Manchester City reports revenue of £570M for 20/21. A season without fans.

Ladron de redcafe

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,792
You must be the biggest City loving United fan on this forum. Every thread you're defending them on something or the other.
He's no more a City fan than he is an Arsenal, Liverpool, or Chelsea fan. Choosing not to engage in myopic reasoning and fan behaviour does not, in my opinion, make one a fan of another team. I would call him objective.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
42,501
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
He's no more a City fan than he is an Arsenal, Liverpool, or Chelsea fan. Choosing not to engage in myopic reasoning and fan behaviour does not, in my opinion, make one a fan of another team. I would call him objective.
And I for one demand all those tags be added to my profile!

Not Real Madrid though. Ewww.
 

Noodle

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
244
Supports
Chelsea
It does seem very odd that Man City generate nearly double the commercial revenue of Chelsea (£153m vs £271m in the matching set of latest accounts).

It's even more clear that these are significantly artificially inflated commercial deals when you compare to Utd (£232m) and Liverpool (TBC but around £200m expected)

To be honest Chelsea perform quite poorly on commercial terms, earning the same as Spurs
 
Last edited:

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
9,276
Supports
Man City
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
As usual you are the voice of reason.

If they wanted a truly even playing field they''d want wage caps, transfer caps and maybe even a higher home grown player in the squad requirement (which is what football should have imo) but they don't, they want it to go back to United having the financial dominance they now share with City all to themselves.
 

Pintu

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
139
Location
Sweden
i'm missing the intent of this post?
The intent of this post is to discuss how corrupt and unfair football is becoming. Many clubs around Europe have been expelled from UCL and EL for not respecting FFP while Man City are just toying with the rules and they keep on keeping on like it is nothing. They've been doing this for the better part of the last 15 years.

City is about to win the fourth PL in 5 years. 3 of them will have been wrapped up by Mars thanks to some unprecedented spending in the history of the game.
 

marktan

Full Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2017
Messages
4,643
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)
Yeah you do, any topic on Pep you're in there defending him. Play-style, transfer spending..

And that's a nonsensical argument for many different reasons.

1) By the same logic in a capitalistic market you may as well hand out artificial payments to smaller companies just because they haven't grown as big as the bigger ones. Under WTO rules that's illegal for most western countries.
Just because some clubs are bigger, things aren't more fair or more balanced by having state clubs introduced. That's just whataboutism of the highest order.

2) If the state clubs didn't exist, then other clubs that are well run would've grown and become more successful. United would've become crap anyway because of their poor management from the board level down post-SAF. Liverpool would've won more leagues over the last few years. Spurs wouldve challenged more and qualified for more Cls, earning more income that they've legitimately built towards. Clubs like Villa, West Ham, Leceister, all could grow their income and genuinely try to be CL clubs. But City and Chelsea and in the next 10 years likely Newcastle hogging those CL spots stunts the growth of those clubs. The PL is one of the few leagues where the league income is actually decently balanced.

Yeah some clubs have greater commercial revenue but what can you do? You can't make it like the NFL or whatever because 1) It benefits the owners financially to have wage caps 2) It limits the incentive to go out and grow your own revenue. 3) Other leagues won't do the same

But what's not even remotely okay is having states get around FFP rules with bogus commercial deals, because that's not something anyone can compete with it. Even rich owner clubs like Everton have a limit on how much they can spend over 3 years. I can't see how you guys can sit there and in good conscious defend it as even remotely a good thing. Actually yeah I know, it's just the City fans and the wish they were City fans.
 
Last edited:

AltiUn

likes playing with swords after fantasies
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
17,750
Revenue aside, we almost spent as much as them last 5 years.
They've spent 1bn since Guardiola came in, which we haven't spent close to. 5 years is a bit of a weird timeline to choose, just do it from when Guardiola joined.
 

Pintu

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
139
Location
Sweden
But what's not even remotely okay is having states get around FFP rules with bogus commercial deals, because that's not something anyone can compete with it. Even rich owner clubs like Everton have a limit on how much they can spend over 3 years. I can't see how you guys can sit there and in good conscious defend it as even remotely a good thing. Actually yeah I know, it's just the City fans and the wish they were City fans.
Exactly, we start the season with rules, those who do not respect FFP rules will not be involved in the CL. The club that does not respect the rules (Man City) end up taking the CL spot, while another club that shaped its investments to respect said rules end up behind, missing the CL, and find itself with big financial losses.

But this is ok. And totally moral. Get on with it. How anyone can defend this model is beyond me.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
14,502
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
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.
Yeah it's hilarious that people take any financial information coming from City seriously.

I mean United's wage bill is nearly double City's according to the official figures. :lol:
 

bond19821982

Last Man Standing champion 2019/20
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
7,296
Location
Nnc
As much as I hate Liverpool, i was finally happy that a proper football club won the PL over a fecking money oriented club.

This is the new norm. Get used to it. We are reaching out to a point that every fan hope their beloved club is owned by a billionaire club.
 

Adisa

likes to take afvanadva wothowi doubt
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
43,847
Location
Birmingham
Laugh all you want but we'll soon be overtaken by Liverpool and Chelsea if we don't get it right on the pitch.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
14,402
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
The reason wage and transfer caps don't work, is the presence of state owned clubs.

There is no point in implementing financial controls when you have no way of policing them when one or two of the biggest clubs are owned by countries. A football authority based in Europe has no recourse to investigate what happens financially in Abu Dhabi.

All caps will do is put the brakes on any clubs owned by individuals who are able to compete on any level, while leaving the state owned clubs to spend what they like off book, via the infrastructure of their country.

UEFA tried, and when it went to court, they spent resources that should be going into football, on fighting the might of an oil state in court and lost.

Squad limits is one small solution to be fair. I like the idea of limits for a number of reasons and while it won't stop the state clubs, it might limit their reach somewhat.
 

Berbasbullet

Full Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
13,520
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.
Well that simply isn’t true, do you think United will have been anywhere near as marketable without their off the field success? United have built up to this level, that’s the difference.
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
22,926
Well that simply isn’t true, do you think United will have been anywhere near as marketable without their off the field success? United have built up to this level, that’s the difference.
Of course but legacy is still a shit model to explain why huge spending is okay for one club and not another. How long does it stay as sporting merit? Newcastle having some history I'm sure would have played a part in attracting the owners money.

Our marketing department have done a fantastic job in bringing in profits but in the Woody years its barely been to do with our current football. Our investment being sporting because we used to be good so X company paying us bucket loads is totally sport related is a naff argument.

If it was me it'd just be gate receipts and then a set maximum amount from other sources (be it commercials or owners) as the cap. That won't happen though as football is a business.
 

Thunderhead

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
2,792
Supports
City
Yeah it's hilarious that people take any financial information coming from City seriously.

I mean United's wage bill is nearly double City's according to the official figures. :lol:
Uniteds is over 700m? Don't believe that, City report theirs at £355m
 

Thunderhead

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
2,792
Supports
City
I'm talking about yearly wage bills mate.

Apparently United's is £226m per year and City's is £143m.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ews/manchester-united-city-wage-bill-22087914
those are bollox, they've basically copied and pasted guesses into a spreadsheet - Full list of Premier League wage bills (estimated total salary) - as per Sportac:

City's wage bill is bigger than United's, don't take what you read on the MEN as some sort of gospel, City's is £355m, that's all you need to know, no way are City spending £200m on back room staff.
 

Maluco

Last Man Standing 3 champion 2019/20
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
3,267
It’s like FM when you go into the editor and fiddle with your finances.

It’s unfulfilling and deep down, you know your achievements are worth nothing. No one is impressed.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
14,502
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
those are bollox, they've basically copied and pasted guesses into a spreadsheet - Full list of Premier League wage bills (estimated total salary) - as per Sportac:

City's wage bill is bigger than United's, don't take what you read on the MEN as some sort of gospel, City's is £355m, that's all you need to know, no way are City spending £200m on back room staff.
I don't mate which is why I was laughing at those figures earlier. And yeah that's exactly where sites like MEN get their figures.
 

BridgeBanter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
371
Supports
Chelsea
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.
Arsenal were always "allowed" to remain a top team. They simply stopped being ambitious. Now for the longest time, I thought it was because Wenger had lost it. However, in hindsight, it seems like after Wenger left, up until the past summer, Wenger was the one keeping things together as Arsenal's finishing league positions got worse and their board really seemed reluctant to invest in the team. However, this summer they spent the most, primarily in young players and Arteta seems to have them on the right track.

Regardless, Arsenal was and had been a perennial elite club so their players leaving to go to City for better wages and a greater chance at winning says more about Arsenal than City.
 

Rob

Full Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
2,786
Supports
Liverpool


for comparison, Chelsea that won the Champions League:



How can anybody take football seriously :lol:
A quick search tells me our revenue for the 18/19 season where we came second in the league and won the CL was roughly 500m. Them topping that by 70m in a season where much of it had to be played without fans is impressive.
 

TsuWave

Full Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
8,639
A quick search tells me our revenue for the 18/19 season where we came second in the league and won the CL was roughly 500m. Them topping that by 70m in a season where much of it had to be played without fans is impressive.
impressive alright :lol:
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
4,046
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
A quick search tells me our revenue for the 18/19 season where we came second in the league and won the CL was roughly 500m. Them topping that by 70m in a season where much of it had to be played without fans is impressive.
Yea, I guess it’s not as impressive as it is front stage cheating.
 

Karel Podolsky

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
1,028
Location
Borneo Jungle
Supports
Ex Laziale
Yeah it's hilarious that people take any financial information coming from City seriously.

I mean United's wage bill is nearly double City's according to the official figures. :lol:
Yup. Gabriel Jesus is twice the player than Rashford, MBE :) yet he only earns £90k/w, less a half what Rashford earns.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
31,540
Yup. Gabriel Jesus is twice the player than Rashford, MBE :) yet he only earns £90k/w, less a half what Rashford earns.
No wonder all the sites gets so many hits. I'm sure there are people who genuinely believe that City pay half of what ManUtd pay.

Jesus twice the player :lol:
 

footballistic orgasm

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
402
Supports
No team in particular
Do you actually support us? All I ever see you doing is defending Pep and City by extension.
What type of sheep mentality post is this though? He doesn't have the right to have a different and objective take on issues? He can't be a Pep fan because he's a United fan and because Pep is a City fan? Wow...
 

Lecland07

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 23, 2021
Messages
318
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.
It probably would have turned into a one-team league. There was a point in the 00's where Manutd would have won the Premier League 8 times in a row without Chelsea and City.

Manchester United would have become more dominant than ever in that period. Also, we would have won more signings: Hazard and Essien would be certainties, and you could possibly add Robben. This would increase dominance even more.

The Premier League wouldn't be much different to the Bundesliga now.
 

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
6,143
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.
How you're saying that with a straight face while also knowing that Newcastle are about to spend more monen than the Queen of England has hidden under her matress in a transfer window is puzzling to me.

Free market exchange foster assymetrical power and wealth distribution as well as functions as a growing bed for the reason humanity won't ever all get along: Corruption.

What you're inviting is colossal inflation due to state owned clubs competing to outspend each other for the greatest talents of the sport, which in turn will absolutely lead to a marketcrash once any of the players pull out and leaves a club with a wagebill totaling 200% of their gross income and a debt structure that's screaming to be put out of its misery. PSG has clearly demonstrated the need for a controlling body with the insane stunts theyve pulled by rejecting £200m for Mbappe, and the fantasy money they paid for Mbappe and Neymar respectively.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
42,501
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
The reason wage and transfer caps don't work, is the presence of state owned clubs.

There is no point in implementing financial controls when you have no way of policing them when one or two of the biggest clubs are owned by countries. A football authority based in Europe has no recourse to investigate what happens financially in Abu Dhabi.

All caps will do is put the brakes on any clubs owned by individuals who are able to compete on any level, while leaving the state owned clubs to spend what they like off book, via the infrastructure of their country.

UEFA tried, and when it went to court, they spent resources that should be going into football, on fighting the might of an oil state in court and lost.

Squad limits is one small solution to be fair. I like the idea of limits for a number of reasons and while it won't stop the state clubs, it might limit their reach somewhat.
Of course the PL and UEFA can rule that in order to participate in their competitions, clubs are subject to meeting minimum fiduciary standards verifiable in courts in the UK/EU respectively. CAS would not be able to overrule that. I think such caps (even soft) are workable at the league level


UEFA lost that case against City because they are morons. They have lost similar cases against Milan and other clubs that are not state owned.

Squad limits is a great start. You cannot hoard 18 stars. They will all want regular playing time. Incentivize teams that have players who came up from the youth team. Force the top talent to spread around the league and Europe. If squads were limited to 18 non-youth/youth produced players then it would force teams to invest more in their academies for example.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
17,340
Location
Somewhere out there
It probably would have turned into a one-team league. There was a point in the 00's where Manutd would have won the Premier League 8 times in a row without Chelsea and City.

Manchester United would have become more dominant than ever in that period. Also, we would have won more signings: Hazard and Essien would be certainties, and you could possibly add Robben. This would increase dominance even more.

The Premier League wouldn't be much different to the Bundesliga now.
Completely ignoring the Chelsea part of my post? I think Chelsea have been good for the league, and rich benefactors have always existed and have finite funds. There’s a reason Chelsea have never come close to the domination we are now seeing from the state funded bottomless pit.
 

copen1945

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 20, 2020
Messages
292
Any regulations to put limits on finances won't work. Man City just got a sponsorship from Dubai Expo. If needed, they will just get more of these from an UAE body. It will be better if the limits are completely lifted. United are in the best position to compete with Man City in terms of money. The pool of excellent players and coaches is small, and with the history and money, United stand to get our share.
 

TheRedHearted

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
1,251
Location
New York, NY
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.
Stingy owners like the glazers, who outspent city last couple of years.
they haven’t been stingy, just spent the money like a kid at a candy store