Manchester city... ffp?

sun_tzu

The Art of Bore
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
19,536
Location
Still waiting for the Youthquake
So they have spent around £125m on ederson, walker and Silva
They look set to another 40m or so on a left back and let's be honest they could probably use another centreback given kompanys injury record
So that could be around £200m overall
And possibly something like £750k a week in wages.
I know a few players will leave but surely it's going to be a fairly big net spend... can they actually afford that within ffp rules (obviously their magic money tree can produce the cash)
 
FFP is effectively dead.

However it is interesting looking at how City will cope financially.

They've currently spent about 130 million and recouped 30 million. That's obviously a massive net spend so far and will rise.

However Zabaletta, Nolito, Callabero, Hart, Clichy, Navas and Sagna have been shifted from their wage bill. If they're earning about an average of 75k a week, that's half a million savings a week. You'd expect that to be a conservative figure and they're going to get rid of more as well.

Interestingly we've spent about the same net wise (We're on about 100 million ourselves) but I think our wage bill has been shredded as well. Rooney and Zlatan alone will probably result in 40 million less on wages this year alone! This means we have a bit of manoeuvrability in the transfer market.
 
They probably make loads with all their stadium sellouts. And all those passionate city fans Worldwide.

Lol jokes, they're rich because some dumbass billionaire thought he was buying United
 
In before City fans start posting about how City are a business and they have legit sponsorship deal.
 
Excuse my ignorance on this subject but how does Manchester City go from a club worth maybe 50 million to a club worth several hundred million just because they were bought by Arabs with money. They don't have a massive worldwide fan base. Many times they can't fill the stadium They must have spent about 1 billion pound in the last years and the players are all on big money. Is their sponsorship deal just a sham because the people who own them also sponsor them. Can somebody educate me on the finer points of how it all works
 
Wumminator said:
FFP is effectively dead.

However it is interesting looking at how City will cope financially.

They've currently spent about 130 million and recouped 30 million. That's obviously a massive net spend so far and will rise.

However Zabaletta, Nolito, Callabero, Hart, Clichy, Navas and Sagna have been shifted from their wage bill. If they're earning about an average of 75k a week, that's half a million savings a week. You'd expect that to be a conservative figure and they're going to get rid of more as well.

Interestingly we've spent about the same net wise (We're on about 100 million ourselves) but I think our wage bill has been shredded as well. Rooney and Zlatan alone will probably result in 40 million less on wages this year alone! This means we have a bit of manoeuvrability in the transfer market.
Click to expand...


are we not still paying a huge slice of rooneys wages
 
Wumminator said:
FFP is effectively dead.

However it is interesting looking at how City will cope financially.

They've currently spent about 130 million and recouped 30 million. That's obviously a massive net spend so far and will rise.

However Zabaletta, Nolito, Callabero, Hart, Clichy, Navas and Sagna have been shifted from their wage bill. If they're earning about an average of 75k a week, that's half a million savings a week. You'd expect that to be a conservative figure and they're going to get rid of more as well.

Interestingly we've spent about the same net wise (We're on about 100 million ourselves) but I think our wage bill has been shredded as well. Rooney and Zlatan alone will probably result in 40 million less on wages this year alone! This means we have a bit of manoeuvrability in the transfer market.
Click to expand...

FFP is not dead.
 
Wumminator said:
FFP is effectively dead.

However it is interesting looking at how City will cope financially.

They've currently spent about 130 million and recouped 30 million. That's obviously a massive net spend so far and will rise.

However Zabaletta, Nolito, Callabero, Hart, Clichy, Navas and Sagna have been shifted from their wage bill. If they're earning about an average of 75k a week, that's half a million savings a week. You'd expect that to be a conservative figure and they're going to get rid of more as well.

Interestingly we've spent about the same net wise (We're on about 100 million ourselves) but I think our wage bill has been shredded as well. Rooney and Zlatan alone will probably result in 40 million less on wages this year alone! This means we have a bit of manoeuvrability in the transfer market.
Click to expand...

That part is wrong. It's just that FFP was never meant to target potential big markets and the PL is the biggest of them all.
 
johnamiri said:
Excuse my ignorance on this subject but how does Manchester City go from a club worth maybe 50 million to a club worth several hundred million just because they were bought by Arabs with money. They don't have a massive worldwide fan base. Many times they can't fill the stadium They must have spent about 1 billion pound in the last years and the players are all on big money. Is their sponsorship deal just a sham because the people who own them also sponsor them. Can somebody educate me on the finer points of how it all works
Click to expand...
There's no way to ascertain the fair market value of their various deals because they never opened them up for bidding, they've always had it pre-arranged with a company affiliated to the owners/owners family. But just based on common sense it's obvious they're quite inflated. If it wasn't for FFP they probably wouldn't have to bother and could just pump the money directly.
 
ThomasEmil said:
Sooo it was just to give Genk a hard time in Belgium?
Click to expand...

The initial goal was to prevent cases like Parma, Strasbourg, Le Mans or Portsmouth. It was particularly triggered by a number of Spanish clubs that ended up in financial troubles in the mid 2000s, the sugar daddies are just a collateral damage but that damage doesn't really exist for City because of the TV revenues.
 
sun_tzu said:
So they have spent around £125m on ederson, walker and Silva
They look set to another 40m or so on a left back and let's be honest they could probably use another centreback given kompanys injury record
So that could be around £200m overall
And possibly something like £750k a week in wages.
I know a few players will leave but surely it's going to be a fairly big net spend... can they actually afford that within ffp rules (obviously their magic money tree can produce the cash)
Click to expand...

They could still add Sanchez to that for another 70m or so. There should be no comparisons made with city's "sponsorship" and ours. Companies genuinely want to sponsor us as they get a good return, City's sponsors are just made up to balance the books.
 
JPRouve said:
The initial goal was to prevent cases like Parma, Strasbourg, Le Mans or Portsmouth. It was particularly triggered by a number of Spanish clubs that ended up in financial troubles in the mid 2000s, the sugar daddies are just a collateral damage but that damage doesn't really exist for City because of the TV revenues.
Click to expand...
So in reality, FFP only manages to supress smaller clubs trying to become bigger clubs ?
 
The title is an oxymoron. OP trying to trick us all, everyone knows that that ffp is a joke now.
 
ThomasEmil said:
So in reality, FFP only manages to supress smaller clubs trying to become bigger clubs ?
Click to expand...

That's one of the consequences and something that some of us said before its introduction. The FFP is great for the already established clubs.
 
ThomasEmil said:
So in reality, FFP only manages to supress smaller clubs trying to become bigger clubs ?
Click to expand...

It's meant to keep clubs working within their means instead of going overboard and going into further debt which always bites back especially for smaller clubs.

When ffp was implemented, I don't think TV deal for pl was negotiated yet so it seemed ok for all clubs but since the TV deal in England was negotiated for a stupidly insane figure never seen before, it meant English clubs can spend more than their continental rivals and still be safe in balancing books.
Hence all the money being splurged and city being English means they can get away with it even more.
Don't think they would have managed all those purchases with the previous TV deal
 
LuisNaniencia said:
They could still add Sanchez to that for another 70m or so. There should be no comparisons made with city's "sponsorship" and ours. Companies genuinely want to sponsor us as they get a good return, City's sponsors are just made up to balance the books.
Click to expand...


not sure thats true anymore

their global sponsors include Nissan, SAP, Nexen and Nike with no link to their owners.

the other 4 global sponsors are linked but the level doesnt seem that high compared to the other teams who are regularly in the champs league.

they appear to have the same mix with their regional sponsors
 
manc exile said:
not sure thats true anymore

their global sponsors include Nissan, SAP, Nexen and Nike with no link to their owners.

the other 4 global sponsors are linked but the level doesnt seem that high compared to the other teams who are regularly in the champs league.

they appear to have the same mix with their regional sponsors
Click to expand...

That kind of sense is to be frowned up by some my friend.
Nissan, Sap, Nexen and Nike are all owned by the Sheik's family.
 
manc exile said:
their global sponsors include Nissan, SAP, Nexen and Nike with no link to their owners.
Click to expand...
Nike is their kit sponsor, whose 20m/year deal with City is dwarfed several times over by United and Chelsea's kit deals. Even then it's City's largest non-Sheik sponsorship. The rest are either partners (like SAP, where they share practices/systems and isn't a sponsorship really) or smaller deal sponsors like Nissan being the official automotive sponsor (4m/year), the kind of deals United sign on a very frequent basis. Without Etihad, City's commercial revenue is tiny.
 
Akshay said:
Nike is their kit sponsor, whose 20m/year deal with City is dwarfed several times over by United and Chelsea's kit deals. Even then it's City's largest non-Sheik sponsorship. The rest are either partners (like SAP, where they share practices/systems and isn't a sponsorship really) or smaller deal sponsors like Nissan being the official automotive sponsor (4m/year), the kind of deals United sign on a very frequent basis. Without Etihad, City's commercial revenue is tiny.
Click to expand...

The Etihad deal is £80m per year. Arsenal had a commercial revenue of £82m for 15-16, Liverpool £116m, Chelsea £122m, City £178m so even taking away the Etihad deal we are still at about £100m. Even if you replaced Cities with what you deem a fairer deal we would still match any of those clubs and the Etihad deal has been found perfectly fair for what it is.

You are also trying to compare a kit deal City signed in 2012 with a deal Chelsea signed in 2016. Do you think the City Under Armor deal will still be £20m or comparable to Chelsea's? I'd also be curious where the £4m Nissan deal comes from. I haven't seen the amount mentioned anywhere.
 
I thought FFP was just so little clubs wouldn't feck themselves over. No way City are going to do that with the money they have, so it doesn't really affect them. They can always throw a few quid around to shut mouths if it ever does.
 
padr81 said:
The Etihad deal is £80m per year. Arsenal had a commercial revenue of £82m for 15-16, Liverpool £116m, Chelsea £122m, City £178m so even taking away the Etihad deal we are still at about £100m. Even if you replaced Cities with what you deem a fairer deal we would still match any of those clubs and the Etihad deal has been found perfectly fair for what it is.

You are also trying to compare a kit deal City signed in 2012 with a deal Chelsea signed in 2016. Do you think the City Under Armor deal will still be £20m or comparable to Chelsea's? I'd also be curious where the £4m Nissan deal comes from. I haven't seen the amount mentioned anywhere.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I can find no breakdown of how that commercial revenue number for City is arrived at. So it's impossible to determine how much is from Abu Dhabi related sources vs truly independent sources. I know City typically include corporate matchday income under commercial, unlike other clubs, but I doubt this amount is that significant. However, it does raise the question of what other differences in City's accounting might exist.

I don't think the Etihad deal was in any way a reflection of fair market value. It's common sense really. If you prefer to believe otherwise that's up to you.

The Nissan deal was reported to be worth a total of 20m over 5 years, hence 4m per year.
 
padr81 said:
The Etihad deal is £80m per year. Arsenal had a commercial revenue of £82m for 15-16, Liverpool £116m, Chelsea £122m, City £178m so even taking away the Etihad deal we are still at about £100m. Even if you replaced Cities with what you deem a fairer deal we would still match any of those clubs.

You are also trying to compare a kit deal City signed in 2012 with a deal Chelsea signed in 2016. Do you think the City Under Armor deal will still be £20m or comparable to Chelsea's?
Click to expand...

It's not just the Etihad deal though. You have various other sponsorship's which are related to Mansour. It's highly likely that Mansour is paying these companies to be associated with them. He is then free to put the money into City. A win win for both parties. City can announce a big new sponsorship deal & company X get's free advertising.

Would be very surprised if you got above £30 Mill for your new kit deal. Many of these kit deals are structured whereby the club get's a big payout but the kit maker keeps all proceeds from shirt sales. Adidas will have to sell a lot of shirts just to get their £750 Mill back, let alone make a profit. I can't see City even selling a quarter of the shirts Utd will sell in the Adidas deal. There's no return for any investor.
 
Inter Milan recently had to balance their books to comply with FFP so it's still around. City's value has been artificially inflated by their Sugar Daddy owners. If they were to start doing a Chelsea and being more frugal with their cash, they'd be fecked. I would absolutely love it if they ended up 5th this season.

(hoping this makes it onto Bluemoon! :))
 
padr81 said:
The Etihad deal is £80m per year. Arsenal had a commercial revenue of £82m for 15-16, Liverpool £116m, Chelsea £122m, City £178m so even taking away the Etihad deal we are still at about £100m. Even if you replaced Cities with what you deem a fairer deal we would still match any of those clubs and the Etihad deal has been found perfectly fair for what it is.

You are also trying to compare a kit deal City signed in 2012 with a deal Chelsea signed in 2016. Do you think the City Under Armor deal will still be £20m or comparable to Chelsea's? I'd also be curious where the £4m Nissan deal comes from. I haven't seen the amount mentioned anywhere.
Click to expand...

The Etihad deal is £40m and given that your kit deal is only £12m you're making £130m in other smaller sponsors which is laughable to be honest. Chelsea's £122m commercial revenue last season £30m came from Adidas and £40m from their Yokohama shirt sponsor which means only about £50m came in other sponsors. How are you making £80m more than Chelsea who have a bigger worldwide fan base than you do?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ster-city-ffp-image-right-deals-a7621641.html
 
Big season for Pep this one coming up. He needs to win otherwise this aura of a top coach needs to be challenged if all he will do is just keep spending until he wins a title. TBH, they could have just kept Pellegrini for that.
 
City's wage bill is under control, that allows them to spend on the transfer market.

United could probably afford to spend £300m.
 
Transfer fees are amortized. The full expense isn't recognized up front. It's accounting 101.
 
Certainly still getting large amounts of dosh funneled in by the owner through sponsors with ties.

They can compete financially with any team in the world, despite not being able to fill their stadium.
They can beat many European powerhouses financially.. despite not having the success on the field or the fanbase or the history.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Transfer fees are amortized. The full expense isn't recognized up front. It's accounting 101.
Click to expand...
Over about 5 seasons. And City have a greater net spend than us over the past 5 seasons despite having a smaller revenue.
 
Not too bothered about City tbh, it's just meaningless. Everyone knows they won the lottery and there was no skill involved. Deep down I'm sure their fans (among whom there are a lot of long-term, proper supporters who know their football) realise it too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.