1. Man Utd = £331.4m
2. Arsenal = £255.7m
3. Chelsea = £222.3m
4. Liverpool = £183.7m
5. Spurs = £163.5m
6. Man City = £153.2m
Those figures will be a lot different when FFP kicks in. At the present rate City should just be behind Chelsea and improving every season.
comment by Anfield of Dreams (Suarez is innocent, Britain is corrupt) (U6971)
posted 1 minute ago
Meltonblue is the only man making much sense on here. Cant be bothered with it anymore...YOU CANNOT SINGLE OUT MAN CITY FOR SPENDING MONEY
-------------------------------------------------
He's basically saying what I said pages ago - but you disagreed because I included Liverpool in the scenario!
by MafiaBoy - RDBD's phase checker (U8613)
posted 58 seconds ago
5. Spurs = £163.5m
--
This is due to Champions League. I am sure the accounts speak different in this financial year.
---------------------------------------------------
Yes, it will mean slightly less and City will have swapped places with us and maybe Liverpool. Not a lot of difference though.
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anfield of Dreams (Suarez is innocent, Britain is corrupt) (U6971)
posted 1 minute ago
Meltonblue is the only man making much sense on here. Cant be bothered with it anymore...YOU CANNOT SINGLE OUT MAN CITY FOR SPENDING MONEY
-------------------------------------------------
He's basically saying what I said pages ago - but you disagreed because I included Liverpool in the scenario!
=============
What no i didnt???? i suggest you find that quote
comment by Hod idol the x factor!! (U5117)
Those figures will be a lot different when FFP kicks in. At the present rate City should just be behind Chelsea and improving every season.
------------------------------------------
The FFP will make no difference to income generated unless clubs find a distorted way (e.g. dodgy sponsorship) of inflating their figures.
slightly? No, quite a lot. TV money alone for the Champions League was somewhere around 36 million.
comment by geniusgreaves, Lasagne delivery for Arsenal, Newcastle & Fulham, must be consumed by 12 noon on May 13th!! (U1302)
posted 10 minutes ago
JFDI.......................................Both my asking and the title were by and large rhetorical, the real point was will football in general survive this explosion of cash which inevitably will lead to implosion and a number of clubs being wiped out.
But thanks for your attempt at sarcasm anyway!
-----------------------------------------------------------
So you are saying will football survive not can teams compete with City and Chelsea?
Bit misleading that and it seems with all the digs as to what we have done finacially you have mislead many on your own thread.
Of course football will survive , for the foreseeable future, it may take on another guise. There are far bigger threats to it in my opnion.
ky money, if Sky got into trouble and the money dissapeared a lot of clubs would find themeselves in big trouble. In the late 80's Scottish football benefitted from the abscence of English teams in Europe, when we got back in and started competing the TV package got less attractive to the broadcasters and the premiership more so. Now Rnagers and Celtic struggle to compete financially with the numbers generated bymany a premiership club. A change in fortunes for English clubs in Europe or the attraction of the Premiership globally would cause much nore of a problem to many premiership clubs than having to compete with the likes of City and Chelsea.
In fact the interest generated by Chelsea and City on top of that generated by the likes of Liverpool, United, Arsenal etc is helping the premiership remain an attracive proposition for broadcasters because it generates interest.
I am not saying that we are the saviours of the premirship but neither are we the slayers of it.
The 'buying success' debate is so hackneyed, tired and feeble....
People talk about Cities support, they couldn't even will their stadium for their first ever home CL tie against a club like Napoli.
They consistantly fail to fill their stadium throughout this title winning season and all this despite being offered cheaper tickets, as low as a 10er at some points this season.
The latest table can be found here for the money leagues.
I was wrong, Chelsea are actually 1.3 million behind Arsenal not 1m. My mistake.
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/sportsbusinessgroup/sports/football/deloitte-football-money-league/9db981f2bd415310VgnVCM1000001a56f00aRCRD.htm
Click on the PDF for details. BTW though this is dated 2012, the details will be for the 2010/2011 season and were published in February, they are always about 9 months after the close of the previous season.
"They consistantly fail to fill their stadium throughout this title winning season and all this despite being offered cheaper tickets, as low as a 10er at some points this season. "
Every league home game has been a sell out this season.
BusbysBabes (U9083)
We've sold out every PL home game.
Typical rag liar.
Man Utd failed to fill their stadium for Europa games.
Eamonn Holmes "I haven't seen United in ages because it's impossible to buy a ticket"
Well, you lying fat bastad, there were plenty of spare tickets for the Palace, Ajax and Bilbao games.
Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
BusbysBabes (U9083)
We've sold out every PL home game.
Typical rag liar.
Yet the stadium isn't always full....please explain.
We sell the home allocation every game, we can't force the away club to sell theirs.
Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
We sell the home allocation every game,
Or the City fans just didn't bother turning up. I have certainly seen games on TV this season with LOTS of empty seats. Maybe it was the cup games, still quite a few.
The seats are sold, you usually see empty seats at night matches which suggests that it's young fans that can't go.
sky sports said during commentary in the chelsea match a couple of months ago that there were at least five thousand empty seats at eastlands, many of which were down to supporters who had bought a ticket but were unable to attend the game as it had been hastily rescheduled. which just goes to show that while all tickets may have been sold it's no guarantee of a full house.
BusbysBabes,
The games where I have seen a few empty seats on TV (I say a few, as you can only see the bottom tier on the TV anyway), is when it has been an evening kickoff and they are in the family stand. And yes, some were cup games.
I have to be honest, I will be guilty for some of them. I simply can't afford at the moment for myself and my son to go to every game so I have had to prioritise which games to go to this year. Sods law, when we were rubbish, I went to every single game. Now that we are good, I've got a family and can't get there as much!
5,000 empty seats againt Chelsea, your lies are getting worse.
we will never have level playing fields which is why we have LEAGUES, if you got rid of rich owners pumping money into clubs at the minute united would walk the league every year, until other clubs get loads of money from the champions league, due to the fact they have some much external money given to them in the past and have made a huge fan base with it.
I can see why people want rid because teams apparently can't compete with it, but they can as proven this season it increases competition in the league
rich owners are rife in american sports yet there remains a level playing field as promising young stars are equally distrubted amongst the clubs, with often the lowest placed one's getting first pick.
like the draft would ever happen in football
Between 2008, when Abu-Dhabi-based oil magnate Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al-Nahyan bought them, and the end of last season, the club’s total cash outlay was £930.4m, of which only £365.3m was generated from their own operations.
The remainder – £565.1m – had to be supplied by Mansour, the club’s billionaire benefactor.
That figure will have risen significantly over the course of the current season, although the exact final cost of winning the league will only be known when the next accounts are published in 2013.
................................
Its probably more as this is last seasons figures.
Sign in if you want to comment
Impossible to Compete With?
Page 10 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
posted on 10/5/12
1. Man Utd = £331.4m
2. Arsenal = £255.7m
3. Chelsea = £222.3m
4. Liverpool = £183.7m
5. Spurs = £163.5m
6. Man City = £153.2m
Those figures will be a lot different when FFP kicks in. At the present rate City should just be behind Chelsea and improving every season.
posted on 10/5/12
comment by Anfield of Dreams (Suarez is innocent, Britain is corrupt) (U6971)
posted 1 minute ago
Meltonblue is the only man making much sense on here. Cant be bothered with it anymore...YOU CANNOT SINGLE OUT MAN CITY FOR SPENDING MONEY
-------------------------------------------------
He's basically saying what I said pages ago - but you disagreed because I included Liverpool in the scenario!
posted on 10/5/12
by MafiaBoy - RDBD's phase checker (U8613)
posted 58 seconds ago
5. Spurs = £163.5m
--
This is due to Champions League. I am sure the accounts speak different in this financial year.
---------------------------------------------------
Yes, it will mean slightly less and City will have swapped places with us and maybe Liverpool. Not a lot of difference though.
posted on 10/5/12
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anfield of Dreams (Suarez is innocent, Britain is corrupt) (U6971)
posted 1 minute ago
Meltonblue is the only man making much sense on here. Cant be bothered with it anymore...YOU CANNOT SINGLE OUT MAN CITY FOR SPENDING MONEY
-------------------------------------------------
He's basically saying what I said pages ago - but you disagreed because I included Liverpool in the scenario!
=============
What no i didnt???? i suggest you find that quote
posted on 10/5/12
comment by Hod idol the x factor!! (U5117)
Those figures will be a lot different when FFP kicks in. At the present rate City should just be behind Chelsea and improving every season.
------------------------------------------
The FFP will make no difference to income generated unless clubs find a distorted way (e.g. dodgy sponsorship) of inflating their figures.
posted on 10/5/12
slightly? No, quite a lot. TV money alone for the Champions League was somewhere around 36 million.
posted on 10/5/12
comment by geniusgreaves, Lasagne delivery for Arsenal, Newcastle & Fulham, must be consumed by 12 noon on May 13th!! (U1302)
posted 10 minutes ago
JFDI.......................................Both my asking and the title were by and large rhetorical, the real point was will football in general survive this explosion of cash which inevitably will lead to implosion and a number of clubs being wiped out.
But thanks for your attempt at sarcasm anyway!
-----------------------------------------------------------
So you are saying will football survive not can teams compete with City and Chelsea?
Bit misleading that and it seems with all the digs as to what we have done finacially you have mislead many on your own thread.
Of course football will survive , for the foreseeable future, it may take on another guise. There are far bigger threats to it in my opnion.
ky money, if Sky got into trouble and the money dissapeared a lot of clubs would find themeselves in big trouble. In the late 80's Scottish football benefitted from the abscence of English teams in Europe, when we got back in and started competing the TV package got less attractive to the broadcasters and the premiership more so. Now Rnagers and Celtic struggle to compete financially with the numbers generated bymany a premiership club. A change in fortunes for English clubs in Europe or the attraction of the Premiership globally would cause much nore of a problem to many premiership clubs than having to compete with the likes of City and Chelsea.
In fact the interest generated by Chelsea and City on top of that generated by the likes of Liverpool, United, Arsenal etc is helping the premiership remain an attracive proposition for broadcasters because it generates interest.
I am not saying that we are the saviours of the premirship but neither are we the slayers of it.
posted on 10/5/12
The 'buying success' debate is so hackneyed, tired and feeble....
posted on 10/5/12
People talk about Cities support, they couldn't even will their stadium for their first ever home CL tie against a club like Napoli.
They consistantly fail to fill their stadium throughout this title winning season and all this despite being offered cheaper tickets, as low as a 10er at some points this season.
posted on 10/5/12
The latest table can be found here for the money leagues.
I was wrong, Chelsea are actually 1.3 million behind Arsenal not 1m. My mistake.
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/sportsbusinessgroup/sports/football/deloitte-football-money-league/9db981f2bd415310VgnVCM1000001a56f00aRCRD.htm
Click on the PDF for details. BTW though this is dated 2012, the details will be for the 2010/2011 season and were published in February, they are always about 9 months after the close of the previous season.
posted on 10/5/12
"They consistantly fail to fill their stadium throughout this title winning season and all this despite being offered cheaper tickets, as low as a 10er at some points this season. "
Every league home game has been a sell out this season.
posted on 10/5/12
BusbysBabes (U9083)
We've sold out every PL home game.
Typical rag liar.
posted on 10/5/12
Man Utd failed to fill their stadium for Europa games.
posted on 10/5/12
Eamonn Holmes "I haven't seen United in ages because it's impossible to buy a ticket"
Well, you lying fat bastad, there were plenty of spare tickets for the Palace, Ajax and Bilbao games.
posted on 10/5/12
Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
BusbysBabes (U9083)
We've sold out every PL home game.
Typical rag liar.
Yet the stadium isn't always full....please explain.
posted on 10/5/12
We sell the home allocation every game, we can't force the away club to sell theirs.
posted on 10/5/12
Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
We sell the home allocation every game,
Or the City fans just didn't bother turning up. I have certainly seen games on TV this season with LOTS of empty seats. Maybe it was the cup games, still quite a few.
posted on 10/5/12
The seats are sold, you usually see empty seats at night matches which suggests that it's young fans that can't go.
posted on 10/5/12
sky sports said during commentary in the chelsea match a couple of months ago that there were at least five thousand empty seats at eastlands, many of which were down to supporters who had bought a ticket but were unable to attend the game as it had been hastily rescheduled. which just goes to show that while all tickets may have been sold it's no guarantee of a full house.
posted on 10/5/12
BusbysBabes,
The games where I have seen a few empty seats on TV (I say a few, as you can only see the bottom tier on the TV anyway), is when it has been an evening kickoff and they are in the family stand. And yes, some were cup games.
I have to be honest, I will be guilty for some of them. I simply can't afford at the moment for myself and my son to go to every game so I have had to prioritise which games to go to this year. Sods law, when we were rubbish, I went to every single game. Now that we are good, I've got a family and can't get there as much!
posted on 10/5/12
5,000 empty seats againt Chelsea, your lies are getting worse.
posted on 10/5/12
we will never have level playing fields which is why we have LEAGUES, if you got rid of rich owners pumping money into clubs at the minute united would walk the league every year, until other clubs get loads of money from the champions league, due to the fact they have some much external money given to them in the past and have made a huge fan base with it.
I can see why people want rid because teams apparently can't compete with it, but they can as proven this season it increases competition in the league
posted on 10/5/12
rich owners are rife in american sports yet there remains a level playing field as promising young stars are equally distrubted amongst the clubs, with often the lowest placed one's getting first pick.
posted on 10/5/12
like the draft would ever happen in football
posted on 10/5/12
Between 2008, when Abu-Dhabi-based oil magnate Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al-Nahyan bought them, and the end of last season, the club’s total cash outlay was £930.4m, of which only £365.3m was generated from their own operations.
The remainder – £565.1m – had to be supplied by Mansour, the club’s billionaire benefactor.
That figure will have risen significantly over the course of the current season, although the exact final cost of winning the league will only be known when the next accounts are published in 2013.
................................
Its probably more as this is last seasons figures.
Page 10 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15