The CFG

Only part way through reading this, and while the quote below isn't really what the article is about, it did grate on me a little bit.

"It is fair to say that Manchester City, a club that was competing in the third tier of English football when Manchester United were treble winners, are not just Manchester City any more."

While this is indeed true, it does seem to be made in order to unnecessarily dramatise a point that the author is making. We've spent one season in our entire history in the third tier. It in no way shapes our history or defines us as a club.

It's an undoubted blot on our historical landscape, but it is over-emphasised in hindsight. "We're not Manchester City anymore" the quote states. Well, that season wasn't Manchester City either. It was rather an anomaly in our history. So in respect of the point the author is making, he is wrong to point it out.

I agree with you Ripley and he's done it to emphasise the point. One other thing he could also mention was that our revenue pre-Thaksin was already in the top 20 in the world. Although that wouldn't fit the narrative either, I think we've come far enough anyway to have no need to overemphasise it too.

Was a good read and you've deffo done a lot of good in a lot of ways. Interesting how the author ends it. Maybe has a twinge of doubt as to the benefit to the smaller clubs long term.

"City deemed it necessary to spend £200million a season in order to take the club from lower mid-table in the Premier League and into the Champions League"

He's making this particular point in regards to transfers - and more specifically the accusations of City distorting the market. The amount he states is simply not true. It is only the summer just gone that have spent £200m on transfers. Not £200m "a season", and certainly never £200m " a season" to get into the Champions League.

"The club’s losses may have stood at £200million when their revenues were only at £80million"

This is also not true. The closest we got to posting a loss of £200m was in 2010-11, when we posted a loss of £194m. However, our revenue for this season wasn't £80m, it was actually almost double that -
£153m.

" the revenues have stretched to around the £400million mark and the club is closer to self-sufficiency than it has been since Abu Dhabi arrived."

Closer? The club actually is self-sufficient.

Anybody who has done a modicum of research on the Abu Dhabi investment group would know that these are highly proficient business men who know how to turn a profit on their investments. Of course they've started from a considerable advantaged financial position, but that never meant they looking for toys or ego boosts. One only has to look at how they have managed the club since the takeover, not only from a revenue point of view, but also in terms of their ethical and community conscious approach, to appreciate how lucky we have been. Being a City fan, I naturally believe that we have deserved it.

Clearly done a lot in the community there but suggesting it was all a business investment is a bit far fetched. When starting with unlimited funds and a free stadium where was the need to invest 100s of millions if only to turn a profit?
Who other than the UAE related companies actually sponsor you for any considerable sum? You had been a lower level top league club for decades,30 odd years without a trophy of any description so I think the author isn't the only one stretching the point for his benefit.

Because you only get large revenue and potential for profit if you are at the top table, he has said that continuously since day one.

One terms of who else sponsors us, Abu Dhabi sponsorships equate to 20% of our revenue. Nissan, Nexen and BT are three that sponsor us for a fair amount for a start. Some all ways will be as Abu Dhabi companies though as that makes complete sense.

We are getting a new kit deal next year with under armour being touted for a much bigger fee than we get off Nike.

The etihad deal is up for renewal as well isn't it.

It should be, it's undervalued currently.

"Clearly done a lot in the community there but suggesting it was all a business investment is a bit far fetched. When starting with unlimited funds and a free stadium where was the need to invest 100s of millions if only to turn a profit? "

I think you've pretty much answered your own question there anyway. If they just want profit, why have a strong community presence? Why pay taxes? Because as much as a profit is important, their ethos as a business is to excel in all areas.

I remember reading Arsenal had a better press room at the Emirates, so City decided to have the same, with a bit more on top. They have the 100s of millions, as you said yourself, so why settle for being another Mike Ashley.