I think you need to learn to aim better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
Still waiting for numbers and figures, these are all winds to me.I think you need to learn to aim better.
A self decleration of victory is pretty sad to be fair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim
Nah youre being completly unreasonable for what regards the art of the debate. If someone made the claim that "god deffinatly does exist" would you expect me to be the one that needs to prove otherwise? It's easy to make claims that cannot be disproven, and it's also obvious why hence it is the one who makes the claim that has the burden of the proof.
Indeed I am, but as I said it took me 3000 posts to realise there is no point in discussing this stuff with some people.
4 of your main Sponsors come from companies owned by the Sheikhs family. In 2011 you signed a £400m 10 year shirt sponsorship deal from the Etihad, how realistic is that? Especially when it is from the owners family and if you were offered a sponsorship deal from a company that was not related to your owner, what would the figure be? No where near 400m over 10 years.
Ah! An argument of substance with actual numbers! Thank you sir
Uniteds shirt deal is a fair few years after City obtained theirs. Shirt deals are bound to increase over time. Manchester United were recieving £20m a year for their shirt deal with AON in 2011, Real Madrid were getting somethng similiar with their shirt sponsors. City before they won the league recieved £40m a year from a company that is closely linked to the owners family in 2011. That is not exactly realistic in my opinion. If AON wanted to sponsor City, do you believe they would offer £40m a year, twice as much as they were paying Manchester United? How much do you believe a company that is not related to the owner would have paid City for their shirt sponsor? I doubt it would be anywhere near £40m a year. That sponsorship deal was evidently inflated.
Are you suggesting that Man City circa 2011 was a top club that could rival commercial appeal of the world's best like Real, Barca or United? So by your logic Leicester should have got similar deal back in 2016 fresh of their title win, right? Too bad, they didn't have your marketing team.
No i'm not making that suggestion for what regards 2011. However the discussion centered a lot around what could be realistic today. Afterall it's no secret that the Arabs pumped in a lot of money but the real question was wether city's growth is sustainable and then i'd say it is given what they could get today.
Apparently it's right infront of you and you are like a kid who can't see the reality
Proper delusion.No, he was stating that 4 of the main sponsors are owned by the Sheikh's family. £400 million over 10 years from the Sheikh's family just for the shirt sponsor. You can try and jusify it, but it certainly points to succesfully getting around ffp. In 2011, the 2nd biggest club in Manchester attracted a bigger sponsorship deal than Real Madrid. Just let that sink in for a second, then continue to argue that it makes sense.
A sponsorship deal that was agreed in 2011 does not apply to what is realistic today. For a good 5 years your side was getting more money than Barcelona, United and Real Madrid for their shirt sponsor. It was not from some random company who were willing to pay you guys that money, the companies owner of your shirt sponsor is related to the owner of Manchester City. Uniteds, Barcelona and Real Madrids sponsor are linked to companies that have no association with the club with the exception of wanting their name on the front. You cannot say the same about City.
Oh I can't help myself, just when I'm out I get pulled back in. The Etihad deal is more than shirt sponsorship.. christ on a bike. Everything you posted afterwards is invalid because of this.
I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath. I suggest you use the down time to form a coherent & rational response. City are claiming that revenues are topping £500M. When taking everything into account & looking at things objectively most supporters of other teams conclude that this isn't possible. The onus is now on you to tell us how in effect you have produced a modern day miracle. Your reply should be backed by cold hard facts which are available in the public domain. Idle conjecture will not get us anywhere & we will continue going round in circles.
We know that the Etihad deal didn't just include shirt sponsorship. It included the stadium naming rights & sponsorship of the land around it. The point being made was that all that still didn't make you worth £400M to any company at that time.
No its wasn't read his comment, its bad enough you make shit up but at least read your own fans opinion. He called it a 400m 10 year shirt sponsorship.
Just for the sake of facts, the deal signed at that time and which you are quoting was not a shirt deal, it was a deal for shirt sponsorship and stadium sponsorship and other things, and it was still less than United earned from a deal for just their shirts. I say this to put it into context, it was comparably nothing like the sort of value United got for their shirt sponsor at the time so comparing the 2 is slightly unjust. City gave up far more and earned far less, as they should have done.
It’s all shit.
What renaming the stadium too? About 5m a year. The shirt sponsor claimed a large proportion of that deal. It still does not explain how a club that did not win the league title in so many years managed to get a shirt sponsorship deal bigger than some European powerhous
It was £40m a year which included stadium naming rights, some do not even know what that is. There are a few saying it is as little as £2m a year. They also said the money generated would improve facilities and so on. Isnt that the case with any money generated from income for a football club. Have a read of this, 3 years after they banked the original, they renegotiated deal to the double the amount. If true, funny how a club can easily do this, if that does not indicate how inflated the deal was and easily manipulated the deal can become, due to the fact the owner of the sponsor is a close relative of the owner for Manchester City.
That article was written in March 15. So, approaching City's accounting year end for 2014-2015. From the accounts there was just a £6mill increase in commercial income between y/e 2015 and y/e 2016. No sign of a £40mill increase.
Again Denis_unwise the burden of the proof is upon you as it is you who claim that City would not be able to reach it's stated revenue withought indirect investment from abu dhabi.
Nice to hear, thanks for the input.
Nice try but a poor attempt at wumming pal. Take this shit back to BM when you go back there. Majority of kids support who their dad's support. It will be generations before City can even begin to dream of usurping Utd in playgrounds up & down the country. They have the (purported) GOAT Manager, playing the best football that's ever been seen (reportedly) & they are the biggest spenders in the history of the league. All this yet they can't fill the stadium. This is City at their highest point & they've been unable to capture the publics imagination.
All i ask is you look at things objectively. City were a club who were mostly known for lurching from 1 disastrous situation to another. A laughing stock to most of the league. You were a yo-yo club going nowhere fast. We are now to believe that in the decade since the takeover you are the 2nd highest earning club in the league. You will likely post record league revenues in your next accounts overtaking Utd. This may be slightly believable if you had dominated the league, had success in Europe & were packing out your stadium week in week out. You have not done any of these things though. This is why we are telling you that the revenue figures you are posting are not legitimate. It can not & would not happen.
It seems like the best way to tell how profitable or otherwise City's currently are would be to look at a deal outside of the Abu Dhabi and compare it to other clubs, if its around the market value then you'd have to think that if they chose to go on the open market with things such as shirt sponsors they'd achieve roughly market value on that too.
Well no, this is no proof of youre assertion as this relates to profit and not revenue. Youre claim was that our revenue was unrealistic. Since profit can be easily inpacted by player transfers and since posting profits every year is potentially uninterresting given taxes it's not much of an indicator at all.
But the past is irrelevant, the discussion is on wether City's revenue today is realistic.
City also won the premier league 3 times in that decade which puts it in the absolute top of the PL. The investments were already bearing fruit sportivly in 2011 and were 7 years past that in which city won it 2 times more. I don't see how this would make it so unbelievable that city would rise to the top regions of revenue because of that, not only have the sportive results been good but so are the prospects for the future.
I don't see why we should hold this as a metric of what a "believable resulting revenue" should be. In the end youre really talking "gut feeling here rather than using any substance in numbers and to be frank my gut feeling tells otherwise. You should not expect that everyone shares youre gut feeling.
Give proof that "it can not or would not happen" under the sportive results that City had over the last 10 years. Well you can't. You expect me to follow you in youre "sense of reasons" but i think you should have the sense of emphaty that it's wishfull thinking that i would do so.
This assumes success = sponsors. In reality, it is the fanbase who determine the amount of sponsors. For all the talk about us being a jaded old club devoid of style or direction, our fan base eclipses City thrice the world over atleast. And such a fanbase, bar a few fair weather fans, remain largely loyal despite the so-called bad times, buying merchandise and subscriptions etc. And this is what attracts sponsors.
You're posting on a thread about city, but don't care about city. You look really smart
That's one part of sponsorship, absolutely. Our fanbase is of course, most definitely smaller.But there is also an element of sponsorship that is based on newspaper column inches, tv interest, etc. I don't think United are finished, far from it. Only an idiot would write them off. But again, sponsors looking at the 'right now' will only see one club with the momentum, the excitement and the international interest.
You're posting about City on a Manchester United forum.
I'd argue that even that is determined by fanbase and is in favor of United. Mourinho losing 4 games in a row with us would probably get more clicks than City winning the league precisely for that reason, and in a way, even negative coverage would attract sponsors, since there are more fans for United based news obviously.
No such thing mate.
City's commercial revenue is as much as Arsenal's and Liverpool's combined and few lap it up saying it's actual growth
Chelsea should be Citys prototype. Theres no way they should be having twice the growth from a 5th of the success.
What kind of input was that exactly?
In a thread about City. Your point ?
Look there's no question how popular United still are. Hence having greater commercial income. But the gap is closing and I think the worrying time for United is if there are another few years of uncertainty because that's when the commercial sponsors start to lose faith
