Club "sponsors" which do not exist

crossy1686 said:
It's going to be pretty funny to see what happens to City once Pep leaves and the owners start to get bored with it all. They'll vanish as quick as they appeared and hardly anyone will care or even remember their dominance in years to come. Plastic little club
Click to expand...
That’s not what Sportswashing is about though. They don’t care about the money, they’d happily lose millions year on year.

City won’t be sold unless something drastic changes in football itself, for example it loses popularity. As it is, they’re a giant PR and political machine for Abu Dhabi that has its fingers dug in all the way to government level in the UK. Newcastle will now become the same but have even more clout. People joke about the game being gone but it was lost long ago, football is big business now and we are the suckers complaining about it whilst financing it.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
That’s not what Sportswashing is about though. They don’t care about the money, they’d happily lose millions year on year.

City won’t be sold unless something drastic changes in football itself, for example it loses popularity. As it is, they’re a giant PR and political machine for Abu Dhabi that has its fingers dug in all the way to government level in the UK. Newcastle will now become the same but have even more clout. People joke about the game being gone but it was lost long ago, football is big business now and we are the suckers complaining about it whilst financing it.
Click to expand...

Spot on,Couldn't agree more.
 
Rampant Red Rodriguez said:
You know that Halaand with all fees included is on CR7 type money for a 21 year old with very limited marketing appeal.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. My point is, any top team could have afforded Haaland. Due to to his release clause, he was actually financially attainable for quite a few clubs. The reason City were able to attract him is not about some scam they're pulling this year. It's because of a very real infrastructure they've put in place by operating outside the rules for a decade.

Haaland is an appreciating asset with massive resale value, who will contribute to City on the field. He doesn't have to have great marketing appeal for it to be a sound financial investment. If City sell Haaland to Real in 3 years for £150m, that's clearly a better deal than Ronaldo leaving United on a free after picking up two years of monster wages.

And, of course, that income would be totally above board.
 
Daydreamer said:
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. My point is, any top team could have afforded Haaland. Due to to his release clause, he was actually financially attainable for quite a few clubs. The reason City were able to attract him is not about some scam they're pulling this year. It's because of a very real infrastructure they've put in place by operating outside the rules for a decade.

Haaland is an appreciating asset with massive resale who will contribute to City on the field. He doesn't have to have great marketing appeal for it to be a sound financial investment. If City sell Haaland to Real in 3 years for £150m, that's clearly a better deal than Ronaldo leaving United on a free after picking up two years of monster wages.

And, of course, that income would be totally above board.
Click to expand...

Point being not many could actually afford 800k a week contract, only PSG and City.
 
adexkola said:
Real and Barcelona could afford it. We could as well, see the money we've wasted in recent years.
Click to expand...
Yep, assuming the £800k a week is accurate, that's "only" £285k more than United are paying Ronaldo. That's £43m over three years. For a player that will be worth in excess of £150m rather than... nothing. Haaland isn't at City because United (and others) can't afford him.
 
stevoc said:
They do for now but it's short term thinking. Yeah the PL is the most watched because there are genuine giant clubs like United and Liverpool competing alongside new money like City. But there's a decent chance 10-15 years from now the league will be a perpetual two horse race between Abu Dhabi City and Saudi Arabia United. Then the league will go the way of Germany, Spain and France.
Click to expand...

It already has. City are miles ahead of the rest and have been for years. It took Liverpool to get a monumental point score to beat them. I’ve switched off to the Premier League this season. It’s already got boring.
 
Samid said:
Click to expand...


Im surprised by this number. For many years, City usually "adjusted" their revenues to slightly below us to make it looks legitimate.

But for this year, they are making so much more than us? Sure.
 
Daydreamer said:
Yep, assuming the £800k a week is accurate, that's "only" £285k more than United are paying Ronaldo. That's £43m over three years. For a player that will be worth in excess of £150m rather than... nothing. Haaland isn't at City because United (and others) can't afford him.
Click to expand...
Buyout fee £52m, similar amount in agent fees/dad fees so the transfer is £100m off the bat. Then his salary is reported by a number of outlets as 1m eur a week, so 52m eur (£45m a year).

That’s what’s above board only as well, who knows what kind of payments and clauses are in that contract.

That’s a single player costing the club £350m assuming he stays for the whole contract who generates probably less than a few percent of what Ronaldo does from his branding. For example Ronaldo has nearly 500m Instagram followers, Haaland has 17m….I genuinely think only PSG and City could afford that kind of cash black hole.
 
New York City, Melbourne City, Yokohama F. Marinos, Montevideo City Torque, Girona FC, Sichuan Jiuniu, Mumbai FC, Lammel SK and last but not least the wonderfully named Esperanto Sportive Troyes Aubergine Champagne are all member of the City Football Group as are Man City themselves. As a group, any financial losses can be spread amongst the group as can other stuff I believe. I do know if the Abu Dhabi United Group bought those other clubs unless there was a chunk of land in the deal as in the City deal. Nothing illegal in all this just perhaps immoral. Haaland signed for City because he was a fan as a kid and his Dad allegedly got a shit load of money for brokering the deal. The PL still haven’t concluded their investigations into FFP breaches and, like UEFA and the FA are scared of being dragged through courts at vast expense which is how City got away with the last breach. Mubadala Investment Company CEO is Al Mubarak Sound familiar? Yep, the same guy who is chairman of Man City. Mubadala own Aldar Properties PJSC , City’s official real estate partner. Used to be that club owners and officials could not be involved with companies that sponsored clubs but no doubt they have got around it somehow, probably using the COVID situation when the rules were relaxed by UEFA to help small clubs struggling with finance. A horrible, dodgy, bullying , smug bunch of multi-billionaire property developers in a rented ground.
 
Josep Dowling said:
It already has. City are miles ahead of the rest and have been for years. It took Liverpool to get a monumental point score to beat them. I’ve switched off to the Premier League this season. It’s already got boring.
Click to expand...

To an extent yes but as you say at least Liverpool under Klopp have kept it somewhat competitive and interesting. But if Newcastle go the same way as City then, the Premier League really will devolve into a 2 horse middle eastern pissing contest with everyone else outside looking in.
 
adexkola said:
No but that's the only reason a player of his caliber would play for a club that has no history (never mind their success in recent years)
Click to expand...
He was a fan as a kid and his Dad allegedly got a shit load of money too. His real salary and other costs will be buried deep in the City Football Group accounts and so be found I suspect.
 
Baneofthegame said:
One google search brings up many results, here’s one, not sure how legitimate it is:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...ling-Haaland-earns-865-000-WEEK-Man-City.html
Click to expand...


>>

It also goes some way to explaining why officials at the Etihad were happy to sanction a mammoth salary for a man who is widely viewed as a game changer.

Thanks to a series of relatively straightforward bonuses, he is expected to pick up at least £45m (£865,000 a week) for a year’s work.

How that sum, which is apparently the talk of the agency world, goes down with other players remains to be seen, but few can argue with his impact.

<<


if they're relatively straightforward why not publish them? I do think if we win the CL and the PL then he'll probably get around that with bonuses but I've yet to see anywhere publish these 'straightforward' bonuses.

I think in the accounts yesterday there was £190m set aside for the footballing staff in bonuses for the season, not sure how much that has gone up since last season.
 
duffer said:
Who has reported his salary as 1 mil a week? Anyone remotely credible?
Click to expand...
Unless City open up their books I doubt any source is ‘credible’ but we’re on a football forum. We don’t know what anyone is on if we’re honest, why would any footballer release their salary details to the public.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Unless City open up their books I doubt any source is ‘credible’ but we’re on a football forum. We don’t know what anyone is on if we’re honest, why would any footballer release their salary details to the public.
Click to expand...

His base pay is 375k, which is around the top of City's earners. The bonuses that are supposed to bring him up to the sums you mention are all from Mike Keegan, who works for Daily Mail.

I know nothing about Keegan, he might very well be correct, but as far as I know it's not close to confirmed. So you take this rumour, says that this is what's above board, and speculate based on these rumours that his wages might be even higher.

It's a bit of a strange leap, in my opinion.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Unless City open up their books I doubt any source is ‘credible’ but we’re on a football forum. We don’t know what anyone is on if we’re honest, why would any footballer release their salary details to the public.
Click to expand...

in the accounts released yesterday there is £197m of additional transfer fee's loyalty bonuses and signing on fee's still to be paid on certain conditions in the accounts, so it's probably in amongst that lot.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Buyout fee £52m, similar amount in agent fees/dad fees so the transfer is £100m off the bat. Then his salary is reported by a number of outlets as 1m eur a week, so 52m eur (£45m a year).

That’s what’s above board only as well, who knows what kind of payments and clauses are in that contract.

That’s a single player costing the club £350m assuming he stays for the whole contract who generates probably less than a few percent of what Ronaldo does from his branding. For example Ronaldo has nearly 500m Instagram followers, Haaland has 17m….I genuinely think only PSG and City could afford that kind of cash black hole.
Click to expand...
There's a fair few assumptions made to reach £350m. But even allowing for that, if United wanted to spend £45m a year on an appreciating asset like Haaland, rather than a depreciating asset like Ronaldo - they could. As could a few clubs. Hell, Kroenke would probably sanction it for Arsenal. Haaland (assuming he's fit) pretty much guarantees CL qualification so he'd rapidly justify the outlay. It may screw up our wage structure / squad harmony, but that's a different matter.

In short, lots of clubs could afford Haaland. It would actually be better for the league if he was only at City for the pay packet. The fact is, he's joined a club with an amazing coach, a true footballing management structure, state of the art facilities, a settled style of play, world class team mates and arguably the deepest squad on the planet. Meanwhile, fans here cannot fathom why he's signed for them.
 
duffer said:
Must be a mil a week then, if you can't think of another reason he'd sign for Man City.
Click to expand...

Sar

Offsideagain said:
He was a fan as a kid and his Dad allegedly got a shit load of money too. His real salary and other costs will be buried deep in the City Football Group accounts and so be found I suspect.
Click to expand...

Casm
 
cyberman said:
But in this example the plastic clubs aren’t attractive enough to siphon your nephew as a fan?
Click to expand...

He isn't attracted to clubs at all, that's the point: he's a City "fan" at the moment because he's a fan of individual City players (De Bruyne and Haaland). His best mate is a PSG "fan" because he's a fan of Mbappé. Like I said above, he used to be a Bayern "fan", but he hardly pays attention to them this season - because Lewandowski isn't there anymore.

To clubs like City and PSG this development (from club loyalty to player loyalty) is good news: they have the money to keep buying the Haalands and Mbappés as they emerge.
 
NotThatSoph said:
His base pay is 375k, which is around the top of City's earners. The bonuses that are supposed to bring him up to the sums you mention are all from Mike Keegan, who works for Daily Mail.

I know nothing about Keegan, he might very well be correct, but as far as I know it's not close to confirmed. So you take this rumour, says that this is what's above board, and speculate based on these rumours that his wages might be even higher.

It's a bit of a strange leap, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
You’ve just done exactly what I’ve done though, seen a figure and gone with it. You have no more (or less) idea if that is correct than Keegan, Mitten or any of the United focused journos.

City will win the league, they should win the CL, he will also get the golden boot. Let’s be overly cautious and say that takes him to £500k a week equivalent, there really aren’t many clubs who can do that and comply with FFP given they can’t just self sponsor.
 
Daydreamer said:
There's a fair few assumptions made to reach £350m. But even allowing for that, if United wanted to spend £45m a year on an appreciating asset like Haaland, rather than a depreciating asset like Ronaldo - they could. As could a few clubs. Hell, Kroenke would probably sanction it for Arsenal. Haaland (assuming he's fit) pretty much guarantees CL qualification so he'd rapidly justify the outlay. It may screw up our wage structure / squad harmony, but that's a different matter.

In short, lots of clubs could afford Haaland. It would actually be better for the league if he was only at City for the pay packet. The fact is, he's joined a club with an amazing coach, a true footballing management structure, state of the art facilities, a settled style of play, world class team mates and arguably the deepest squad on the planet. Meanwhile, fans here cannot fathom why he's signed for them.
Click to expand...
I don’t think any single person has questioned why he’s signed for them? It was a bit weird when he protested about the WC with the national team and then moved to a team owned by Abu Dhabi but, regardless, he wants to win things and until Newcastle rise to challenge City he’s basically guaranteed that at City.
 
Nothing to see here.



Both Sir Howard Bernstein and Sir Richard Leese are now on the Abu Dhabi payroll. Both were the architects of City's takeover, ignoring human rights complaints in a deal which has since been labelled poor value for Manchester.

Not sure if this is the most current 'City are Dodgy' thread, or if this has all gone quiet now many of you have come as being secretly jealous of them all these years.
 
Whats the deal with City football group having so many clubs under its umbrella now? Some weird money laundering scam?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.