing about how in the early 2000's it was your goodselves and Chelsea who drove the football market into overdrive and cause this crazy inflation. Of course City have spent more they started at a time when prices were tripled by the spending of others. I'll post this again and there is a nice little graph showing every clubs first XI spending given the inflation your goodselves and Chelsea caused.

https://sports.vice.com/en_uk/artic...ed-football-inflation-and-the-transfer-window

City for all intents and purposes are not doing anything only continuing the good work you guys laid down.

I'll put this clearly its Uniteds and Chelsea who created modern football spending in England by constantly pushing it (and fair play to you for using your dominace.).
At City we simply won the lotto and joined in. While we're not the solution we certainly didn't start the problem and yes the club is a legitimate business.
Your club partly created this monster in football so stop crying about it.

And you end with the typical play thing argument....

Your (1) above is laughable. United didn't distort any market - we spent money that we ourselves had earned by being successful both on and off the pitch. Investing those profits was not a distortion of anything. City (and yes, Chelsea too) distorted the market by spending shitloads of money generated from a completely different market (i.e. oil and crime respectively, allegedly).

Can you understand the difference? Genuinely, can you see that the point is not about quantum spent or about 'winning the lotto', but an absolute distortion of the football landscape?

And you also need to stop comparing City's sponsorship deals with other clubs. For example, Arsenal as far as I am aware have no direct links to Emirates other than business. You can contrast that with City yourself. Also, an important point to note is that Arsenal are a big club with a huge fanbase and can sell their stadium out multiple times over even with astronomical ticket prices, therefore hugely commercially attractive to a sponsor. Again, you can contrast that with City yourself.

 

[Varun]

Kelechi Iheanacho has confirmed he will be a Manchester City player next season. I'm actually delighted to read that.

Do you see him getting decent game time? He's just not a Pep type striker for me and the competition for places has just gone up a couple of notches.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

Maicon and Javi Garcia.
Talk about missing an open goal!

One game Maicon came on and shut down Bale late in a match and I am convinced that is the only reason he came to the PL.

 

[Gentleman Jim]

One game Maicon came on and shut down Bale late in a match and I am convinced that is the only reason he came to the PL.

Maicon was a WC player in his day. Sadly, he was a burnt out shell of this by the time he got to City.