Could Manchester City "disappear" in few years?

Shark said:
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.
Click to expand...
So is probably Liverpool, Bayern Munich, Barcelona, Arsenal, and us of course. I wanted to make a difference between "rich" clubs who are rich because they have a large fanbase and wise policy in the last decade or two or three. And Clubs that are big mostly because there is a "sugar daddy" behind them, like Chelsea, Man City. Points for Chelsea that they started growing and attracted big names even before Abramovich, the likes of Gullit, Zola, Vialli...

P.S. In case fans of the mentioned teams feel they need to say something, I am not saying that these teams don't have history, but simply that without their "Sugar daddies" they could never match United, Bayern, in terms of spending power. But once they started wining and being present on 'big team map' their revenues are going to go up, so in the future they might become 'self sustaining' just like some other mentioned teams are.

Also one should bear in mind that there are .. hm let's say question marks over the ways Barcelona and especially Real Madrid can 'generate' such revenues and spend that much.
 
Polite Poster said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because your sponsorships have to have some semblance of being realistic for UEFA to turn a blind eye to it. Which fecking idiot in their right mind would believe anyone would even consider sponsoring City if they could sponsor the likes of Real, us, Bayern or even Liverpool for lesser money?
 
At this moment, I'm not sure how there is even a debate with all the money that is currently in football for the top teams.
 
Telcontar said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Sheikh was never interested in football, he's only interested in the publicity that football could generate for his country and thus his coffers.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
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
Click to expand...

Unfortunately these type of deals are not done by open bidding and so we'll never know but it's highly likely that any other 'bidders' may also have been AD based. In business you use your business connections. It would also be much easier to sell the 'vision' to AD based Companies as these Co's would easily understand the culture and seriousness of Sheik Mansour.
 
elmo said:
Because your sponsorships have to have some semblance of being realistic for UEFA to turn a blind eye to it. Which fecking idiot in their right mind would believe anyone would even consider sponsoring City if they could sponsor the likes of Real, us, Bayern or even Liverpool for lesser money?
Click to expand...

How very arrogant.

Did Utd. RM or even Liverpool offer the Stadium naming rights plus Shirt Deal plus Campus in a package deal. I guess not!

There are many more holes in your argument but frankly life is too short.

BTW - the Etihad deal is not deemed to be related party under international accounting standards it does not therefore come under the remit of UEFA to do anything about.
 
elmo said:
The Sheikh was never interested in football, he's only interested in the publicity that football could generate for his country and thus his coffers.
Click to expand...
Which is why City was brought, as they can piggy back off our name and our brand.
 
I have defended City's current Eithad deal as I believe it is current fair value. £40m is not a lot of money for everything - shirt, stadium, training kit etc.

However, this new one is a farce if it's true. If Etihad were non-related, they would tell City where to shove it. Why would they give City double the amount of money they are currently, and get nothing extra in return, and when only 4 years into a TEN year deal? City should have to buy out the rest of their contract (like they are rumoured to be trying to do with Nike) and then renegotiate it (i.e. give Etihad 'back' the c£260m they are due to receive from them). No legitimate company in their right mind would pay anymore than they have to, especially with so long remaining on the deal.
 
Sean_RedDevil said:
and none of them is a starting XI player.....well done :lol:
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking about. City still have to pay over the odds for players. I don't think Chelsea do.
Even if they can still spend huge amounts of money, they don't seem to have spent well so far*.

*Their long term project to completely change the entire club and import the Barcelona philosophy aside.
 
ForlansHair said:
I have defended City's current Eithad deal as I believe it is current fair value. £40m is not a lot of money for everything - shirt, stadium, training kit etc.

However, this new one is a farce if it's true. If Etihad were non-related, they would tell City where to shove it. Why would they give City double the amount of money they are currently, and get nothing extra in return, and when only 4 years into a TEN year deal? City should have to buy out the rest of their contract (like they are rumoured to be trying to do with Nike) and then renegotiate it (i.e. give Etihad 'back' the c£260m they are due to receive from them). No legitimate company in their right mind would pay anymore than they have to, especially with so long remaining on the deal.
Click to expand...

I don't for one minute believe that Mirror article. Mischief making in my opinion. But we are used to that from the British Press. Calling many of these guys journalists is an insult to the profession. Click Bait Technicians more like !

There could however be uplifts for achieving certain targets in the original contract and given that City have won 2 PL titles since that deal was signed the value may well be increasing. I would guess that Etihad are very pleased with the exposure that City has given their brand.
 
Polite Poster said:
I don't for one minute believe that Mirror article. Mischief making in my opinion. But we are used to that from the British Press. Calling many of these guys journalists is an insult to the profession. Click Bait Technicians more like !

There could however be uplifts for achieving certain targets in the original contract and given that City have won 2 PL titles since that deal was signed the value may well be increasing. I would guess that Etihad are very pleased with the exposure that City has given their brand.
Click to expand...

But surely the original deal was made with the expectation that they would win things? I saw a City fan earlier in this thread (I think it was you) argue that City's commercial deals aren't that inflated because they are 'potential future Champions League winners' or something to that effect.

I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph btw.
 
Tyrion said:
But surely the original deal was made with the expectation that they would win things? I saw a City fan earlier in this thread (I think it was you) argue that City's commercial deals aren't that inflated because they are 'potential future Champions League winners' or something to that effect.

I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph btw.
Click to expand...

You may be right about the original contract. It's a fairly unique deal and the reality is that we can only guess at the detail, which is what I was doing.
Given the profile of the PL around the world I would argue that whilst its prestigious to win the CL that winning the PL may well be worth more to the brands involved.
 
Polite Poster said:
I don't for one minute believe that Mirror article. Mischief making in my opinion. But we are used to that from the British Press. Calling many of these guys journalists is an insult to the profession. Click Bait Technicians more like !

There could however be uplifts for achieving certain targets in the original contract and given that City have won 2 PL titles since that deal was signed the value may well be increasing. I would guess that Etihad are very pleased with the exposure that City has given their brand.
Click to expand...

The value probably has increased and City should have thought about that before inking a 10 year deal. The point still remains, what do Etihad gain from giving City an extra £40m per year for the exact same terms they already have? Nothing. It's nonsensical.

If there are any uplifts, there would be no need to renegotiate. They would automatically happen, like with Chevrolet's deal with us - 2.1% a year if I recall correctly.
 
Cooksen said:
Which is why City was brought, as they can piggy back off our name and our brand.
Click to expand...
It was the Premier League branding that was valuable, your team just so happened to be the one with the most potential and least costly that was available in the League. Chelsea, us and Arsenal were too costly to even think about buying. Liverpool , Spurs and Everton would all eventually require funds to build a new stadium if they wanted to catch up with the best in Europe.
 
Polite Poster said:
How very arrogant.

Did Utd. RM or even Liverpool offer the Stadium naming rights plus Shirt Deal plus Campus in a package deal. I guess not!

There are many more holes in your argument but frankly life is too short.

BTW - the Etihad deal is not deemed to be related party under international accounting standards it does not therefore come under the remit of UEFA to do anything about.
Click to expand...
Lumping everything in a package deal was the only reason you could get it to 40m annually and yet you think raising it to 80m annually after having won 2 titles since the contract started is realistic?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
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.
Click to expand...

City could easily bypass this with their owners using another related company to make a similar sponsorship deal. The best way would be to peg the value of sponsorship deals by comparing them with clubs of similar stature, if the difference is too much, lower the numbers to +-5% of the value of the other club when doing the calculations for FFP. City is at most 3rd in the league when it comes to global appeal, we're definitely the top, whereas Chelsea should technically be second since they've won about the same number of titles as City has in recent years coupled with a much better showing in the Champions League.
 
Doesn't basic laws of Tax fraud etc deal with these overinflated sponsorship deals?
 
elmo said:
City is at most 3rd in the league when it comes to global appeal, we're definitely the top, whereas Chelsea should technically be second since they've won about the same number of titles as City has in recent years coupled with a much better showing in the Champions League.
Click to expand...

What are you smoking? Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs have a greater global appeal.
 
Trizy said:
What are you smoking? Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs have a greater global appeal.
Click to expand...
Not sure that spurs have any global appeal, but the other two for sure dwarf City's global appeal.
 
That's the thing that grinds re: the relative size of the sponsorship. City is maybe just in the top 10 most supported clubs in world football. Even that is pretty friggin generous.

If City had to go to market to get its commercial sponsorship, then the payment would be in line with that position. So similar to say, a Dortmund, or Inter (which is a mental statement if you'd made it 10 years ago).
But City's sponsorship deals are at the top level, in line with Barca, Madrid, Bayern, United. Despite obviously, no matter how much blue-tinting going on, that sponsorship will not deliver the same brand.

Flipped another way, why should City expect to have commercial sponsorship in line with Arsenal? Arsenal are a far more known brand, have more global following, been at the top for 20 years and so forth. If you were, say, a US company, and you could sponsor Arsenal or City for the same amount, you'd always pick Arsenal.

That's why I don't believe it would pass any kind of 'market-value' test. What reasonable marketing agency would choose City over the other top football brands at the same dollar value?
 
elmo said:
Lumping everything in a package deal was the only reason you could get it to 40m annually and yet you think raising it to 80m annually after having won 2 titles since the contract started is realistic?
Click to expand...

Could you point out where I said £80m annually is realistic ? I have made no comment on the value but I have said I don't believe the Mirror article.
 
::sonny:: said:
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
Click to expand...

Huge difference! Milan had no money

Yes, city will need to start replacing the older ones, but why would it be any different to what United are going through now?

People are also forgetting that they now have some of the best training facilities in the world
 
Classical Mechanic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Rhetoric? Are you actually reading the thread? It's quite simple. There is a legal definition for what constitutes a Related-Party Transaction. City's sponsorship deals that fall under that are at the mercy of UEFA's ruling. Otherwise, UEFA have no legal standing to take action and as such, have nothing to 'wilt' on.
 
elmo said:
City could easily bypass this with their owners using another related company to make a similar sponsorship deal. The best way would be to peg the value of sponsorship deals by comparing them with clubs of similar stature, if the difference is too much, lower the numbers to +-5% of the value of the other club when doing the calculations for FFP. City is at most 3rd in the league when it comes to global appeal, we're definitely the top, whereas Chelsea should technically be second since they've won about the same number of titles as City has in recent years coupled with a much better showing in the Champions League.
Click to expand...

I believe the global appeal of the top clubs right now is something like

United
Chelsea
Arsenal
Liverpool
City.
 
Polite Poster said:
Could you point out where I said £80m annually is realistic ? I have made no comment on the value but I have said I don't believe the Mirror article.
Click to expand...
You could than point out the part where 40m is more than what we get from Chevrolet since my original post was talking about a possible deal which dwarfs our current deal and not your existing one.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's actually a very sensible move. Too sensible for UEFA to implement.
 
They may stick around but they appear to have no soul or real identity. Certainly not the club I remember from the 60s and 70s. Their performances are heartless. Lost their old ground, a team full of strangers, and seemingly over burdened by money. Money doesn't buy everything. IMO the Bitters desperately need a soul and identity beyond their pale blue shirts and costly average players.
 
Stretford End Phil said:
They may stick around but they appear to have no soul or real identity. Certainly not the club I remember from the 60s and 70s. Their performances are heartless. Lost their old ground, a team full of strangers, and seemingly over burdened by money. Money doesn't buy everything. IMO the Bitters desperately need a soul and identity beyond their pale blue shirts and costly average players.
Click to expand...
You can replace City with any club you want and that post would be valid.
 
Mersons prediction on this top is - 'City could become the next AC Milan' He's a wise man that Merson fella.
 
Stretford End Phil said:
They may stick around but they appear to have no soul or real identity. Certainly not the club I remember from the 60s and 70s. Their performances are heartless. Lost their old ground, a team full of strangers, and seemingly over burdened by money. Money doesn't buy everything. IMO the Bitters desperately need a soul and identity beyond their pale blue shirts and costly average players.
Click to expand...
Kind of agree. Kind of don't.

They're very bland, faceless.. just there. They at least had the 'new kids on the block' thing going for them a few years ago. Now they're just there without much to make you care about them. And that's a big part of the battle - actually being an interesting club. This is in complete contrast to Chelsea, who very quickly divided opinions and maintained people's interest.

City now need a 'personality' in charge, and they need to progress in Europe. They're still very much in that period where they're only as relevant/'big' as their current season. Have they capitalised enough on that initial interest and financial advantage? Are they actually in a better position to make waves in Europe than they were a while back? Will their squad, in three years, look as good as it did under Mancini?
 
Last edited:
Speak said:
Kind of agree. Kind of don't.

They're very bland, faceless.. just there. They at least had the 'new kids on the block' thing going for them a few years ago. Now they're just there without much to make you care about them.
Click to expand...


That's very true, not being biased but I can't remember anyone caring when they won the title last year. Liverpool nearly winning the league and bottling it was bigger news funnily enough.
 
Colin129 said:
I really don't think anyone would miss them. They've been bad for football.
Click to expand...

As much as I hate Liverpool, they're a great club and English football would be poorer without them. This version of City is primarily a rich man's project. I don't have the same respect for them. I agree that few would miss them apart from City fans. If Liverpool were to 'disappear' even I would miss them eventually.

Trizy said:
That's very true, not being biased but I can't remember anyone caring when they won the title last year. Liverpool nearly winning the league and bottling it was bigger news funnily enough.
Click to expand...

When you think about it, us and Liverpool were the big stories from last year. The 2 key moments in the title race that people remember are the Gerrard slip and the Crystal Palace disaster.
 
Has anyone ever met a City fan outside of Manchester?
 
Raees said:
Has anyone ever met a City fan outside of Manchester?
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's because every one of City's millions of fans lives in Manchester. They journey and settle there. Manchester is blue after all. :angel:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.