Not only Spurs but Everton as well.
Could Manchester City "disappear" in few years?
- Thread starter Amar__
- Start date
So in summary you are not saying City in the CL is a good thing but are saying that it is not detrimental.
Semantics and nothing more and this is the platform yourself and a couple of others here regularly use to defend your club from accusations of financial doping ie it's ok really because City are in the vanguard of a movement to bring some overdue change to some perecived status quo. It's bollocks. City are acting, like all other clubs do, with nothing more than complete self interest and, if left unchecked, the limitless wealth of the owner would simply sustain them there in a true status quo that would make footballs top table pre City look like a fecking Kibbutz.
Unlike some here I don't begrudge City's financial injection but don't try to dress it up as anything other than what it is.
Ronetta, if Mansour had bought Spurs instead of City they'd be doing just as well, if not better than you, being that they're located n London and have a solid fan base, among other things, while you can't even fill your own stadium.
You make it sound like you've done phenomenally well on a pitch. You haven't, in fact you're still a non-entity in Europe due to a series of embarrassing performances in the CL season after season.
As for promoting the brand globally, it's all your owner's money in play. When you say we worked hard, I guess you mean your owner's business advisers invested a lot of his money in various projects and attached City's name to them. It's not as if City, as a club, generated any of that income, in fact, without your owner's support system in a form of artificial sponsorship deals that defy logic you wouldn't be able to sustain even your wage bill.
Forget about United, let's compare City to a club, like Chelsea, it's more appropriate given certain similarities between us. Do you really believe you've managed to turn profit in such a short period of time because of how hard your club worked? Chelsea have done quite well in Europe over the last decade, better than any other English club, we've had some great players playing for us and one of the best managers coaching us. And yet year after year CFC would report losses. First time we have finished without loss was the year we won the CL and the following year we were in the red yet again. Perhaps we should have asked those brilliant money men from City to point us in the right direction and show us how to turn huge profit just by working really hard.
You make it sound like you've done phenomenally well on a pitch. You haven't, in fact you're still a non-entity in Europe due to a series of embarrassing performances in the CL season after season.
As for promoting the brand globally, it's all your owner's money in play. When you say we worked hard, I guess you mean your owner's business advisers invested a lot of his money in various projects and attached City's name to them. It's not as if City, as a club, generated any of that income, in fact, without your owner's support system in a form of artificial sponsorship deals that defy logic you wouldn't be able to sustain even your wage bill.
Forget about United, let's compare City to a club, like Chelsea, it's more appropriate given certain similarities between us. Do you really believe you've managed to turn profit in such a short period of time because of how hard your club worked? Chelsea have done quite well in Europe over the last decade, better than any other English club, we've had some great players playing for us and one of the best managers coaching us. And yet year after year CFC would report losses. First time we have finished without loss was the year we won the CL and the following year we were in the red yet again. Perhaps we should have asked those brilliant money men from City to point us in the right direction and show us how to turn huge profit just by working really hard.
Last edited:
Good post.
This is the key point. From a much higher base success/marketability wise Chelsea are only just breaking even after a decade, with much lower investment than City to start with. This is from a club able to attract more player's and sponsors because they're based in London.
In 10-15 years, if they sustain their current level of success and up their game in Europe there's no doubt that City will be able to attract similar Commercial deals than they currently have. However that's in 10-15 years, when they've accumulated millions of fans because of their success and exposure. At the moment no more people care about City than they do Spurs (who have had as much success on a European scale vs City over the past 5 years), which is proven in their tiny kit deal and match day revenue.
Yes that is bollocks. I know of not one solitary City fan who doesn't think we've been incredibly lucky. Whereas there's some other fans who can accept our arrival on the scene for what it is, there's another set for whom it is a travesty. To them, I say tough, get over it.
Possibly, who said otherwise? Apart from the filling your stadium BS which you seem to have bought hook line and sinker, because it suits you. When the ground is sold out, we can't sell the tickets twice, can we.
So let me get this straight, you're saying that Spurs' success, last winning the league in 1961 is the same as our record of 1st, 2nd, 1st in the past 3 years, from an investors point of view? We can all logoff now if that's your position.
The point is we needed to grow global commercial revenues and came up with a plan to do it. Doubtless you would have preferred our plan to "not grow out global commercial revenues". As to who's money it is, guess what it's OUR money. He owns our club, it's the same thing.
Ok, let's.
Damned right, you should. That you should have spent as much as you have with such little return over such a long period is pretty shit to be honst. I think what City have done has shown a lot of clubs the way and many have realised they have been caught napping in terms of growing the commercial side of the business. Clearly Chelsea have.
They started from a better position in the first place, have had the enormous benefit of being in London, had vast injections of cash as we have and as you say, made a profit once. Piss poor effort.
In your defence no-one gave a shit about profit until Abramovic moaned at Platini about having to put more and more money in and UEFA changed the rules on everyone. So your losses were probably more down to not giving a toss than actually being completely shit at it per se.
So in summary you are not saying City in the CL is a good thing but are saying that it is not detrimental.
Semantics and nothing more and this is the platform yourself and a couple of others here regularly use to defend your club from accusations of financial doping ie it's ok really because City are in the vanguard of a movement to bring some overdue change to some perecived status quo. It's bollocks. City are acting, like all other clubs do, with nothing more than complete self interest and, if left unchecked, the limitless wealth of the owner would simply sustain them there in a true status quo that would make footballs top table pre City look like a fecking Kibbutz.
Unlike some here I don't begrudge City's financial injection but don't try to dress it up as anything other than what it is.
Who exactly are you arguing with?
Nobody on this thread that I can see is portraying Mansour's investment as some heroic challenge against the status quo. His investment is one of self-interest and nobody has said otherwise. There's a difference between saying what is happening at City is good for football as opposed to saying Mansour's investment in City is because he wants to do something good for football.
Dream fecking on pal, dream on.
Do you *honestly* believe Sheikh Mansour is pulling in favours from EA Sports who would otherwise rather sponsor Spurs? Or Nissan, or the other 38 sponsors? Do you *honestly* believe that an marketing Executive in a global brand-driven business sees that same investment opportunity, comparing Spurs and City? Honestly?
Now you're an intelligent guy, you must see that is complete and utter bollocks.
No it isn't it's grounless tripe, interspersed with irrelevant tripe.
For the avoidance of any confusion, can those who think that City's worldwide commercial revenues today ought to be on a par with that of Spurs, please reply here so I can put you on my ignore list.
It's such an utterly ridiculous thought it's not even worth arguing with.
These deals aren't particularly lucrative deals. They are not dissimilar to the deals that Spurs pull in. The main lucrative deals are ones such as the obvious Etihad deal and the partnerships with TCA Abu Dhabi, aabar and Etisalat. As well as of course the massive sponsorships through "Abu Dhabi tourism". I'm sure they benefit hugely from this of course.
I'm not saying City have no appeal at all; just that the only blockbuster deals they've "negotiated" is with companies related to the owner.
I believe the Nissan deal for instance is worth £4m a year? Likewise the Nike deal is £12m, also deals with the likes of Thomas Cook, Ferrostaal, Heineken etc are all rumoured to be no more than £2-3m. I'd estimate around £40m total for all these little partnerships, with the remaining £125m all essentially through the owner.
Just think about what you are saying. Your success has bred sponsorships, however your Commercial deals increased from £18m to £108m between 2009 and 2012. During this time you won a single FA Cup (sponsorships would signed in the previous season of course)... I'm sure Portsmouth's revenue increased by a similar amount when they won one?
Last edited:
Im sure people will be gutted that they are in your ignore list, surely the worst thing that could ever happen FFS
Wait, you actually think all your sponsorship deals reflect open market value?
Im sure people will be gutted that they are in your ignore list, surely the worst thing that could ever happen FFS
My attempt at humour. Glad you found it funny! Care to reply to the question at hand? Or would replying damage your position? Damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.
Suggest you read the thread mate, it would save a load of duplication. It's only 5 pages.
Even when City were managed by Stuart Pearce and scored the lowest amount of home goals in Premier League history our average attendance was over 45k and the third highest in the league, so don't spout crap about Spurs having a solid fan base compared to City. Likewise, Abramovich could have bought a couple of other English sides or foreign teams in similar positions and achieved just as much, if not more, than he has done with Chelsea. But it's an entirely hypothetical point and therefore irrelevant.
Yeah, ok, I believe you.
Just think about what you are saying. That Portsmouth are part of a global footballing brand and regarded as one being of the top teams in Europe for the forseeable future? For your comparison to be in any way meaningful, that's would have to be true.
And regards the other sponsorship deals, we've been through this umpteen times even on this very thread. They are either not related parties or they have been valued at fair market prices. Why do we keep going over and over this?
So do you want to go on the list?
Do you want to argue that after 1 billion in investment, 1st-2nd-1st in the league, major European club for the forseeable future, very probably CL winners at some point, richest owner in the world, City... should be no more an attractive investment proposition for a potential investor, than Spurs. That it is reasonable to expect the commercial revenues of the two clubs to be about the same?
Over to you...
Any takers?
Unless something goes massivly tits up with the owner then they wont be going away.
However them earning more money then big clubs is massively suss considering that those clubs worked hard for at least 15 years to get sponsorship revenues that high.
However them earning more money then big clubs is massively suss considering that those clubs worked hard for at least 15 years to get sponsorship revenues that high.
Yeah but Spurs are in London and we have no history so regular Champions League football, winning league titles and cups, a squad full of players like Aguero, Silva and Toure counts for nothing.
Stop with the jokes already, you have me in stitches of laughter.
So that's a no then? Very wise.
I think the argument people are making on here is that City, as a club, have not generated wealth, and it is hard to see them, let alone a number of other clubs in a similar position, sustaining their position.
Ignoring the fake sponsorship deal that keeps City afloat, there is no doubt, Mansour's worldwide investments have made money. However, just because it is Mansour money, does not mean it is City money. He owns a lot more that City. The fact you think everything they do is for City is quite laughable.
The Chelsea evolution is a good example. They won PL titles consecutively, have been in Europe for a decade or more, been CL champions, invested fairly heavily in playing staff, and yet are still not a worldwide brand, not financially successful and will shortly have to invest significantly again to replace the aging back line.
City have done well in the league, but it will take many years, if at all, before they become a brand around the world. A few wins in the EPL won't do it.
Either is United but the difference isn't location or population, its the actual number of fans you have, which isn't enough to fill your stadium.
It's extremely unreasonable. Deals would be greater by your global reach (fans) which if you recall a recent post on the Caf, City fans were basically unheard of in a lot of the counties our members come from apart from Dubai (shocking
)Surely it's easy enough to add together those deals City currently have in place which are not, let's say, clearly dependent on your ownership status being what it is - and compare this to Spurs' various deals. Wouldn't this be a useful ballpark measure of sorts?
What people argue seems to be that a vast percentage of your commercial revenue consists of money no other club could have laid its paws on, or to put it differently, on deals which City could not possibly have made elsewhere, that is by seeking similar arrangements with companies wholly unconnected to your owner and his homeland. Correct?
Chelsea is certainly a worldwide brand.
I'm on a train at the moment, but I'll happily 'take you on' when I get home 
That's of course if haven't put everybody that disagrees with you on your ignore list by then.
That's of course if haven't put everybody that disagrees with you on your ignore list by then. Certainly many steps ahead of City as well.
Well as someone who travels for work all over the world, I would question that.
As far as club shirts worn, it is still the Real Madrid, Barcelona, United, Liverpool, Bayern and Milan shirts.
Even TV audience pulling power, when games are on live, Chelsea will only get on when the others are not playing at the same time or it is a serious match, QF, SF, Final.
I don't know what they argue to be honest. I think some of them just like arguing. Some of them can't get their heads around what a related-party transaction is (or is not), no matter how many times it's explained to them, some of them have no clue about what fair value is, and some of them just have no clue.
Regards your first point, on face value that would seem reasonable. But the huge problem is that it's almost impossible to understand how much of the "Middle Eastern" revenue is because of relationships and how much of it is because rich Middle Eastern businesses might actually (perish the thought) be genuinely interested in being associated with the English Champions and potential future Champions League winners. All we can say is that those sponsorships where recognised influence exists are declared and priced at market value.
I know it's difficult for some opposing fans to grasp, but the project that Sheikh Mansour started some years back now, has represented a fascinating and for some compellingly attractive story. The chance to join in with something remarkable. We are not talking about just sponsoring City or Spurs. The two are ENTIRELY different business propositions, and even more so for a Middle Eastern business.
Take one of the more contentious ones, Etihad. It doesn't take rocket science to imagine the value they get out of sponsoring City, would be inordinately greater than if they chose to sponsor Spurs.
They're pretty damn big here in the States. They're right there with Arsenal in terms of popularity here I'd say. They've also got a pretty large Asian following.
Obviously they aren't on our level or Madrid and Barca where all of the Spanish speaking countries around the world follow them, but they definitely have a sizable global following. Far, far larger than City.
Correct. But the point I will make is to say Spurs remain a more commercially attractive club than City is obviously untrue - we have a bigger stadium, higher matchday attendance, a squad of more marketable players, regular CL football, regularly involved in the title race in the most global league, regularly chosen by broadcasters for televised matches...the list could go on. The fact is, if you stick your name on the front of City's shirt, it's going to reach far more people than if you stick it on the front of a Spurs top - that does not mean people have to buy that shirt or support that team. It's not like United fans are going to flock to buy Chevrolet cars because of the deal with United. That's important to remember, it's not simply a matter of how many worldwide fans City have compared to Spurs, it's who will provide you with the most exposure on a global scale.
Also, City thus far have not had to go searching far and wide for our main sponsorships as we have been able to use the companies with connections to our owner, but you can guarantee if that was never a possibility we'd be earning more than Spurs. Not significantly more like it is now, but the accounts would show you an obvious difference in all likelihood.
Yeah, considering they started from a significantly better position than City and some years earlier then that is to be expected. Don't forget they qualified for the CL and had the likes of Zola playing for them before Abramovich's money. To compare City alongside Chelsea right now is entirely unfair. Chelsea's global reach should be a target for City in the upcoming years and evidence of what can be achieved - any comparison now is of little worth.
So let's say if Arsenal wins this year's PL and do quite well in the CL, by your logic they should be able to land an array of sponsorship deals in the Middle East to rival City's current package in magnitude. I mean, who wouldn't want to be associated with the PL champions and potential CL winners, right? Fascinating.
Suddenly everything is starting to make sense. How could I have been so blind.
Fair points.
Would you expect Arsenal's Middle Eastern sponsorships to shoot up if they won the league a couple of times? OF COURSE YOU WOULD. They'd probably want to renegotiate the stadium naming rights for starters.
But even so, it's not a like with like comparison. Arsenal is not a ME owned club. It's not an ME project. City is. We have far more affinity with the ME than Arsenal ever will.
I'm on a train at the moment, but I'll happily 'take you on' when I get home
Oh god, please no.
So far there's only one and he wasn't feeling well at the time he posted. Presumably.
Last edited:
It's extremely unreasonable. Deals would be greater by your global reach (fans) which if you recall a recent post on the Caf, City fans were basically unheard of in a lot of the counties our members come from apart from Dubai (shocking
Yah, we have a winner! Sorry I missed you.
So you're suggesting that the ONLY thing sponsors think about is how many local fans there are. That they are completely uninterested in the development potential, or worldwide advertising opportunities. That being associated with league champions and potential CL future champions is worth nothing more to them than being associated with Spurs.
Don't give up your day job.
Jerseys are walking billboards, no? World wide reach from fans watching your games and seeing your sponsors through the TV is world wide advertising, no?
You keep talking about City as if its a business, you do remember its a club right? even if its a small one, its still a football club.
Fair enough points, I'd say.
How appealing any side will be depends first and foremost on how well they do on the pitch - whether we like it or not, this is obviously true.
And, as I keep saying, the kids who grow up now don't care where City or Chelsea got their money from - they only care about the players, or even less obvious qualities. I have mates who - thirty odd years ago - decided to support team X or Y because they liked the colour of the shirts. I have one mate in particular, whose dad, uncle and brothers were all City fans - but who became a United fan (and remains so to this day) because he liked Frank Stapleton, no other reason.
Bit of a tangent there, but hey. Point is that successful, high profile teams will attract new fans - and if they remain successful for a bit (not necessarily that long either), they'll probably keep a certain percentage of the kids who grew up supporting them (for whatever reason - trophies, players or shirt colour).
This is from May 2009. City have just won their first trophy in decades, the FA Cup. That incredible achievement I'm sure is what spurred on Etihad Airways to offer the club the biggest deal of its kind in sport. If only Reals and Barcelonas of this world knew what it takes to get those kinds of contracts. But unfortunately they didn't have the brilliance of the people behind the City project, nor did they work hard enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways
"Manchester City will bank up to £400m under their new sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, making it the largest deal of its kind in sport and reinforcing City's position as a football club with unprecedented financial power.
The 10-year agreement, which means City's ground is renamed the Etihad Stadium, will be worth more than twice the previous record, JP Morgan Chase's $300m (£187m) for the new Madison Square Garden, while simultaneously demonstrating the growing disparity between the top clubs in English football.
To put it into context, the deal Arsenal struck with Emirates in 2004 was valued at £90m over 15 years. Around £48m of that came via shirt sponsorship, with the naming rights worth only £2.8m a year. Chelsea and Tottenham have both scoured the market for a deal in the region of £10-15m a year but found no serious interest. Newcastle have also been unable to find a sponsor since the club's owner, Mike Ashley, tested the waters with a short-term arrangement in the 2009-10 season that resulted in their ground taking the name of his sportswear business as the sportsdirect.com@St James' Park Stadium."
"Manchester City will bank up to £400m under their new sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, making it the largest deal of its kind in sport and reinforcing City's position as a football club with unprecedented financial power.
The 10-year agreement, which means City's ground is renamed the Etihad Stadium, will be worth more than twice the previous record, JP Morgan Chase's $300m (£187m) for the new Madison Square Garden, while simultaneously demonstrating the growing disparity between the top clubs in English football.
To put it into context, the deal Arsenal struck with Emirates in 2004 was valued at £90m over 15 years. Around £48m of that came via shirt sponsorship, with the naming rights worth only £2.8m a year. Chelsea and Tottenham have both scoured the market for a deal in the region of £10-15m a year but found no serious interest. Newcastle have also been unable to find a sponsor since the club's owner, Mike Ashley, tested the waters with a short-term arrangement in the 2009-10 season that resulted in their ground taking the name of his sportswear business as the sportsdirect.com@St James' Park Stadium."