Is that what people believe? Or is it to do with fake sponsorships that have inflated City's revenues which are then reflected in their Deloitte standings? I thought most of this was fairly straightforward, and remarkably uninteresting if anything. City have been cheating for years. What is interesting (at least to me) is whether or not they face any consequence for said cheating.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Let’s start a thread that gives a league table week by week without City. Let’s assume they are facing a 140 point deduction or whatever relegates them three divisions. Then you have to make all their games null and void. Complicated job, but I bet Giflord could do it 
Nah not obvious enough really. Needs some more pep love.
It is just as ironic as the saudis sitting on the human rights commission.
I vehemently agree crypto money is funny money, but they're not the only clubs who've been caught up being sponsored by crypto companies. I don't think they have any issues funding their spending today through legitimate means. The artificial injections happened a decade ago, and that's why they are in this position today. My understanding is that that is the focus of the PL probe. And that was probably time barred in the UEFA probe, but isn't here.
Is that City? I thought it was United and Newcastle as reported recently by the Financial Times? I can't post the link but if you search YouTube for "Following the money behind premier league sponsors - Financial Times" it will come up. It's from last month.
I am not saying City are clean with regards to sponsors, I am sure there are some dodgy ones, just that it is not unique to City.
Someone asked me about the revenue earlier and how it is so high, I think this has been well answered already - most of it is prize money and TV revenue. Also shirt sales did go through the roof when Haaland joined. Deloitte aren't a small outfit, they are arguably the foremost marketing consultancy in the world, so I trust their review.
I just want to add that I don't like the City group or the multi-club ownership model. I think this should all be taken out of football. I also don't like that Man United are able to float themselves on the stock market to get a financial edge. There are lots of problems with money in football, but I think it has been this way since day 1, 150 years ago. Football has always been the local rich bloke pumping money into the local team and giving them an advantage, so I am not sure where to go from here...
I've supported City since I was a boy, and my dad before me and his dad before him. I don't feel like I can do anything about all this financial side of things except appreciate the football being played. At the end of the day it's the football that matters right?
I've supported City since I was a boy, and my dad before me and his dad before him. I don't feel like I can do anything about all this financial side of things except appreciate the football being played. At the end of the day it's the football that matters right?
Deloitte includes plenty of caveats so as not to put the full weight of their reputation behind this. They themselves say this in the report: "The publication contains a variety of information derived from publicly available, or other direct, sources other than financial statements. We have not performed any verification work or audited any of the information contained in the financial statements or other sources in respect of each club for the purpose of this publication. Some charts may not sum due to rounding."
Also, most of the money is not from prize money or TV revenue. Deloitte categorizes the sources of revenue as follows: "Matchday revenue is largely derived from gate receipts (including ticket and corporate hospitality sales). Broadcast revenue includes revenue from distributions from participation in domestic leagues, cups and UEFA club competitions. Commercial revenue includes sponsorship, merchandising and revenue from other commercial operations. For a more detailed analysis of the comparability of revenue generation between clubs, it would be necessary to obtain information not otherwise publicly available."
51% of City's revenue in the latest reporting period comes from commercial revenue, meaning the sponsorships and merchandizing. City had the 3rd highest such revenue in the world for the latest reporting period, behind PSG and Bayern, and the highest in the Premier League. I don't think any real growth from Haaland shirt sales would be included in the numbers that have been reported in the Deloitte Football Money League yet, as that year has not yet been reported. By way of comparison to other premier league clubs, Liverpool had 39%, United had 45%, Chelsea had 37%, Tottenham had 41% and Arsenal had 38% of revenue derived from commercial revenue. The two sides that outstripped City in commercial revenue, PSG and Bayern, both had 58% of revenue derived from commercial revenue. So on a percentage basis, City are higher than Premier League rivals in terms of commercial revenue. In terms of match day revenue they are the lowest of the Big 6, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of their total revenue.
Any City fan claiming the money has helped, but isn't the only reason they are where they are is mental.
Without the money there's a fair chance the Manchester derby would be between United u23s and Man City in the Papa Johnstone's Vans trophy
Without the money there's a fair chance the Manchester derby would be between United u23s and Man City in the Papa Johnstone's Vans trophy
I mean that's totally fair? Chelsea have spent a billion in one year and are awful. Money doesn't win games.
Yeah it's not the only reason but claiming it has helped is greatly understating it.
Yeah it's weighted one side more than the other. Won't deny that.
Take away the money in 2008 and where are you in 2023?
Without the money there is no basis from which City establish themselves. It's the sole contributing factor.
I admired Lance Armstrong's cycling. But in the end when you cheat, it eliminates the validity of your achievements. City's success is corrupt and hollow.
How many commercial partners tied to the state owning the club do you need before those injections become artificial?
Interesting comparison. I do wonder how their success will be viewed if they are indeed found guilty. How long is it going to drag on for anyway?
Speaking of PSG, has there been audits, investigations, etc. on their revenues? Are their commercial contracts fully legit?
It's madness to think otherwise.
It's not "fair" - the spending is the only thing that got you to a point where all the rest happened, i.e. the sporting structure, getting Pep, getting better players... Money is the only - the only - reason City are where they are today. Not only that, it's money that was used in violation of rules all other clubs had to abide by.
I think it would be fair to point out that City is a very well run organization. That is why Chelsea have been trying to hire away key figures from the front offices.
But Chelsea were purchased by a few rich people, and constantly have to jump through hoops that most teams, including City, don’t. Every sponsor or entity that has approached us has been required by the FA to provide things like 10 years of financial statements, all family and friend connections of everyone listed as an executive of the company, a “compelling reason” why a company would want to do business was with an entity the FA believes they were successful in devaluing.
Many of City’s sponsors are blank shop fronts. United’s teamviewer sponsor made a deal that was worth more than the company was ….
Chelsea’s sugar daddy owner was forced to sell for being ethnically Russian. The City owners took a neutral stance on the conflict after forced vote of protest at the i rial invasion. And now, with OPEC+ they are actively aiding Russia in bypassing financial sanctions.
Chelsea were strangled to the point they were not allowed to pay basic employees, or even buy toilet paper for the office bathrooms.
Nothing like that will happen to City, because the primaries are essentially nation states, ones that flood government officials with money way beyond the stuff associated with football. The reach is far greater than just money: it allows City to do things like illegally pay secondary, under the table salaries to managers, agents, and players that allowed that structure that exists now in the first place.
Royal families and nations shouldn’t own teams.
One other thing makes comparisons to Chelsea particularly unfavorable for City: risk.
Chelsea is spending money for their project by implementing a very high risk strategy. People may not like it, but it was our risk to take. It may fail greatly, and then we will struggle to offload lots of players and assume the risk on new ones. A few would be fine, but the potential for a lot of assets failing is strong. And since our strategy involves buying really young talent, there is the risk of experiencing what we are now: tons of inconsistency, people losing patience, panic.
City made their way inside guidelines not by assuming risk, but by hiding much of the money spent. Since they don’t care about money, and they don’t have to use things like amortization tricks and longer contracts… they can target older, more established players in addition to younger talent. And we aren’t talking the last few years; they always have been doing this if the details in the information gathered are true.
Chelsea is spending money for their project by implementing a very high risk strategy. People may not like it, but it was our risk to take. It may fail greatly, and then we will struggle to offload lots of players and assume the risk on new ones. A few would be fine, but the potential for a lot of assets failing is strong. And since our strategy involves buying really young talent, there is the risk of experiencing what we are now: tons of inconsistency, people losing patience, panic.
City made their way inside guidelines not by assuming risk, but by hiding much of the money spent. Since they don’t care about money, and they don’t have to use things like amortization tricks and longer contracts… they can target older, more established players in addition to younger talent. And we aren’t talking the last few years; they always have been doing this if the details in the information gathered are true.
Yours to take. The whole concept of operating the club in a matter that is completely unsustainable for any normal club, even the biggest ones, over multiple years, isn't exactly limited to Manchester City.
The only reason whatsoever you are in the position you are, is because you were bankrolled by a Russian Oligarch for the better part of 20 years. Bankrolled to the point that you were spending money that no normally operated clubs had any chance of competing with, racking up a £1,6billion debt to your owner (and that is without any interest rates). One thing is the first team players being signed, a vastly different story is the absolutely insane amount of talents you were bringing in and loaning out. Chelsea has been run in an unsustainable way for how many years now in total? Even your current "project", that was "your risk to take", is completely unsustainable for a normally operated club and involves a multi club approach. Obviously there are different levels here, but you aren't exactly far from Manchester City in terms of how bad it is, there isn't much of a high road to take for a Chelsea supporter. When sanctions were put in place for people like him after Russia invaded Ukraine, Chelsea fans cheered his name. It is stupid enough that the vast majority of Chelsea fans, if not everyone, celebrated his role at the club from day one due to his willingness to let the club spend vast amounts of money to compete for trophies, but continuing to support him even after the invasion is absolute madness. Abramovich didn't have to hide the amounts being spent for the vast majority of time he owned the club, but even then he was involved in shady deals like Vitesse.
I know the vast majority couldn't be less bothered, as clearly demonstrated by the amount of fans reacting negatively to the news that Manchester United won't be bankrolled by Qatar, but for me the overall approach is complete madness and downright pathetic. How many years weren't Arsenal set back, with their long term project for building a new stadium, or any other club competing for the top 4.
I wonder how much outrage there would be if Charlie decided England should get in on the act.
Who could he buy?
I could see him buy Forest Green Rovers. He's into the whole eco thing.
Either that or start-up Poundbury FC
Deloitte are regularly fined for "overlooking" basic things when they audit.
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ed-record-15m-for-failings-in-autonomy-audits
There are lots of these stories.
Can they be punished already FFS. Look well on course for a 4th league title in a row and a 2nd CL.
Let’s just wait 2-3 years more so the cases against them are probably dated again.
I'd hold off punishing them until Klopp f*cks off. No rush.
They won't get punished. At least not as much as they deserve. Smack on the wrist & a fine.
He needs a vanity project. All this charity work he does is a waste of time, if he is going to win people over. He needs to spend billions on a football team.
This isn't RAWK bud.Let’s start a thread that gives a league table week by week without City. Let’s assume they are facing a 140 point deduction or whatever relegates them three divisions. Then you have to make all their games null and void. Complicated job, but I bet Giflord could do it
Imagine using Deloitte (or any consulting firm or rating agency) as a standard for information - a lot of them are con artists and often have massive conflicts of interest in some of the work they conduct.
Its implausible when they cant fill their ticket allocations for some of the biggest games in the history of the club. Fans = revenue and no legitimate sponsor is breaking records for a team with so little interest and exposure. Have a look at how few blue chip sponsors they have compared to clubs like us, Madrid or even Liverpool.
Deloitte aren't being fooled, they're reporting on declared income. It's not their job to deduce that $50m from the two employees at Acme Al-Emirati & Sons might not be real.
They claim to have a season ticket waiting list and are planning to expand the stadium. Everything around City's attendance is a bit weird.
Well publicly City have:
Etihad Airways at £70 M ish https://www.statista.com/statistics/254569/manchester-city-revenue-from-kit-sponsorship/
Puma at £65 M
Asahi beer at £20M a year https://cityxtra.co.uk/4987/manches...r-kit-sponsor-in-expanded-record-partnership/
EA Sports extended deal (can't find a number but bet it isn't small)
OKX at £20 M
Nexen Tyres at £12.5 M
Nissan at something like £5 M
These are hardly small names.
So publicly reported deals are at around £192 M, then you have to add in the EA deal whatever that is and then all the other 20 or so smaller sponsors, and then on top of that all the merchandise sales they make and events etc. Do you really not think it's feasible that their reported £373 M commercial revenue is legit? It's not wild numbers. The rest of their revenue comes from prize money and broadcasting.
The only sponsor giving decent amounts that are slightly suspect might be OKX as crypto can be suspect and Etisalat the communications company from Abu Dhabi, but I don't think they are in material amounts.
Essentially your Wigan that won the lottery ticket and you’d be in league two if you weren’t bought by a state. Your not true or authentic by any means and generally speaking people know your football team is brilliant, will continue to dominate but don’t care that much because your totally and utterly soulless. They bought a massive turd and polished it up real nice. Rolled it in glitter too.
literally won a treble and no one other than your own fanbase gives a shit. Because you can gloat how you own the Citeh! People still talk about the United one much much more. Dream about it. Sometimes the way you do something makes it as special as what it is. you literally have over 100 financial breaches hanging over you as you did it. Again. Sums up football these days. It’s generally fecked.
Sound bitter. Probably am but I generally feel feck all other than boredom when they win something. Liverpool winning the league hurt way way way more, now that was hibernation level stuff and felt like a low for us. City, meh. Not so much. Everyone knows what you are. It is what it is. Football in the modern era. Monopoly if you like.
literally won a treble and no one other than your own fanbase gives a shit. Because you can gloat how you own the Citeh! People still talk about the United one much much more. Dream about it. Sometimes the way you do something makes it as special as what it is. you literally have over 100 financial breaches hanging over you as you did it. Again. Sums up football these days. It’s generally fecked.
Sound bitter. Probably am but I generally feel feck all other than boredom when they win something. Liverpool winning the league hurt way way way more, now that was hibernation level stuff and felt like a low for us. City, meh. Not so much. Everyone knows what you are. It is what it is. Football in the modern era. Monopoly if you like.
We're not Wigan though are we. We have had success in the past and have a much bigger fanbase pre money than Wigan. I agree we weren't at this level now but we weren't a tiny club with no history or trophy wins. This does come across as bitter I agree. I'm not going to argue about how you feel, just that it felt very good for the City fans and even though we get a lot of hate there is a good fanbase at the club that continues to grow.
You don’t get a lot of hate. Indifference is the word I’d use. Honestly it’s just indifference. I am jealous you have haaland though. What a monster of a footballer and seems like a good guy. Infact you have brilliant players and there’s no denying that whatsoever, ability and mentality wise. Exceptional manager too and I’ll admit that all day long. It’s more the club and ownership that people don’t enjoy and everything it represents. No one is denying the structure and how they have gone about their business in a footballing sense. Very astute and smart business from the start.
it’s the corruption and inauthenticity that makes it soulless
Last edited:
Probably in League 2.
We're currently discussing this on a 133 page long thread about City, so the indifference seems strong.