Could Manchester City "disappear" in few years?

27 Average is not old, they have youngster in their ranks as well.

AC Milan was on their 30years average back then IIRC and they haven't disappear, plus.. i don't want to sounds sarcastic, but they're 2nd on the EPL and still on the CL, and have won the League 3 times recently.. that's far from bleak
 
Sky1981 said:
27 Average is not old, they have youngster in their ranks as well.

AC Milan was on their 30years average back then IIRC and they haven't disappear, plus.. i don't want to sounds sarcastic, but they're 2nd on the EPL and still on the CL, and have won the League 3 times recently.. that's far from bleak
Click to expand...

2 times and where are AC Milan now?
 
For me City's future is based on two interesting questions:

1. Will the current massive drop in Oil Prices accelerate their desire to spend on the 'brand' as a backup to the inevitable end of oil (which is the whole point)
2. Will they spend another £300m over the next 4 seasons on transfers. Because that is what it is going to cost to keep them, or get them, to the very, very top level.

Kompany is getting a lot more injuries, and may have already lost a step, Zabeleta has maybe 1 year left but is waning already. Then they'll need an entirely new back 4 (Mangala. Ha. £40m!).
Milner is 29 and looks to be off, Toure is already on the decline and I'm not convinced Fernandinho can really do it himself. They've been reliant on Lampard this season for goals.
Silva will last, but then there's lots not-quite class players like Jovetic, Navas, Dzeko and so forth up front.
Like this year, will be hugely dependant on Aguero being fit for their success (because he is brilliant).

So if they honestly want to compete with Bayern, Real and Barca, they need to spend an absolute f*ck ton of cash, and in the next few seasons.
 
Beachryan said:
For me City's future is based on two interesting questions:

1. Will the current massive drop in Oil Prices accelerate their desire to spend on the 'brand' as a backup to the inevitable end of oil (which is the whole point)
2. Will they spend another £300m over the next 4 seasons on transfers. Because that is what it is going to cost to keep them, or get them, to the very, very top level.

Kompany is getting a lot more injuries, and may have already lost a step, Zabeleta has maybe 1 year left but is waning already. Then they'll need an entirely new back 4 (Mangala. Ha. £40m!).
Milner is 29 and looks to be off, Toure is already on the decline and I'm not convinced Fernandinho can really do it himself. They've been reliant on Lampard this season for goals.
Silva will last, but then there's lots not-quite class players like Jovetic, Navas, Dzeko and so forth up front.
Like this year, will be hugely dependant on Aguero being fit for their success (because he is brilliant).

So if they honestly want to compete with Bayern, Real and Barca, they need to spend an absolute f*ck ton of cash, and in the next few seasons.
Click to expand...

Regarding the 1st point you make, I don't think the Sheikh's City investment is going to get affected.

For them 1bn is nothing, they have made their fortune, it's like saying Bill gates will stop eating in the restaurant if his Microsoft goes bankrupt. For people like the Sheikh, 300m/year is probably just a spare change, not to mention City itself is slowly generating more profits, they're not making a break even, and the stars players they bought still considered as assets with resaleable value.

Chelsea are slowly closing the gap and have inching up on their initial catching up spending spree.
 
If the current owners were to sell the club, I wonder what kind of value it would have? I think there might be concerns about the profitability and constant investment required to prop up such an artificial structure.
 
So long as the oil money stays, so will they. Any decline will be arrested with an influx of cash to go and buy whoever is needed.

If the oil money gets bored and leaves, i reckon they would cease to exist within a few years. They dont have the fanbase to support the size of operation they now have and probably never will.
 
No they won't disappear. They're owned by business savvy owners, not some bored rich kid.
 
Erebus said:
No I know that - the point I'm making is that having saved a lot of money in development costs, they are now in a position to make those profits you refer to without the need of the football club. Most of the individual ventures will probably generate significant profits on their own account, thus no need to further invest in the club. Even if there is a need to ensure the football club remains in Europe/Premier league, that can be done at a fraction of the costs thrown at the club in the past, so maximising the profits from the other elements of their investment. If the plan is business driven, this would maximise the profits.
Click to expand...

I suspect they take a bigger view. The asset won't cost a lot to run, if anything and the exposure they get from the PL and CL as owners will be significant.

I think the whole City thing is about PR and promoting themselves and other businesses - i.e the national airline, telecoms company and whatever else.
 
Spiersey said:
They aren't close to breaking even without any form of dodgy deals and creative accounting.
Click to expand...

It's all moot anyway because losses sustained in the short term I suspect they don't care about. It's a drop in the ocean given their wealth.

They're moving in the right direction and will, I suspect, become a successful commercial entity just like United have.
 
Sky1981 said:
AC Milan is stricken with economy problems apart from ageing squad, but they certainly didn't disappear.
Click to expand...
Well I don't think the OP means disappear as in completely cease to exist, just become a non-important team in European football which Milan definitely are at the minute. They are a perfect example of poor planning too focused on short term.
 
Amar__ said:
It's still early stages of FFP, but even now they are definitely showing signs that they aren't joking with it.

Mourinho admited himself that they had to be careful and weren't allowed to spend as much as they wanted because of FFP restrictions, and City are probably in far worse situation than them.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day the only threat that really carries any weight is to take away a clubs CL place. They said that's what they'd do and they haven't.

They talked big about FFP and ended up fining clubs or limiting players in the CL completion. Fair enough. I personally don't think that's enough of a deterrent to clubs.
 
BobbyManc said:
Pozo isn't a striker so Milner was a better option because he is an intelligent, hard-working player who made space for the likes of Silva which was the best option in the circumstances. It's not like we have let any youth players go who have gone on to make City look like fools, so it's just a case of our previous crop of youth players not been up to the job. Now, that should not be the case, and they will be given a chance if they are good enough.

Do you have any evidence of these 'many targets' we missed out on because they chose other clubs over us? Or is it just mere speculation?
Click to expand...

Well, if you insisted on playing Milner there for the first time in his career, whether it was good decision or not, you obviously showed no trust in your youth.

As for your question, Fabregas, van Persie off the top of my head.

Sky1981 said:
AC Milan is stricken with economy problems apart from ageing squad, but they certainly didn't disappear.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean they'll stroll in championship or something like that, only that they won't be competitive as they are now.

RedRover said:
At the end of the day the only threat that really carries any weight is to take away a clubs CL place. They said that's what they'd do and they haven't.

They talked big about FFP and ended up fining clubs or limiting players in the CL completion. Fair enough. I personally don't think that's enough of a deterrent to clubs.
Click to expand...

Well, it's just a beggining, it would be unfair to implement the rule in just year or two. First they fine and warn them, and hopefully they'll start implementing it fully in next few years. We'll see.
 
Amar__ said:
Well, if you insisted on playing Milner there for the first time in his career, whether it was good decision or not, you obviously showed no trust in your youth.

As for your question, Fabregas, van Persie off the top of my head.



I didn't mean they'll stroll in championship or something like that, only that they won't be competitive as they are now.



Well, it's just a beggining, it would be unfair to implement the rule in just year or two. First they fine and warn them, and hopefully they'll start implementing it fully in next few years. We'll see.
Click to expand...

If we analyse back, after the innitial spending, they only need around 100M per season (and that's already lavish), and the Sheikh have paid the big chunk to catch up, they simply need 100M-150M per season at most, and that's hardly too much to ask from them.

And that 150M spending can last them 3-4 seasons, so they probably won't need to spend that much every season
 
No, they have a near infinite amount of cash and have built fantastic infrastructure for their club. They arent going anywhere anytime soon and to compete United must invest very wisely since our cash is not as infinite.
 
-and then a big sugar daddy came and bought the title for them including a stadium and training ground for a sustainable future.


What a nice piece of history that is........
 
RedRover said:
I suspect they take a bigger view. The asset won't cost a lot to run, if anything and the exposure they get from the PL and CL as owners will be significant.

I think the whole City thing is about PR and promoting themselves and other businesses - i.e the national airline, telecoms company and whatever else.
Click to expand...

I agree. The net spend they splurge will be around 100M-150M per season, and that's a small price to pay for having their name plastered all over the world, advertising, creating brand image, etc.

Adidas paid 75M / year just to get their brand plastered on our jersey, the Sheikh paid 150M to get everything else.
 
It depends on their ownership and sponsorship agreements really. If FFP got very aggressive and closely investigated the sources of their £166m Commercial revenues, they'd realise that the vast majority comes from companies related to Abu Dhabi and their owner. These income streams would be deemed inadmissible in terms of FFP calculations and City's revenue for these purposes would fall to c. £225-250m. If this were the case City could not afford to sustain their current expenses (£273m) or fund new player purchases, even taking into account the relevant Youth etc exceptions.

However in reality Uefa can't really do anything about the dozens of deals with companies related to their owner. They will just argue it's fair market value as their rivals (Bayern, Madrid, United) all have similar deals and Uefa won't be able to argue that these other clubs have these agreements because of their history/standing as they'll appear to be prejudicing City.

With all current Commercial deals ratified and new ones on the horizon City will have around £75m to spend on new player's each season whilst still breaking even. Therefore they'll be able to replace all their stars and be able to compete perpetually. Obviously if the owner left, their £100m of fake sponsorship deals would leave with him and City would be a sinking ship; however that is hugely unlikely given the levels of investment the owner has sanctioned.
 
RedRover said:
I suspect they take a bigger view. The asset won't cost a lot to run, if anything and the exposure they get from the PL and CL as owners will be significant.

I think the whole City thing is about PR and promoting themselves and other businesses - i.e the national airline, telecoms company and whatever else.
Click to expand...
I think you're probably right about the bigger view - I've often felt the key issue was the access a successful football club to key decision makers as well - you meet senior politicians at major football events like Champion's League Finals. You are invited to meet decision makers if you invest to the extent they have done. I have no doubt that these are major commercial issues for the owners. My point is that as long as you maintain your presence at this level you will maintain your commercial and poltitical contacts. If that's the main reason, then simply dong an Arsenal will suffice and you don't have to invest as heavily as in earlier years (never mind the influence of FFP). My other point is that the expenditure on investment in major international venues on the ground is now complete so there is no need for further financial investment in hotels etc. These will in fact be large income generators in their own right, leaving the football club as the only financial drain. The basic point I'm making is that in terms of financial returns on their investment they are now at the point they could withdraw from the club and start to watch the money roll in - the club is not, now, essential to the immediate business strategy. However no doubt the extra publicity gained through commercial sponsorship is attractive to them. But it is now the case that the owners could disappear from the club and still make significant money - something that wasn't the case a few years ago. At some stage that could easily impact on the future of city. The business ball game could change with the investment in infrastructure starting to come on line.
 
Last edited:
It's obvious they have a fast-aging squad with many key players around 30. In let's say 5 years, I can only see a few like Aguero and Silva staying on. The rest will have to come from somewhere, Mangala and Jovetic could develop well given time but the midfield will probably need a revamp.

I think they've had this problem in mind for a while. Their actions seem to show that and they can't possibly disappear just like that. They'll have to undergo the process of buying a new squad again. If their owners ditch the project though, it could be something close to freefall.
 
There's absolutely no way City will disappear with the money they've got.

Even if their entire squad retires simultaneously, they can just buy a new one. FFP is a joke and won't lift a finger to stop them.
 
Amar__ said:
Well, it's just a beggining, it would be unfair to implement the rule in just year or two. First they fine and warn them, and hopefully they'll start implementing it fully in next few years. We'll see.
Click to expand...

You could look at it like that. Or you could suggest that this was an opportunity for them to stamp their authority early on and make clubs sit up and take notice. To me this was a wasted opportunity becuase they said they were going to take this seriously and in the end the clubs have had their way.

I hope they implement this and enforce it but I dont believe they will. In my opinion they lack the teeth or the will to take on clubs incase the clubs throw their toys out of the pram and decide to go and set their own competitions up. Its also the case that banning clubs from the CL will cause uproar with sponsors.
 
They'll no doubt go through a rough patch when they have to eventually rebuild. You only have to look at how long it took them to break into the top four in the first place, our current situation and Chelsea's CL winning season, in which they finished 6th.

Disappear though? not a chance.
 
Sky1981 said:
I agree. The net spend they splurge will be around 100M-150M per season, and that's a small price to pay for having their name plastered all over the world, advertising, creating brand image, etc.

Adidas paid 75M / year just to get their brand plastered on our jersey, the Sheikh paid 150M to get everything else.
Click to expand...

That's a good way of looking at it. Looks like a decent deal based on that.
 
Erebus said:
I think you're probably right about the bigger view - I've often felt the key issue was the access a successful football club to key decision makers as well - you meet senior politicians at major football events like Champion's League Finals. You are invited to meet decision makers if you invest to the extent they have done. I have no doubt that these are major commercial issues for the owners. My point is that as long as you maintain your presence at this level you will maintain your commercial and poltitical contacts. If that's the main reason, then simply dong an Arsenal will suffice and you don't have to invest as heavily as in earlier years (never mind the influence of FFP). My other point is that the expenditure on investment in major international venues on the ground is now complete so there is no need for further financial investment in hotels etc. These will in fact be large income generators in their own right, leaving the football club as the only financial drain. The basic point I'm making is that in terms of financial returns on their investment they are now at the point they could withdraw from the club and start to watch the money roll in - the club is not, now, essential to the immediate business strategy. However no doubt the extra publicity gained through commercial sponsorship is attractive to them. But it is now the case that the owners could disappear from the club and still make significant money - something that wasn't the case a few years ago. At some stage that could easily impact on the future of city. The business ball game could change with the investment in infrastructure starting to come on line.
Click to expand...

I imagine if the owners decide to take a back seat they'll just employ someone to run the club for them - as I'm sure they have will all of their other business interests. As it is I think the guy who you often see at games is essentially just an employee anyway.

Its probably less about the owners than the people they employ anyway. They knew nothing about football I suspect but will have bounght knowledge in as you would if you were buying any kind of business in which you had no experience. They seem to be able to pick good people. Looking at the new youith setup they've clearly been advised by some very knowledgable people.

If the suggestion is that the management of the club may change and that might effect things then you could rightly say that about any club - including United. Economic success is never guaranteed and is dependant on a lot of factors. At least they have a massively rich backer if things do go wrong. Not all clubs have that.
 
At this current point in time, we need to worry more about our club than City. Sure our business model is more stable than their's, but if we fail to make the Champions League again this season, we (apparently) lose 150 million euros/dollars/pounds.

That could potentially screw us up in terms of FFP, and limit our spending. This and coupled with the fact that we'll be much less appealing to potential signings if we miss out European football again makes me worry more about ourselves than City at this current point in time.

But all this is hypothetical. I fully expect us to qualify for Europe and finish 3rd while winning the FA Cup this year. :D
 
I'm actually quite impressed and surprised with how much City's owners have invested in the club. The training facilities are probably the best in the world and the local work from what I hear has completely transformed the local area. I believe they are in talks with the council to take ownership of the stadium as well. They are investing heavily into their youth system through the training facility as well and you can't knock that. There is one thing to just throw money at the best players but they are clearly in this for the long term. I think they are quite concious of how they are seen as well, they got rid of that CEO who used to mouth off too much as well as Mancini. Not too many people at that club you could say are dislikeable.

Can't say I agree with the the way they've gone about things but at least they are investing into youth and the local area as well as the club.
 
Last edited:
The United supporters on here should draw some comfort from the fact that FFP has hurt City far more than City wish to let on and far more than other clubs would like to believe. For the past 3 years or more the club has had to bend over backwards to try to get in line with the imminently arriving FFP rules. It's significantly curtailed City's spending. That's your good news.

The bad news is that is all behind City now. City's revenues continue to grow at a dramatic pace and will outstrip United this year already. United's current year revenues are predicted to be between £385m and £395m, and City's turnover will surpass this, this year. City's cost base is lower than United's so the business will make more profit too. You can expect significant spending from City next season and beyond, to freshen the team and bring in new talent.

And then you have the fact that the Academy hasn't even started to yield results yet, and it will surely do so with the talents coming through and the facilities. You only have to look at this years U21's Champions League performance to see where this is heading: P6, W6, D0, L0, F22, A4.

I think a fair assessment is that you've seen nothing yet. This is just the start. Anyone hoping City will fade away is going to be very sadly disappointed.
 
finneh said:
It depends on their ownership and sponsorship agreements really. If FFP got very aggressive and closely investigated the sources of their £166m Commercial revenues, they'd realise that the vast majority comes from companies related to Abu Dhabi and their owner. These income streams would be deemed inadmissible in terms of FFP calculations and City's revenue for these purposes would fall to c. £225-250m. If this were the case City could not afford to sustain their current expenses (£273m) or fund new player purchases, even taking into account the relevant Youth etc exceptions.

However in reality Uefa can't really do anything about the dozens of deals with companies related to their owner. They will just argue it's fair market value as their rivals (Bayern, Madrid, United) all have similar deals and Uefa won't be able to argue that these other clubs have these agreements because of their history/standing as they'll appear to be prejudicing City.

With all current Commercial deals ratified and new ones on the horizon City will have around £75m to spend on new player's each season whilst still breaking even. Therefore they'll be able to replace all their stars and be able to compete perpetually. Obviously if the owner left, their £100m of fake sponsorship deals would leave with him and City would be a sinking ship; however that is hugely unlikely given the levels of investment the owner has sanctioned.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't because any revenue that is a Related-Party Transaction has to be declared and would have already been subject to UEFA's market value test or whatever it is.
 
Ronetta said:
The United supporters on here should draw some comfort from the fact that FFP has hurt City far more than City wish to let on and far more than other clubs would like to believe. For the past 3 years or more the club has had to bend over backwards to try to get in line with the imminently arriving FFP rules. It's significantly curtailed City's spending. That's your good news.

The bad news is that is all behind City now. City's revenues continue to grow at a dramatic pace and will outstrip United this year already. United's current year revenues are predicted to be between £385m and £395m, and City's turnover will surpass this, this year. City's cost base is lower than United's so the business will make more profit too. You can expect significant spending from City next season and beyond, to freshen the team and bring in new talent.

And then you have the fact that the Academy hasn't even started to yield results yet, and it will surely do so with the talents coming through and the facilities. You only have to look at this years U21's Champions League performance to see where this is heading: P6, W6, D0, L0, F22, A4.

I think a fair assessment is that you've seen nothing yet. This is just the start. Anyone hoping City will fade away is going to be very sadly disappointed.
Click to expand...

I'm no financial expert but I'm curious as to just how and why City will surpass United in terms of revenue in the next fiscal year?
 
Where does City's "huge" revenue even come from? I just don't get it. They can't fill their stadium for even some of the most important matches (massive CL matches and key PL matches during the title run-in) they don't go far in the CL, and their global brand and fan base is literally tiny compared to the likes of ourselves, Arsenal, Chelsea, and Liverpool.
 
Ronetta said:
And then you have the fact that the Academy hasn't even started to yield results yet, and it will surely do so with the talents coming through and the facilities. You only have to look at this years U21's Champions League performance to see where this is heading: P6, W6, D0, L0, F22, A4.
Click to expand...

Non of them seems to be so good that coaches give them playtime already with 19 or 20 in the EPL...

Being good in a youth league - or being strong in the youth categories does not mean that a player will be a top player later. Maybe at that time you can tell that a player can make it as professional or can earn his career in the EPL... - no more. But you do not get in the starting formation of a top 4 club of Europe (and I think that is the goal) if you just are good enough to be an EPL player.
 
They have a team in America, a team in Australia. Anyone they can't afford, the group will just buy them for those teams and loan them to City.
 
Orc said:
Where does City's "huge" revenue even come from? I just don't get it. They can't fill their stadium for even some of the most important matches (massive CL matches and key PL matches during the title run-in) they don't go far in the CL, and their global brand and fan base is literally tiny compared to the likes of ourselves, Arsenal, Chelsea, and Liverpool.
Click to expand...

Commercial income - £165m
Match day income - £47.5m
Champions League - £31m
Premier League - £100m
 
Hal9000 said:
They have a team in America, a team in Australia. Anyone they can't afford, the group will just buy them for those teams and loan them to City.
Click to expand...

They would never get away with it and besides if City couldn't afford a player how would Melbourne, NY or Yokohama afford them without breaking FFP?
 
Hal9000 said:
They have a team in America, a team in Australia. Anyone they can't afford, the group will just buy them for those teams and loan them to City.
Click to expand...
The FFA have made it so that City cannot purchase a player and loan them to Man City.

And after the Lampard fiasco the MLS will do the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.