Jesus, if that's true they are really starting to take the piss with the fake sponsorships.
Could Manchester City "disappear" in few years?
- Thread starter Amar__
- Start date
Jesus, if that's true they are really starting to take the piss with the fake sponsorships.
It's not just the fake sponsorships, they'll be getting paid more in Premier League TV revenue than Atletico Madrid make total. Their total TV revenue (including the uplifted Champions League money) would be around the same level as the total revenue of Dortmund.
To put it simply, there is zero chance City disappear. The money, time and effort invested is far too great for that to happen. People are also overestimating the impact of FFP on us. We spent £42m on Mangala and £27m on Bony, plus more for Fernando and Caballero. Next season I believe City will have no restrictions on our spending. We will be able to compete for any player in the transfer market in the summer, be it Bale, Pogba or de Bruyne.
Literally goes against what Pellegrini was complaining about last night
Why do you believe that?
No. He was complaining about restrictions already in place. Restrictions that should be lifted for next season.
Because our revenues are forecast to rise every year and we are set to comply with FFP regulations this season meaning no restrictions on our spending will be in place next season.
Well if Sheikh looses all interest in football they might go down to become average mid-table club again.
But I don't think it will happen, they have ridiculous amounts of money to spend, they can in 1-3 transfer windows replenish their squad with top players. As much as I don't favor the 'money pumped up' clubs like PSG, Chelsea, City or Real Madrid, they are the force and will become stronger.
But I don't think it will happen, they have ridiculous amounts of money to spend, they can in 1-3 transfer windows replenish their squad with top players. As much as I don't favor the 'money pumped up' clubs like PSG, Chelsea, City or Real Madrid, they are the force and will become stronger.
Surely we're in that bracket too now? Madrid are possibly the only club that could realistically outbid us, but that's even up for debate.
Even if the fake revenues are going up, the only reason to join City is gone if they're on parity with most clubs in terms of spending power.
Even then it'll be a long time before they're paying in the region of 60m, it'll take too much away from other areas.
Utd etc can because the net is so wide they can still look after and maintain their squad, City couldn't. Like Arsenal these days.
spend big on a name and mix and match around the 15/16m range for other reinforcements.
Even then it'll be a long time before they're paying in the region of 60m, it'll take too much away from other areas.
Utd etc can because the net is so wide they can still look after and maintain their squad, City couldn't. Like Arsenal these days.
spend big on a name and mix and match around the 15/16m range for other reinforcements.
Well, to an extent it did translate into local pulling power. Manchester has never been blue to my knowledge - that is an utter fabrication on the part of City fans. But they had a considerable amount of fans locally - they attracted impressive crowds at Maine Road back in the day when they were down and out. United's rise under Fergie probably contributed somewhat to their local pulling power, I'd say - as plenty of Mancunians went the way of the general public as far as United was concerned: The more we won, the more they hated us. It's a fairly common phenomenon in football (and in other walks of life, for that matter).
There's a limit, however, as we've seen in recent years - City are nowhere near United in terms of either local or global support. If they can't offer huge names and constant challenges for the major trophies, they will never fill a, say, 50K stadium on a regular basis. United, on the other hand, could do that - even without trophies. That's how "blue" Manchester is.
What makes you think that UEFA will accept the new bogus sponsorship deal when they didn't accept the old one?
post deleted as added nothing
Last edited:
They need 8 new players according to that football sage that is Robbie Savage. Feck knows why the bbc makes his views headline news.
http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/31956011
http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/31956011
Can't put this in the 'wishful thinking' sub forum?
No way around it - they need to spend and spend big in the next few seasons. Team is ageing and anyone they buy is going to be pricey. Successfully brought through 0 players from the ELITE DEVELOPMENT SQUAD, so will need to buy at inflated prices (because it's City).
Am not really convinced of resale value of any of their assets either. Aguero is the most sellable, but selling him would be suicidal. Toure's old and looking it. Silva is awesome but not needed by clubs that would spend big money. Kompany's having a wobble. I mean, who do you raise funds by offloading? Jovetic? Navas? Nasri? Who is going to pay top dollar for any of them?
But, City's owners have more money than God, and - perhaps more importantly - so do their main sponsors. So I expect City to spend vast swathes of petro-dollars, and exactly balance that out conveniently by a sponsorship from dear cousin. It will be genuinely funny when City actually have the highest revenue in world football - but still can't fill their stadium. Sums up the modern game.
Am not really convinced of resale value of any of their assets either. Aguero is the most sellable, but selling him would be suicidal. Toure's old and looking it. Silva is awesome but not needed by clubs that would spend big money. Kompany's having a wobble. I mean, who do you raise funds by offloading? Jovetic? Navas? Nasri? Who is going to pay top dollar for any of them?
But, City's owners have more money than God, and - perhaps more importantly - so do their main sponsors. So I expect City to spend vast swathes of petro-dollars, and exactly balance that out conveniently by a sponsorship from dear cousin. It will be genuinely funny when City actually have the highest revenue in world football - but still can't fill their stadium. Sums up the modern game.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...ys-new-80million-per-year-sponsorship-5290985
City are here to stay.
City are here to stay.
Yeah fair enough mate i know the TV money is huge, still it's some growth they have overtaken Chelsea already who had a good 5-6 year head start on them and now you say they will overtake Bayern and Barca which is crazy in such a short space of time.
The only positive thing is that all other top Premier League teams have got a lot richer over this period too, so they'll have to compete with particularly us and Chelsea over players (potentially Arsenal now and then too), whereas they had pretty much free reign 5-6 years ago. I think if the equivalent of Aguero (possibly Bale) became available this Summer you'd be looking at a 3 way bidding war with United outbidding everyone else.
I think assembling a team of the equivalent to Aguero, Toure, Silva nowadays would be much, much more difficult even with City's resources. If everything else is equal United and Chelsea have far more pull and City can no longer offer 50% more in transfer fee's and wages (highlighted by the fact that our net spend has been higher over the last 4 seasons and out wage bill has just overtaken theirs).
I can certainly see them having a lean period trophy wise over the next 5 years, particularly if Aguero becomes a target for Madrid, they'll certainly rebuild and challenge again though.
They won't die off but there's certainly rebuilding to be done. Yaya looks like he's on a sharp decline along with Kompany. Nasri and Fernandinho have become liabilities too but that seems more down to bad attitudes. It'll be interesting to see how much they can invest in the next few seasons with FFP.
The amazing thing is, you'd probably say they're in a weaker position to strengthen than they were three years ago.
Say they lost Aguero, Silva and Toure in the next four windows... could they genuinely replace their quality? Are they even as appealing as they were back then?
They really need a big-name manager to add that 'something', because they're quite bland, in my opinion.
Even if they could replace them they'll face much tougher competition from ourselves/Chelsea and maybe even Arsenal for marquee players. It'll be hard to improve on those 3 but wouldn't be too difficult to improve on clichy/demichellis/fernandinho/fernando/nasri.
It'll likely come down to how they navigate FFP but I agree the situation is looking much worse for them now than a few years ago.
Yeah i don't particularly care about their fake sponsorships to be honest. I think you may see it the similar to how i do, it is a way of keeping them half honest in terms of spending power. They can drum up these deals all they like but they can only be at or around what other teams already get.
So they can't just go splurging £150-200 in a summer anymore. They will still spend a lot sure but as teams have shown in the last few years spending a shit load doesn't always guarantee success.
Toure is now over 100 kg imo
Sagna is an ex player, replaced perfectly by Bellerin at Arsenal
They have a lot of players around the 30
They looks like AC Milan 7-8 yrs ago
Sagna is an ex player, replaced perfectly by Bellerin at Arsenal
They have a lot of players around the 30
They looks like AC Milan 7-8 yrs ago
They need to freshen up their team. Sign 4 players under 25 and not just squad players.
It is another injection from their owner?! They can pump all they want in but if UEFA deem it as financial doping as they did with the last deal then they can't spend it without out risk of expulsion from the CL.
It hasn't stopped PSG so I don't see why it will affect City.
I've said this before, but I just can't see City being able to attract genuine world class players right now. I can't imagine a Hazard, Neymar, or Pogba level potential superstar choosing City over the massive clubs that would be after that type of player. They'll sign some very good players but none of the calibre that'll take them to the next level.
They obviously won't vanish back into obscurity but they won't be the side that was hyped up to have the potential to dominate domestically for years.
They obviously won't vanish back into obscurity but they won't be the side that was hyped up to have the potential to dominate domestically for years.
Well it did curtail their spending last summer to an extent, otherwise they would have threw money at Real and Di Maria would probably be there instead of at United
I can only assume (/hope) that UEFA will strengthen the FFP laws as why would they even introduce them if they're just going to be broken (as they clearly are)? They obviously want something to change and I doubt that City spending ridiculous amounts of money on young players instead of ridiculous amounts of money on older players as well as give themselves massive sponsorship deals was what they had in mind. As we've seen with FIFA, the large federations can get away with alot.
I'd be interested to know how much money would they need to spend to get to the top again. The big draw to City was and is money and they used that to compensate for the areas where they're lacking. Now they're not the exciting project they were before. Money is not the only draw for players and FFP is definitely having SOME effect. Cheslea are a better option than them atm, as well as RM, Barca, Bayern, PSG and us (especially since we're less cautious about spending money now). They can have all the money in the world but if the player doesn't want to come than they're stuck. Imo they'll struggle to get the best players.
Even if they could spend similarly to the way they did before, would it go as well? They bought 2 titles in dramatic (though less than convincing) fashion and a cup. For all the criticism he gets, Mourinho built a culture at Chelsea and it kept them at the top while they constantly changed managers. I don't see that at City. I don't see the same energy and passion. To an extent, I do believe the players at City care a little less than those at United, Liverpool and Chelsea.
Tl;dr: I doubt they'll disappear but they face big challenges they didn't before and over the last few years, they had a golden chance to dominate the English game (to say nothing of their laughable European campaigns) and didn't take it.
I'd be interested to know how much money would they need to spend to get to the top again. The big draw to City was and is money and they used that to compensate for the areas where they're lacking. Now they're not the exciting project they were before. Money is not the only draw for players and FFP is definitely having SOME effect. Cheslea are a better option than them atm, as well as RM, Barca, Bayern, PSG and us (especially since we're less cautious about spending money now). They can have all the money in the world but if the player doesn't want to come than they're stuck. Imo they'll struggle to get the best players.
Even if they could spend similarly to the way they did before, would it go as well? They bought 2 titles in dramatic (though less than convincing) fashion and a cup. For all the criticism he gets, Mourinho built a culture at Chelsea and it kept them at the top while they constantly changed managers. I don't see that at City. I don't see the same energy and passion. To an extent, I do believe the players at City care a little less than those at United, Liverpool and Chelsea.
Tl;dr: I doubt they'll disappear but they face big challenges they didn't before and over the last few years, they had a golden chance to dominate the English game (to say nothing of their laughable European campaigns) and didn't take it.
That boils down to the legal definition of what constitutes a Related-Party Transaction, so it is out of UEFA's hands and they can not really be criticised for it. Whatever is a RPT they can act upon, otherwise they are powerless.
Well firstly, they can certainly be criticised for it and imo should be. But you might be right and I won't pretend to know the law on this. But as I said, the big federations clearly are capable of getting away with alot. FIFA influence whole governments for the love of God. If UEFA want to, I think they'll find a way.
Because inside every City fan is a living, breathing transfer muppet that was awoken by the oil gangsters money injection.
(Although this particular City fan is a good poster)
You can criticise City's sponsorship deals and the fairness of them if you want, sure. But UEFA cannot be blamed for not doing anything about it because they would have no legal grounding for any action. If they tried to do so against any club then UEFA would 100% be on the receiving end of legal action.
I'm not going to come on here and start justifying City's sponsorship deals as the Abu Dhabi influence is obvious. However, what I will say is they are no where near as ridiculous as some people claim (the Etihad deal for example is £40m a year and that covers pretty much every kind of sponsorship there is, from stadium naming rights, kits, training shirts, Academy + training ground sponsorship etc.), and as I have said before, unless it falls into the legal definition of a RPT then UEFA can do feck all about it, that's not a matter open for interpretation and does not deserve criticism.
and none of them is a starting XI player.....well done
You seem to buy right into the rhetoric released by Manchester City. If City are competing at the top end of the transfer market this summer through those bogus sponsorship deals then FFP will have failed completely in only its second year.
I am not sure how you think that UEFA will deem those deals to be of 'fair value'? There are also a number of other ways in which City are trying to doctor their revenue, not least in the re-framing of the outsourcing of non playing staff wages to Abu Dhabi associated companies that was already rejected in its first implementation.
It was interesting to see how little fight City put up last year, leaking to the media that they chose against protracted legal action against the ruling, despite apparently being confident of being wronged under the rules.
So why do you think UEFA will wilt this time? I bet that you were pedaling the same line last year.
If that deal is allowed (from the mirror article) UEFA might as well just pack in FFP and let City's owners pump in what they want. The fact that City's revenues are bigger than Chelsea's is an absolute joke, so why not let them go the whole hog and, I dunno, buy Madrid as a feeder club? Or they could just buy the rights to the PL and call it the Manchester City Plus 19 League.
If the FA/UEFA/FIFA don't have the cojones to check City's financial doping, then feck it. What's the point?
If the FA/UEFA/FIFA don't have the cojones to check City's financial doping, then feck it. What's the point?
I don't think that Mirror article is true but the Etihad sponsorship has been deemed as non related party and so UEFA will have nothing to say about any increase.
To those of you who think that all City's sponsorships are rigged and are not commercially viable do you ever ask yourself the question as to why they are not made much bigger so that City could easily pass FFP and not have to dick around buying 2nd tier players ?
If all those of you crying foul are correct then City could have made the Etihad deal £200m per year and blown everyone away - no problem.
But this hasn't happened and other teams including United are currently outspending City.
Manchester City has become a big story since Sheik Mansour took over and have won all domestic trophies including 2 PL titles. Any team doing this would have great commercial potential.
Are City here to stay ? Absolutely we are.
Are City going to dominate the PL and beyond for years to come. Highly unlikely. City will compete for trophies but the competition is strong.
The easy way to gauge City's commercial standing would be to weigh up the Etihad deal against the next highest bidder, you know, test what level actual independent companies value a commercial partnership with City at.
I agree with your assessment that City are here to stay at the top level, however. I don't agree with the hopefulness of the OP.