Manchester city... ffp?

[Ian Reus]

Let's not place the West on any kind of pedestal. Britain, America, UAE etc. They're all involved in despicable stuff.

Classic whataboutery.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Your still not as rich as them though. Maybe I'm mistaken but I believe their revenue was nearly $150m higher than yours and they're worth half a billion more according to Forbes. City aside the richest clubs from 10 years ago are still the richest today.

2017 revenues were Liverpool $448m, Spurs $310m.
2016 was $471 vs $310.

The gap of almost half a billion was maintained too.

I don't know where you/Forbes get the 2017 figures from, since the Spurs accounts for 2016-17 have not yet been published.

I've already cited the £92m gap in income between the two clubs as of 12 months ago (2015-16), but pointed out that this gap will close considerably - and perhaps be eliminated - once the various income streams from our new stadium begin flowing.

 

[Steve the Red]

Once the Premier League was invented and Sky Sports flooded the Premier League with money in 1992/93 there was basically no way back for teams who weren't United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea because they received the most of they money at the time. Nobody ever gets as big or as rich as the old Big Four by clean, fair methods - the money's always divided unequally somewhere along the line so that those at the top get the largest portion.

It is a myth that only Man United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea were the only ones to benefit from Sky. This table shows what each club got up to May 2016.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...y-season-figures-flight-history-revealed.html

ALL-TIME PREMIER LEAGUE PRIZE MONEY TABLE
1. Manchester United = £870,270,178

2. Arsenal = £842,767,443

3. Liverpool = £815,422,132

4. Chelsea = £815,365,323

5. Tottenham = £750,281,906

6. Man City = £723,497,948

7. Everton = £700,261,154

8. Newcastle = £649,353,497

9. Aston Villa = £649,236,912

10. West Ham = £585,267,008

11. Sunderland = £544,691,139

12. West Brom = £469,320,933

13. Fulham = £469,282,303

14. Stoke = £440,148,447

15. Southampton = £413,090,876

16. Blackburn = £407,374,059

17. Bolton = £377,782,130

18. Wigan = £327,522,594

19. Swansea = £324,027,184

20. Norwich = £286,386,229

21. Crystal Palace = £266,351,695

22. Hull = £257,682,121

23. Birmingham = £256,856,871

24. Middlesbrough = £249,050,677

25. Leicester City = £247,730,615



26. Portsmouth = £231,278,314

27. QPR = £206,823,399

28. Wolves = £197,532,615

29. Reading = £173,350,044

30. Burnley = £167,908,143

31. Charlton = £159,014,046

32. Watford = £126,834,655

33. Leeds = £125,476,974

34. Cardiff = £107,934,984

35. Derby = £107,637,845

36. Blackpool = £86,670,041

37. Bournemouth = £70,843,913

38. Coventry = £45,864,675

39. Ipswich = £44,843,315

40. Sheffield United = £44,775,780

41. Wimbledon £34,906,015

42. Sheffield Wednesday = £34,341,926

43. Bradford = £23,365,274

44. Nottingham Forest = £20,132,869

45. Barnsley = £7,673,144

46. Oldham = £3,418,187

47. Swindon = £1,895,182

48. Luton = £1,493,500

49. Notts County = £1,493,500

AND Football League = £23,926,231

Overall total = £14,788,455,945

Per season Tottenham (3m) and Everton (5m) weren't that far behind Chelsea and Liverpool.
Newcastle and Villa were only 50 million behind Everton, less than 3 million per season.
As has been pointed out, in 1992/93 the Big Five were United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and Tottenham. So Villa and Newcastle have had the Sky funds to move up.

 

[robinamicrowave]

It is a myth that only Man United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea were the only ones to benefit from Sky. This table shows what each club got up to May 2016.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...y-season-figures-flight-history-revealed.html

ALL-TIME PREMIER LEAGUE PRIZE MONEY TABLE
1. Manchester United = £870,270,178

2. Arsenal = £842,767,443

3. Liverpool = £815,422,132

4. Chelsea = £815,365,323

5. Tottenham = £750,281,906

6. Man City = £723,497,948

7. Everton = £700,261,154

8. Newcastle = £649,353,497

9. Aston Villa = £649,236,912

10. West Ham = £585,267,008

11. Sunderland = £544,691,139

12. West Brom = £469,320,933

13. Fulham = £469,282,303

14. Stoke = £440,148,447

15. Southampton = £413,090,876

16. Blackburn = £407,374,059

17. Bolton = £377,782,130

18. Wigan = £327,522,594

19. Swansea = £324,027,184

20. Norwich = £286,386,229

21. Crystal Palace = £266,351,695

22. Hull = £257,682,121

23. Birmingham = £256,856,871

24. Middlesbrough = £249,050,677

25. Leicester City = £247,730,615



26. Portsmouth = £231,278,314

27. QPR = £206,823,399

28. Wolves = £197,532,615

29. Reading = £173,350,044

30. Burnley = £167,908,143

31. Charlton = £159,014,046

32. Watford = £126,834,655

33. Leeds = £125,476,974

34. Cardiff = £107,934,984

35. Derby = £107,637,845

36. Blackpool = £86,670,041

37. Bournemouth = £70,843,913

38. Coventry = £45,864,675

39. Ipswich = £44,843,315

40. Sheffield United = £44,775,780

41. Wimbledon £34,906,015

42. Sheffield Wednesday = £34,341,926

43. Bradford = £23,365,274

44. Nottingham Forest = £20,132,869

45. Barnsley = £7,673,144

46. Oldham = £3,418,187

47. Swindon = £1,895,182

48. Luton = £1,493,500

49. Notts County = £1,493,500

AND Football League = £23,926,231

Overall total = £14,788,455,945

Per season Tottenham (3m) and Everton (5m) weren't that far behind Chelsea and Liverpool.
Newcastle and Villa were only 50 million behind Everton, less than 3 million per season.
As has been pointed out, in 1992/93 the Big Five were United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and Tottenham. So Villa and Newcastle have had the Sky funds to move up.

Thanks for this. Really informative stuff. I'm not suggesting that United were guilty of anything by the way, just making the point that by the early 2000s the gap between the Big Four and the rest was so huge that any attempt to destabilise their monopoly would have to take serious investment.

 

[M18CTID]

I was looking at the accounts for Manchester City (yes I'm boring). Weirdly it comes under a group including New York City and Melbourne City.

They have made losses of around £35-40m in each of the last two years. Not quite sure how this is balancing the books? And when you consider their revenue is inflated further by sponsorship from friends their losses are substantial.

As for funding the company this is covered by issuing new shares. Last year they issued enough shares to cover the transfer spending last summer and more to a Chinese company. I suspect the same thing will happen again.

I'm not sure which set of accounts you've been reading but it's certainly not City's. Our last set of published accounts showed operating profit of £90m and net profit of £30m, and virtually the same the season before.

 

[padr81]

I'm not sure which set of accounts you've been reading but it's certainly not City's. Our last set of published accounts showed operating profit of £90m and net profit of £30m, and virtually the same the season before.

Its called lying.

 

[Josep Dowling]

I'm not sure which set of accounts you've been reading but it's certainly not City's. Our last set of published accounts showed operating profit of £90m and net profit of £30m, and virtually the same the season before.

Its called lying.

I am not lying. I am looking at the group accounts rather than just Manchester City on its own. The group structure has a number of companies including City Football Services Limited and City Football Marketing Limited. Both companies have made substantial losses in the last two years. If you look into those accounts they have made these losses due to cost charged from all the football clubs in the group. This basically means City have transferred 'losses' to these two companies by transferring costs between companies. It's creative accounting.

 

[Ecstatic]

I am not lying. I am looking at the group accounts rather than just Manchester City on its own. The group structure has a number of companies including City Football Services Limited and City Football Marketing Limited. Both companies have made substantial losses in the last two years. If you look into those accounts they have made these losses due to cost charged from all the football clubs in the group. This basically means City have transferred 'losses' to these two companies by transferring costs between companies. It's creative accounting.

Most companies have "creative accounting", including the biggest multinational companies... for good or bad reasons

 

[Adisa]

Talk today, that they have to sell before they can buy.

 

[padr81]

Talk today, that they have to sell before they can buy.

Pep has said he'd like a CB but the well is pretty much dry. Pretty sure we've brought in all we can.

 

[TheRedScot]

TBH, city identified the signings they needed and went out and got them, did they overspend?, Sure. But i don't think they wanted to overspend, i just think that this is the price the Premiership teams are going to have to pay. whether we like it or not. Every club in the world knows there is obscene amounts of money in the premier league and will charge accordingly.

Furthermore average premier league teams who would normally be selling clubs, are so rich now due to the lucrative TV deals that they can afford to hold out for unrealistic prices.

 

[Ecstatic]

TBH, city identified the signings they needed and went out and got them, did they overspend?, Sure. But i don't think they wanted to overspend, i just think that this is the price the Premiership teams are going to have to pay. whether we like it or not. Every club in the world knows there is obscene amounts of money in the premier league and will charge accordingly.

Furthermore average premier league teams who would normally be selling clubs, are so rich now due to the lucrative TV deals that they can afford to hold out for unrealistic prices.

Yes.

 

[M18CTID]

Yes.

Interview with the Watford manager Marco Silva in one of the Sunday papers today and he alludes to this. He says Watford are being quoted sky high prices for players by foreign clubs. To be honest, you can't blame these clubs for rinsing the PL clubs for as much as they can with the amount of money the current PL TV deal generates. And the smaller PL clubs are getting in on the act too. Look at Sigurdsson with Swansea demanding £50 million for him. I've little doubt that Everton will eventually cough up the asking price.