What Spurs (and most other) fans take objection to is some jumped up City fan coming on here and trying to make a case that City don't pay big wages....its simply BS, or that investing £1bn is sound business when actually revenue is only £120m pa.
Our revenue is rising year on year faster than any other Premier League club, that £120 pa figure is nearly 2 years out of date and from a season when we finished mid-table and had no European football.
"that the business plan is sound"
Wrong.
The business plan may be sound. We just don't have the details of it, so you cannot say either way.
"and that is plain stupid"
Claiming that a business plan that is not known at all, is "sound" , is the sound of a moron.
"its simply BS, or that investing £1bn is sound business when actually revenue is only £120m pa."
Nothing wrong with that, if at some point in some planned future, your NET revenues are that, or you get to a break-even point reasonably quick.
We have two yrs accounts for MCFC Ltd under the Mansoor regime. How is that going (net investment, net profits etc) ??
You have conceded nothing. You really don't have the hang of this debating stuff do ya.
--------------------------------
Unbelievable. I wrote one post asking how 600 part-time staff fit into the figure of 413 listed in City's accounts. Both you and Jurglenn then pointed out how this will be accounted for. I then responded with the comment "You're right. The £118m does relate to 413 employees".
You then come out with "I am now offering you the chance to argue the case" - what are you talking about? I'm under no illusion that the players don't earn a substantial (majority) percentage of the wages that are paid out to all staff at City. (Or at any other club for that matter.)
Some are happy to admit that City are buying the league and have no problem with that....fair play to them, but some try and deny they are not buying the league, that the business plan is sound and that is plain stupid
------------------------------
How do you know that the business plan isn't sound? City are 3 years into a 10 year plan. Is there anyone who thinks it just might be a little premature to start concluding now as to whether it'll end up financially viable or not? Or is it just me who is prepared to reserve judgement one way or the other?
Sorry guys. I have missed most of the back and forth going on here. I was hoping for some honest sensible debate but it seems spurs fans would only agree with us if we go back to the days of being a 6 pointer for them. Times have moved on guys and you have to move with the times. One thing is certain; we will never have a common ground with the ways our clubs are being run. See you at Etihad in January.
With respect to the part time matchday staff, my eldest daughter is a member of the "crew" (as they call it) and she gets paid £25 per game. If we take the brave assumption that they all get paid the same, then that's £15k per match. Each till brings in over £2,000 per game (so she tells me) and there's one till per crew member, which works out at a cool £1.2 million quid.
On that basis, the crew's cost is utterly insignificant.
<quote>
I don't know how much City players earn (the figures banded around vary too much), but I would say that we don't pay our players as much as people seem to think. If we did, our first team wage bill alone would be almost double what our wage bill was last year. And that's not even taking into consideration all the boardroom staff, management team, reserve squad, youth players, administration staff, catering staff, cleaning staff, etc etc.
</quote>
Do you have a "better idea" now ??
80m on players ?? What say you ??
10 players on 100k/wk is 50m straight off.
"Sorry guys. I have missed most of the back and forth going on here. I was hoping for some honest sensible debate but it seems spurs fans would only agree with us if we go back to the days of being a 6 pointer for them. Times have moved on guys and you have to move with the times. One thing is certain; we will never have a common ground with the ways our clubs are being run. See you at Etihad in January."
Google translate came out with the following :
I am a muppet.
I thought I'd be try and be a smart-assed WUM wannabee on Spurs 606. I thought their denizens were as moronic as me.
I was not prepared for the fact that the most simplest cursory factual analysis of my words would make me look a total prat.
RDBD
What version of google are you using?
Google Manc Muppet Moron.
I don't know where these employee figures are coming from. The guy who does the stadium tour told me there were 470 full timers with another 550(ish) employed on matchdays. That was before we opened the shops on Market St and Abu Dhabi and before the City Store had been expanded and City Square had been built.
It is impossible for the level of spend to be maintained and for the club to make a profit when it's income is as it is.
The most income could increase to would be something like Liverpool's, £18 million per season (gate revenue and ticket sales, TV (English and CL) broadcasting and commercial activities).
Believe me that none of us here will see City ever make a profit and repay any investment.
The men in frocks aren't in it to make money as it's just an expensive hobby to them with the spin off of feeding their vanities and raising their own brand awareness.
Calm down fella. It's only an online forum. No need to get worked up.
The most income could increase to would be something like Liverpool's, £18 million per season (gate revenue and ticket sales, TV (English and CL) broadcasting and commercial activities).
Make that £180 million ....
RDBD,
The crux of that comment (of mine which you quoted) is "I doubt [the amount City pay players] is as much as people seem to think". I made that comment based on reading so many comments about City's squad being full of players on £200k plus per week. I just don't see how that is possible. Even if it was just 11 players earning £200k per week (meaning that the first-team squad was less than half-full of players earning such a figure), that alone would amount to around £114m per year. Leaving (based on the 2009-10 report), around £4m for every other player and non-footballing employee on City's books.
It is impossible for the level of spend to be maintained and for the club to make a profit when it's income is as it is.
-------------------------------
Correct. The level of spending that we've seen at City over the last 3 years will not (and simply can not) continue.
There's one reason why the spending has been so excessive however. And that's because of the FFP regulations. A case of get all the spending out of the way before the FFP is implemented. The club said exactly that last season.
"The most income could increase to would be something like Liverpool's, £180 million per season (gate revenue and ticket sales, TV (English and CL) broadcasting and commercial activities)."
That sounds about right. In the last financial report released, the club's revenue stood at £125m. That's for the year in which the club wasn't in the CL - a competition that is said to be worth to English clubs a minimum of £20m per year. Throw in the Sponsorship deal (the exact figures of which haven't been disclosed), but let's be conservative - let's say it's worth an extra £10m per year over the previous sponsorship deal. That takes our revenue up to a minimum of £155m. That's not factoring in the increase in attendances, the increase in match-day revenue, nor the increase in prize money/tv rights that being a successful club brings.
"I don't know where these employee figures are coming from."
1. They come from MCFC Ltd annual accounts 2009/10. ie the last accounting yr for the Ltd company.
2. Any argument about "matchday" staff on the finances has been shown to be insignificant.
3. Where is your std "game in hand" WUM attempt ... ??
I cannot comment on what SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS are earning. But I contend that a value of at least 80m for the COLLECTIVE "football" section of the iteh (Admin1 - pah !!! ) wage bill is quite close to the true figure.
I have no reason to doubt that RDBD. All I've ever tried to get across in this discussion is that we don't know for certain what the exact expenditure for all footballing-staff at City is. I've no doubt that the footballing staff make up the majority of the wage expense at the club, but then I would suspect that that is the case for the majority of clubs anyway.
I cannot comment on what SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS are earning.
That's a surprise, most people on here seem to think they can pinpoint City players' salaries to the nearest pound from the information they've gleaned from the Metro
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/48270
Similarly, most people on here think tis more important to argue to the nearest pound about the wages of one player on their team, rather than the horror of the collective wage bill in relation to their clubs' gross revenues ...
Our revenues will soon become obscenely gross. Watch this space
So someone on here claims that most City players are on £200k a week when the fact is that Tevez is our highest paid player on £188k and we're supposed to ignore it and if we do try and put the misguided right we're accused of triffling over loose change.
Sign in if you want to comment
Players wages - the facts
Page 9 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 27/10/11
What Spurs (and most other) fans take objection to is some jumped up City fan coming on here and trying to make a case that City don't pay big wages....its simply BS, or that investing £1bn is sound business when actually revenue is only £120m pa.
Our revenue is rising year on year faster than any other Premier League club, that £120 pa figure is nearly 2 years out of date and from a season when we finished mid-table and had no European football.
posted on 27/10/11
"that the business plan is sound"
Wrong.
The business plan may be sound. We just don't have the details of it, so you cannot say either way.
"and that is plain stupid"
Claiming that a business plan that is not known at all, is "sound" , is the sound of a moron.
posted on 27/10/11
"its simply BS, or that investing £1bn is sound business when actually revenue is only £120m pa."
Nothing wrong with that, if at some point in some planned future, your NET revenues are that, or you get to a break-even point reasonably quick.
We have two yrs accounts for MCFC Ltd under the Mansoor regime. How is that going (net investment, net profits etc) ??
posted on 27/10/11
You have conceded nothing. You really don't have the hang of this debating stuff do ya.
--------------------------------
Unbelievable. I wrote one post asking how 600 part-time staff fit into the figure of 413 listed in City's accounts. Both you and Jurglenn then pointed out how this will be accounted for. I then responded with the comment "You're right. The £118m does relate to 413 employees".
You then come out with "I am now offering you the chance to argue the case" - what are you talking about? I'm under no illusion that the players don't earn a substantial (majority) percentage of the wages that are paid out to all staff at City. (Or at any other club for that matter.)
posted on 27/10/11
Some are happy to admit that City are buying the league and have no problem with that....fair play to them, but some try and deny they are not buying the league, that the business plan is sound and that is plain stupid
------------------------------
How do you know that the business plan isn't sound? City are 3 years into a 10 year plan. Is there anyone who thinks it just might be a little premature to start concluding now as to whether it'll end up financially viable or not? Or is it just me who is prepared to reserve judgement one way or the other?
posted on 27/10/11
Sorry guys. I have missed most of the back and forth going on here. I was hoping for some honest sensible debate but it seems spurs fans would only agree with us if we go back to the days of being a 6 pointer for them. Times have moved on guys and you have to move with the times. One thing is certain; we will never have a common ground with the ways our clubs are being run. See you at Etihad in January.
posted on 27/10/11
With respect to the part time matchday staff, my eldest daughter is a member of the "crew" (as they call it) and she gets paid £25 per game. If we take the brave assumption that they all get paid the same, then that's £15k per match. Each till brings in over £2,000 per game (so she tells me) and there's one till per crew member, which works out at a cool £1.2 million quid.
On that basis, the crew's cost is utterly insignificant.
posted on 27/10/11
<quote>
I don't know how much City players earn (the figures banded around vary too much), but I would say that we don't pay our players as much as people seem to think. If we did, our first team wage bill alone would be almost double what our wage bill was last year. And that's not even taking into consideration all the boardroom staff, management team, reserve squad, youth players, administration staff, catering staff, cleaning staff, etc etc.
</quote>
Do you have a "better idea" now ??
80m on players ?? What say you ??
10 players on 100k/wk is 50m straight off.
posted on 27/10/11
"Sorry guys. I have missed most of the back and forth going on here. I was hoping for some honest sensible debate but it seems spurs fans would only agree with us if we go back to the days of being a 6 pointer for them. Times have moved on guys and you have to move with the times. One thing is certain; we will never have a common ground with the ways our clubs are being run. See you at Etihad in January."
Google translate came out with the following :
I am a muppet.
I thought I'd be try and be a smart-assed WUM wannabee on Spurs 606. I thought their denizens were as moronic as me.
I was not prepared for the fact that the most simplest cursory factual analysis of my words would make me look a total prat.
posted on 27/10/11
RDBD
What version of google are you using?
posted on 27/10/11
Google Manc Muppet Moron.
posted on 27/10/11
I don't know where these employee figures are coming from. The guy who does the stadium tour told me there were 470 full timers with another 550(ish) employed on matchdays. That was before we opened the shops on Market St and Abu Dhabi and before the City Store had been expanded and City Square had been built.
posted on 27/10/11
It is impossible for the level of spend to be maintained and for the club to make a profit when it's income is as it is.
The most income could increase to would be something like Liverpool's, £18 million per season (gate revenue and ticket sales, TV (English and CL) broadcasting and commercial activities).
Believe me that none of us here will see City ever make a profit and repay any investment.
The men in frocks aren't in it to make money as it's just an expensive hobby to them with the spin off of feeding their vanities and raising their own brand awareness.
posted on 27/10/11
Calm down fella. It's only an online forum. No need to get worked up.
posted on 27/10/11
The most income could increase to would be something like Liverpool's, £18 million per season (gate revenue and ticket sales, TV (English and CL) broadcasting and commercial activities).
Make that £180 million ....
posted on 27/10/11
RDBD,
The crux of that comment (of mine which you quoted) is "I doubt [the amount City pay players] is as much as people seem to think". I made that comment based on reading so many comments about City's squad being full of players on £200k plus per week. I just don't see how that is possible. Even if it was just 11 players earning £200k per week (meaning that the first-team squad was less than half-full of players earning such a figure), that alone would amount to around £114m per year. Leaving (based on the 2009-10 report), around £4m for every other player and non-footballing employee on City's books.
posted on 27/10/11
It is impossible for the level of spend to be maintained and for the club to make a profit when it's income is as it is.
-------------------------------
Correct. The level of spending that we've seen at City over the last 3 years will not (and simply can not) continue.
There's one reason why the spending has been so excessive however. And that's because of the FFP regulations. A case of get all the spending out of the way before the FFP is implemented. The club said exactly that last season.
"The most income could increase to would be something like Liverpool's, £180 million per season (gate revenue and ticket sales, TV (English and CL) broadcasting and commercial activities)."
That sounds about right. In the last financial report released, the club's revenue stood at £125m. That's for the year in which the club wasn't in the CL - a competition that is said to be worth to English clubs a minimum of £20m per year. Throw in the Sponsorship deal (the exact figures of which haven't been disclosed), but let's be conservative - let's say it's worth an extra £10m per year over the previous sponsorship deal. That takes our revenue up to a minimum of £155m. That's not factoring in the increase in attendances, the increase in match-day revenue, nor the increase in prize money/tv rights that being a successful club brings.
posted on 27/10/11
"I don't know where these employee figures are coming from."
1. They come from MCFC Ltd annual accounts 2009/10. ie the last accounting yr for the Ltd company.
2. Any argument about "matchday" staff on the finances has been shown to be insignificant.
3. Where is your std "game in hand" WUM attempt ... ??
posted on 27/10/11
I cannot comment on what SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS are earning. But I contend that a value of at least 80m for the COLLECTIVE "football" section of the iteh (Admin1 - pah !!! ) wage bill is quite close to the true figure.
posted on 27/10/11
I have no reason to doubt that RDBD. All I've ever tried to get across in this discussion is that we don't know for certain what the exact expenditure for all footballing-staff at City is. I've no doubt that the footballing staff make up the majority of the wage expense at the club, but then I would suspect that that is the case for the majority of clubs anyway.
posted on 27/10/11
I cannot comment on what SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS are earning.
That's a surprise, most people on here seem to think they can pinpoint City players' salaries to the nearest pound from the information they've gleaned from the Metro
posted on 27/10/11
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/48270
posted on 27/10/11
Similarly, most people on here think tis more important to argue to the nearest pound about the wages of one player on their team, rather than the horror of the collective wage bill in relation to their clubs' gross revenues ...
posted on 27/10/11
Our revenues will soon become obscenely gross. Watch this space
posted on 27/10/11
So someone on here claims that most City players are on £200k a week when the fact is that Tevez is our highest paid player on £188k and we're supposed to ignore it and if we do try and put the misguided right we're accused of triffling over loose change.
Page 9 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14