Manchester city... ffp?

Their owners declared fortune runs into the 10s of billions, that's not including what they haven't declared. They won't need to worry about money any time soon.

Also, there will always be ways around FFP. I remember reading the sponsorship deal they have on their stadium is for a ridiculous amount of £££ a year and guess who owns the company sponsoring the stadium? The owners of the club.

Its just a matter of keeping this semi legal.
 
antihenry said:
Where do they get that money from, that's the point. They can spend how much they want but there's no reasonable explanation on how they manage to spend hundreds of pounds every summer while reporting profit year after year. Even the biggest clubs cannot afford to operate like that, so how can they?
Click to expand...

Strange post. City's spending is dictated by their revenue. Is that not blindingly obvious?
 
antihenry said:
Where do they get that money from, that's the point. They can spend how much they want but there's no reasonable explanation on how they manage to spend hundreds of pounds every summer while reporting profit year after year. Even the biggest clubs cannot afford to operate like that, so how can they?
Click to expand...
Their revenues are higher than their expenses, hence the profit. There's no mystery. The money comes from sponsorship deals, TV deal, sales, prize money.
 
Manchester Dan said:
Transfermrkt puts our net spend at £100m for now, we've had quite a few outgoings as well. Add Mendy and Danilo for £76m and we are at £175m.

For simplicity, if you put them on 5 year deals then you're looking at an extra £35m per year on average in the books each season so far. Potential sales for Fernando and Delph for around £8-£10m each being discussed too, Yaya's pay cut alone is like selling a decent player, and the players we've let go out of contract were all signed in our initial spending spree with no doubt fantastic wages.

In reality, the player sales will be recognised in this years book net of their balance sheet value, so I don't think you'll even see a material differences this year, but instead next year you'll be potentially looking at £40-£50m additional cost to offset with revenue each year. Clearly the club feel confident, there is talk of a new kit deal for a start.
Click to expand...

I get the spreading the transfer fee over 5 years or so but have City not already done that the last few seasons? Just means if the owners leave the club is virtually guaranteed to be liquidated never to be seen again.
 
Lawman said:
I get the spreading the transfer fee over 5 years or so but have City not already done that the last few seasons? Just means if the owners leave the club is virtually guaranteed to be liquidated never to be seen again.
Click to expand...
Yes same for every transfer - the run rate of those costs in previous transfers are included in the previous accounts costs as well, so posting profits in those accounts we know our revenue is enough to cover them. We can only try and determine what the cost increase will be following this summer, and see whether we can increase revenue by the same value as well.

The 16/17 accounts aren't actually out yet but 15/16 posted a £20m profit, the club will have a good idea what 16/17 looks like already but we won't know until they're announced in October time later this year. It's one of those areas you put your faith in the club to spend what they know they can. We'll see!
 
Would people be up for just openly and properly getting rid of FFP altogether?
 
They can outspend practically every team in the world bar Utd / PSG & Chinese teams.
But apparently they're 'self sufficient'
bullshit

300mill+ on defense alone in the last 3 years, Utd have spent 380 in total.
 
I thought cash injected through sponsors was supposed to be investigated to make sure they were fair if coming from organisations with links to the owners?

It's pretty pointless arguing about it, we can take the moral high ground because we earned all of our cash but we can't put moral high ground in the trophy cabinet!

We need to accept City have unlimited funds and that is what we have to compete with
 
Stactix said:
They can outspend practically every team in the world bar Utd / PSG & Chinese teams.
But apparently they're 'self sufficient'
bullshit

300mill+ on defense alone in the last 3 years, Utd have spent 380 in total.
Click to expand...

We've spent a ridiculous £511m in total with Mendy likely to be added taking us to £563m.
You've spend £390m with another £100m+ likely on a winger (Perisic eventually) and Matic or Dier.
When all is said an done we'll be around £560m, you'll be around £500m.

Go back another season and you'll be at £660m for 4 years.
City at £630m.
Why not use 4 years and talk at the end of the window?

The bottom line is we at City are spending ridiculous money but we're not breaking FFP. Same as you guys.
 
Lentwood said:
I thought cash injected through sponsors was supposed to be investigated to make sure they were fair if coming from organisations with links to the owners?

It's pretty pointless arguing about it, we can take the moral high ground because we earned all of our cash but we can't put moral high ground in the trophy cabinet!

We need to accept City have unlimited funds and that is what we have to compete with
Click to expand...

Sorry, all sponsorships have to be signed off by auditors to comply with European standards relating to third party ownership. City have passed this test without any issues. Uefa have also been happy to accept City's sponsorship, unlike PSG's. I'm afraid the bleating from Red Cafe is misplaced.
 
el magico said:
Strange post. City's spending is dictated by their revenue. Is that not blindingly obvious?
Click to expand...

What's blindingly obvious is that if your club's worth wasn't artificially inflated by your owners, you'd be reporting massive losses year after year.
 
el magico said:
Sorry, all sponsorships have to be signed off by auditors to comply with European standards relating to third party ownership. City have passed this test without any issues. Uefa have also been happy to accept City's sponsorship, unlike PSG's. I'm afraid the bleating from Red Cafe is misplaced.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that the majority of your sponsorship revenue comes from unaffiliated businesses?
 
antihenry said:
What's blindingly obvious is that if your club's worth wasn't artificially inflated by your owners, you'd be reporting massive losses year after year.
Click to expand...

Proof? Why are our sponsorship's less legitimate than Chelsea's? Because you say so?
All our income has been investigated to the smallest detail by Uefa and we have passed.
 
padr81 said:
Proof? Why are our sponsorship's less legitimate than Chelsea's? Because you say so?
All our income has been investigated to the smallest detail by Uefa and we have passed.
Click to expand...

So you can outspend Madrid/Barca despite not being able to fill your stadium?
 
Akshay said:
Are you claiming that the majority of your sponsorship revenue comes from unaffiliated businesses?
Click to expand...

Like I said above. Have we broken any rules? No we haven't. If the sponsors are fair value, it doesn't matter where they come from. Would people feel better if the Etihad deal was the RyanAir deal? It simply wouldn't change a thing.
 
Manchester Dan said:
Yes same for every transfer - the run rate of those costs in previous transfers are included in the previous accounts costs as well, so posting profits in those accounts we know our revenue is enough to cover them. We can only try and determine what the cost increase will be following this summer, and see whether we can increase revenue by the same value as well.

The 16/17 accounts aren't actually out yet but 15/16 posted a £20m profit, the club will have a good idea what 16/17 looks like already but we won't know until they're announced in October time later this year. It's one of those areas you put your faith in the club to spend what they know they can. We'll see!
Click to expand...

Yeah agree but think it's obvious the faith of the city supporters would be misplaced if they think City are running at an actual profit without being supplemented by their owners.
 
Stactix said:
So you can outspend Madrid/Barca despite not being able to fill your stadium?
Click to expand...

I'm sure Real could match us with ease if they wanted (its not like their squad needs any work though). Barca I'm unsure on but I'd be surprised if they also couldn't. Any of the top prem clubs can pretty much match Barca because of the new tv deal.
 
padr81 said:
Like I said above. Have we broken any rules? No we haven't. If the sponsors are fair value, it doesn't matter where they come from. Would people feel better if the Etihad deal was the RyanAir deal? It simply wouldn't change a thing.
Click to expand...
Never said you broke any rules. Simply asked another poster a question. You obviously wouldn't get the same deal from RyanAir so that's a moot point.
 
If someone had said to you 4 decades ago that Manchester City would become one of the richest clubs in the world, what would you have said?
apart from, "quit asking me stupid hypotheticals before I'm even born"
 
padr81 said:
Proof? Why are our sponsorship's less legitimate than Chelsea's? Because you say so?
All our income has been investigated to the smallest detail by Uefa and we have passed.
Click to expand...

Legitimate, my ass. One look at your global sponsors list: Etihad, Etisalat, TCA Abu Dhabi, Aabar. No, nothing suspicious at all.

Not a single sponsorship that Chelsea's got or ever had has any links to our ownership.

We've spent a fortune back when Abramovich arrived, but there was no FFP in place, so it was legit. We've been living within our means for years now.

padr81 said:
Like I said above. Have we broken any rules? No we haven't. If the sponsors are fair value, it doesn't matter where they come from. Would people feel better if the Etihad deal was the RyanAir deal? It simply wouldn't change a thing.
Click to expand...

You're funny. Your first Etihad deal was the biggest deal of its kind in sport(!) back in 2011. At that time most people outside of England had no idea there was another club in Manchester besides United.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

Then four years later the club "renegotiated the terms of the package" with the sponsor and it doubled in value.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...ys-new-80million-per-year-sponsorship-5290985

Yeah sure, why don't you switch to RyanAir. I'm sure you'll get the same deal.
 
padr81 said:
Like I said above. Have we broken any rules? No we haven't. If the sponsors are fair value, it doesn't matter where they come from. Would people feel better if the Etihad deal was the RyanAir deal? It simply wouldn't change a thing.
Click to expand...
It kills the romance of building something though doesn't it?

Whether it's a failing football club in this instance, or if it was a tiny failing startup that is bought out by multi-billionaire who pumps money into it and pretends they belong with the big boys when it is artificially grown and in a competitive space with genuinely built teams/companies - that's people's issue, I believe.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I feel you are badly mistaken. The idea that Rooney was on £750K a week is absolutely ludicrous, that should tell you all you need to know about the reliability of the German rags.

United's wage bill in 2016 was £232m as per the official accounts, this includes all non playing staff, if you believe that Rooney eats up 1/6 of that then good luck to you sir.

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/manchester-united-power-in-darkness.html
Click to expand...

The German newspapers wrote nothing about Rooney's wages, i have no idea where you are coming from. The discussion was solely about Oscar. The Rooney part was a misconception by myself since i am quite used to hear about net earnings.

MrMarcello said:
Rooney didn't make 40m in pre-taxable wages. FFS, it's not hard to perform an internet search before spouting nonsense.

https://www.forbes.com/profile/wayne-rooney/
Click to expand...

Then you should find a better source, because that source is telling nothing about gross or net. :rolleyes:
 
antihenry said:
Legitimate, my ass. One look at your global sponsors list: Etihad, Etisalat, TCA Abu Dhabi, Aabar. No, nothing suspicious at all.

Not a single sponsorship that Chelsea's got or ever had has any links to our ownership.

We've spent a fortune back when Abramovich arrived, but there was no FFP in place, so it was legit. We've been living within our means for years now.



You're funny. Your first Etihad deal was the biggest deal of its kind in sport(!) back in 2011. At that time most people outside of England had no idea there was another club in Manchester besides United.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

Then four years later the club "renegotiated the terms of the package" with the sponsor and it doubled in value.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...ys-new-80million-per-year-sponsorship-5290985

Yeah sure, why don't you switch to RyanAir. I'm sure you'll get the same deal.
Click to expand...

Their accounting is funny though. I remember they mentioned 24 Million pounds income because of sale of Intellectual Property to their MLS or A league clubs.
 
antihenry said:
Legitimate, my ass. One look at your global sponsors list: Etihad, Etisalat, TCA Abu Dhabi, Aabar. No, nothing suspicious at all.

Not a single sponsorship that Chelsea's got or ever had has any links to our ownership.

We've spent a fortune back when Abramovich arrived, but there was no FFP in place, so it was legit. We've been living within our means for years now.



You're funny. Your first Etihad deal was the biggest deal of its kind in sport(!) back in 2011. At that time most people outside of England had no idea there was another club in Manchester besides United.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

Then four years later the club "renegotiated the terms of the package" with the sponsor and it doubled in value.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...ys-new-80million-per-year-sponsorship-5290985

Yeah sure, why don't you switch to RyanAir. I'm sure you'll get the same deal.
Click to expand...


Does it matter? All our sponsors are legit, you'll just have to suck it up and stop crying.
Yes, you did and fair play to you guys.
FFP is here now and in case you haven't noticed we are complying with it. Any other thing you say is purely conjecture on your part.
We are complying with FFP and that is a fact. We wouldn't have failed the season we did, if the goalposts hadn't been moved last minute.

Indeed the deal was remarkable for football but again it was weighed by those in power and deemed fine. It also was great foresight on the part of Etihad, good business, hence why it was renegotiated and found to be fine even when it was doubled.
Tell me again when the Etihad deal was deemed unfair or broke any rules (not in your imagination) but in reality.
 
Stactix said:
So you can outspend Madrid/Barca despite not being able to fill your stadium?
Click to expand...
City can not outspend Madrid or Barca in total, but the 2 Spanish sides have a lot higher wage structure resulting in City having more transfer funds freed up in comparison
 
Member 5225 said:
It kills the romance of building something though doesn't it?

Whether it's a failing football club in this instance, or if it was a tiny failing startup that is bought out by multi-billionaire who pumps money into it and pretends they belong with the big boys when it is artificially grown and in a competitive space with genuinely built teams/companies - that's people's issue, I believe.
Click to expand...

Honestly no. I've seen us at our lowest and I'll not feel guilty about us at our highest.
Its impossible to build a football club organically in this day and age. Never going to happen.
If Everton are to kick on to our level they'll have to use their billionaire.

The days of building a club like you guys did with the United brand are dead.

Yes, we're the lottery winner sitting at the top table now but we're not the only ones. We're sitting there with Chelsea, PSG and soon to be joined by AC Milan.

Would I love to have our club grow the way United, Barca etc.. built themselves? Of course I would. I have nothing but admiration for those clubs and how they were built.
But the bottom line is of those great clubs in England, you guys are the last men standing.
Not to put other clubs down but the Liverpools, Arsenal etc.. are slowly falling away and the new top tier of football is shaping up to be Bayern, Juve, United, Barca, Real and whoever has the richest owners.
We've been given a huge opportunity at City and I'm delighted we've grabbed at it with both hands.
In fact, I'd say since we have taken it we've marginally underachieved (given your recent struggles) but Rome wasn't bought in day.
 
How long do you guys think it would take for the Rules to be far more restrictive and severe financial and recruitment punishments to be enacted if The Glazers sold to one of the Saudi royals who's grandsons pocket money could buy Dubai whith change left?
 
padr81 said:
Does it matter? All our sponsors are legit, you'll just have to suck it up and stop crying.
Yes, you did and fair play to you guys.
FFP is here now and in case you haven't noticed we are complying with it. Any other thing you say is purely conjecture on your part.
We are complying with FFP and that is a fact. We wouldn't have failed the season we did, if the goalposts hadn't been moved last minute.

Indeed the deal was remarkable for football but again it was weighed by those in power and deemed fine. It also was great foresight on the part of Etihad, good business, hence why it was renegotiated and found to be fine even when it was doubled.
Tell me again when the Etihad deal was deemed unfair or broke any rules (not in your imagination) but in reality.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a great foresight on the part of Etihad to award the biggest deal of its kind to a club no one outside of England had heard of at the time. If only RyanAir or Delta had the right people in the marketing department, they could have snatched that. Those guys at Etihad, they had a vision.
 
antihenry said:
Yes, it was a great foresight on the part of Etihad to award the biggest deal of its kind to a club no one outside of England had heard of at the time. If only RyanAir or Delta had the right people in the marketing department, they could have snatched that. Those guys at Etihad, they had a vision.
Click to expand...

They sure did. Guess that's why they are so rich, good foresight.
Anyway, since your so happy discussing FFP and money, don't you guys owe Roman £1bn in zero interest loans? Shouldn't that be running foul of FFP?
 
Celestiale said:
Then you should find a better source, because that source is telling nothing about gross or net. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Forbes reports gross, now go buy a clue.

Update: Here ya go, was fairly easy to find.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...orlds-100-highest-paid-athletes/#7a34f2517d3c
Methodology: Forbes earnings figures include all salaries and bonuses earned between June 1, 2016 and June 1, 2017. Endorsement incomes are an estimate of sponsorship deals, appearance fees and licensing income for the 12 months through June 1 based on conversations with dozens of industry insiders. The golfers’ income includes course design work. We do not deduct for taxes or agents’ fees, nor do we include investment income. Our list includes only athletes active in the last 12 months.
 
Last edited:
padr81 said:
Honestly no. I've seen us at our lowest and I'll not feel guilty about us at our highest.
Its impossible to build a football club organically in this day and age. Never going to happen.
If Everton are to kick on to our level they'll have to use their billionaire.

The days of building a club like you guys did with the United brand are dead.

Yes, we're the lottery winner sitting at the top table now but we're not the only ones. We're sitting there with Chelsea, PSG and soon to be joined by AC Milan.

Would I love to have our club grow the way United, Barca etc.. built themselves? Of course I would. I have nothing but admiration for those clubs and how they were built.
But the bottom line is of those great clubs in England, you guys are the last men standing.
Not to put other clubs down but the Liverpools, Arsenal etc.. are slowly falling away and the new top tier of football is shaping up to be Bayern, Juve, United, Barca, Real and whoever has the richest owners.
We've been given a huge opportunity at City and I'm delighted we've grabbed at it with both hands.
In fact, I'd say since we have taken it we've marginally underachieved (given your recent struggles) but Rome wasn't bought in day.
Click to expand...
:lol: Nice twist.
 
padr81 said:
They sure did. Guess that's why they are so rich, good foresight.
Anyway, since your so happy discussing FFP and money, don't you guys owe Roman £1bn in zero interest loans? Shouldn't that be running foul of FFP?
Click to expand...
Quickly - being ridiculously wealthy by circumstance has absolutely nothing to do with business acumen. See Trump, Donald.

Etihad airlines, I believe, has always been profitable. Every single year. As all other airlines have had their struggles, many requiring bailouts. Regardless of the price of fuel, the world economy, travel numbers etc. There's a revenue component which comes from the government. But it's buried so analysts can't see it.

There are two possibilities: 1 - Etihad is a unique airline that can consistently buck the world economy. 2 - It's profits are artificially propped up by undisclosed sources.

For me it's the same with City. You can laud City and how it is able to gain commercial sponsors which almost scarily match the cost requirements, or you can just kind of accept the game that is going on.
 
padr81 said:
They sure did. Guess that's why they are so rich, good foresight.
Anyway, since your so happy discussing FFP and money, don't you guys owe Roman £1bn in zero interest loans? Shouldn't that be running foul of FFP?
Click to expand...

Yes, we're about to go under. Too bad, we didn't have the business people with amazing foresight that City employs. Can't fill their own stadium, have done feck all in Europe and haven't won the league in three years but can spend more than anyone in the world every summer. Every club out there is wondering what they're doing wrong and how can they operate the same way, but they just don't have the genuses that run the Man City FC.
 
FFP was brought in to protect clubs from their owners being morons and getting into crazy debt or going out of business.

Man City certainly do not seem to be getting into debt. Worst case if Mansour quits (and all their UAE sponsors decide not to renew) is a high wage bill and a lot of players to sell.
 
padr81 said:
Honestly no. I've seen us at our lowest and I'll not feel guilty about us at our highest.
Its impossible to build a football club organically in this day and age. Never going to happen.
If Everton are to kick on to our level they'll have to use their billionaire.

The days of building a club like you guys did with the United brand are dead.

Yes, we're the lottery winner sitting at the top table now but we're not the only ones. We're sitting there with Chelsea, PSG and soon to be joined by AC Milan.

Would I love to have our club grow the way United, Barca etc.. built themselves? Of course I would. I have nothing but admiration for those clubs and how they were built.
But the bottom line is of those great clubs in England, you guys are the last men standing.
Not to put other clubs down but the Liverpools, Arsenal etc.. are slowly falling away and the new top tier of football is shaping up to be Bayern, Juve, United, Barca, Real and whoever has the richest owners.
We've been given a huge opportunity at City and I'm delighted we've grabbed at it with both hands.
In fact, I'd say since we have taken it we've marginally underachieved (given your recent struggles) but Rome wasn't bought in day.
Click to expand...

Interesting and honest perspective. Fair play.
To be honest, I genuinely feel I'd fall out of love slightly if it happened to my club (if we swapped positions). Perhaps that's just me, I'm a romantic!
I understand what you say though re: organically building a club fairly difficult, but hardly impossible IMO (see Juve, A.Madrid, Dortmund, Spurs, etc).

At the end of the day sports is entertainment, and I just don't think a money throwing Man City is romantic enough story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.