Like that time you sold IP internally for 50m, or that season with 197m loss.
Good times.
Manchester City 17/18 discussion | "If you're here for the Champions clap your hands" (#6505)
- Thread starter simonhch
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Good times.
I made a mistake in the 4 of the last 5 post, its 4 in the last 4. 5 in the last 6. My bad. Just shows we are a match for you like my original post said, nothing more nothing less.
Whether Arsenal matched us or not really has little bearing on my post though as the original reply was that we are not closer to you now then we were 10 years ago, which was pure joking between myself and TheReligion.
As for me talking about trophies the last 4 years I believe that's the length of time Cyberman specified, not me when he said he be mortified at 4 years like that. In reality you'll be doing well to come away with that haul.
His exact words "If Marty Mc Fly showed up and told us our next 4 years would mirror City's last 4 I would be mortified."
So don't rant and rave about Ferguson the point was brought up by Cyberman about Cities last 4 seasons being a failure, when in reality only Chelsea have achieved more and on a individual basis Jose.
If you want to go back to 5, why not go back 6 when we have 2 premier leagues or 20 when you have alot more. I didn't just pluck a point to suit my argument, so don't say I did, Cyberman did.
As for CC and Europa, thats pure shite. Its nice to have the trophies but you guys all called it a joke treble when Liverpool did it so come one. Even last season when Liverpool were in both finals they were both joke games, why? Because they didn't involve ye. Its hardly a failure but its not some great feat either. You won one competition no decent team wants to be in and one that most teams play half a team till the semi's.
I've already congratulated you guys on 2 decent trophies but neither are trophies of importance.
Arsenal had to face much better teams to win the FA Cup for example than you did to win both the CC and Europa. Tell me this is your season really better than the one that cost Pelligirini his job, CL qualification (which is all the EL was about till you actually won it.) and the Carling Cup? I'd say marginally because two trophies are nice but are they trophies you really want United to be lifting?
Last edited:
I completely agree with this, we have some really hypocritical fans, but I guess all clubs do. I would say though, that it is better to win Champions League qualification through winning a trophy, than it is by finishing 4th, 3rd or 2nd in the league. It's still a competition we should approach with indifference and disregard though, we shouldn't be involved at that level as an ambitious club going forward.
It is indeed and winning any trophy is nice but for me, a club like United should never regard winning the EL a success, its beneath them being in it in the first place. Might be arrogant and seem even more arrogant from a City fan who are only at the big table because we won the lottery but I genuinely feel like only because of your failure in the league are some justifying the EL. Its one of those trophies like the CC that are nice to win but managers will never be judged on them.
1 league in 5 odd seasons is simply not impressive. if Jose left us with that record he would be a failure.
See I'd disagree, your not competing just with Wenger anymore or just with Chelsea or just Rafa.
There is Chelsea, City, yourselves, Spurs and maybe even Liverpool and Arsenal if they shop right. The days of winning 3 of 4 titles etc.. imho are gone. Everyone thinks Jose will win one at least, Pep will win one at least, Conte will probably win another. Its simply impossible for a club to dominate like you guys did or Chelsea's first stint under Jose. The last title winners to finish even 2nd in recent times is when Ferguson got no.20 and City came runners up and Joses last title with City runners up, and even both of those weren't competitive races. Both you guys and Chelsea hammered us.
The reality is the champion hasn't put up a credible title defence since you guys in 2011-12 despite City being runners up twice.
1 in 5 is not really a huge success I agree, but why not say 2 in 6. In the last 7 years its United 2, City 2, Chelsea 2, Leicester 1. If you go back 10 years of course its an impressive
United 4, Chelsea 3, City 2, Leicester 1, but I think those pre-2012 days are gone.
Under the circumstances and considering the last three seasons, we should absolutely be delighted that we won two trophies and gained CL qualification.
Also hilarious to see a City fan coming on an United forum telling whether we should be happy about the season or not whilst continously raving about Pep the genius who only qualified for CL whilst failing to won a title or mount a reasonable league challenge.
Pellegrini was sacked for a better season.
Also hilarious to see a City fan coming on an United forum telling whether we should be happy about the season or not whilst continously raving about Pep the genius who only qualified for CL whilst failing to won a title or mount a reasonable league challenge.
Pellegrini was sacked for a better season.
Raving about Pep, when? I've called our season poor numerous times. The reality is Pep finished some 15 points better off than Pelligrini despite winning nothing. He finished higher in the league and I still gave him deserved criticism and the team the same. If you can tell me one time I've "raved" about Pep than fair enough or even when I've said he's the bestest manager in the world fire away, but what you'll find is I've said Pep is one of the top managers and no better or worse than other top managers. I've also said I prefer our (Pep's) style of football to Jose's 8 at the back, or even Klopps rather hectic but hugely entertaining style, but thats just my preference.
You guys are trying to justify Jose as being better than LVG but in reality, LVG won an FA Cup (harder to win than Joses 2, albeit with a nice draw) and did better in the league. Maybe practice what you preach.
Pep 15 points better and 1 place higher than Pellers - worse season.
Jose worse than his predecessor in the only competition you cared about till February- Better.
If you think winning a CC defines Pellers season as better than Peps then fair enough but I beg to differ.
Whats this being a United forum got to do with anything btw, isn't this place prized (and prides itself) as being open to fans of other teams giving their opinion. Or is it only if they agree with everything you say? In my eyes the Europa League is below Manchester United if you believe its not and believe thats where your current XI belong you should call out the OP who said you are still better than us, not me (which you'll find was a bit of banter between myself and @TheReligion and nothing more).
Last edited:
What narrative? You've got to be kidding, if you genuinely believe City could actually keep spending as much as they've been doing and report "profit" year after year. Here's an example for you. Since 2013-14 season City have spent around £430m, sold players for about £77m with net spend of £353m (!) . In the same period of time Chelsea's numbers are £416m and £388m with net spend of £28m.
The difference is, we've got real sponsorship deals, while City is a state sponsored UAE project. One look at your 'global sponsors' page is enough. Etihad, Etisalat, the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority, Aabar Investments, Arabtec...It's a fecking joke.
You want to know how to determine what your club's really worth? Chelsea are getting this summer a new deal with Nike worth 60m per year. City's contract with Nike is 20m per year. United are getting around 75m for theirs from Adidas. That's real value.
It's stupid to keep on harping about league positions when it became clear that we didn't played our best team in the last matches to keep focus on Europa League. A gamble which worked and we qualified for CL.
Its not stupid, you stopped focusing on the league when it became apparent you weren't getting top 4. In fact this board was all about passing Liverpool until it became obvious you wouldn't. As it became more and more obvious it wasn't happening as City and Liverpool didn't falter, more and more said you should ditch the premier league and focus on the Europa. Your league season was a failure so you resorted to the Europa in maybe March possibly late February. Up to the derby v City (the 0-0) the priority for most was the league. 80% of your season was based around getting top 4, you only have to read back through the posts. The Europa only became important when you failed in the league or do you disagree?
Just look through the league positions prediction thread to see whether its true or not. You want a pass for failing 80% of the season just because you won some competition you guys didn't care about until February? When you were 25 games unbeaten the premier league mattered even though you were still 6th. You can't have a pass on every teams bread and butter because you changed focus last minute. If LVG had come 4th and Pellegrini 5th you'd be destroying Pep for coming 6th and winning the Europa and the league would be bread and butter and most important. At best it was gameweek 33 before you abandoned the league.
Winning the FA Cup was certainly not harder than winning two trophies. 1 of which had a group stage which funny enough City haven't won
Utd played over 60 games last season WITH an injury crisis. Did you not see our army of hobblers? Including Zlatan.. If Utd had been knocked out in the groups of Europa/ very early in FA / League. I still wouldn't see us winning the league. Could easily of finished 3rd though.
I'd rather finish 10th in the league and win 2 trophies, than finish anywhere else bar first and win nothing.
Now, they are not the best trophies but they are still trophies regardless. They'll add a winning mentality to the team, get them used to winning & make them want more.
This team has won multiple finals, a final is a big occasion regardless of the trophy and a European trophy to boot. It's a second tier trophy sure but it's the only trophy we could compete for.
Winning a trophy most certainly has a more positive affect on a teams unity than ' Maybe we'll win something next year'
If Utd had only won the LC then I'd gladly say that the season was very underwhelming, it was underwhelming for the most part but winning two cup finals makes up for it.
Anyways on topic,
City have a very good attack, if they manage to snag Sanchez (Wenger needs to hire some security guards, better yet a fecking private army) and a couple of very good options for the back, then I'd say they are favourites. Unless Chelsea improve or Utd hit the ground running like Chelsea did in Mourinhos second season.
I've seen it all now. From the team who had the most expensive sugar daddy window ever.
https://tomkinstimes.com/2014/08/how-chelsea-ruined-football/
Chelsea are getting this year, can I ask what your last deal was.
City's deal was 5 years ago, how about we wait till next season to compare kits deals when Cities Under Armour deal goes ahead.
Talk about people in glass houses...
Winning the FA Cup was certainly not harder than winning two trophies. 1 of which had a group stage which funny enough City haven't won
If Utd had been knocked out in the groups of Europa/ very early in FA / League. I still wouldn't see us winning the league. Could easily of finished 3rd though.
I'd rather finish 10th in the league and win 2 trophies, than finish anywhere else bar first and win nothing.
Now, they are not the best trophies but they are still trophies regardless. They'll add a winning mentality to the team, get them used to winning & make them want more.
This team has won multiple finals, a final is a big occasion regardless of the trophy and a European trophy to boot. It's a second tier trophy sure but it's the only trophy we could compete for.
Winning a trophy most certainly has a more positive affect on a teams unity than ' Maybe we'll win something next year'
If Utd had only won the LC then I'd gladly say that the season was very underwhelming, it was underwhelming for the most part but winning two cup finals makes up for it.
Anyways on topic,
City have a very good attack, if they manage to snag Sanchez (Wenger needs to hire some security guards, better yet a fecking private army) and a couple of very good options for the back, then I'd say they are favourites. Unless Chelsea improve or Utd hit the ground running like Chelsea did in Mourinhos second season.
It does my friend but would you say it means league performances don't count and you shouldn't be judged on them, instead of judging your season on the 33 league games you played, it should be judged on 90 minutes vs Ajax, or 270 minutes vs Ajax and Celta?
What about 2 in 6?
Regardless of how much Under Armour pay for producing City shirts, they'll still look utter gash.
John Stones is a laughable signing, no chance they will ever see the investment or get the money back from him.
Incredibly overrated by the english media.
Incredibly overrated by the english media.
I really hope Guardiola goes into the new season with Stones as a first team player again because he is absolutely shite.
I'm not talking about having a sugar daddy owner here. City owners can spend whatever they want, it's their money. Just like Abramovich did, before the FFP was introduced. That's not the point.
My issue is with your fake sponsorships that create an artificial "value" of City as a club. Your club gets money from your owner's pockets and calls it a commercial deal. Like any of those companies would have anything to do with City if it wasn't for their links to Sheikh Mansour. City is a state sponsored project, that's all there's to it.
Here's another example. Last year CFC announced financial losses of £70.6m. The club actually managed to generate £4.7m profit before exceptional costs. The exceptional costs of £75.3m had to do with the compensation termination of the club’s contract with Adidas in order to switch to the largest commercial deal in the club’s history with Nike. That resulted in a net loss for the year of £70.6m after exceptional costs. That's what happens when you're trying to run the club as a business. In City's case you don't have to worry about these kind of problems, because there's always another company from UAE that is ready to join the list of the club sponsors.
You are entitled to your opinion but it is no more than ill-informed speculation. You can't point to any of the sponsorships and say 'this is fake' because you have absolutely no idea what the actual specifics of the sponsorship are. The only one where we know the detail is the Etihad airways and that is now widely accepted to be under-valued. Uefa's accountants are happy to accept City's sponsorship values, in marked contrast to how they view PSGs. Likewise the Chinese investors who bought 13% of the club were happy to accept the club's value. As have City's accountants. And, any organisation that has attempted to put a value on the club.
This is from the Swiss Ramble:
'Critics will argue that City’s commercial success is built on friendly deals with Arab partners, but the fact is that City are now signing up many other deals not linked to their owners, as sponsors simply like to be associated with success on the pitch. City have also opened new offices in Singapore and Shanghai, taking the total of regional offices to eight, helping to sign six new Chinese sponsors. Brand Finance have rated City as the fourth most valuable brand in world football at $905 million, an increase of $105 million from the previous year.'
So who do I believe, a ranting Chelsea fan on an internet forum squealing about things being unfair or the people who actually make the investments or the people who are paid to comment on them? Difficult choice.
I had a bizzare debate on Bluemoon forum and was called in denial, because I posted why Bayern were more likely than City to win the CL. Apparently he's more likely to pick City over Bayern not because of money but because they're more likely to win the CL. Seriously I even admitted City were better than Arsenal, a different level of delusional fanboys over there. They didn't even accept criticism of Stones and Yaya as weak links.
This is the point in a nutshell. If you had been dominant on the pitch in the PL & CL sponsors would be coming at you from everywhere as they want to be associated with success. You haven't really achieved that much since the takeover, especially considering the amounts spent. You are now trying to tell us that these companies still want to sponsor you. You are probably the most consistent PL team of the last few years. No sponsor want's to be involved in a product that is consistently second best though.
TBH i wouldn't take any notice of these online valuations on clubs value articles. There was 1 recently that valued City higher than Utd. Alot of this financial guff is just reporters trying to generate controversy.
He really is a con man. Always cheers me up when I remember that City paid £50m for him.
Of course, other brands will eventually join in if City is regularly in the title contention in England and is getting better in the CL. But try and replace all the owner's associated deals with real sponsors and even now and you'll be completely fecked. You will be able to replace only a small fraction of that huge "income", because the companies that aren't connected to Mansour will offer real value, not the artifially inflated bullshit your club is used to.
I used the Chelsea example because both clubs have similarities in a sense that both profited massively from the fortunes invested in them by their owners. The difference is, Chelsea for a number of years now have been operating as a business, which means they report a loss from time to time and their profits are, by and large, quite modest. They have to act carefully in the transfer market and apart from Torres deal back in 2009 have never spent crazy money on a single player. That is, while being located in London and accomplishing more than City both in domestic and european competitions in recent history. And yet, somehow City can afford to accumulate a net spend in hundreds of millions while reporting a profit. City must have the world's best accountants on the payroll.
And last, but not least, even back when Abramovich was spending big, the club never used owner related companies as "sponsors".
Well, we already know who's behind the lion share of your commercial income, they're located in Abu Dhabi or somewhere nearby. As for the people paid to comment, it depends on who's paying those people.
Last edited:
I don't buy this for a minute. You currently have a 20m per annum shirt deal with Nike, United's is 75m per annum, Barce's is 120m, 20m is below all the other big clubs in the PL.
City may have been able to pass the Etihad deal off as 'below market value' but I don't buy it for a minute. Why else would it be so much more than the shirt deal when usually the shirt deal and main sponsors are on par with each other?
It also means that City has better brand value than one of Real, Barca, Bayern or United which common sense will tell you is rubbish. I'm also skeptical their brand value is greater than Chelsea or Arsenal.
To be honest I could not give a toss about 'brand value' but the quote was part of the swiss ramble piece.
However, there is little direct correlation between a shirt deal and brand value. Utd get more than City for a shirt deal because they sell more shirts than City, simple as that.
Brand value is obviously far more complex and intangible than just shirt sales but you would need to refer to the actual report mentioned to see how ithey calculated it(I would imagine global TV exposure, the likelihood of competing for titles, the markets the club is exposed in, the prestige of players in the club...etc are given values and a notional value subsequently follows). Who cares?
The issue there is bluemoon my friend, it's got about 5 decent posters and an army of let's say not so clever.
I would imagine that the one would be Bayern. Purely because the PL has far more global exposure than the Bundesliga. A quick search on t'internet produced a figure in the US of 500,000 average viewers per PL game, 93,000 for the Bundesliga. Common sense would tell me that makes the average PL club much more valuable, from a marketing perspective, in the US than a Bundesliga club. If that is replicated around the world, particularly in valuable markets (say China where City have a deliberate strategy) then perhaps the notion is not so outlandish?
As mentioned above though I really could not care less about brand value.
No problem, we're going to have to agree to disagree. As I said I would rather trust the opinion of an objective and respected source who is commenting on the actuality rather than wild uninformed opinion emanating from club loyalty.
I can confirm this.
That's a good point. I guess it's a matter of how the viewership globally matches up, but it's reasonable to expect the PL dominates Bundesliga in almost all significant foreign markets.
Well I don't particularly care but it boils down to whether the Etihad is a legit sponsorship that the market would match/beat or get close to. I suspect you wouldn't get close to that money elsewhere when the deal was struck. Chelsea only just struck a 40m a year deal this year and have been fighting for titles for over a decade and won the CL.
You are talking now about shirt sponsorship rather than the shirt deal?
Over the course of the sponsorship I would say Etihad have had good value. Probably over-valued at the outset and under-valued now. I would imagine the executives at Etihad were happy to trust the acumen of Mansour's people that the club would repay their investment. An advantage of understanding each other's culture and being happy to sign deals on that basis.
I wonder if they're quite young tbh. 1 lad was posting a formation with 6 attacking midfielders/forwards and no one commented on it.
I dunno tbh, its certainly a weird forum, being a City fan and knowing quite a few others I can't say I've ever met one I could say belongs there...
6 attacking midfielders you say.... Are you sure it wasn't Pep?
Peps dream XI
----------F1----------
x-----x---------x----x
MC-MC-MC-MC-MC-MC
------AM-AM-AM-----
----------F9---------
With an attacking midfielder playing as the False 9 and Bravo being a False Goalkeeper.
Last edited:
What's stupid about it is that claiming it as “success” presupposes a starting point which is the very opposite of “success” for any supposed big (and we presumably still are) club that are in it. We were in it because we failed to finish in the top four last season. Before that we were in it because we failed (dismally, I would add) to progress from the CL group stage. It's a tournament for losers from the viewpoint of a supposed big club – a fact United fans weren't exactly hesitant about pointing out not long ago.
Winning it was necessary because of our unsuccessful league campaign. And nobody would want that kind of season per default just because it involves a trophy – unless they're disingenuous (engaging in an utterly pointless trophy count game worthy of another set of fans we used to mock) or plain thick.
It was probably Pep.
Why don't we just bin the lot then??
Eh?