You can add:
- Moratti / Inter Milan
- Berlusconi / Milan AC
- Dmitry Rybolovlev / Monaco
- The King of Spain who used to write off debts of Real Madrid a long time ago
- ....
Main shareholder of a club the dream
Don't forget the old chap Franco.
Manchester city... ffp?
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- 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.
Don't forget the old chap Franco.
Nice spin. No one would buy city for anywhere near that self-inflated price. Mainly because their biggest revenue comes from companies the owner owns (which is a whole different storey) where no one would be willing to put in the same level of investment and not get a return. Also, the question which you either have not comprehended or have chosen to try and divert from was "How much money have they spent and what have they to show for it" That included player signings as well as the initial purchase of the. It's simple really.
My Mum and sister are both journalists for big papers (well one is an editor and the other a snr journalist in the middle east and there is a real issue with people not caring or knowing who city are and those that know think it's United and the rest of the people are pissed that their country's money is being pumped into a football club.
Why did the Chinese investors buy that 13% stake for £265m? How much have City spent on signings?
That's called jealousy. We united fans don't lick other clubs a**es. You see Liverpool and arsenal fans licking each other's and Chelsea and city fans always behave like they are lost brothers. We united fans don't do that.
Pardon me, I didn't realise there was something written into the rules of football that stated the owner of a football club had to be a fan of that club. I wouldn't mind, but at least two people on the list manc exile made weren't fans of the clubs they bought anyway - John Henry Davies ended up buying United by sheer chance after finding Harry Stafford's dog, and John Moores was born in Salford and grew up supporting United, not Everton.
I'd also be intrigued to know which Leeds United you've been watching these past few years, given that their home game against Newcastle last season was their first Elland Road sell-out for six and a half years. As for City not being a proper football club with history, perhaps you can explain how that is possible when we won our first trophy 26 years before Arsenal won theirs.
Maybe City should have achieved our recent success in a far less underhanded way. I nominate the Arsenal model followed by Henry "banned for life" Norris. Only a complete and utter genius could've finished 6th in division 2 and managed to become the only chairman in the history of the English league to blackmail his club into the top flight ahead of clubs who finished above them on merit. And of course, who can forget the period that followed - the original "Bank Of England club" using their superior financial muscle to break up by far the best team in England in Huddersfield Town and lure their manager and some of their best players to Arsenal.
1. Abramovich sold his interest in Gazprom back in 2005 and has no ties to that company since then.
2. Gazprom has been involved in football sponsorships for years before they got involved with CFC. They were official sponsors of the UEFA Champions league, sponsor clubs like Schalke and Red Star Belgrade and own Zenit St. Petersburg.
3. The deal between CFC and Gazprom was done back in 2012 for three years and has ended back in 2015, if I'm not mistaken. The deal meant that "Gazprom has become the club's official Global Energy Partner. The three-year sponsorship deal will see Gazprom Energy, supply gas and electricity to the club and be involved with our award-winning global CSR activities."
http://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/news/ar...helsea+recieve+energy+boost+with+gazprom+deal
So in your brilliant mind a deal to supply gas and electricity to the club from the company that years ago had ties to the owner is the same as having a club sponsored by an oil state? So covering gas and electicity bills for three years is the same value as City gets from Etihad and other companies from Emirates as the official sponsors? Because everything in that country one way or another is tied to that ruling fanily of which the City owner is a member.
I don't have a beef with City as a club. They can keep spending how much they want on whomever they want, it's fine. I do have a problem with certain City fans who seemingly feel that everybody else is stupid and claim that their bottomless pockets are due to the some great business model their owners came up with instead of just admitting what everybody knows anyway. Chelsea were doing it back in the day, other clubs with wealthy owners did it in the past and some will do it in the future. Just be honest and admit that you live off your owner's oil money income and would never have been able to do it otherwise. That's all.
Why do the Chinese buy shite players and pay them £1m a week?? It's called cleaning money or just playing around with the money they have.
Also, your second attempt and lack of an answer to the question of how much the owners have spent in total and what they have to show for it duly noted
If you live in Canada I'm not entirely sure you know how supporters in the UK behave, but I can assure you I manage to have completely sensible conversations with fans of many clubs and most people in real life are quite comfortable with City as a football club.
Roughly £1.1 billion net in transfers. So, club bought for £210m, 13% share sold for £265m. £1.1 billion on transfers. Club now worth over £2 billion. I'm no accountant but that seems like decent business to me.
For a United fan, you do get rather oddly inflamed by people taking the piss out of city. Are you sure you support United mate?
Who says they are worth £2 billion?
If the Arab money was not propping them up, via questionable sponsorship or whatever, how do you think they could operate as a self-contained business?
They'd be yo-yoing between divisions or bankrupt trying to hold onto players.
Enjoy your wealth for what it is, but don't try to maintain the stance that it is a valid business model.
Do you seriously think they would float for that on the stock exchange, if the Mansoor family cut all ties?
But fans are fans right. It's not like they get to witness a different football or match than those watching in Canada or states. The general feeling is always united vs. all.
To be fair where I reside, city are irrelevant (sry if that was rude). I write for the university gazette here and know many football (or soccer as they call here) fans and I have only met 2 or 3 city fans and funny they also support barca or some other club. There are loads of united fans and many arsenal/Liverpool fans and also some Chelsea fans. Trust me no other fans like united, they respect the club but they are happy to see Manchester United's downfall. And to be fair I don't blame them as we literally dominated every english club for two decades.
That's basically exactly how I felt when we were getting all the abuse over the money. Fair play to you. Football has always been heavily money reliant, and I've never bought into the myth that having a smart marketing team that builds your brand over a couple of decades is somehow legitimate sporting achievement, but people investing more quickly is some huge affront to decency.
All the old way resulted in is one or two teams dominating year after year and everyone else being cannon fodder or at best second tier. Under Ken Bates we brought in exciting Europeans at the late stages of their career, changed the whole style and culture of the club, finished top 4 and got into the CL and what would the next step have been? We'd have stayed right there, winning occasional cups but never able to reach the very top, because United could always buy in some top talent in their prime if it looked like we were getting too close. If we'd done that we'd have gotten even closer to the bankruptcy that looked almost inevitable at one point.
Is that a sporting achievement? Using your long term financial advantage to ensure no other club can catch you? I don't feel any negative feeling towards United but I'm damned if I'm going to feel any guilt over the PL being a much more competitive league now, which still might not be fair but is at least much less predictable than it used to be.
An utterly hilarious response. You said, and I quote: "Not a single sponsorship that Chelsea's got or ever had has any links to our ownership." so it's completely and utterly irrelevant when Abramovich sold his shares in the company. And to claim that Gazprom were only supplying the gas and lecky to the club is laughable beyond belief. It was a sponsorship deal. If Chelsea just wanted a supplier for their gas and electricity and no more they could've just used uswitch ffs, instead of getting some "random" Russian company to supply it.
Your final sentence is the cherry on the cake - there's not a single City fan that I know that doesn't accept that we wouldn't be in the position we're in without Mansour buying the club, yet what is beautifully ironic is that you blatantly fail to acknowledge that if Abramovich's helicopter had stopped off at White Hart Lane en route to Stamford Bridge in 2003 then not only would Chelsea not have achieved so much success over the past 14 years, you might've gone out of business completely. So you keep sucking on those lemons sunshine. That's all.
Do you have reading and comprehension problems? Abramovich sold his shares in 2005. The deal was made back in 2012. To supply gas and electricity.
No links means no links. By the time Gazprom got involved in a very insignificant deal with CFC there were no links betwen the owner and the company.
Last edited:
FFP was never designed to stop clubs like City from spending, or at the least it was never going to work the way some hoped it would.
But what it does do is control their spending, without it in place City's owner could choose to splurge 500-600 million in one window. But under FFP he can't, because they are limited by their ''income''. So City's owners get family owned companies to give them sponsorship deals in line with the deals top clubs are able to legitimately attract. City would of course never get these record deals from 3rd party companies with no relation to Abu Dhabi but at least FFP keeps them honest to an extent.
But what it does do is control their spending, without it in place City's owner could choose to splurge 500-600 million in one window. But under FFP he can't, because they are limited by their ''income''. So City's owners get family owned companies to give them sponsorship deals in line with the deals top clubs are able to legitimately attract. City would of course never get these record deals from 3rd party companies with no relation to Abu Dhabi but at least FFP keeps them honest to an extent.
As much as I dislike City and their new money, if it wasn't for Sheikh Mansour then Liverpool would have a Premier League title by now.
Thank you for that.
Thank you for that.
Yes, I do. Perhaps you can explain why the Chinese investment group were willing to spend £265m to obtain a 13% share in the CFG if the club was not valued at that amount? And, despite eyeinthesky's answer that this is money laundering, it would be good if you came up with a sensible answer.
There was talk that it was part of a wider deal between China and the UAE
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ina-s-cnpc-stake-in-main-onshore-oil-deposits
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-zulfikar-rakhmat/the-uae-and-chinas-thrivi_b_7821640.html
You're the one with reading and comprehension problems so I suggest you give your head a shake. You stated that Abramovich has no links to any company that has ever sponsored Chelsea - I couldn't care less that he sold his shares in Gazprom 7 years earlier. There's still an obvious link considering he used to be a major shareholder.
As for this completely laughable assumption that Gazprom were only supplying gas and electricity to Chelsea, errrr wrong. They were cited as Chelsea's official "Global Energy Partner". In other words, it was a sponsorship deal. If you're seriously suggesting that no money changed hands except for Chelsea paying their energy bills to Gazprom for 3 years instead of to npower, EDF, or whoever then you're utterly deluded.
It's so clear that you are a City fan, when 99% of your posts are regarding and showing bias to City. Fairly sad that you feel the need to come on here and pose as though you support United, but please continue to try and keep up the act if you wish.. it's actually quite amusing
There's quite a big difference to buying a stake in a club which is bank-rolled by its main owners, to buying the club outright and having to bank-roll it yourself. In other words, the Chinese investors are getting a better deal than the numbers alone imply.
Perhaps they had a deal with the Chinese to circumvent ffp. Regardless that is including the Mansoor family still being there.
I'll give you one more go.
Do you think that without the oil money, City would be self-sustaining?
If you still answer yes, you're a fecking idiot who is no longer worth conversing with.
I'll give you one more go.
Do you think that without the oil money, City would be self-sustaining?
If you still answer yes, you're a fecking idiot who is no longer worth conversing with.
I'm sure there is a connection but ultimately both the Chinese and the UAE are investing in businesses from a financial perspective, ie the sugar-daddy jibe is just nonsense. As such, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the Chinese valuation of the club is accurate.
Ffp was a load of bollocks anyway. It was designed to ensure the status quo remained.
That said City fans who actually think their sponsorships are genuine are massively deluded.
That said City fans who actually think their sponsorships are genuine are massively deluded.
Come on mate. You and I both know that it's part of some global conspiracy where the sheikh has managed to persuade some of the world's most powerful countries, businesses, and sporting institutions to get involved in some real dodgy shit just so City can pass FFP. So far, he's managed to get the likes of the Chinese president, Nissan, and the New York Yankees on board with this corrupt plan. That's some going.
FFP relates to income and expenditure, even a 'fecking idiot' should understand that the sale of 13% of the club is irrelevant to a Uefa rule?
Your actual question makes little sense. If City lost a sizeable chunk of their income would their finances suffer? Yes, they would. Isn't that self-evident?
I don't really want to argue and it's probably just semantics, so I'll make it simple. IMO dismantling isn't the right word because it doesn't convey an accurate image, Monaco is a club that modifies their starting eleven every 2-3 years and to do that they have a constant flux of players ready to take a place in that starting eleven. Good season or not all the players that left would have been out, at the exception of Mendy.
To me the word dismantling make it looks like Monaco are not on top of things.
The Chinese want access to the massive UAE oil deposits on the gulf nation's eastern coast. As silly as it seems, football is a way for nations to build these relationships. UAE is investing in UK around Manchester in order to build a relationship with the UK government and to ensure that any future weapons deals can be sorted out quickly and to prevent the UK/US taking the side of Qatar in any future disputes. The Neymar transfer has been blamed on his Dad, but it's actually related to Saudi, UAE and other gulf nations threatening to cut Qatar's supply lines. Qatar emir owns both PSG and Barcelona and is looking for a way to move funds around. The vast majority of these high value transfers between PSG, City and Chelsea (with China as well) are related to oil and gas contracts. You don't think David Luiz was really worth 50m do you?
It's exhausting talking to morons. Believe whatever you want.
So you've been having a conversation with yourself all along? Good lad
Its all slightly surreal!
Are they? You don't think soft power and geo-political prestige have anything to do with it?
The question is not that you lose all income from sponsorship, it is, if you had to stand on your own two feet and get the sponsorships and income in line with the size of your club, how much would you be worth and where would you be as a club.
Your answers so far state that you're a £2 billion pound club, and suggest that you are capable of securing the sponsorships to carry on as you are, outspending every club on the planet.
The fact that this is so ludicrous is why you are making out it is anything other than a simple question.
I don't think you are deluded, as that would suggest there is some lack of self-awareness that you are spouting shite.
I see the City fans are still having their little love-in about how they all agree their financial dealings are all legit 
. It's quite cute.
. It's quite cute.I see the City fans are still having their little love-in about how they all agree their financial dealings are all legit
This is the cream of their crop, dontchaknow?
It's all fine and totally feasible, they are after all now THE biggest global powerhouse in football so £400m in 2 seasons is really nothing, considering that guardiola doesnt need to buy players due to being the greatest coach of all time, these will pad out the squad nicely. I think that all football fans bar us bitter United supporters will secretly be rooting for them and their fairytale story this season.I see the City fans are still having their little love-in about how they all agree their financial dealings are all legit