"that’s all kosher"
I'm not sure the deals will be kosher if they're contracted in the UAE!
Staggeringly, ALL 20 PL clubs are in the Top 40 richest clubs in Europe!!
---
This bit stood out. That is absolutely shocking, and I think it goes some way to explaining the pretty obvious closure in the divide between the top teams and the bottom teams.
I wonder if you looked at the historical records from Deloitte, would it tell a different story?
You're just a bitter Bertie with a chip on your shoulder
Wonder how Busby the new City fan will interpret it all?
Surely you need to know how much is going out as well as coming in before you can judge any club's finances.
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 53 minutes ago
"that’s all kosher"
I'm not sure the deals will be kosher if they're contracted in the UAE!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice one!
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 52 minutes ago
Staggeringly, ALL 20 PL clubs are in the Top 40 richest clubs in Europe!!
---
This bit stood out. That is absolutely shocking, and I think it goes some way to explaining the pretty obvious closure in the divide between the top teams and the bottom teams.
I wonder if you looked at the historical records from Deloitte, would it tell a different story?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay,
Spot on I think - we have the 'financial giants' at the top and then, 'the rest'.
The TV revenue alone is a major leveller for the other 14 or 15 teams in the PL, probably excluding newly promoted teams until they've got at least one PL season/pay-day under their belt . Once they've done that, they'll be pretty difficult to dislodge by a Championship side unless they spend big too (flouting the Championship FFP rules on the way and probably with a 'sugar daddy' like QPR).
comment by Paulpowersleftfoot #wewentagain (U1037)
posted 25 minutes ago
You're just a bitter Bertie with a chip on your shoulder
Wonder how Busby the new City fan will interpret it all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul
Yup, that's me - and proud!
Busby will be confused - I praise Utd as well as City - so ultimately he should be a happy bunny.
comment by GUNNERBEGOOD (U10646)
posted 14 minutes ago
Surely you need to know how much is going out as well as coming in before you can judge any club's finances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite right,
City's latest accounts (13/14) show a slight loss (£7m) after the FFP fine is taken into account.
So our losses trend in the last 3 years has been: £99m / £52m / £7m – next year we’ll be in profit, probably significantly so (or new players/higher wages and smaller profit).
Our revenue growth over the last year is the best performance of the top four PL clubs in 2013/14: both in absolute terms (£76 million) and percentage (28%). United’s absolute growth was almost as much (£70 million), while Chelsea and Arsenal both increased by 23%.
City’s wages-to-revenue ratio (59%) is almost identical to Arsenal’s (56%) and much better than Chelsea’s (67%) – Utd’s is 50%.
So top and bottom lines are looking rosy and show signs of improving further.
Granted your revenue streams are catching up to the top teams - but it does seem there is a degree of 'creative' accounting going on. I struggle to believe you could have turned around a £100m per season loss in only 3 seasons! The trophies would have helped with that - certainly winning the league is a nice big chunk but I'm not convinced you'll make a profit without winning something this season.
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 4 minutes ago
Granted your revenue streams are catching up to the top teams - but it does seem there is a degree of 'creative' accounting going on. I struggle to believe you could have turned around a £100m per season loss in only 3 seasons! The trophies would have helped with that - certainly winning the league is a nice big chunk but I'm not convinced you'll make a profit without winning something this season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant drop in net spend must have something to do with it.
http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/9/11/6101855/premier-league-transfer-spend-over-3-5-and-7-years
44.2M average in the past 3 years, compared to 92.9 avg for the 2 years prior, and 108.8 for the 2 years before that.
There's absolutely no chance whatsoever that you could have a higher turnover than Arsenal. NONE. NADA. ZILCH.
They have same tv rights as City, more lucrative shirt deal, 13,000 more seats at every home game, much higher ticket prices........
Figures just don't add up. But we all know why they don't.
City blatantly fudging something somewhere.
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 5 minutes ago
There's absolutely no chance whatsoever that you could have a higher turnover than Arsenal. NONE. NADA. ZILCH.
They have same tv rights as City, more lucrative shirt deal, 13,000 more seats at every home game, much higher ticket prices........
Figures just don't add up. But we all know why they don't.
City blatantly fudging something somewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it adds up. City bring way more money on the commercial side. That's how they do it, huge sponsorship deals with UAE based companies that Sheik Mansour is involved in. Just the same strategy that propelled PSG to where they are today also
Not to mention City actually win things & I vaguely remember reading that each position you finish higher in the league is worth another 1-2m or something.
Yeah exactly so basically fudging it like I said.
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yeah exactly so basically fudging it like I said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. Just their ownership using their connections to generate sponsorship
The effect of Arsenal's new commercial deals will be seen in next year's list. That should take Arsenal above both City and Chelsea, until they renegotiate. The chain will then continue.
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 32 minutes ago
There's absolutely no chance whatsoever that you could have a higher turnover than Arsenal. NONE. NADA. ZILCH.
They have same tv rights as City, more lucrative shirt deal, 13,000 more seats at every home game, much higher ticket prices........
Figures just don't add up. But we all know why they don't.
City blatantly fudging something somewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought we were the bitter ones
Your concern is noted young man
Not really. Just their ownership using their connections to generate sponsorship
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsoring themselves then?
The Sheik has large stakes in most, if not all, those companies.
It's absolutely ridiculous. How can that be market value. They could pay whatever they want.
People talk about Utd deals being above market value but we've not got anyone behind the scenes at AON and Chevrolet to my knowledge.
The Etihad deal at City should be investigated thoroughly. There is no way that can possibly be legit.
I thought we were the bitter ones
Your concern is noted young man
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will always be the bitters, Paul.
Stuck on 4.
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 1 minute ago
Not really. Just their ownership using their connections to generate sponsorship
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsoring themselves then?
The Sheik has large stakes in most, if not all, those companies.
It's absolutely ridiculous. How can that be market value. They could pay whatever they want.
People talk about Utd deals being above market value but we've not got anyone behind the scenes at AON and Chevrolet to my knowledge.
The Etihad deal at City should be investigated thoroughly. There is no way that can possibly be legit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishing are we Stretty?
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 2 minutes ago
Not really. Just their ownership using their connections to generate sponsorship
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsoring themselves then?
The Sheik has large stakes in most, if not all, those companies.
It's absolutely ridiculous. How can that be market value. They could pay whatever they want.
People talk about Utd deals being above market value but we've not got anyone behind the scenes at AON and Chevrolet to my knowledge.
The Etihad deal at City should be investigated thoroughly. There is no way that can possibly be legit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who says these companies have to pay market value?
Who's deciding what that market value is? Of course they can pay whatever they want. It's their money.
However, when you look at the revenue growth of Etihad airlines for example, it's easy to see how a few hundred million invested in city represents good value for a company who's revenues are now in the billions per year.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
The difference is that Citys largest 'sponsors' come from the very same people that own the club.
People are going to be more suspicious of that, usually rightly so.
Look at the connections between major government contract winners and the MPs that hand them out.
20,000 empty seats........and they're building more.
Sign in if you want to comment
City cheating?
Page 1 of 2
posted on 22/1/15
"that’s all kosher"
I'm not sure the deals will be kosher if they're contracted in the UAE!
posted on 22/1/15
Staggeringly, ALL 20 PL clubs are in the Top 40 richest clubs in Europe!!
---
This bit stood out. That is absolutely shocking, and I think it goes some way to explaining the pretty obvious closure in the divide between the top teams and the bottom teams.
I wonder if you looked at the historical records from Deloitte, would it tell a different story?
posted on 22/1/15
You're just a bitter Bertie with a chip on your shoulder
Wonder how Busby the new City fan will interpret it all?
posted on 22/1/15
Surely you need to know how much is going out as well as coming in before you can judge any club's finances.
posted on 22/1/15
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 53 minutes ago
"that’s all kosher"
I'm not sure the deals will be kosher if they're contracted in the UAE!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice one!
posted on 22/1/15
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 52 minutes ago
Staggeringly, ALL 20 PL clubs are in the Top 40 richest clubs in Europe!!
---
This bit stood out. That is absolutely shocking, and I think it goes some way to explaining the pretty obvious closure in the divide between the top teams and the bottom teams.
I wonder if you looked at the historical records from Deloitte, would it tell a different story?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay,
Spot on I think - we have the 'financial giants' at the top and then, 'the rest'.
The TV revenue alone is a major leveller for the other 14 or 15 teams in the PL, probably excluding newly promoted teams until they've got at least one PL season/pay-day under their belt . Once they've done that, they'll be pretty difficult to dislodge by a Championship side unless they spend big too (flouting the Championship FFP rules on the way and probably with a 'sugar daddy' like QPR).
posted on 22/1/15
comment by Paulpowersleftfoot #wewentagain (U1037)
posted 25 minutes ago
You're just a bitter Bertie with a chip on your shoulder
Wonder how Busby the new City fan will interpret it all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul
Yup, that's me - and proud!
Busby will be confused - I praise Utd as well as City - so ultimately he should be a happy bunny.
posted on 22/1/15
comment by GUNNERBEGOOD (U10646)
posted 14 minutes ago
Surely you need to know how much is going out as well as coming in before you can judge any club's finances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite right,
City's latest accounts (13/14) show a slight loss (£7m) after the FFP fine is taken into account.
So our losses trend in the last 3 years has been: £99m / £52m / £7m – next year we’ll be in profit, probably significantly so (or new players/higher wages and smaller profit).
Our revenue growth over the last year is the best performance of the top four PL clubs in 2013/14: both in absolute terms (£76 million) and percentage (28%). United’s absolute growth was almost as much (£70 million), while Chelsea and Arsenal both increased by 23%.
City’s wages-to-revenue ratio (59%) is almost identical to Arsenal’s (56%) and much better than Chelsea’s (67%) – Utd’s is 50%.
So top and bottom lines are looking rosy and show signs of improving further.
posted on 22/1/15
Granted your revenue streams are catching up to the top teams - but it does seem there is a degree of 'creative' accounting going on. I struggle to believe you could have turned around a £100m per season loss in only 3 seasons! The trophies would have helped with that - certainly winning the league is a nice big chunk but I'm not convinced you'll make a profit without winning something this season.
posted on 22/1/15
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 4 minutes ago
Granted your revenue streams are catching up to the top teams - but it does seem there is a degree of 'creative' accounting going on. I struggle to believe you could have turned around a £100m per season loss in only 3 seasons! The trophies would have helped with that - certainly winning the league is a nice big chunk but I'm not convinced you'll make a profit without winning something this season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant drop in net spend must have something to do with it.
http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2014/9/11/6101855/premier-league-transfer-spend-over-3-5-and-7-years
posted on 22/1/15
44.2M average in the past 3 years, compared to 92.9 avg for the 2 years prior, and 108.8 for the 2 years before that.
posted on 22/1/15
There's absolutely no chance whatsoever that you could have a higher turnover than Arsenal. NONE. NADA. ZILCH.
They have same tv rights as City, more lucrative shirt deal, 13,000 more seats at every home game, much higher ticket prices........
Figures just don't add up. But we all know why they don't.
City blatantly fudging something somewhere.
posted on 22/1/15
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 5 minutes ago
There's absolutely no chance whatsoever that you could have a higher turnover than Arsenal. NONE. NADA. ZILCH.
They have same tv rights as City, more lucrative shirt deal, 13,000 more seats at every home game, much higher ticket prices........
Figures just don't add up. But we all know why they don't.
City blatantly fudging something somewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it adds up. City bring way more money on the commercial side. That's how they do it, huge sponsorship deals with UAE based companies that Sheik Mansour is involved in. Just the same strategy that propelled PSG to where they are today also
posted on 22/1/15
Not to mention City actually win things & I vaguely remember reading that each position you finish higher in the league is worth another 1-2m or something.
posted on 22/1/15
Yeah exactly so basically fudging it like I said.
posted on 22/1/15
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yeah exactly so basically fudging it like I said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. Just their ownership using their connections to generate sponsorship
posted on 22/1/15
The effect of Arsenal's new commercial deals will be seen in next year's list. That should take Arsenal above both City and Chelsea, until they renegotiate. The chain will then continue.
posted on 22/1/15
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 32 minutes ago
There's absolutely no chance whatsoever that you could have a higher turnover than Arsenal. NONE. NADA. ZILCH.
They have same tv rights as City, more lucrative shirt deal, 13,000 more seats at every home game, much higher ticket prices........
Figures just don't add up. But we all know why they don't.
City blatantly fudging something somewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought we were the bitter ones
Your concern is noted young man
posted on 22/1/15
Not really. Just their ownership using their connections to generate sponsorship
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsoring themselves then?
The Sheik has large stakes in most, if not all, those companies.
It's absolutely ridiculous. How can that be market value. They could pay whatever they want.
People talk about Utd deals being above market value but we've not got anyone behind the scenes at AON and Chevrolet to my knowledge.
The Etihad deal at City should be investigated thoroughly. There is no way that can possibly be legit.
posted on 22/1/15
I thought we were the bitter ones
Your concern is noted young man
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will always be the bitters, Paul.
Stuck on 4.
posted on 22/1/15
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 1 minute ago
Not really. Just their ownership using their connections to generate sponsorship
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsoring themselves then?
The Sheik has large stakes in most, if not all, those companies.
It's absolutely ridiculous. How can that be market value. They could pay whatever they want.
People talk about Utd deals being above market value but we've not got anyone behind the scenes at AON and Chevrolet to my knowledge.
The Etihad deal at City should be investigated thoroughly. There is no way that can possibly be legit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishing are we Stretty?
posted on 22/1/15
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 2 minutes ago
Not really. Just their ownership using their connections to generate sponsorship
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsoring themselves then?
The Sheik has large stakes in most, if not all, those companies.
It's absolutely ridiculous. How can that be market value. They could pay whatever they want.
People talk about Utd deals being above market value but we've not got anyone behind the scenes at AON and Chevrolet to my knowledge.
The Etihad deal at City should be investigated thoroughly. There is no way that can possibly be legit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who says these companies have to pay market value?
Who's deciding what that market value is? Of course they can pay whatever they want. It's their money.
However, when you look at the revenue growth of Etihad airlines for example, it's easy to see how a few hundred million invested in city represents good value for a company who's revenues are now in the billions per year.
posted on 22/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 22/1/15
The difference is that Citys largest 'sponsors' come from the very same people that own the club.
People are going to be more suspicious of that, usually rightly so.
Look at the connections between major government contract winners and the MPs that hand them out.
posted on 22/1/15
20,000 empty seats........and they're building more.
Page 1 of 2