Manchester United top world football money list

[StevieH]

26 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Stevie "anyway: "After signing French defender Aymeric Laporte from Athletic Bilbao, Manchester City's 'annual defence spending' has exceeded that of 52 countries." How many countries would that be for your 75m man? You're now getting as bad as the 2 spurs fans!
 

 

we just sold a player for £142m you berk.

 

and you're sounding worse than bloody united fans. which is something i never thought i would say of a city supporter.

[alfieconn]

33 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

Well 8 years ago 50mil was a lot of money and I doubt ANY Manager would have foreseen the money that exchanges hands nowadays.

 

BTW. He still actually thinks that way. He would much rather bring youth through but the pressures of winning trophy's and the lack of good competition restrains this. He's only been with us 18 months and already made changes to how our youth develop. I posted an article on the City thread on why Pep is sending our promising youth to Girona, where they will get exposure to playing against men and in front of big crowds. This is much better than playing against other kids in empty stadiums.

All jokes aside, it doesn't matter how you deal with your academy players,  the chances of one of your youngsters being so exceptional and becoming a 50m pound player at Girona or anywhere else and therefore being good enough for your first team is a very long shot, ok you might get one every 10 year's or so, incidentally this strategy is not something unique to City as Chelsea have been following this strategy for a lot longer than yourselves and how many home grown players are in their first team ? 

I'm afraid your business plan of bringing youth players into the first team and wanting consistent success don't go hand in hand, thats why we will be having this same conversation in 5 years time !

 

Anyway got to run, mean that literally as Gym is calling 

Edited January 31, 2018 by alfieconn

[sotsira]

More proof in this video, (only posted yesterday) about how Man city owner gets around 

the FFP rules and spends endless amounts of money on players and wages.

 

Listen from 9.23min for the facts.

 

 

So much for mr Boj's theory that MCFC have generated all that money from their own revenue

which is one big lie.

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by sotsira

[carmine]

In fairness Terry (The Football Terrace) is just reiterating what most knowledgeable fans are well aware of.  FFP has been made to look a farce, only being praised ostensively by the clubs that abuse it.

 

Blame the UEFA/FIFA governing bodies not the super rich clubs for the ridiculous spending, but then again whilst not pointing blame you'd like to think that they wouldn't continue this carry on about where the dosh really comes from.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by carmine

[sotsira]

I think it's about time that MCFC should be renamed ETIHAD EMIRATES FC

to keep up with the times,

and start calling a spade a spade so to speak. 

 

 

[Bredbury Blue]

3 hours ago, sotsira said:

I think it's about time that MCFC should be renamed ETIHAD EMIRATES FC

to keep up with the times,

and start calling a spade a spade so to speak. 

 

 

 

Sotsira, sorry disappoint you but there's some out-of-date bullshit being quoted by the guy in the video, including:

  

1. The guy in the video seems to think that Sheikh Mansour still owns 100% and if he pulls out of City then City may go belly-up.

 

The Abu Dhabi United Group was founded in the summer of 2008, for Sheikh Mansour to purchase take over Manchester City Football Club. The City Football Group (CFG) is a holding company that administers association football clubs under the ownership of Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). The company's flagship club is Manchester City F.C. . It also owns parts of clubs in the United States, Australia, Japan, Spain, and Uruguay. The company's aim is to own a team on each continent, each with the identifier "City" in its name. The guy in the video seems to think that Sheikh Mansour still owns 100%, however CFG is no longer 100% owned by Sheikh Mansour but is part-owned by Chinese firms China Media Capital and CITIC Capital (Chinese own 13%].Could Sheik Mansour pull all of his money out of City and liquidate us, i have no idea not being an accountant, but seems unlikely. Why would Sheik Mansour want to pull out of City that is moving in the right direction, has made profit the past 3 years, has zero debt, is now the 5th highest revenue generating football club in the World?

 

2. Manchester City naming rights - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Financial_Fair_Play_Regulations#Manchester_City_naming_rights

 

In July 2011, Manchester City announced that the City of Manchester Stadium was to be called "Etihad Stadium" after signing a ten-year rights deal with their existing shirt sponsor, the Abu Dhabi-based airline Etihad Airways. The deal was reported to be worth £400 million over ten years, but is now thought to be around £340–350 million over the ten years...A number of football figures immediately questioned the validity of the deal because the chairman of Etihad Airways, a company around a third the size of British Airways and has yet to make a profit since it was launched in 2004, is Hamed bin Zayed Al Nahyanthe, the half brother of Manchester City owner Sheik Mansour. Manchester City pointed out that the sponsorship deal included the development of the entire 210 acre site that would surround the stadium with an expanded football academy and training ground, sports science centre, office and retail space and a 7,000-seat stadium for youth games. As infrastructure, the cost of building the Etihad Campus does not count towards the FFP financial calculation because it is not considered to be football-related; however, any income generated will, and therefore will greatly assist Manchester City in meeting the UEFA requirements and providing a vital new revenue stream which could create millions a year for the club. Manchester City are in the unique position of having acres of vacant land adjacent to their stadium and this potential was quickly recognised by Sheikh Mansour and Khaldoon Al Mubarak just weeks after taking over City in September 2008. Some have speculated that City will maximise regeneration; football finance expert Tom Cannon has stated that the plans are "probably the most exciting of any ground in Europe".

 

No wrongdoing has ever been proven against City.

 

3.Guy in the video seems to think all of City's revenue and profit is coming from Sheik Mansour and Abu Dhabi companies which is incorrect 

 

Manchester City post record revenues in their third consecutive year of profit, new financial figures reveal. The club's annual report for 2016-17, the first season of Pep Guardiola’s management of the club, showed a record revenue of £473.4million, a 21 per cent increase from last year. Like most big Premier League clubs, their matchday revenue is relatively stable – City’s was £52m - but this season saw a big jump in Manchester City’s broadcast and commercial revenue streams.Broadcast increased by 21 per cent to £203m while commercial rose even faster, by 23 per cent, to £218m, as City secured new partnerships such as the NexEn sponsorship on this year’s shirt sleeves. City also hosted a series of lucrative concerts at the Etihad Stadium. The increase in revenue means that the wage to revenue ratio is now down to 56 per cent, a far healthier level than the early days of the Abu Dhabi ownership era at City when it would frequently top 100 per cent. Under normal circumstances these figures would have led to a profit estimated at £10m. But City’s profit was just over £1m, owing to the fact that this is a one-off 13-month reporting period, to bring Manchester City in line with other parts of CFG.This meant that June 2016 and June 2017 were both included in these accounts, a month when revenue is down, with no matches, and spending on salaries, bonuses and signings can increase. This was still City’s third consecutive year of profitability and, with zero debt, that provides the context for the heavy spending on players they are able to do.

 

City's sponsors, if you are interested are not all Sheik Mansour Abu Dhabi related companies, and can be seen listed at the bottom of this page. 

 

If you are really interested in the facts, do a bit of research - here's a good starting point for you, City's latest financial report download: https://www.mancity.com/annualreport2017

 

 

 

[Bredbury Blue]

4 hours ago, carmine said:

In fairness Terry (The Football Terrace) is just reiterating what most knowledgeable fans are well aware of.  FFP has been made to look a farce, only being praised ostensively by the clubs that abuse it.

 

Blame the UEFA/FIFA governing bodies not the super rich clubs for the ridiculous spending, but then again whilst not pointing blame you'd like to think that they wouldn't continue this carry on about where the dosh really comes from.

 

 

 

Not sure which clubs Carmine considers "only being praised ostensively by the clubs that abuse it".

 

I hope he is not considering City as one of those clubs. City were punished by FFP but we chose not to challenge it (City  argued that they should not have been penalised for making losses when they are debt free. The club and many supporters said that the existing rules were unfair because they punish over-investment but not the accumulation of debt, as in clubs that have been bought under the leveraged model such as Manchester United, which still remain £350  million in debt as a result of the Glazer takeover but which as a result of their huge income still met the break even test), City’s Supporters' Club voted to back Jean-Louis Dupont in his continuing legal action against FFP in 2015, and City’s supporters boo FIFA’s crap music before games because of our opposition to FFP and how we were wrongly treated, so City definitely DO NOT praise FFP and see it very much as a barrier being set up against City and others by the establishment.

 

But knowing Carmine he’s just speculating as usual!

 

[wilai]

Bloody hell....he's living up to his Bredbury Bore nick today

[carmine]

18 minutes ago, wilai said:

Bloody hell....he's living up to his Bredbury Bore nick today

Or just hugely tedious and deluded whatever he is on about?  

Edited January 31, 2018 by carmine

[StevieH]

21 minutes ago, wilai said:

Bloody hell....he's living up to his Bredbury Bore nick today

 

it's impossible to read. it's bananas.

[mrbojangles]

You lot are hard to please. Someone throws a comment slagging off our club, we try to respond with a thought out debate and then either insults follow or being told it's boring.

[mrbojangles]

Right. One post removed. Pack it in with personal abuse and bringing members family into it. That is getting well out of order and tantamount to bullying on here.

 

I try to let banter go but any more of that stuff and there'll be suspensions

[Bredbury Blue]

.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Bredbury Blue
deleted after mrbj said what I was basically posting

[alfieconn]

26 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

Right. One post removed. Pack it in with personal abuse and bringing members family into it. That is getting well out of order and tantamount to bullying on here.

 

I try to let banter go but any more of that stuff and there'll be suspensions

I wouldn't worry too much, i'm on ignore don't forget 

Edited January 31, 2018 by alfieconn

[petermik]

7 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

You lot are hard to please. Someone throws a comment slagging off our club, we try to respond with a thought out debate and then either insults follow or being told it's boring.

Barry

I cannot for the life of me imagine who could throw out insults on the footie forum......well ok maybe the odd one or two names would spring to mind......

When you know the argument is lost revert to insults seems the answer from some.....pathetic individuals

[BangrakBob]

“I'm not saying I've lost interest in top level football but imagine being 12 points clear at the top of the table and taking that as a sign that you need to buy another £100m worth of players while Hartlepool and Chester are going out of business for want of thousands.”

Martin Belam - Guardian 

 

bit made in the scheme of things now 

[smokie36]

Full of intrigue this thread.

 

I'm still wondering how City can run at a supposed profit whilst having similar income streams to Tottenham and paying vastly more in transfer fees and wages.

 

Must have a much better accountant I suppose.

[smokie36]

No wait...it must be the £300m a year Etihad sponsorship deal.

 

Whistly whistle.....

[mrbojangles]

8 minutes ago, RonniePickering22 said:

No wait...it must be the £300m a year Etihad sponsorship deal.

 

Whistly whistle.....

Or your owner is creaming off the top.

 

Whistly whistle.....

[smokie36]

16 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

Or your owner is creaming off the top.

 

Whistly whistle.....

 

I shall console myself with the thought that at least the club own their own new state of the art stadium.

 

Did you see our application for increased seating?

 

Soon I'll get my season ticket!

[Bredbury Blue]

That "£300m a year Etihad sponsorship deal" you refer to Ronnie in reality is only £40 million a year but let's not let facts get in the way of making a point, eh ;-)



The Biggest Sponsorship Deals in Football
In 2011 Manchester City and Etihad Airways had negotiated a deal in which the City of Manchester Stadium that Manchester City played their home games would be renamed “The Etihad Stadium.” The sponsorship deal will last for ten years and will make the club around £400 million meaning £40 million a year during the contract. With the club’s 2015/16 revenue sitting at around £390 million, the deal accounts for a little over 10% of their yearly revenue

September 8, 2017

https://www.mcfcwatch.com/2017/09/08/the-biggest-sponsorship-deals-in-football/

City's current revenue is 473.4M

[mrbojangles]

38 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

That "£300m a year Etihad sponsorship deal" you refer to Ronnie in reality is only £40 million a year but let's not let facts get in the way of making a point, eh ;-)

Our deal isn't even the biggest, so don't know why ours is being prodded. Here are some other sponsorship deals as well for shirts!!

Spurs have the same deal as us so their owners must be skimming off the top

 

 

[carmine]

17 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

Our deal isn't even the biggest, so don't know why ours is being prodded. Here are some other sponsorship deals as well for shirts!!

Spurs have the same deal as us so their owners must be skimming off the top

 

 

Now you are just making yourselves look silly.  It seems the entire football world knows what City's owners are all about except City fans,  to the extent that these little graph you post is little more that pointless fatherless drivel.   Which leads to the inevitable question;  either City fans know something the rest of the football world doesn't?  City fans are just plain stupid?  City fans are in total denial?  Take your pick.

 

I for one simply can't be bothered to discuss the obvious with the those who simply can't and won't face reality. I'm finally fed up with this nonsense!!

 

So i suppose we'll all agree that Guardiola has had his 450m through self generated cash, as was the 60m on the table for Mahrez.......even though United probably generate more global revenue from Pogba's shirt sales than City's revenue in its entirety

Edited February 2, 2018 by carmine

[mrbojangles]

2 hours ago, carmine said:

Now you are just making yourselves look silly.  It seems the entire football world knows what City's owners are all about except City fans,  to the extent that these little graph you post is little more that pointless fatherless drivel.   Which leads to the inevitable question;  either City fans know something the rest of the football world doesn't?  City fans are just plain stupid?  City fans are in total denial?  Take your pick.

 

I for one simply can't be bothered to discuss the obvious with the those who simply can't and won't face reality. I'm finally fed up with this nonsense!!

 

So i suppose we'll all agree that Guardiola has had his 450m through self generated cash, as was the 60m on the table for Mahrez.......even though United probably generate more global revenue from Pogba's shirt sales than City's revenue in its entirety

You guys are the ones looking silly. An accusation is thrown that our sponsorship is 300m per year from Etihad. OK, we accept that is either another exaggeration or typo as the deal is actually 300m over 10 years. I then show a chart that compares our deal with other clubs and it can be clearly seen ours isn't out of the ordinary.

 

When shown this comparison, you simply respond by calling us silly, stupid and in denial. Your bias once again clouds logical debate as you show you can't accept the evidence.

 

I truly hope you stand by your word of not bothering to discuss this again, as it is also boring the pants off me. We won't bring the subject of money up again, if you guys don't. But if your gonna throw a rock, I'm gonna throw the bugger right back at you

[carmine]

27 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

You guys are the ones looking silly. An accusation is thrown that our sponsorship is 300m per year from Etihad. OK, we accept that is either another exaggeration or typo as the deal is actually 300m over 10 years. I then show a chart that compares our deal with other clubs and it can be clearly seen ours isn't out of the ordinary.

 

When shown this comparison, you simply respond by calling us silly, stupid and in denial. Your bias once again clouds logical debate as you show you can't accept the evidence.

 

I truly hope you stand by your word of not bothering to discuss this again, as it is also boring the pants off me. We won't bring the subject of money up again, if you guys don't. But if your gonna throw a rock, I'm gonna throw the bugger right back at you

No when it comes to the explanations about the spend,  and practically everything related,   City fans are fast becoming a laughing stock, that is,  infact the truth.  There is no evidence to scupper the obvious, those silly charts might well be correct but of course have nothing to do with real issue of the hundreds of millions being channelled over.  

 

Others can bring money subject up and with the continuation of City's ludicrous spending it will continue to be debated.  i won't because i'm bored of all the silly charts and the suggestion that they have anything tangible to do with the hundreds of millions hemorrhaged in the purchase of silverware.  

[mrbojangles]

4 minutes ago, carmine said:

Others can bring money subject up and with the continuation of City's ludicrous spending it will continue to be debated.  i won't   

 

4 minutes ago, carmine said:

because i'm bored of all the silly charts and the suggestion that they have anything tangible to do with the hundreds of millions hemorrhaged in the purchase of silverware.  

You just can't help yourself can you. You say you won't bring it up again and then in the very same sentence...........................you bring it up again!!

[carmine]

9 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

 

You just can't help yourself can you. You say you won't bring it up again and then in the very same sentence...........................you bring it up again!!

Only really to confirm to you i can no longer be bothered and the clear and obvious reasons why.  

[mrbojangles]

 

Excellent. Let's get back to talking football

[smokie36]

6 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

 

Excellent. Let's get back to talking football

 

Your round! 

[Bredbury Blue]

I'll have half!