Could Manchester City "disappear" in few years?

[Ronetta]

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.

Of course it's a club, you are right. And less of the small digs, eh ;-)

But we were discussing sponsorship. The global businesses that spend millions on marketing and promoting their brands are not clubs. They don't give a toss how many shirts they see in some local street and certainly not Spurs shirts vs City shirts.

They are interested in things like what's the global television coverage going to be like? How much global publicity will we get? Are we going to be associating ourselves with a winning team? What about the players, are they interesting and will they attract a following we can be associated with.

City are an entirely different proposition than Spurs, are they not? More publicity, more trophies being competed for, more interesting players, just a whole load more interesting proposition. Seeing a few more white shirts than blue ones (were that even true, but it isn't) is pretty darned irrelevant.

 

[Ronetta]

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.

Spoiler

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."

All I can say mate is haters gonna hate. I've explained quite clearly why this kind of investment made abundant sense for Etihad. That you choose to believe something different is entirely your problem. No-one else's.

 

[Barca84]

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.

Spoiler

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."

Hats off to them they're a breath of fresh air

 

[Ronetta]

To sum it up: Usually sponsors try to minimize their payments, while City sponsors try to maximize their payments (not unlimited). Some people would consider this to be unfair.

You're in total fantasy land. You probably hate us. I get it. But just say I hate you, don't try to invent facts just to try to justify you hatred. it's not necessary.

But your argument is ENTIRELY without basis. Perhaps City wanted 8 triilion for the Etihad deal and Etihad beat them down to a more reasonable number? In the context of some other sponsorship deals, it does indeed look "cheap".

 

[Ronetta]

Hats off to them they're a breath of fresh air

You see, that's about the size of it for haters.

The subject of their hatred -who or whatever it may be - does something shit and that's great. They do something quite well - excellent even - and they must have cheated. If it helps you sleep at night, carry on believing it. What matters is the fact that we did get these sponsorship deals. If your club didn't and it helps you to think we cheated, then believe that. No-one's objecting.

Personally, I believe something different. That we've been quite innovative in the way we have gone about things and that executives in boardrooms of other clubs have had a bit of a wake up call. They've been caught napping.

Of course you will never believe this, so there's no point in debating it really.

 

[finneh]

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?

I'm not saying they specifically meet the definition or that they're currently enforced as related party transactions. However it's quite strange how the entire world is disinterested in large sponsorship deals with City, apart from a tiny Country in the Middle East who their owner happens to be part of the royal family. Similar to how it's weird that the Qatar Tourism Authority happen to want to sponsor a club owned by the Qatari royal family for £150m a season, both sheer coincidences I guess?

Any idiot knows that City's substantial Commercial deals are predominantly with these companies and solely because of their owners relationship to the other companies involved. We can all act as if this isn't a reality, but what's the point? Just like if suddenly the Tampa Bay Buccaneers renamed Old Trafford for £100m a season our fans would just laugh and say "oh well".

 

[Ronetta]

Any idiot knows that City's substantial Commercial deals are predominantly with these companies and solely because of their owners relationship to the other companies involved. We can all act as if this isn't a reality, but what's the point? Just like if suddenly the Tampa Bay Buccaneers renamed Old Trafford for £100m a season our fans would just laugh and say "oh well".

Ok, let's hypothetically and for the sake of constructive discussion suppose that what you say is true.

So what? It's not against the rules. Pesonally, I think it's justifiable based on the significance to Abu Dhabi of them actually owning the Premier League Champions. You think not, fine.

But either way, it's not against the rules, so why are we even having this discussion?

 

[finneh]

Ok, let's hypothetically and for the sake of constructive discussion suppose that what you say is true.

So what? It's not against the rules. Pesonally, I think it's justifiable based on the significance to Abu Dhabi of them actually owning the Premier League Champions. You think not, fine.

But either way, it's not against the rules, so why are we even having this discussion?

I'm not saying it's a problem. It was the initial point I brought up in answer to "could Man City disappear in a few years".

Theoretically they could if Mansour bailed tomorrow and all the companies related to him reneged on or allowed to expire all of their Commercial deals. Without these deals City's turnover would decrease c.£100m, without this £100m the wage bill would have to be significantly chopped down, chopping down the wage bill would probably cause a failure to qualify for the Champions League, this would cause a loss of c.£40m CL income, that loss would cause a requirement to reduce the wage bill further... A couple of years later you are basically Spurs (which I assume was the OP's definition of disappearing, ie not winning trophies). Obviously he won't however because he's stinking rich and isn't going to waste a £1b investment when it is just starting to come to fruition.

Of course it's perfectly justifiable, merely by saying "a multi-billionaire wants to gift £100m a year to the Premier League club he owns". Personally I think the fact he has to siphon all this money out of his other companies, just to be able to buy World Class player's is tedious in the extreme. I'm sure he'd agree with me if he were having an honest conversation and would prefer to just submit a significant loss for the next decade until "normal" companies were interested in City commercially (ala Chelsea).

If FFP had been brought in 10 years earlier you could bet that Chelsea would be sponsored by numerous oil companies at massively over-inflated amounts, so it isn't a slight at City at all. As I said I'm a supporter of outside investment.

 

[Getsme]

Of course it's a club, you are right. And less of the small digs, eh ;-)

But we were discussing sponsorship. The global businesses that spend millions on marketing and promoting their brands are not clubs. They don't give a toss how many shirts they see in some local street and certainly not Spurs shirts vs City shirts.

They are interested in things like what's the global television coverage going to be like? How much global publicity will we get? Are we going to be associating ourselves with a winning team? What about the players, are they interesting and will they attract a following we can be associated with.

City are an entirely different proposition than Spurs, are they not? More publicity, more trophies being competed for, more interesting players, just a whole load more interesting proposition. Seeing a few more white shirts than blue ones (were that even true, but it isn't) is pretty darned irrelevant.

In truth I'd struggle to name 99.9% of Club shirt sponsors, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I don't care who sponsors who, be it on shirts, training tops, medical centres, grounds or what ever else, I just don't care. Nor do I give a second thought into what these companies on the front of shirts, training tops etc do. The only one I care about is United's, and how much the Club is making from it.
For me shirt sponsorship is aimed at attracting the fans of that Club, after all they are the ones wearing the tops and supporting the Club.

 

[Ronetta]

In truth I'd struggle to name 99.9% of Club shirt sponsors, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I don't care who sponsors who, be it on shirts, training tops, medical centres, grounds or what ever else, I just don't care. Nor do I give a second thought into what these companies on the front of shirts, training tops etc do. The only one I care about is United's, and how much the Club is making from it.
For me shirt sponsorship is aimed at attracting the fans of that Club, after all they are the ones wearing the tops and supporting the Club.

I agree with you. [ Picks self up off floor ;-) ]

The companies paying the money see differently no doubt, in terms of the things I mentioned, global TV coverage etc. The "value" of having Harry's Burgers on the front of a shirt that's constantly on the TV all around the globe is clearly inherently greater than one on the shirt of a club in less competitions, less prestigious competitions and features in less TV coverage.

 

[Ronetta]

I'm not saying it's a problem. It was the initial point I brought up in answer to "could Man City disappear in a few years".

Theoretically they could if Mansour bailed tomorrow and all the companies related to him reneged on or allowed to expire all of their Commercial deals. Without these deals City's turnover would decrease c.£100m, without this £100m the wage bill would have to be significantly chopped down, chopping down the wage bill would probably cause a failure to qualify for the Champions League, this would cause a loss of c.£40m CL income, that loss would cause a requirement to reduce the wage bill further... A couple of years later you are basically Spurs (which I assume was the OP's definition of disappearing, ie not winning trophies). Obviously he won't however because he's stinking rich and isn't going to waste a £1b investment when it is just starting to come to fruition.

Of course it's perfectly justifiable, merely by saying "a multi-billionaire wants to gift £100m a year to the Premier League club he owns". Personally I think the fact he has to siphon all this money out of his other companies, just to be able to buy World Class player's is tedious in the extreme. I'm sure he'd agree with me if he were having an honest conversation and would prefer to just submit a significant loss for the next decade until "normal" companies were interested in City commercially (ala Chelsea).

If FFP had been brought in 10 years earlier you could bet that Chelsea would be sponsored by numerous oil companies at massively over-inflated amounts, so it isn't a slight at City at all. As I said I'm a supporter of outside investment.

Bloody Nora, I find myself agreeing with that as well. I'm going to have to go for a lie down ;-)

 

[antihenry]

All I can say mate is haters gonna hate. I've explained quite clearly why this kind of investment made abundant sense for Etihad. That you choose to believe something different is entirely your problem. No-one else's.

I don't hate Man City, I've got more important things on my mind. No need to get so emotional about it, we're all biased when it comes to discussing our clubs, I understand it completely.

 

[Getsme]

I agree with you. [ Picks self up off floor ;-) ]

The companies paying the money see differently no doubt, in terms of the things I mentioned, global TV coverage etc. The "value" of having Harry's Burgers on the front of a shirt that's constantly on the TV all around the globe is clearly inherently greater than one on the shirt of a club in less competitions, less prestigious competitions and features in less TV coverage.

Are you feeling ok?
To a certain level yes, however at a guess I'd say a lot of it is to do with an association to the Club rather than brand promotion. For example Chevrolet could have proud sponsors of Manchester United on all their adverts, promotions and events etc. They could also have the rights to the Clubs badge, photos of players wearing Chevrolet tops and much much more.
Further, If people took football sponsorship seriously then a company is at risk of alienating potential customers from rival Clubs, obviously sponsors have to take a negative reaction from supporters into consideration, but it very rarely happens, would I not fly with Etihad or not but a Samsung? Of course not, I'm actually posting this from a Samsung phone. If the negative reaction was even slightly noticeable then I'd imagine sponsors would slowly become a thing of the past.
I can understand the commercial benefits to a local business that sponsors a smaller Club in the lower devisions, but if someone can afford to pay £10million a year to put there name on a shirt then for me they don't really need the recognition or brand promotion?

 

[Trizy]

Of course it's a club, you are right. And less of the small digs, eh ;-)

But we were discussing sponsorship. The global businesses that spend millions on marketing and promoting their brands are not clubs. They don't give a toss how many shirts they see in some local street and certainly not Spurs shirts vs City shirts.

They are interested in things like what's the global television coverage going to be like? How much global publicity will we get? Are we going to be associating ourselves with a winning team? What about the players, are they interesting and will they attract a following we can be associated with.

City are an entirely different proposition than Spurs, are they not? More publicity, more trophies being competed for, more interesting players, just a whole load more interesting proposition. Seeing a few more white shirts than blue ones (were that even true, but it isn't) is pretty darned irrelevant.

Small digs are necessary in the football world of banter, especially with derby fans! We've had a good debate up til now but as for the latter bolded text Spurs are definitely a more supported club.

 

[Trizy]

How ever unlikely this thread looks there is serious reason for worry for City after their current results.

Hypothetically it could be the beginning of the end for City as a PL power if they miss out on top 4, having already spent £30m on Bony, losing out on £40m (guesstimate) of CL money and FFP restrictions.

On top of the money side of qualifying they've spent a whopping £327m on their squad since 2011 and yet have only added 2 new names to their XI in Fernando and Demicheils which are far from title winning quality. They keep adding £30m+ squad players (see Bony, Jovetic, Fernando, Fernandinho, Dzeko, Mangala etc..). Basically getting robbed every transfer because the owners have the money but not the club.

To make matters worse for them, they have the oldest XI in the league which means a massive overhaul sooner rather than later and with their owners its all about instant success so I can't see them paying top dollar for a potential world class youth, they're gonna go looking for the ready made title winning player which we've seen from last summers window that those type players will cost you anything from £35-59m and needing at least 5 new players can they spend that? Not a hope and especially not if they miss out on CL.


The final blow would be if UFEA are continuing to dig around their shady sponsorship deals, has anyone an update on that?


Bit of wishful thinking maybe, but football might just win..

 

[Nighteyes]

Wishful thinking alright.

The simple answer to the question is no. It was only a few months ago they came up with their massive academy. That's as long term as you can get.

 

[Speak]

I do wonder how long it will take for them to properly establish themselves and get to that next level... or if they'll actual manage it at all.

It's weird because they've obviously had success, but it doesn't feel as if they've moved mountains in terms of increasing their brand hugely. It may well just be too late for a club to really establish themselves from fresh.
In fact, I'd say that a few years back City were more appealing and relevant, when they had the whole 'new kids on the block' and 'come to our project and make history' thing going for them. Now it's all gone a bit stale. They're quite a bland, 'faceless' club, in my opinion.

I don't see them becoming a force, but I don't think they'll 'disappear'. They desperately need a top name manager now. They've had their C-list and B-list, and it's time for a big-name personality. Their next manager also has to get semi-final of the Champions League. Just winning a domestic title every other season isn't going to do their brand enough good.

Will be very interesting to see the shape of their squad and first team in three years time. Will it even be as good as the one Mancini had when he won the league?

 

[Nozzy]

Yes, Blackburn, Newcastle all over again, just on a far grander scale of fall. They need 5-6 new top players NOW & they can't buy them, under FFP. An empire built on sand.

 

[coolredwine]

Wishful thinking alright.

The simple answer to the question is no. It was only a few months ago they came up with their massive academy. That's as long term as you can get.

Well, it's not as if they use their academy.

 

[prarek]

I don't think so. They have invested very well in their grass root structure and academies. Its clear that they are thinking long term. We will only see the effect of these investments 10 years from now.

 

[Nighteyes]

Well, it's not as if they use their academy.

The point is they will continue to spend. You don't build infrastructure on that level and then disappear into obscurity.

 

[Trizy]

I don't think so. They have invested very well in their grass root structure and academies. Its clear that they are thinking long term. We will only see the effect of these investments 10 years from now.

They have invested well in that respect but look at all the competition around the world for signing the best youth players not to mention England's restriction on distance and length of time training kids. The academy could work for them but there isn't a hope they're gonna ever get a class of '92 or the players from Barcelona's 09-11 that came from youth.

On top of that they need these world class players now as I mentioned above in my previous post, not 10 years down the line.

 

[kps88]

Well, it's not as if they use their academy.

They only just opened the new one! Give it a few years. Everything I've read has suggested their new academy is one of the best in Europe. There's a reason why Van Persie's and P. Neville's sons both train with City.

 

[Shark]

They won't disappear, but I don't think there's a doubt that they're more restricted to the days they signed Toure, Silva and Aguero in one summer. I think that we in particular can match them all the way now.

 

[ChaddyP]

Finish outside 4th and it may be curtains

 

[bosnian_red]

Could see the owners deciding to call it quits if they miss out on top 4. Unlikely but possible. Far more likely is aguero and Silva leave in the summer regardless of them getting top 4 the way they've been, and it'll be very hard to replace them as the rest of their squad is incredibly average and old for all the money they've spent.

They won't disappear, but I can see them just being a team who fights for top 4 and nothing more really.

 

[villain]

They're not going to disappear but they are in danger of moving backwards and going from a guaranteed title contender to a top 4 contender.
And with FFP they can't spend 150m every year for 3 years anymore.
Well, unless there's some more "sponsorships" lined up.

 

[Tincanalley]

I think people are taking FFP for granted. FIFA have showed that they are not joking even with bigger clubs when they break their rules - see Barcelona and their transfer embargo, so it's expected that UEFA will be harsh with their rules too. I am quite sure they have always been even less tollerant to English clubs and if City continues to break them they'll fine them on one or another way. They already did.

The Wiki page for Mansour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansour_bin_Zayed_Al_Nahyan) sums his status up pretty well; no matter how often I hear this song, it is somehow always startling; He is 'the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, minister of presidential affairs and member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi. He is the half brother of the current president of UAE, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. He is also the chairman of the ministerial council for services, the Emirates investment authority and the Emirates pacing authority. He sits on the Supreme Petroleum Council and the boards of numerous investment companies including the International Petroleum Investment Company and the Abu Dhabi Investment Council'.

'Mansoor also owns stakes in a number of business ventures, including Virgin Galactic and Sky News Arabia. He is also the owner of the privately held Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), a specialist investment company that successfully acquired Manchester City Football Club in September 2008 ... On May 21, 2013, Major League Soccer of the United States announced that ... New York City FC, is ... to be majority-owned by Mansoor bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, in association with brothers Hal and Hank Steinbrenner'. In other words, this is a lad that is used to getting his way. The Express reported last year that one of many companies owned by Sheikh Mansour signed an agreement to give Real Madrid £350 million to redevelop the Bernabeu Stadium (http://www.express.co.uk/sport/foot...-Manchester-City-Abu-Dhabi-and-Sheikh-Mansour). Apparently UEFA allowed this on the basis that it was a form of sponsorship. What are the threats/obstacles to Mansour and his dream of domination of world football, if that's what takes his fancy - or if he thinks the image of his tawdry realm is improved by such associations? City not having a clearly defined world marketability; them being the 'other' Manchester Club. And Financial Fair Play.

It will require balls on the part of the FFP authorities to face Mansour down in the medium and longer term. If they do stand up to him, he might throw a hissy fit and bugger off, but it is not happening anytime soon. On the other hand, football might just teach the Sheik something; to ponder the limitations of the power of raw money, or the wisdom of some of his investment targets.

 

[legball]

They won't be going anywhere, get used to it.

 

[matt23]

If the rumors are to be believed, City seem to be operating a policy of sacking managers for not winning the league. I think this could prove to be their downfall, as eventually they'll run out of managers and/or fail to attract decent managers inclined to build for the future. One of the reasons why I think they should stick with Pellegrini is to to be more attractive to the likes of Simeone or Pep in the long term. If they continue to put managers on a 12 month cycle I just can't see them attracting the right managers to take them forward.

I actually hope they stick around, for the same reason I wish the Premier League had less Burnleys and QPR's and more Leeds United and Forrest's. United should thrive on competition, one of my biggest gripes with us has been our aggressive favoring of FFP, it's understandable but ultimately, I'd prefer to be a fan of a club that won a League with plenty of competition.

 

[finneh]

Yes, Blackburn, Newcastle all over again, just on a far grander scale of fall. They need 5-6 new top players NOW & they can't buy them, under FFP. An empire built on sand.

Man City have the 6th highest revenue in world Football. A revenue that by 2017 will surpass Bayern Munich and Barcelona and make them the third highest grossing club in the world. Their empire is built on rock solid foundations, underpinned by extremely cash rich companies who are close to the owner (so would have no reason to pull out), as well as the biggest TV deal in world Football (PL deal).

 

[Tarrou]

I hope they don't disappear. I'd like it if they went back to being a mild annoyance though, like Liverpool.

 

[ghagua]

City will be around for a while. They don't have to go wild and replace all the players, they need to replace some of those players over the next 6+ transfer windows. They will have to be smart about the way they spend their money while they have the FFP restrictions, but they already have a strong squad and can continue retooling while remaining very competitive.

 

[SalfordRed1960]

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).

I think that is the important factor. How big is the percentage? If you believe City fans PR, Manchester is Blue (i know, try to stop laughing), however, this has never translated into pulling power for attendance or spend on merchandise from fans. City will have to maintain a presence in the top 4, preferably top 3, to maintain any sort of interest from fans, sponsors (real sponsors, not sugar daddy money) and international level players. When I look at their side now, I would say that Aguero, Silva and Toure are probably class players that other class players will know. Once they go, it may be a very good squad, but have no star quality so they may go backwards for a while.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

They won't disappear, the infrastructure is all set for them now.

They also, like us, will not be guaranteed a place at the top table each year either though.

How that affects things regarding the owners long term remains to be seen, if he could get his hands on Real Madrid I do wonder what would happen, that $350 million he gave them is a hint at where his eyes are set for sure.

I think their biggest issue is, no matter what, being in our shadow. I'm sure the story of guiding City to overtake United was a great idea when they were choosing a club, but I just don't think that it can be achieved. We will always be a bigger name, and that will always be an issue for them.

Had he bought Liverpool, Villa, Newcastle or even Notts Forest, his job at creating a real world brand would have been simpler. And probably done by now.

 

[united_99]

Well obviously they won't disappear completely (being relegated or something) but they have failed to build on their promising seasons so far and I don't see them at the very top in the near future now.

In the past especially United after a great domestic season made sure they improved further and remained a name in the CL before in the following season(s) finally winning it.
Chelsea have been a bit different to United, by that I mean that they have remained constantly good in PL and Europe, even if not great. Their top levels in the PL and CL was still a bit below United at their best, but their bottom level especially in the CL (and PL too if you take United's current and last season) was not as low as United's at times. Even in the season they didn't get out of their CL group, they at least won the EL.
Whereas City don't seem to have a pattern at all and now with their aging squad and United/Arsenal starting to spend big, too (Chelsea already were big spenders), it won't be easy at all for City to rebuild quickly.

 

[Adebesi]

No way will City miss out on top 4 this season.

 

[Eboue]

This is a ridiculous thread.

 

[Trizy]

Another big worry for City now like @united_99 mentioned is other clubs spending big, especially since the money in the PL is continue to grow. Should City miss out on CL and Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and United finished in the top 4 why would you chose them over the big 4? City can no longer outspend us nor can they offer ridiculous wages to the Agueros and Toures of football.

 

[Sid234]

I dont think they're going anywhere, they have quite a few good talents in their academy and reserves, just that they've not been given a chance in the first team and FFP will force them to look a the reserves as an option to bolster the 1st team. Spending a season out of the CL might actually help them by forcing them to promote young players from within, and help stabilize their squad.