Manchester City

[uptheos]

So that's a balanced objective article, reading aint really your thing is it

yeah you've reduced the wage bill, by 3 and then added 3 everything was up but you still lost 90 mil

YOU COME 2 ND IN A VERY COMPETITIVE LEAGUE

and your clubs answer,,,,,,,, sack the manager and spend what,will in the end be, the best part of 100 mil ,,,,,,,

responsible spending? of coarse it is

.

face it, its piss poor/ token gesture to meet the criteria

There is no point in debating this with you, as you just cannot grasp the facts.

Bit like trying to explain the laws of cricket to a foreigner.

Carry on in that bubble world of yours

Long time since I've had a tickle down to fine leg.

[rijit]

There is no point in debating this with you, as you just cannot grasp the facts.

Bit like trying to explain the laws of cricket to a foreigner.

Carry on in that bubble world of yours

the ''facts' are you cut your loses down to overall 90mil and then looks like your gonna spend 50 up to 100mil plus on transfers ect ect over and above what you spent in that loss saving season, i know its v difficult but try and get your numb skull around it.

[sumrit]

From the article:-

But the biggest increase for the Blues, by far, comes in the commercial revenue department.

A slick global marketing operation, revved up by trips to North America and the Far East, and backed by trophy success, has increased commercial revenue by almost SIX times, from £18m to £112m.

Without even looking further, almost half of that increase, £40m per year, has been generated by your sheikh bunging his brother at Ethiad a few hundred million so they can have shirt sponsorship and naming rights to the council house.

Is that what's called a slick global marketing operation????

[sumrit]

Manchester City are seeking to replace Etihad Airways as their shirt sponsor but the search is being hampered by the chaos surrounding Roberto Mancini’s sacking and uncertainty over the club’s future.

Tom Glick, the club’s American chief commercial and operating officer, is using a group of external consultants and agencies to find sponsors and, according to one source, initial feedback is that City ‘are not the easy sell that was perhaps imagined’.

Manchester City will bank up to £400m under their new sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, making it the largest deal of its kind in sport and reinforcing City's position as a football club with unprecedented financial power.Etihad's deal includes a 10-year extension to their shirt sponsorship at City,

Does that mean Man C will have to return some of that £40m per year their slick global marketing operation generated?

Or will the Sheikh's brother be instructed to just carry on passing all the money on to Man C regardless?

After all it'll all help with FFP.

Edited June 20, 2013 by sumrit

[mrbojangles]

Manchester City are seeking to replace Etihad Airways as their shirt sponsor but the search is being hampered by the chaos surrounding Roberto Mancini’s sacking and uncertainty over the club’s future.

Tom Glick, the club’s American chief commercial and operating officer, is using a group of external consultants and agencies to find sponsors and, according to one source, initial feedback is that City ‘are not the easy sell that was perhaps imagined’.

Manchester City will bank up to £400m under their new sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, making it the largest deal of its kind in sport and reinforcing City's position as a football club with unprecedented financial power.Etihad's deal includes a 10-year extension to their shirt sponsorship at City,

Does that mean Man C will have to return some of that £40m per year their slick global marketing operation generated?

Or will the Sheikh's brother be instructed to just carry on passing all the money on to Man C regardless?

After all it'll all help with FFP.

Jealousy is most unbecoming you know. What's up, not happy another team has some money to spend.

[rijit]

Manchester City are seeking to replace Etihad Airways as their shirt sponsor but the search is being hampered by the chaos surrounding Roberto Mancini’s sacking and uncertainty over the club’s future.

Tom Glick, the club’s American chief commercial and operating officer, is using a group of external consultants and agencies to find sponsors and, according to one source, initial feedback is that City ‘are not the easy sell that was perhaps imagined’.

Manchester City will bank up to £400m under their new sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, making it the largest deal of its kind in sport and reinforcing City's position as a football club with unprecedented financial power.Etihad's deal includes a 10-year extension to their shirt sponsorship at City,

Does that mean Man C will have to return some of that £40m per year their slick global marketing operation generated?

Or will the Sheikh's brother be instructed to just carry on passing all the money on to Man C regardless?

After all it'll all help with FFP.

there's a 'red in the bed' watching them LOL

[JacknDanny]

Its nice to see that City have refused to go the way of some clubs who take the p!ss out of their fans by making the price of season tickets so expensive.

Despite the superstars on display at the Etihad, and the fact that our stadium is amongst the best in the league, our cheapest season ticket is the CHEAPEST in the league. Shows they care for their fans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jun/19/premier-league-ticket-prices-club-charge-the-most#data

[PREM-R]

Its nice to see that City have refused to go the way of some clubs who take the p!ss out of their fans by making the price of season tickets so expensive.

Despite the superstars on display at the Etihad, and the fact that our stadium is amongst the best in the league, our cheapest season ticket is the CHEAPEST in the league. Shows they care for their fans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jun/19/premier-league-ticket-prices-club-charge-the-most#data

"Shows they care for their fans"

Despite an 8% rise in the price of their cheapest available season ticket. They don't care for their fans, they just don't rip them off quite as much as some others do.

[carmine]

Its nice to see that City have refused to go the way of some clubs who take the p!ss out of their fans by making the price of season tickets so expensive.

Despite the superstars on display at the Etihad, and the fact that our stadium is amongst the best in the league, our cheapest season ticket is the CHEAPEST in the league. Shows they care for their fans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jun/19/premier-league-ticket-prices-club-charge-the-most#data

"Shows they care for their fans"

Despite an 8% rise in the price of their cheapest available season ticket. They don't care for their fans, they just don't rip them off quite as much as some others do.

Its nice to see that City have refused to go the way of some clubs who take the p!ss out of their fans by making the price of season tickets so expensive.

Despite the superstars on display at the Etihad, and the fact that our stadium is amongst the best in the league, our cheapest season ticket is the CHEAPEST in the league. Shows they care for their fans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jun/19/premier-league-ticket-prices-club-charge-the-most#data

"Shows they care for their fans"

Despite an 8% rise in the price of their cheapest available season ticket. They don't care for their fans, they just don't rip them off quite as much as some others do.

The season tickets are cheap because there probably isn't the demand

[carmine]

Not a bite...not even a nibble!

[sumrit]

Manchester City are seeking to replace Etihad Airways as their shirt sponsor but the search is being hampered by the chaos surrounding Roberto Mancini’s sacking and uncertainty over the club’s future.

Tom Glick, the club’s American chief commercial and operating officer, is using a group of external consultants and agencies to find sponsors and, according to one source, initial feedback is that City ‘are not the easy sell that was perhaps imagined’.

Manchester City will bank up to £400m under their new sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, making it the largest deal of its kind in sport and reinforcing City's position as a football club with unprecedented financial power.Etihad's deal includes a 10-year extension to their shirt sponsorship at City,

Does that mean Man C will have to return some of that £40m per year their slick global marketing operation generated?

Or will the Sheikh's brother be instructed to just carry on passing all the money on to Man C regardless?

After all it'll all help with FFP.

Jealousy is most unbecoming you know. What's up, not happy another team has some money to spend.

Me jealous? I'm never jealous mrboj, I welcome the competition.

Unlike some clubs we've always used our own hard earned money to not only continually build and rebuild the best team in the EPL for more than twenty years, but at the same time we've built the best club stadium in the land as well. Now we realize that Man C have always been jealous of our success and they don't have enough support to compete with us, so they've found a sugar daddy to make up the difference.

Well that's fine and I have no problem if that's what you need to do to try and keep hold of our shirt tails.

But the powers that be are introducing FFP to try and stop clubs overspending and live within their means. Man U, along with all other clubs, have got to abide by these rules. All I am asking is whether Man C are also going to legitimately abide by the rules or are they going to try to fiddle the figures.

The original Ethiad deal was questioned, both because of the size of the fee as well as the family ties. Man C tried to justify the massive £400m deal by saying that, as well as naming rights, it included a ten year shirt sponsorship as well. Now if the shirt sponsorship part is being cancelled all I am asking is will the fee be reduced accordingly?

If not it effectively means Ethiad will be paying £400m just to put a name plate on the council house.

When Man U changed sponsors for their training kit they did the right thing and gave DHL their money back. Will Man C be doing the same or will the sheikh just tell his brother to keep paying the full amount? Only time will tell.

[BIGTOE3]

Its nice to see that City have refused to go the way of some clubs who take the p!ss out of their fans by making the price of season tickets so expensive.

Despite the superstars on display at the Etihad, and the fact that our stadium is amongst the best in the league, our cheapest season ticket is the CHEAPEST in the league. Shows they care for their fans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jun/19/premier-league-ticket-prices-club-charge-the-most#data

Well you should get a discount living in a Council house.

BT

[mrbojangles]

but at the same time we've built the best club stadium in the land as well.

It may hold more but that doesn't mean it's the best. I've been enough times to know what it's like. It's not purpose built but just a bunch of extentions on top of extentions. The infrastructure for getting to and from the ground is a nightmare. When in the hospitality suite, it takes forever to get back to your seat. Oh and you can't even get your grass to grow.

[uptheos]

but at the same time we've built the best club stadium in the land as well.

It may hold more but that doesn't mean it's the best. I've been enough times to know what it's like. It's not purpose built but just a bunch of extentions on top of extentions. The infrastructure for getting to and from the ground is a nightmare. When in the hospitality suite, it takes forever to get back to your seat. Oh and you can't even get your grass to grow.

Why leave the hospitality suite, can't they supply a commode or something?

[smokie36]

Its nice to see that City have refused to go the way of some clubs who take the p!ss out of their fans by making the price of season tickets so expensive.

Despite the superstars on display at the Etihad, and the fact that our stadium is amongst the best in the league, our cheapest season ticket is the CHEAPEST in the league. Shows they care for their fans:clap2:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jun/19/premier-league-ticket-prices-club-charge-the-most#data

Well you should get a discount living in a Council house.

BT:)

I hate that sense of entitlement.

Let's send them to work....better still on their bikes.....in Tevez case a wee jaunt down to the Lane please!

[mrbojangles]

Its nice to see that City have refused to go the way of some clubs who take the p!ss out of their fans by making the price of season tickets so expensive.

Despite the superstars on display at the Etihad, and the fact that our stadium is amongst the best in the league, our cheapest season ticket is the CHEAPEST in the league. Shows they care for their fans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jun/19/premier-league-ticket-prices-club-charge-the-most#data

Well you should get a discount living in a Council house.

BT

How many acres of land do your lot own? We own 80 acres. I also don't know any "council tenants" who have more money into the property than the council. Need to get your facts right guys. It was the Sport of England (not the council) who built and paid for the Commonwealth Stadium.

[sumrit]

Its nice to see that City have refused to go the way of some clubs who take the p!ss out of their fans by making the price of season tickets so expensive.

Despite the superstars on display at the Etihad, and the fact that our stadium is amongst the best in the league, our cheapest season ticket is the CHEAPEST in the league. Shows they care for their fans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jun/19/premier-league-ticket-prices-club-charge-the-most#data

Well you should get a discount living in a Council house.

BT

How many acres of land do your lot own? We own 80 acres. I also don't know any "council tenants" who have more money into the property than the council. Need to get your facts right guys. It was the Sport of England (not the council) who built and paid for the Commonwealth Stadium.

And then handed it over to the local authority once the Commonwealth games had finished.

To ensure the long-term financial viability of the project after the Commonwealth Games, it was agreed in 1998 that Manchester City F.C. would lease the stadium from Manchester City Council

So who do you pay your council rent to??

Edited June 21, 2013 by sumrit

[mrbojangles]

just to put a name plate on the council house.

Most United fans who know their history never say that. I don't recall Redrus, MrRed or nev ever mentioning that. Why? Well I'll tell you.

When Old Trafford got bombed, we were your landlords and let you rent our ground. We charged you 5,000 pounds per year and a % of your gate receipts. I'd say that is a lot worse than giving the Council a % of gate receipts over 35,000.

Also, the government gave you a large chunk of change to rebuild your stadium. So you too have been given a gift in the same way we have.

[mrbojangles]

I see we are giving some charity to United fans and letting them work on our new 120m pound Eithad campus but told them if they wear United shirts they will face the sack.

Actually, it's a rule in the contract with BAM that no football shirts can be worn but two United fans turned up with them on and got told to take them off or face the sack.

[sumrit]

just to put a name plate on the council house.

Most United fans who know their history never say that. I don't recall Redrus, MrRed or nev ever mentioning that. Why? Well I'll tell you.

When Old Trafford got bombed, we were your landlords and let you rent our ground. We charged you 5,000 pounds per year and a % of your gate receipts. I'd say that is a lot worse than giving the Council a % of gate receipts over 35,000.

Also, the government gave you a large chunk of change to rebuild your stadium. So you too have been given a gift in the same way we have.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here mrboj but I'd suggest the deal we had from Man C at the time was a lot worse than the one you have now.

Of course I'm fully aware that we played at Main Road (and paid a lot of money for the privilege) while Old Trafford was being rebuilt. We also used Maine Road for those early European games during the '50's but:

Upon the outbreak of the Second World War, Old Trafford was requisitioned by the military to be used as a depot

so of course the Government should help pay for the damage..............it was bombed because, at the time it was an army depot, not a football ground............... Although I accept some wartime football games were still played there.

The War Damage Commission granted Manchester United £4,800 to remove the debris and just £17,478 to rebuild the stands from scratch.

But the grant was no where near enough to rebuild the stadium. As an example of costs then:

"In 1936, as part of a £35,000 refurbishment, an 80-yard-long roof was added to the United Road stand (now the Sir Alex Ferguson Stand) for the first time"

So the Government paying for half a roof on one stand, when the Army being there was the reason the whole stadium was destroyed, is hardly the same sort of 'gift' as Man C having a complete modern and new stadium at their disposal is it.

But enough of the history lessons, we can all use Google.

Judging by your comments mrboj calling your stadium a council house obviously strikes a raw nerve with you. It's a pity you can't put as much effort into your replys saying that you think Man C should follow Man U's lead and repay the shirt portion of the sponsorship money to Ethiad if/when a new shirt sponsor is found.

[sumrit]

I see we are giving some charity to United fans and letting them work on our new 120m pound Eithad campus but told them if they wear United shirts they will face the sack.

Actually, it's a rule in the contract with BAM that no football shirts can be worn but two United fans turned up with them on and got told to take them off or face the sack.

But you keep telling us there are no United fans in Manchester, they must have been City fans in disguise

[rijit]

sumrit, let's be a touch genial and a little more 'today' and say man city 'live' in 'SOCIAL HOUSING' ' Hardly seems appropriate for the monied middle eastern boys does it !!!! coming to the uk,,,,,, BLAH BLAH BLAH

[mrbojangles]

But enough of the history lessons, we can all use Google.

Like most United fans who know their history, I knew the history before Google was invented. Now that you have used it you may not be so quick to give that line again. BTW. You didn't answer my earlier question. How many acres do United own?

[mrbojangles]

I see we are giving some charity to United fans and letting them work on our new 120m pound Eithad campus but told them if they wear United shirts they will face the sack.

Actually, it's a rule in the contract with BAM that no football shirts can be worn but two United fans turned up with them on and got told to take them off or face the sack.

But you keep telling us there are no United fans in Manchester, they must have been City fans in disguise

Well they are in Manchester now, cos they are working at the Etihad but where did I say they the guys wearing United shirts were from Manchester? They are contractors and could have come from anywhere in the country. In fact, the way the UK is at the moment they could have been Polish, for all I know.

[mrbojangles]

sumrit, let's be a touch genial and a little more 'today' and say man city 'live' in 'SOCIAL HOUSING' ' Hardly seems appropriate for the monied middle eastern boys does it !!!! coming to the uk,,,,,, BLAH BLAH BLAH

Didn't you lot appeal and whinge and moan for ever and a day after not getting the Olympic Stadium. Pot, kettle.

[rijit]

sumrit, let's be a touch genial and a little more 'today' and say man city 'live' in 'SOCIAL HOUSING' ' Hardly seems appropriate for the monied middle eastern boys does it !!!! coming to the uk,,,,,, BLAH BLAH BLAH

Didn't you lot appeal and whinge and moan for ever and a day after not getting the Olympic Stadium. Pot, kettle.

Did I?, don't think so, in fact i was always against the move,

but as for the club, the difference is spurs don't 'live' in socially funded housing and you do

whats this, a rather sad attempt at appearing to adhering to the principles of FFP

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11679/8787088/Manchester-City-refuse-to-meet-54m-buy-out-clause-for-Edinson-Cavani-say-Napoli

mean while back in the real world, iso makes his mind up to sanction or not a 20? mil plus move to city !!!!!!!!! what will that take your 'self funding' close season transfer spending up to? 65mil

Edited June 21, 2013 by rijit

[JacknDanny]

sumrit, let's be a touch genial and a little more 'today' and say man city 'live' in 'SOCIAL HOUSING' ' Hardly seems appropriate for the monied middle eastern boys does it !!!! coming to the uk,,,,,, BLAH BLAH BLAH

Didn't you lot appeal and whinge and moan for ever and a day after not getting the Olympic Stadium. Pot, kettle.

Did I?, don't think so, in fact i was always against the move,

but as for the club, the difference is spurs don't 'live' in socially funded housing and you do

whats this, a rather sad attempt at appearing to adhering to the principles of FFP

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11679/8787088/Manchester-City-refuse-to-meet-54m-buy-out-clause-for-Edinson-Cavani-say-Napoli

mean while back in the real world, iso makes his mind up to sanction or not a 20? mil plus move to city !!!!!!!!! what will that take your 'self funding' close season transfer spending up to? 65mil

Just wondering what you think a club in our position should do?

Let Arsenal, Chelsea and United strengthen their squad, and for us to stay where we are and start to drop back again?

Thats the reason your team has stagnated and will not progress any further, because your guys at the helm will not put their hands in their pockets.

With you I guess its down to pure jealousy. Keep going on and on about us spending.

We refuse to pay 54 million for Cavani.... nothing to do with FPP. Nothing to do with us not being able to afford him. Rather to do with the fact that they believe he is overpriced, not value for money, and Pellegrini has gone on record as saying he feels Dzeko will fit in more with the style of football we are likely to be playing.

Isco is a player we have been after for a while. Having seen him several times, 20-30 million is a steal.

[carmine]

sumrit, let's be a touch genial and a little more 'today' and say man city 'live' in 'SOCIAL HOUSING' ' Hardly seems appropriate for the monied middle eastern boys does it !!!! coming to the uk,,,,,, BLAH BLAH BLAH

Didn't you lot appeal and whinge and moan for ever and a day after not getting the Olympic Stadium. Pot, kettle.

sumrit, let's be a touch genial and a little more 'today' and say man city 'live' in 'SOCIAL HOUSING' ' Hardly seems appropriate for the monied middle eastern boys does it !!!! coming to the uk,,,,,, BLAH BLAH BLAH

Didn't you lot appeal and whinge and moan for ever and a day after not getting the Olympic Stadium. Pot, kettle.

To be fair mate theres no way any self respecting Spurs fan would ever accept our home stadium being in east London. thats pikey west ham territory and they are welcome to it.

Anyways our new stadium will be underway soon enough. Or rather no soon enough, because without a russian/arab sugar daddy if you don't get the revenues now you won't compete.

[sumrit]

I see we are giving some charity to United fans and letting them work on our new 120m pound Eithad campus but told them if they wear United shirts they will face the sack.

Actually, it's a rule in the contract with BAM that no football shirts can be worn but two United fans turned up with them on and got told to take them off or face the sack.

But you keep telling us there are no United fans in Manchester, they must have been City fans in disguise

Well they are in Manchester now, cos they are working at the Etihad but where did I say they the guys wearing United shirts were from Manchester? They are contractors and could have come from anywhere in the country. In fact, the way the UK is at the moment they could have been Polish, for all I know.

Or they could have been Man C supporters in disguise, for all you know

[mrbojangles]

I see we are giving some charity to United fans and letting them work on our new 120m pound Eithad campus but told them if they wear United shirts they will face the sack.

Actually, it's a rule in the contract with BAM that no football shirts can be worn but two United fans turned up with them on and got told to take them off or face the sack.

But you keep telling us there are no United fans in Manchester, they must have been City fans in disguise

Well they are in Manchester now, cos they are working at the Etihad but where did I say they the guys wearing United shirts were from Manchester? They are contractors and could have come from anywhere in the country. In fact, the way the UK is at the moment they could have been Polish, for all I know.

Or they could have been Man C supporters in disguise, for all you know

That is one thing I do know. No Man City fan would don a United shirt, even for a laugh and I doubt a United fan would put a City one on either.