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

ForeverRed1

Full Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
1,739
Location
England UK!
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 really have changed the face and shape of football as we know it.
 

Wumminator

The Special One!
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
20,291
Location
Obertans #1 fan.
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.
Exactly.
Tottenham and Villa could be a genuine top four club by now if not for the oil clubs. It’s abhorrent.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
14,402
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.
You can't call someone else a moron when you yourself are being silly.

What standards can courts in the UK/EU verify that a state in the middle east can't bypass easily? You can legislate for individuals who operate within legislated states - you cannot legislate for actual states who are a law unto themselves.

They can produce books that show whatever picture it is they want to portray. But a UK/EU based authority cannot and will never be able force them to show the accounts held in Abu Dhabi owned banks.

As I say, I completely agree with you on squad limits.
 

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
You can't call someone else a moron when you yourself are being silly.

What standards can courts in the UK/EU verify that a state in the middle east can't bypass easily? You can legislate for individuals who operate within legislated states - you cannot legislate for actual states who are a law unto themselves.

They can produce books that show whatever picture it is they want to portray. But a UK/EU based authority cannot and will never be able force them to show the accounts held in Abu Dhabi owned banks.

As I say, I completely agree with you on squad limits.
I don't think you're understanding me mate

UEFA can mandate that as a prerequisite of qualifying for European competition, all books related to revenue be provided. Under fiduciary standards.

Abu Dhabi can decline. UEFA then has the right to unilaterally ban City from European competition. If City appeals, there's no case before CAS. UEFA is a private organization and can set it's own rules. CAS judges whether those rules are applicable to the situation (hence the time barred technicality from before)

I don't buy that City have this ability to bypass European laws, bylaws and regulations in a way that is beyond every other club that is not PSG or Chelsea. That implies some sort of nobility on the part of United, Liverpool... Which I laugh at.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
14,402
I don't think you're understanding me mate

UEFA can mandate that as a prerequisite of qualifying for European competition, all books related to revenue be provided. Under fiduciary standards.

Abu Dhabi can decline. UEFA then has the right to unilaterally ban City from European competition. If City appeals, there's no case before CAS. UEFA is a private organization and can set it's own rules. CAS judges whether those rules are applicable to the situation (hence the time barred technicality from before)

I don't buy that City have this ability to bypass European laws, bylaws and regulations in a way that is beyond every other club that is not PSG or Chelsea. That implies some sort of nobility on the part of United, Liverpool... Which I laugh at.
And I don't think you understand me - I'm saying Abu Dhabi don't need to decline. They can just accept those rules, make books available and then do as they like anyway.

They don't need the ability to bypass European laws, because Europe has no jurisdiction in Abu Dhabi. They can simply follow the rules in the books they maintain in Europe, but then pay a second wage to players in separate, off book Abu Dhabi based accounts. You can't legislate against that because you can't prove it exists. We know it exists because it happened with Mancini and it happened with Peps brother. I know it exists well beyond those two cases because I worked for City's owners for 5 years and I know how they operate.

I don't for a second think United or Liverpool owners are noble. But they operate within the boundaries of US/European financial scrutiny. They are also profit driven. Of course, they could be paying money off book into some tax haven for players - but that money would have to come from somewhere and be accounted for somewhere. The Glazers and Fenway aren't pulling more money out of the ground than they know what to do with and they don't own their own state infrastructure through which to create and hide money.
 

MuFc_1992

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
1,131
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
That's because we are falling miles behind City and Liverpool and it is starting to impact our bottom line now. Just try to remember how stingy they were when we were winning and Fergie was reusing the "No Value in Market" line every summer. Also, We cannot sign 50 million defenders like City do and discard them next season if they turn out to be less than world class. If City had signed Maguire then they would have discarded him by now based on how he's performed this season but because Glazers are greedy we'll have to endure him for another 3-4 season and they'll probably renew his contract and put him on huge wages to avoid paying transfer fee for another defender.
 

Wolf1992

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Messages
907
Supports
No team in particular.
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.
Yes, that's because Pep Guardiola is the best league manager in 21th century.
Certainly a better league manager than Mourinho, and every single one of the managers that Chelsea had in the Abramovich era.
Neither Pellegrini and Mancini dominated PL the with City the way Pep does.

SAF is a better league manager than Mourinho,Mancini, Pellegrini,etc as well.
 

Wolf1992

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Messages
907
Supports
No team in particular.
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.
Indeed, if it wasn't for Abu Dhabi and Abramovich, PL would only have two teams competing for the title like the rest of european leagues.
It was that way in the 90s until Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003, so Chelsea made a league of 3, instead of just United and Arsenal...then Abu Dhabi bought City in 2008 to make it 4.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
17,340
Location
Somewhere out there
Indeed, if it wasn't for Abu Dhabi and Abramovich, PL would only have two teams competing for the title like the rest of european leagues.
It was that way in the 90s until Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003, so Chelsea made a league of 3, instead of just United and Arsenal...then Abu Dhabi bought City in 2008 to make it 4.
Are we pretending 4 teams compete for the title? :lol:

They are about to walk another title, 10 points clear already, to make it 4 in the last 5. The only thing that prevented 5 from 5 was an absolutely ridiculous season, a standard even one of the best Liverpool teams ever couldn’t maintain.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
9,276
Supports
Man City
Feels good just chilling here looking at our perfect legit revenue whilst being 10 points clear in the league. What a transformation for a club with no fans!
 

RedStarUnited

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
6,882
They signed and are signing even more deals with UAE based firms like Etisalat.

Its incredible how they can do this infront of everyones eyes.
 

TheRedHearted

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
1,251
Location
New York, NY
That's because we are falling miles behind City and Liverpool and it is starting to impact our bottom line now. Just try to remember how stingy they were when we were winning and Fergie was reusing the "No Value in Market" line every summer. Also, We cannot sign 50 million defenders like City do and discard them next season if they turn out to be less than world class. If City had signed Maguire then they would have discarded him by now based on how he's performed this season but because Glazers are greedy we'll have to endure him for another 3-4 season and they'll probably renew his contract and put him on huge wages to avoid paying transfer fee for another defender.
Your theory about 50 million defenders doesn't make sense.
We outspent city.
We just appointed poor managerial choices and spent the money poorly.
 

bringbackbebe

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
71
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.
Imagine if you are a business owner. You pump in money so your business, while losing cash initially, will become successful in the future (Amazon, Google, Netflix, Facebook, Uber, Tesla have all been through/going through this phase). Now imagine this is 2001 & Netflix gets a $100m funding to develop their business, and Blockbuster goes and complains saying this is unfair, saying businesses should be built on revenues & earnings to get to a level playing field - while they had an opportunity to take over Netflix the previous year. This sounds ludicrous doesn't it? That's where we are now.

City have spent about 1.5b over the last 12 years or so, to get to a Forbes valuation of 4b from basically 0. We've also spent a good proportion of that amount during this period. From a 1b valuation around the time City got taken over, and we are also at roughly 4b valuation. This has nothing to do with financial power, we have plenty of it and have a far bigger brand than City will in the near future. It has to do adapting to a changing environment and being wise in our decisions. FFP etc is just an excuse by existing revenue rich clubs to create a barrier to entry to ensure their own dominance. You can see how badly it's been implemented & how easy it is for clubs to work around them.

I want United to be successful and win trophies. Every club's fans and owners do. How they get there is their headache. I've seen United in the days when we were the dominant force and would bully clubs into selling players to us (Louis Saha, Berbatov, Van Persie). I'm also seeing United in the days when we are nothing more than a partial footballing whorehouse attracting the likes of people who want nothing more than a paycheck. I hope for our own sake, we introspect and focus to improve ourselves rather than what City/Chelsea do and keep complaining about factors beyond our control.
 

Bob Rivers

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 17, 2021
Messages
66
Supports
Chelsea
Reading through the thread it's so funny that so many posters still lump Chelsea and City together although even from the first post it's obvious how different the two clubs' models are. The only similarity is that they both have wealthy owners that invested a lot of money in their clubs. But unlike City we don't have an sponsors tied to the ownership, all our income is legit and when we lose money, we post losses.

That £2.4m profit figure is like a little feck you to the UEFA and even kind of admire them for being so cocky. They could have come up with any amount, but decided to act modest. Nicely done.
 

Tyrion

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
3,176
Location
Ireland
Aha, so you're saying the league title you won in that video game didn't mean much? Even to you?
Pretty much. It means less if you just get it handed to you. It's also different if you're cheating the AI than if you're cheating 19 other clubs.
 

Tyrion

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
3,176
Location
Ireland
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
I would want that actually. (The first one, the second is stupid and the third scary.) Without it, a super league is inevitable to escape the increasing joke of league "competitiveness" in Europe.

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.
Honestly United should have financial limits imposed to make things more conpetitive. So should Bayern, Juve, Real Madrid and Barcelona. But rich football clubs existing is different from clubs being used as a front by dodgy states. It's a little pathetic that football titles are now just presents from sugar daddys.
 
Last edited:

Tyrion

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
3,176
Location
Ireland
Reading through the thread it's so funny that so many posters still lump Chelsea and City together although even from the first post it's obvious how different the two clubs' models are. The only similarity is that they both have wealthy owners that invested a lot of money in their clubs. But unlike City we don't have an sponsors tied to the ownership, all our income is legit and when we lose money, we post losses.

That £2.4m profit figure is like a little feck you to the UEFA and even kind of admire them for being so cocky. They could have come up with any amount, but decided to act modest. Nicely done.
I think people have kept comparing City and Chelsea because Chelsea won the Champions League last year. They weren't compared that often before but people have the memories of goldfish in football.
 

Maluco

Last Man Standing 3 champion 2019/20
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
3,267
Reading through the thread it's so funny that so many posters still lump Chelsea and City together although even from the first post it's obvious how different the two clubs' models are. The only similarity is that they both have wealthy owners that invested a lot of money in their clubs. But unlike City we don't have an sponsors tied to the ownership, all our income is legit and when we lose money, we post losses.

That £2.4m profit figure is like a little feck you to the UEFA and even kind of admire them for being so cocky. They could have come up with any amount, but decided to act modest. Nicely done.
I do sympathize with this to be honest. Chelsea won a different type of lottery. A lot of their practices are questionable (eg their loan farming), but they have always played within the rules of the game and sold their players consistently well to maintain profits where necessary. I have no issue with private investment in football.

City have just trampled all over the rules with no repercussions. They are as synthetic as they come and it’s hard to care about anything they do.

I feel for the fans that genuinely loved the club before all of this happened, but their recent successes are tainted and met with apathy among every other team in the league.

It’s just lamentable that they have taken away the competitiveness of the league through their practices and robbed a genuine club, like Liverpool, of more successes from doing things the right way (can’t stand them, but really admire the way they have competed honestly against the odds in recent years)