for comparison, Chelsea that won the Champions League:
How can anybody take football seriously
Manchester City reports revenue of £570M for 20/21. A season without fans.
- Thread starter TsuWave
- Start date
for comparison, Chelsea that won the Champions League:
How can anybody take football seriously
To be fair, a season with no fans makes little to no material difference to City finances. If anything, they probably saved money on not having to pay people to pretend for 90 minutes a week.
So funny. A bit of comedy is always good.
£569 million Someone forgot that small little round dot somewhere
Someone forgot that small little round dot somewherei'm missing the intent of this post?
They're cheating FFP by sponsoring themselves with enough money to make a profit no matter what. It reminds me of a video game were I spent fortunes but knew a cheat that gave me a million pounds so it didn't matter.
Aha, so you're saying the league title you won in that video game didn't mean much? Even to you?
To be honest they can do whatever they want unless FA or UEFA introduce some sort of strict spending and wage cap that isn't dependent on Revenue like FFP but that would mean stingy owners like Glazers pocketing all the money from Football. Football is going to get very boring with Newcastle and City fighting for the title in 5 years time so, I'm all for any regulation that evens the odds even if it means United not being able to leverage our huge legit revenue.
Hate to say it, but City and Chelsea have made the EPL better. Liverpool have benefited quite a bit from the takeover as well but they have been very prudent in spending. We're one of the few clubs going in the other direction taking guidance from Blackburn with Venky's the chicken farmers and Mike Ashley's Newcastle. I'm not for financial fair play since it's a loose concept that can be by-passed anyway. Free market should reign & we should instead focus on our own strengths and try to work our way up.
As long as oil production and petrol prices remain stable or increase , there is no reason for their revenue to go down. No one outside of City/PSG fanboys believes their figures have anything to do with the club itself.
Not sure how you managed to fit so much incorrect information into such a small post. Well done.
Chelsea I'll give you, because they are still only drawing from one man's resources. But City? Like feck they have. The state funded club are about to go and walk the league again, making it league 4 wins from the last 5 seasons. And that at a time when Liverpool have been as good as they ever have been, and Chelsea have one of the best managers in Europe.
It's total state domination, and the only thing that'll stop that is sadly fecking Newcastle, but so many fans like yourself can't see the wood for the trees.
Yep and without them and their lottery winning oil billions we would of won the league a couple times in the last ten years.
Indeed. I said as much in another thread. In a few years time, it’ll be City and Newcastle fighting for the title year after year, with the rest of us hoping for a spot in the CL.
Bollocks
They play good football because of Pep I’ll give em that but everything surrounding the club is a joke. They should have been done for fixing the books when the initial 3 year? CL ban was in place
That club with a 3 year CL ban and transfer ban would have lost a lot including Pep.
Without them Arsenal wouldn't have been utterly savaged at a time when they simply couldn't compete due to the ground move. The plan for Wenger and Arsenal was to stay there or thereabouts until the move was completed and they'd have been stronger financially, instead City started using them as a feeder club and their fate has been sealed since, their players saw they that way too, as nothing more than a stepping stone.
Remove state owned City from this league and the post Fergie days would have been brilliant, with Arsenal, Liverpool & Chelsea; and yes, Liverpool would have (I hate to say it), deservedly won a few more titles for sure. It's hard to know how Arsenal could have been if they had been "allowed" to remain a top team.
People sadly see the Fergie domination and think Chelsea and especially City have done a good thing by putting a stop to it, but as we've all seen, Fergie was the reason for the domination, not United. Other clubs would have shone post-Fergie.
Yeah, they've done wonders for the game. It's brilliant that I now have to pay 70 quid for Sky Sports, 100 quid for a shirt and 50 quid for a match ticket in the nosebleed seats. Before, I used to worry myself to sleep about where to keep all my spare cash. Thank you City!
So we're discussing corrupt clubs (Chelsea, City and Newcastle) but he gleefully adds Liverpool into the conversation. Yeah I think you need to read more.
Oops responded to the wrong person. I agree with your post Bob.
This revenue reveal was sponsored by First Abu Dhabi bank.
Just have a look at the net spend done by City vs United in the last 5 years. Sources vary but we are generally on par with them. It doesn't have to do with money alone but the mindset of the administration and overall development of the club. You could argue they play good football because of Pep. Well, why didn't we get Pep and decided to go for Moyes and others? We could easily out do them in every way, but we just don't have the drive to do it.
There's plenty of idiots deluding themselves that City somehow has higher revneue than United just because they've been successful this past decade.
City won 2 league titles in the 7 years before they hired Guardiola, and both were very tight wins too. PL is rich enough to keep competing so long as City don't hire literally the best manager in the world. And Baldy won't be there forever, nor will he remain the best forever
Oh, and they still haven't won the CL
Oh, and they still haven't won the CL
They're able to manipulate their sponsorship revenue. All they're sponsors are brothers, friends, Business partners of Mansour. They can receive any amount of money they want and it'll end up being paid back through different companies and assets on the sly.
Once Newcastle are through they're no new sponsor ban that city instigated, Saudi Airlines will announce a 500m complete sponsorship package.
Once Newcastle are through they're no new sponsor ban that city instigated, Saudi Airlines will announce a 500m complete sponsorship package.
Thank god they have sponsors that are also owned by the companies that their owner owners own, otherwise they'd never get a 100 million quid sponsorship from a company that didn't exist until a few weeks ago and is somehow rich as hell without ever selling anything.
Username checks out.
Why? If you spend more money, and they have, to build on an already far superior squad with KDB, Aguero, Kompany, Silva, then you're obviously gonna be in a miles better position.
If you can afford to make Pep Guardiola leave Bayern Munich to join a shitty little club like City and pamper him with everything he wants, then once again, you aren't playing on a level playing field, at all.
And who gives a feck about net spend from a club clearly bullshitting every single part of their financial activities.
Am i right in thinking City's deal woith Etihad fihishes soon? WHich means another State backed entity will sponsor them at a vastly inflated rate?
Put it into context, Arsenal got £90m over 15 years for Emirates sponsoring the stadium etc, City got £400m over 10 years.
And people claim it's made football better?
Just look at their sponsorship list - at least half of them are state backed companies, all of which see's a heavily inflated amount of money ploughed in, recently they signed a deal with the owners own Hotel brand, Christ knows how much they ploughed in for that - probably enough to see them make a profit this financial year!!
Put it into context, Arsenal got £90m over 15 years for Emirates sponsoring the stadium etc, City got £400m over 10 years.
And people claim it's made football better?
Just look at their sponsorship list - at least half of them are state backed companies, all of which see's a heavily inflated amount of money ploughed in, recently they signed a deal with the owners own Hotel brand, Christ knows how much they ploughed in for that - probably enough to see them make a profit this financial year!!
Nar, City had to build up to this domination, there's the big difference. You cannot simply go off the years they were struggling to get enough of the very best players on board. They have spent more than United since Pep arrived despite already having Aguero, KDB, Company, Silva, Stirling in their side.
Strict wage and transfer caps, squad limits across the league that creates a level playing field regardless of the source of income...
Or stop with the bitching about "state owned" and "sports washing" because who gives a feck honestly?
Or wait until I seize power
Or stop with the bitching about "state owned" and "sports washing" because who gives a feck honestly?
Or wait until I seize power
bent as feck
Feck City for many reasons but who cares?
We earn our sponsorship by a scumbag like Woody selling our brand to any nonsense. They earn it by putting their morals aside.
Neither have much to do with footballing merit, sponsorship in general nullifies that. Until there's proper spending caps or sponsorship is excluded from FFP i find these sporting merit arguments fanciful.
We earn our sponsorship by a scumbag like Woody selling our brand to any nonsense. They earn it by putting their morals aside.
Neither have much to do with footballing merit, sponsorship in general nullifies that. Until there's proper spending caps or sponsorship is excluded from FFP i find these sporting merit arguments fanciful.
Domination is domination, wether due to money or great coaching, City have both.
Is undeniable that current PL is better than ever, if you eliminate Abramovich's Chelsea and Abu Dhabi's City, PL wouldn't be the best league in world, as it would be only 2 teams competing for the title(Liverpool and United most likely) like in the rest of Europe.
I wouldn't eliminate a non state funded club though, rich benefactors have always existed and their funds are actually finite.
And I've already explained how City have absolutely annihilated Arsenal. So no, without City we'd likely be looking at Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and United, and teams like Spurs would have much more opportunity also.
Net spend isn't the only consideration and certainly not the only cost to a football club. They've plowed shitloads of money into literally every aspect of the club while we've had a leaky roof at OT.
I do agree with what others are saying. It's the money and Pep. Once Pep leaves, hopefully they get a few duds in.
Revenue aside, we almost spent as much as them last 5 years.
Maybe Pep Guardiola moved to City because they had a "far superior squad."
Guardiola signing for Bayern was a big deal. It was even presented as 'snubbing' the PL. He signed a three-year contract and managed them for three seasons, it's not like he was lured out of there.
You must be the biggest City loving United fan on this forum. Every thread you're defending them on something or the other.
I don't love them, I hate the hypocrisy on this topic. Rivalry aside, the amount of lamenting done by fans of traditional big clubs about the nouveau rich clubs is nauseating. As if the game was all well and good before 2004.
So yeah I see these threads as a call not for the game to be made very fair and balanced and competitive, but for clubs with historical advantages to retain their privilege. And feck all that, as far as I'm concerned.
I'd have the same stance if Bolton or Accrington Stanley won the lottery instead of City (or Chelsea or Newcastle or PSG)
Yes, and they will keep being a big force in english and world football even long after the lunatic leaves, but i don't see how they can completely take over and dominate english football for years and years. At most they might manage Fergie's level of domination