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

[el magico]

That's true. Just kidding to save our unbeaten record

I think you are correct. I would say every football fan in the UK (and further afield?) knows of the 'Invincibles'. I would also suggest that virtually no one knows how many points Arsenal got that season, nor how many points Chelsea/United/City when winning the league in a particular year. If City went unbeaten I couldn't give a toss whether it was with 105 or 95 points, what an achievement it would be.

Saturday 18th November: Leicester City 2 - 1 Manchester City.....

 

[cyberman]

@jontheblue
Thats just white noise to be honest. Nobody is catching up, you're ignoring the fans we have becoming parents and bringing them up as fans as well. Its a constant growth. The next generation doesn't come with a clean slate thats a free for all to win hearts and minds.
Its why Liverpool are a bigger club than Chelsea despite the Chavs winning title after title for the last 15 years yet City etc are catching up despite having a fraction of Chelsea success?
Every single time City etc are celebrated as this super power just remember the word Chelsea. Are Chelsea on our level?
No.
Thats a side that is a decade ahead of your development. Why are City so special that theyre closing the gap by finishing 4th and 2 points ahead of 4th over the last 2 seasons?

 

[cyberman]

I have a theory about this. Madrid and Barca would be twice as big as they are if they weren't each others rivals. They split the neutral fanbase and have very little spillover between their own. Thats a large percentage of the total number of fans in the world that they don't have access to. Its also two sets of fans that are wary of the oil money coming into the game and shaking things up (especially Barca lol )
Their league even refused to release Neymars registration to PSG while telling the world they wouldn't have a problem if Utd were involved.
German fans despise these kinds of takeovers so theres no growth there while Citys main rivals are already the worlds most supported club.
Thats the biggest disadvantage City faces in my opinion. If they can overcome it then itll take generations upon generations to do so.

 

[jontheblue]

@jontheblue
Thats just white noise to be honest. Nobody is catching up, you're ignoring the fans we have becoming parents and bringing them up as fans as well. Its a constant growth. The next generation doesn't come with a clean slate thats a free for all to win hearts and minds.
Its why Liverpool are a bigger club than Chelsea despite the Chavs winning title after title for the last 15 years yet City etc are catching up despite having a fraction of Chelsea success?
Every single time City etc are celebrated as this super power just remember the word Chelsea. Are Chelsea on our level?
No.
Thats a side that is a decade ahead of your development. Why are City so special that theyre closing the gap by finishing 4th and 2 points ahead of 4th over the last 2 seasons?

From many angles that's a fair statement but....

You say liverpool are a bigger club than Chelsea. Chelsea now have a bigger annual revenue than Liverpool. in terms of financial revenue, the gap is a lot closer between city and united than it was. Social media / digital revenue on a global basis is going to become ever more important. No point having the fans if you aren't getting the revenue out of them and I'm sure overseas, if the digital offering from united remains so far behind, for a generation that live on their digital devices, that will be enough to gain large numbers of young fans

 

[padr81]

@jontheblue
Thats just white noise to be honest. Nobody is catching up, you're ignoring the fans we have becoming parents and bringing them up as fans as well. Its a constant growth. The next generation doesn't come with a clean slate thats a free for all to win hearts and minds.
Its why Liverpool are a bigger club than Chelsea despite the Chavs winning title after title for the last 15 years yet City etc are catching up despite having a fraction of Chelsea success?
Every single time City etc are celebrated as this super power just remember the word Chelsea. Are Chelsea on our level?
No.
Thats a side that is a decade ahead of your development. Why are City so special that theyre closing the gap by finishing 4th and 2 points ahead of 4th over the last 2 seasons?

Chelsea are catching up too though. Its simple really, success brings support regardless of club. Sustained success brings sustained support.

http://www.totalsportek.com/football/clubs-with-most-shirt-sales/ Kind of old but shows Chelsea clearly sold more shirts than Liverpool.
http://sokkaa.com/2017/03/27/top-7-football-clubs-with-biggest-fanbase-worldwide-today/2/ - Again Chelsea dwarf Liverpool here... In fact according to this only Real, Barca and United are bigger and have more following then Chelsea.

So yes, Chelsea are there as a super club now, denying it is pointless. Are they United big? No. But to say they aren't as big as Liverpool, Arsenal etc.. is plain wrong.
Heres an article on the ground Chelsea have made up over here in Ireland
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/so...e-club-is-most-supported-in-ireland-1.3018961

And one more that shows Chelsea miles ahead of Arsenal, Liverpool etc.. and as clearly the 2nd most popular team in England
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/f...clubs-number-of-fans-worldwide-sportgalleries

Only in the minds of Liverpool supporters and people who cling to the old guard and are blind to facts are Liverpool still a bigger and better supported club then Chelsea, or are Chelsea not making in roads on Europes top clubs. Chelsea are far an away the closest club to your level worldwide.

City are now the 5th most supported club in England worldwide and again growing at a fast rate too. Would you say City were ahead of Spurs, Everton etc... 8 years ago?

 

[cyberman]

@jontheblue
Yes but Liverpool are famous for not exploiting their fanbase. They are woeful at the boardroom level.
Utd are the best run club in world football at generating money, thats the difference.
We are still the face of English football, we are on prime time tv across the world and our results are regularly the leading story in EPLs worldwide coverage.
All of that with our clubs crest being planted on every sort of sponsor you can imagine. Thats all worth a bit more than a few viral videos which even then is more than made up for by having the likes of Pogba in our side.
Social media is great for pushing Deadpool to the masses but even then Deadpool wouldn't have needed it if major tv companies had hours of Deadpool coverage on their networks every week.
Most of the videos that go viral on social media aren't even club made so there shouldn't be that big of a drop off?
I don't want to derail the thread so ill leave it there, not that my thesis even means anything sadly

 

[Costanza70]

You say liverpool are a bigger club than Chelsea. Chelsea now have a bigger annual revenue than Liverpool. in terms of financial revenue, the gap is a lot closer between city and united than it was.

You would have to say that both Chelsea & City's positions are false though. It's took huge financial doping from Roman & Mansour to get you into these positions.

A more relevant way to measure the size of club would be attendances. There are many teams from the PL & Championship who could get 70,000 + crowds if they had received the backing your clubs have. Chelsea are hovering at 40,000 & City 54,000. Chelsea are moving but still unlikely to be hitting 60,000.

 

[M18CTID]

You would have to say that both Chelsea & City's positions are false though. It's took huge financial doping from Roman & Mansour to get you into these positions.

A more relevant way to measure the size of club would be attendances. There are many teams from the PL & Championship who could get 70,000 + crowds if they had received the backing your clubs have. Chelsea are hovering at 40,000 & City 54,000. Chelsea are moving but still unlikely to be hitting 60,000.

Who are these many clubs that would get 70,000+ crowds on a regular basis? Aside from the obvious ones such as United (already there), Liverpool, and Arsenal, I can’t think of many others. Spurs, probably. Newcastle perhaps. Sunderland and Leeds maybe? But what do those last 3 have in common? They’re all 1 club cities. Besides, I’m not sure getting 70,000+ on a regular basis is as easy as you think outside of the usual suspects because the increased cost due to the increased number of games that being successful brings makes it difficult for fans to afford to go to every home game unless you have a huge support base to take up the slack of the non-attendees. And despite having the benefit of playing in a much larger capacity stadium this season, there have been huge variations in Tottenham’s attendances. A high of around 80,000 and a low of around 23,000. Even their League Cup game against West Ham attracted less than 40,000 and that was with almost 5000 West Ham fans there, coupled with tickets being priced at £20 a pop which is dirt cheap for a derby in London.

I’ll also add that Chelsea had been hitting those 40,000 crowds on a regular basis long before Abramovich bought the club. As for City, even in that absolute borefest of a season under Pearce we averaged just shy of 40,000.

The only way “many clubs” would get 70,000+ crowds on a regular basis is if safe standing areas were legalised along with a Bundesliga-style pricing structure where tens of thousands of season tickets cost little more than £100 each.

 

[BridgeBanter]

You would have to say that both Chelsea & City's positions are false though. It's took huge financial doping from Roman & Mansour to get you into these positions.

A more relevant way to measure the size of club would be attendances. There are many teams from the PL & Championship who could get 70,000 + crowds if they had received the backing your clubs have. Chelsea are hovering at 40,000 & City 54,000. Chelsea are moving but still unlikely to be hitting 60,000.

I’m sorry but to say their position is false is a load of complete nonsense. Sure you can play the ethical card and say that you feel the success they achieved is hollow, however this isn’t a game of hypothetical's or make-believe, if Chelsea and City win the league they will be recognized as PL winners, and to suggest otherwise is completely bizarre. Also, you can talk about any other team being as popular if they had a rich owner takeover, but it isn’t any other team. It is Chelsea and City, these are the facts. I’m an avid football fan and while I have family in the UK I’m from and live in Canada. I recognize that in England, Chelsea still isn’t even the most popular or most supported team in London, yet alone the second biggest team in the country behind United. However, in North America the second most supported English team is Chelsea and honestly I don’t believe it is even close. No doubt this is because Chelsea, along with United have been the most successful teams of the last 10-15 years. Whether you agree with how Chelsea and City have garnered their financial backing, the reality is the success they have achieved has had a tangible impact on the reach and global standing of these clubs.

 

[Santi_Mesut_Alexis_87]

I think you are correct. I would say every football fan in the UK (and further afield?) knows of the 'Invincibles'. I would also suggest that virtually no one knows how many points Arsenal got that season, nor how many points Chelsea/United/City when winning the league in a particular year. If City went unbeaten I couldn't give a toss whether it was with 105 or 95 points, what an achievement it would be.

Saturday 18th November: Leicester City 2 - 1 Manchester City.....

It's very difficult to keep an unbeaten run these days. It was a different period when we did it.

 

[JASR]

In terms of getting with the digital times City are ahead of us. Their website and accounts on Social Platforms (YouTube etc), are far better than ours. This is a good move for them.

Web ..site... better?

Jeez how bad is uniteds!

Though it has slowly got faster and improved a bit since the relaunch. Having massive bloody pictures is a step backwards though.

Social media, if you like that sort of thing, yes City’s is pretty good.

 

[JASR]

Chelsea are hovering at 40,000 & City 54,000. Chelsea are moving but still unlikely to be hitting 60,000.

Yeah the maximum capacity of stadiums is a bugger for trying to get the numbers higher at City and Chelsea.

City expanded the stadium from 46k, 50k And now 55k (closer to 54k with segregation) - without issues of not selling tickets.

Chelsea could do the same easily.

 

[Santi_Mesut_Alexis_87]

Aguero doesn't look good.

 

[el magico]

It's very difficult to keep an unbeaten run these days. It was a different period when we did it.

That's kind of my point. Although, only Preston have done it apart from Arsenal at any time in history.

 

[BluesJr]

How we don’t have a decent website, YouTube channel or even universal app for all regions is completely baffling to me. Would cost next to nothing relatively speaking and would do nothing but enhance our profile and this is something City are doing effectively.

We have millions of fans right now, but the kids of Today spend all their time online and more likely to side with a team with a good online presence, as silly as it sounds it’s true.

You have to be thinking 20-30 years ahead in a business like this.

 

[Santi_Mesut_Alexis_87]

That's kind of my point. Although, only Preston have done it apart from Arsenal at any time in history.

Yeah, so if you did it you would be remembered forever.

 

[liamp]

We don't even have a fecking youtube channel.

Yeah, it's weird how reluctant we've been to do really basic stuff like that

 

[jontheblue]

You would have to say that both Chelsea & City's positions are false though. It's took huge financial doping from Roman & Mansour to get you into these positions.

A more relevant way to measure the size of club would be attendances. There are many teams from the PL & Championship who could get 70,000 + crowds if they had received the backing your clubs have. Chelsea are hovering at 40,000 & City 54,000. Chelsea are moving but still unlikely to be hitting 60,000.

Well of course, one way to measure the size of a club is attendances. But I'm afraid that gets into the realms of 'we have more history', 'we've won more trophies', 'we sell more shirts'. Yes it's fine for banter between fans. But this whole 'my club is bigger than yours' is just that - banter

The discussion was however about financials, specifically social media & digital income streams. Everyone now accepts that the more money a club has, the more chance of success. Whatever doping (to use your expression) has gone on at Chelsea, their turnover (which is not money from Abramovich) is now greater than liverpool's. Liverpool can get all the fans on match day they want but right now, they have less money to spend from real, genuine, commercial revenue. I'll not get too deep into the arguments about how much of City's income is 'real', suffice to say that I'd love to hear a good argument as to how City isn't a significantly better natural fit for Etihad as a sponsorship recipient than Arsenal is for Emirates. If anyone doesn't think that Etihad aren't getting value for money out of the deal considering the amount of coverage they receive then I'm struggling to see how sponsors of the other big PL clubs are either

Cyberman posted above: Utd are the best run club in world football at generating money, thats the difference.
We are still the face of English football, we are on prime time tv across the world and our results are regularly the leading story in EPLs worldwide coverage.

Given how much 'bigger' United are than City (which they absolutely are, by a large margin, in terms of fans, both for matchday attendance and globally), I'm not sure that generating only 20% more income than City (approaching £600M compared to approaching £500M) makes them the best run club in world football at generating money. I'd expect, if it was that well run, for the difference to be much greater ?

 

[M18CTID]

Well of course, one way to measure the size of a club is attendances. But I'm afraid that gets into the realms of 'we have more history', 'we've won more trophies', 'we sell more shirts'. Yes it's fine for banter between fans. But this whole 'my club is bigger than yours' is just that - banter

The discussion was however about financials, specifically social media & digital income streams. Everyone now accepts that the more money a club has, the more chance of success. Whatever doping (to use your expression) has gone on at Chelsea, their turnover (which is not money from Abramovich) is now greater than liverpool's. Liverpool can get all the fans on match day they want but right now, they have less money to spend from real, genuine, commercial revenue. I'll not get too deep into the arguments about how much of City's income is 'real', suffice to say that I'd love to hear a good argument as to how City isn't a significantly better natural fit for Etihad as a sponsorship recipient than Arsenal is for Emirates. If anyone doesn't think that Etihad aren't getting value for money out of the deal considering the amount of coverage they receive then I'm struggling to see how sponsors of the other big PL clubs are either

Cyberman posted above: Utd are the best run club in world football at generating money, thats the difference.
We are still the face of English football, we are on prime time tv across the world and our results are regularly the leading story in EPLs worldwide coverage.

Given how much 'bigger' United are than City (which they absolutely are, by a large margin, in terms of fans, both for matchday attendance and globally), I'm not sure that generating only 20% more income than City (approaching £600M compared to approaching £500M) makes them the best run club in world football at generating money. I'd expect, if it was that well run, for the difference to be much greater ?

This is a very good point that I've been making for a while and it doesn't just concern United but it applies to other clubs as well. United claim to have 659 million fans worldwide. While I don't think this is correct in terms of what one would constitute being a "fan" of a club is, let's assume that they do have more fans than any other club on the planet and that figure is something in the region of 200-300 million. It could be more or it may be less, but the general point is that in business terms football clubs generate a pitiful amount of money when you consider how many fans (or, dare I say it, customers) they have, and the fact that other revenue streams make up the majority of a top tier club's income these days while money from fans through ticketing and merchandising isn't the biggest source. Look at shirt sales for example - United top that particular chart but as a percentage of their global support, their annual shirt sales are around 1% of their worldwide support base (going off that 200-300 million figure I indicated).

Put another way, if any other business had so many customers they'd be generating a lot more money from that customer base than football clubs do. United stole a march on the likes of Liverpool at the end of the 1980's by maximising revenues from their global fanbase (ironically some of that was down to Michael Knighton who said they should be turning over a lot more cash than they were) but they've pretty much squeezed the traditional money-making ways to the limit. The fact is, there are hundreds of millions of fans of football clubs worldwide who don't contribute a single penny to the overall revenue of their favoured club so you have to look at other, more innovative ways, and while as an old school fan I don't see too much appeal in this new digital age, it's all the rage for the younger generation. I can't for the life of me understand why United haven't embraced this side of things more because if they did, they'd shit miles more money than they already do.

 

[cyberman]

Id hate to point this out but theres another way you can look at that 20 percent figure...its entire bullshit?
we have had an embarassing 5 years yet our numbers are greater than 3 CL winners in 4 years Madrid and Barca who have dominated Europe for over a decade now. Thats impressive yet a City side who have won 1 more title than Leicester since the takeover are posting 500m revenues?
Is there a fan of another club outside of Manchester that believes this? Its a genuine question, has a City fan ever posted these numbers and not spend post after post defending their sponsorship deals

 

[M18CTID]

Id hate to point this out but theres another way you can look at that 20 percent figure...its entire bullshit?
we have had an embarassing 5 years yet our numbers are greater than 3 CL winners in 4 years Madrid and Barca who have dominated Europe for over a decade now. Thats impressive yet a City side who have won 1 more title than Leicester since the takeover are posting 500m revenues?
Is there a fan of another club outside of Manchester that believes this? Its a genuine question, has a City fan ever posted these numbers and not spend post after post defending their sponsorship deals

It's been covered multiple times in multiple threads and people choose to take it on board or not. Their choice of course but it all gets rather tedious trying to go through it all time after time after time when some people are so blinkered that they think all our commercial revenue comes from Abu Dhabi. In any case, forget commercial revenue for the time being - according to the latest accounts City still generated well over a quarter of a billion quid before a single penny of commercial revenue is factored in.

Trying to compare us to Leicester is way off IMO - like it or not, City are way higher profile (and were long before the money came in), aren't a flash in the pan side that won a title out of the blue before reverting back to type, and have people running the club who have far better contacts in the business world than the Leicester suits. I mean, what's the point in employing Ferran Soriano on a multi-million pound annual salary if all our sponsorship money comes from Abu Dhabi and the UAE?

 

[BlueSingh]

It's been covered multiple times in multiple threads and people choose to take it on board or not. Their choice of course but it all gets rather tedious trying to go through it all time after time after time when some people are so blinkered that they think all our commercial revenue comes from Abu Dhabi. In any case, forget commercial revenue for the time being - according to the latest accounts City still generated well over a quarter of a billion quid before a single penny of commercial revenue is factored in.

Trying to compare us to Leicester is way off IMO - like it or not, City are way higher profile (and were long before the money came in), aren't a flash in the pan side that won a title out of the blue before reverting back to type, and have people running the club who have far better contacts in the business world than the Leicester suits.

No point sir, pretty sure those reports are skewed as well. Not trying to mock anyone but I don't get how people still cling on this notion that all the City's commercial revenue is a favor from abu dhabi, when all the reports and details are openly available by the club and the government via finance related websites.

 

[Costanza70]

Who are these many clubs that would get 70,000+ crowds on a regular basis? Aside from the obvious ones such as United (already there), Liverpool, and Arsenal, I can’t think of many others. Spurs, probably. Newcastle perhaps. Sunderland and Leeds maybe?

You could add Everton & West Ham to the list of PL clubs. In the Championship Villa would attract massive crowds also.

Given how much 'bigger' United are than City (which they absolutely are, by a large margin, in terms of fans, both for matchday attendance and globally), I'm not sure that generating only 20% more income than City (approaching £600M compared to approaching £500M) makes them the best run club in world football at generating money. I'd expect, if it was that well run, for the difference to be much greater ?

You've hit the nail on the head here. This is where your revenue figures fall down. Utd are known as a money making machine. If there's a sponsor out there we'll get there money whether noodles or bog roll.

We will be well ahead on merchandise sales & attendances. We do not make anything on shirt sales but we are getting the £75 M a season from Adidas. I do not know your shirt sale figures. Your manufacturers deal is quite low though. You make more on player sales but you also spend alot more on players. There will be little difference in prize & tv money.

As said we are known as 1 of if not the most sponsored club in the world. It doesn't seem feasible that you can be posting revenue figures so close to ours. On this trajectory you will be overtaking us next year.

 

[M18CTID]

You could add Everton & West Ham to the list of PL clubs. In the Championship Villa would attract massive crowds also.

Yeah, I forgot about West Ham. They're not bigger than City support-wise but their London location along with the move to the Olympic Stadium means they can pull in big crowds. 70k on a regular basis is out of reach for them I reckon. Everton would fill a 55,000 seater new stadium most weeks but 70,000? Again, I doubt it. Ditto Villa whose support base is decent but is smaller than Everton's for me.

 

[Costanza70]

Yeah, I forgot about West Ham. They're not bigger than City support-wise but their London location along with the move to the Olympic Stadium means they can pull in big crowds. 70k on a regular basis is out of reach for them I reckon. Everton would fill a 55,000 seater new stadium most weeks but 70,000? Again, I doubt it. Ditto Villa whose support base is decent but is smaller than Everton's for me.

West Ham have had an awful season & many fans hate the ground. They are still pulling crowds on a par with City. With a better team, stadium & owner i think they could hit 70K. Everton have been poor for years yet still sell out every game. Villa are a huge club but have been mismanaged for years. I really don't see 70K being a problem for them if things had gone another way.

 

[Manchester Dan]

I find it funny that as City move into revenue generating territory where the Middle East sponsorships aren’t as material (you could actually strip our entire shirt and stadium deal with Etihad out of the figures and still comfortably break £400m now), the arguement changes to “well, you shouldn’t believe any of the figures anyway”. These aren’t just numbers you can churn out and then hope nobody checks the validity of them. Wouldn’t that be nice.

 

[M18CTID]

I find it funny that as City move into revenue generating territory where the Middle East sponsorships aren’t as material (you could actually strip our entire shirt and stadium deal with Etihad out of the figures and still comfortably break £400m now), the arguement changes to “well, you shouldn’t believe any of the figures anyway”. These aren’t just numbers you can churn out and then hope nobody checks the validity of them. Wouldn’t that be nice.

Yep. And if anyone wants to read a more impartial assessment of City's current standing in the footballing world rather than from us City fans (which is perfectly understandable), there's plenty of info out there:

This link tells us of every commercial deal at every Premier League club, plus it lists all deals signed since the start of 2016/2017. City have more than 20 in that category and the vast majority aren't Abu Dhabi/UAE based unless the likes of Heineken have relocated from their Amsterdam home. Indeed, the opening blurb states that "the likes of Manchester City and Liverpool have been especially busy tying up sponsorships in the lucrative Asian market, predominantly in the increasingly important territory of China."
https://www.soccerex.com/insight/ar...ail&utm_term=0_dff1a21dfc-88ef664f65-46283413

And regarding brand values in football, this is a good read - according to Brand Finance, City's is the 6th biggest footballing brand in the world. That's actually down from the previous year's 4th spot but I'd imagine if we continue playing like we are and actually win a trophy or two this season then we might move up a couple of spots at least:
http://brandfinance.com/knowledge-centre/reports/brand-finance-football-50-2017/

 

[Ronetta]

The aim is to win the title. Not losing a single game is rare but this is partly because it isn't necessary to win the title. United lost 3 league games when we won the treble in 99 and 5 games when we won the double in 08. Any of these teams is regarded as better than the Invincibles. For my money, Chelsea had a better team when they broke the record for most points in 2005 as well. What's the point of going unbeaten in the league if the price is getting beaten in the CL?

Barca lost 5 league games when they won the treble in 2009. They lost 2 league games when they won the CL in 11. You know what, they are a far better team than the "Invincibles". Give the latter the chance to play in a CL final at the expense of getting beaten in the league and they will bite your hand off.

That said, going unbeaten the whole season in the league is a great achievement, I didn't express myself well. The invincibles are one of the great teams in the PL era, no doubt about it.

Fair enough, I can agree with pretty much all of that.

Apart from the bit about sides being regarded as better than the invincibles. I remember well those years and I also remember well, the spellbinding football Arsenal played at the time. Other teams may have amassed more points, but personally, I don't think they necessarily played "better". Better is subjective I guess.

FWIW, speaking as a City fan, I would be very surprised indeed if we went unbeaten this season. I just can't see it. I'll be quite pleased if we beat Leicester on Saturday to be honest ;-)

 

[Thunderhead]

West Ham have had an awful season & many fans hate the ground. They are still pulling crowds on a par with City. With a better team, stadium & owner i think they could hit 70K. Everton have been poor for years yet still sell out every game. Villa are a huge club but have been mismanaged for years. I really don't see 70K being a problem for them if things had gone another way.

load of rubbish, if that was the case why are Spurs only building a 61k capacity stadium, why did Arsenal only build a 60k stadium? Chelsea's redevelopment will only be 60k. Very few clubs can pull in 70k on a regular basis, Camp Nou holds 99k yet only pulls in an average of 77k, the Bernabeu only pulls in around 70k on a 80k+ capacity

 

[jontheblue]

As some others have posted, I'm pretty staggered that the response from some is that City must be overstating/doping their revenue figures, rather than concentrating on how poorly United maximise their revenue. Why do so many people think that United are so good at it ? Some have posted on here that United have 250M or 500M 'fans'. If so, with c £600M annual revenue, that means on average, United are generating either £1 or £2 per fan, per year, in revenue. Not profit, revenue. What difference how big the fanbase is if that's all that can be generated from them ? Football clubs historically have been incredibly poor at maximising revenue, overpaying sub contractors and poorly maximising alternative revenue streams

As for City, others have explained that many of the deals are not with associated parties, but instead true arms length parties. But that can mean people overlook the big deal, with Etihad, as being 'false'. That's actually a big mistake. Emirates are a UAE based airline who sponsor Arsenal, a club to whom they have no links, so it's a true third party deal. Etihad are also a UAE based airline, so very comparable. If Etihad also decide to sponsor a sporting club, of all the clubs in the world, who could possibly be a better natural fit for them than Manchester City ? It makes far more sense for them to sponsor city than for example, to sponsor spurs. Plus we are more likely to win trophies than most other clubs, which is what sponsors want. Almost every article on City for the last 10 years makes reference to arabs/abu dhabi/UAE. Eithad fly from Manchester. The synergy with sponsoring City, particularly given that the stadium is named the Etihad (and unlike Old Trafford which if it were sponsored, would still be called Old Trafford by most people, City's stadium is referred to by everyone as the Etihad), is huge. Anyone who thinks the Eithad deal is at an overvalue because of financial doping as a way of getting round FFP is kidding themselves. It's actually chronically undervalued and when it gets renegotiated over the next 12 months or so, it won't be the owners of city thinking how much can we get away with the deal being before UEFA investigate for doping but instead, how much will Etihad have to offer to stop us looking to other sponsors prepared to match it.

 

[jontheblue]

load of rubbish, if that was the case why are Spurs only building a 61k capacity stadium, why did Arsenal only build a 60k stadium? Chelsea's redevelopment will only be 60k. Very few clubs can pull in 70k on a regular basis, Camp Nou holds 99k yet only pulls in an average of 77k, the Bernabeu only pulls in around 70k on a 80k+ capacity

I've been defending city's financials on here but one thing I can't defend is our attendances. It's incredibly puzzling and could be down to a number of factors, but the fact remains, most league games sell out yet not everyone with a ticket attends and for cup games, even with incredibly incentives, we struggle to sell the tickets. As you say, to pull in 70k on a regular basis is something very few clubs can do and as others have pointed out, if it's a two+ team city where one team has a strong history of attendance/success, for the other to break into that market is very difficult

Also, United have a truly astonishing number of regulars from far afield (Ireland, London, overseas, etc) and for a club to significantly increase it's attendance on a regular basis, if at all possible, takes a long long time to build up

 

[Nick0007]

I've been defending city's financials on here but one thing I can't defend is our attendances. It's incredibly puzzling and could be down to a number of factors, but the fact remains, most league games sell out yet not everyone with a ticket attends and for cup games, even with incredibly incentives, we struggle to sell the tickets. As you say, to pull in 70k on a regular basis is something very few clubs can do and as others have pointed out, if it's a two+ team city where one team has a strong history of attendance/success, for the other to break into that market is very difficult

Also, United have a truly astonishing number of regulars from far afield (Ireland, London, overseas, etc) and for a club to significantly increase it's attendance on a regular basis, if at all possible, takes a long long time to build up

City draw a large percentage of support from poor areas of Manchester- Droysden, Blackley , Beswick ,Clayton, Ardwick to name a few - this type of supporter cannot afford to attend every game for obvious reasons

 

[el magico]

I've been defending city's financials on here but one thing I can't defend is our attendances. It's incredibly puzzling and could be down to a number of factors, but the fact remains, most league games sell out yet not everyone with a ticket attends and for cup games, even with incredibly incentives, we struggle to sell the tickets. As you say, to pull in 70k on a regular basis is something very few clubs can do and as others have pointed out, if it's a two+ team city where one team has a strong history of attendance/success, for the other to break into that market is very difficult

Also, United have a truly astonishing number of regulars from far afield (Ireland, London, overseas, etc) and for a club to significantly increase it's attendance on a regular basis, if at all possible, takes a long long time to build up

I'm slightly surprised by your comment. City had over 50k against Wolves in the Carabao cup (don't forget Spurs v West Ham in the same week drew 24k), CL attendances are impressive, most home FA Cup games (when we have them of course) draw excellent crowds. And, don't forget all this is with no compulsory purchase of tickets for cup games by season ticket holders.

I would say the upward trajectory of City's attendances, considering the barriers you mention, is incredibly impressive.

ps. one of my local pubs in Barnet displays a newspaper report of the day we lost at Underhill, at the time I was still living in Manchester and went to the second leg at Maine Road, attendance was 11,545. Different times I know but gives an indication of where we are now with people attending matches.

 

[jontheblue]

I'm slightly surprised by your comment. City had over 50k against Wolves in the Carabao cup (don't forget Spurs v West Ham in the same week drew 24k), CL attendances are impressive, most home FA Cup games (when we have them of course) draw excellent crowds. And, don't forget all this is with no compulsory purchase of tickets for cup games by season ticket holders.

I would say the upward trajectory of City's attendances, considering the barriers you mention, is incredibly impressive.

ps. one of my local pubs in Barnet displays a newspaper report of the day we lost at Underhill, at the time I was still living in Manchester and went to the second leg at Maine Road, attendance was 11,545. Different times I know but gives an indication of where we are now with people attending matches.

Well league games and cup games are different matters. League games aren't affected by many of the supporters being from poorer areas which Nick0007 rightly points out is a factor, but only for cup games. Most league games sell out, so the stated attendance is high, but as someone who goes to most home league games, it's very obvious that not all the seats are taken. So the published figures aren't a lie in the sense the tickets have been sold, but they aren't a true reflection of how many people actually attend. I just don't understand why that is

For cup games, the attendances are getting better, but I'm not sure I'd call them impressive. We have had to work really hard to sell cup games, we often offer huge incentives but we seem to struggle. Some of that is definitely because of the lack of wealth of supporters, some because as you rightly say there is no compulsory purchase. The attendances are again not what the published figures show, I assume through people on the cup schemes or with corporate tickets that entitle them to go, but who choose not to attend. There can't be many clubs who have to discount their CL ticket prices to the level that we do to get people through the gates ? Where I'll definitely agree is that there is an upward trajectory - perhaps I'm just impatient...

 

[Nanook]

I find it funny that as City move into revenue generating territory where the Middle East sponsorships aren’t as material (you could actually strip our entire shirt and stadium deal with Etihad out of the figures and still comfortably break £400m now), the arguement changes to “well, you shouldn’t believe any of the figures anyway”. These aren’t just numbers you can churn out and then hope nobody checks the validity of them. Wouldn’t that be nice.

Nobody is questioning City’s total revenue figures, just the commercial revenue.

If you exclude the money United make from our shirt and kit deals the other commercial revenue is around £150m per season. If you do the same for City you get about £165m. City are making more United and way, way more than Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool.

 

[Thunderhead]

Nobody is questioning City’s total revenue figures, just the commercial revenue.

If you exclude the money United make from our shirt and kit deals the other commercial revenue is around £150m per season. If you do the same for City you get about £165m. City are making more United and way, way more than Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool.

Really? our total commercial revenue in 2016 was only £178m and United's was £268 so I think you still must make 40-50m more than us for other commercial deals

 

[Costanza70]

Nobody is questioning City’s total revenue figures, just the commercial revenue.

If you exclude the money United make from our shirt and kit deals the other commercial revenue is around £150m per season. If you do the same for City you get about £165m. City are making more United and way, way more than Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool.

Is there a breakdown on how much City get from each individual sponsor. My understanding was that they are getting many more sponsors but these are for relatively small amounts. The Nissan deal is really the only large 1. Was assuming the bulk still comes from Abu Dhabi companies & parties with connections to Mansour.

 

[Nanook]

Really? our total commercial revenue in 2016 was only £178m and United's was £268 so I think you still must make 40-50m more than us for other commercial deals

2016/2017 numbers are £275.5m for United and £218m for City. Adidas and Chevrolet are paying United around £130m per season whereas City’s Nike and Etihad deals are worth just £52m.

 

[BlueSingh]

Is there a breakdown on how much City get from each individual sponsor. My understanding was that they are getting many more sponsors but these are for relatively small amounts. The Nissan deal is really the only large 1. Was assuming the bulk still comes from Abu Dhabi companies & parties with connections to Mansour.

We had someone do a breakdown on a pod the other day, and iirc he stated that the only major deal that comes from Abu Dhabi is the Etihad shirt and stadium deal which is £60m pa. and the rest of them (Etisalat, Aabar etc.) accumulate together to become just 10 to 15m which is nothing in the overall scheme of things really. To put into context the Nexen tyre sleeve sponsorship alone is £7m pa.

If say the shirt and stadium sponsorship were to be renewed now with any other interested party, say some car company like Nissan, you'd assume it would be closer to that 60m mark if not higher considering the type of deals flying about now days.

So you could say that the alleged "unfair" backing from UAE companies isn't even that significant to have the type of drastic affect that people who aren't aware of the figures normally state.

 

[Thunderhead]

2016/2017 numbers are £275.5m for United and £218m for City. Adidas and Chevrolet are paying United around £130m per season whereas City’s Nike and Etihad deals are worth just £52m.

Yeah but you're comparing apples and oranges there, you can't compare ourc2017 to your 2016