Manchester City - "Emptihad"

[SupaFella]

Today I pissed several city fans off on RedCafe, oh boy I enjoy this view a lot.

I think you need to learn to aim better.

A self decleration of victory is pretty sad to be fair.

The same thing applies to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim

 

[tenpoless]

I think you need to learn to aim better.

A self decleration of victory is pretty sad to be fair.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim

Still waiting for numbers and figures, these are all winds to me.

 

[SupaFella]

Still waiting for numbers and figures, these are all winds to me.

Nah youre being completly unreasonable for what regards the art of the debate. If someone made the claim that "god deffinatly does exist" would you expect me to be the one that needs to prove otherwise? It's easy to make claims that cannot be disproven, and it's also obvious why hence it is the one who makes the claim that has the burden of the proof.
Surely youre smart enough to get this right? I mean this is really debating 101.

 

[tenpoless]

Nah youre being completly unreasonable for what regards the art of the debate. If someone made the claim that "god deffinatly does exist" would you expect me to be to prove otherwise? It's easy to make claims that cannot be disproven, and it's also obvious why it hence is the one who makes the claim that has the burden of the proof.
Surely youre smart enough to get this right?

I rest my case.

Sorry mods for ruining this thread, didn't see this one coming.

 

[SupaFella]

Yeah yeah i think i'm going to just ignore you and continue the discussion with more reasonable folk on this forum.

Only 2 posts remaining today anyway, expect more reply's by the end of the day, there might be other topics that i take some interrest in.

 

[padr81]

You're the second highest poster in this thread.

Indeed I am, but as I said it took me 3000 posts to realise there is no point in discussing this stuff with some people.

 

[LegendCantona7]

Fine. The floor is all yours. Go ahead and enlighten me on the factual inaccuracies in my post.

4 of your main Sponsors come from companies owned by the Sheikhs family. In 2011 you signed a £400m 10 year shirt sponsorship deal from the Etihad, how realistic is that? Especially when it is from the owners family and if you were offered a sponsorship deal from a company that was not related to your owner, what would the figure be? No where near 400m over 10 years.

 

[SupaFella]

4 of your main Sponsors come from companies owned by the Sheikhs family. In 2011 you signed a £400m 10 year shirt sponsorship deal from the Etihad, how realistic is that? Especially when it is from the owners family and if you were offered a sponsorship deal from a company that was not related to your owner, what would the figure be? No where near 400m over 10 years.

Ah! An argument of substance with actual numbers! Thank you sir

So youre basicly asking how realistic it should be that city should have a shirt sponsorship contract amounting to 40 million £ a years. So i went outto check some sources on this, here is an article from 2015:

https://ldmsportmarketing.wordpress...-see-20-increase-in-shirt-sponsorship-income/

"Shirt sponsorship income for six of the top European football leagues amounted to a total of €687M ($778M), a 20% increase compared to €570M from the ’13-14 season, according to a report by Repucom. The European Football Jersey report also showed that shirt sponsorship for the English Premier League and La Liga has risen by more than 30% this season. The report credits a significant amount of the EPL’s 36% rise in jersey sponsorship income to Man Utd’s $70M per year deal with Chevrolet."


Seriously though, if Manchester United can get a 70 million $ (53 million £) yearly shirt sponsorship deal, then why would it be so unreasonable for a top team like city to get 40 million £ per year? I can admit that it might have looked unrealistic in 2011 (although they won the league in season 2011-12), but otoh it looks way to low in 2018 given that City are the champs. If city would renegotiate it today they would ask something like 50-60 million £ per year? Probably even more given that prospects for sponsoring income are rising fast. Indeed at this rate of growth that 40 million £ per year will come across as a bargain and a loss of potential income for city in it's current status given that it will need to keep to this 40 million £ contract until 2021.

 

[LegendCantona7]

Ah! An argument of substance with actual numbers! Thank you sir

So youre basicly asking how realistic it should be that city should have a shirt sponsorship contract amounting to 40 million £ a years. So i went outto check some sources on this, here is an article from 2015:

https://ldmsportmarketing.wordpress...-see-20-increase-in-shirt-sponsorship-income/

"Shirt sponsorship income for six of the top European football leagues amounted to a total of €687M ($778M), a 20% increase compared to €570M from the ’13-14 season, according to a report by Repucom. The European Football Jersey report also showed that shirt sponsorship for the English Premier League and La Liga has risen by more than 30% this season. The report credits a significant amount of the EPL’s 36% rise in jersey sponsorship income to Man Utd’s $70M per year deal with Chevrolet."


Seriously though, if Manchester United can get a 70 million $ (53 million £) yearly shirt sponsorship deal, then why would it be so unreasonable for a top team like city to get 40 million £ per year? I can admit that it might have looked unrealistic in 2011 (although they won the league in season 2011-12), but otoh it looks way to low in 2018 given that City are the champs. If city would renegotiate it today they would ask something like 50-60 million £ per year? Probably even more given that prospects for sponsoring income are rising fast. Indeed at this rate of growth that 40 million £ per year will come across as a bargain and a loss of potential income for city in it's current status given that it will need to keep to this 40 million £ contract until 2021.

Uniteds shirt deal is a fair few years after City obtained theirs. Shirt deals are bound to increase over time. Manchester United were recieving £20m a year for their shirt deal with AON in 2011, Real Madrid were getting somethng similiar with their shirt sponsors. City before they won the league recieved £40m a year from a company that is closely linked to the owners family in 2011. That is not exactly realistic in my opinion. If AON wanted to sponsor City, do you believe they would offer £40m a year, twice as much as they were paying Manchester United? How much do you believe a company that is not related to the owner would have paid City for their shirt sponsor? I doubt it would be anywhere near £40m a year. That sponsorship deal was evidently inflated.

 

[antihenry]

Ah! An argument of substance with actual numbers! Thank you sir

So youre basicly asking how realistic it should be that city should have a shirt sponsorship contract amounting to 40 million £ a years. So i went outto check some sources on this, here is an article from 2015:

https://ldmsportmarketing.wordpress...-see-20-increase-in-shirt-sponsorship-income/

"Shirt sponsorship income for six of the top European football leagues amounted to a total of €687M ($778M), a 20% increase compared to €570M from the ’13-14 season, according to a report by Repucom. The European Football Jersey report also showed that shirt sponsorship for the English Premier League and La Liga has risen by more than 30% this season. The report credits a significant amount of the EPL’s 36% rise in jersey sponsorship income to Man Utd’s $70M per year deal with Chevrolet."


Seriously though, if Manchester United can get a 70 million $ (53 million £) yearly shirt sponsorship deal, then why would it be so unreasonable for a top team like city to get 40 million £ per year? I can admit that it might have looked unrealistic in 2011 (although they won the league in season 2011-12), but otoh it looks way to low in 2018 given that City are the champs. If city would renegotiate it today they would ask something like 50-60 million £ per year? Probably even more given that prospects for sponsoring income are rising fast. Indeed at this rate of growth that 40 million £ per year will come across as a bargain and a loss of potential income for city in it's current status given that it will need to keep to this 40 million £ contract until 2021.

Are you suggesting that Man City circa 2011 was a top club that could rival commercial appeal of the world's best like Real, Barca or United? So by your logic Leicester should have got similar deal back in 2016 fresh of their title win, right? Too bad, they didn't have your marketing team.

 

[SupaFella]

Uniteds shirt deal is a fair few years after City obtained theirs. Shirt deals are bound to increase over time. Manchester United were recieving £20m a year for their shirt deal with AON in 2011, Real Madrid were getting somethng similiar with their shirt sponsors. City before they won the league recieved £40m a year from a company that is closely linked to the owners family in 2011. That is not exactly realistic in my opinion. If AON wanted to sponsor City, do you believe they would offer £40m a year, twice as much as they were paying Manchester United? How much do you believe a company that is not related to the owner would have paid City for their shirt sponsor? I doubt it would be anywhere near £40m a year. That sponsorship deal was evidently inflated.

Are you suggesting that Man City circa 2011 was a top club that could rival commercial appeal of the world's best like Real, Barca or United? So by your logic Leicester should have got similar deal back in 2016 fresh of their title win, right? Too bad, they didn't have your marketing team.

No i'm not making that suggestion for what regards 2011. However the discussion centered a lot around what could be realistic today. Afterall it's no secret that the Arabs pumped in a lot of money but the real question was wether city's growth is sustainable and then i'd say it is given what they could get today.

Last post of the day, you will need to wait for a day fr more reply's.

 

[roonster09]

Are you suggesting that Man City circa 2011 was a top club that could rival commercial appeal of the world's best like Real, Barca or United? So by your logic Leicester should have got similar deal back in 2016 fresh of their title win, right? Too bad, they didn't have your marketing team.

Apparently it's right infront of you and you are like a kid who can't see the reality Proper delusion.

 

[Member 39557]

Ah! An argument of substance with actual numbers! Thank you sir

So youre basicly asking how realistic it should be that city should have a shirt sponsorship contract amounting to 40 million £ a years. So i went outto check some sources on this, here is an article from 2015:

https://ldmsportmarketing.wordpress...-see-20-increase-in-shirt-sponsorship-income/

"Shirt sponsorship income for six of the top European football leagues amounted to a total of €687M ($778M), a 20% increase compared to €570M from the ’13-14 season, according to a report by Repucom. The European Football Jersey report also showed that shirt sponsorship for the English Premier League and La Liga has risen by more than 30% this season. The report credits a significant amount of the EPL’s 36% rise in jersey sponsorship income to Man Utd’s $70M per year deal with Chevrolet."


Seriously though, if Manchester United can get a 70 million $ (53 million £) yearly shirt sponsorship deal, then why would it be so unreasonable for a top team like city to get 40 million £ per year? I can admit that it might have looked unrealistic in 2011 (although they won the league in season 2011-12), but otoh it looks way to low in 2018 given that City are the champs. If city would renegotiate it today they would ask something like 50-60 million £ per year? Probably even more given that prospects for sponsoring income are rising fast. Indeed at this rate of growth that 40 million £ per year will come across as a bargain and a loss of potential income for city in it's current status given that it will need to keep to this 40 million £ contract until 2021.

No, he was stating that 4 of the main sponsors are owned by the Sheikh's family. £400 million over 10 years from the Sheikh's family just for the shirt sponsor. You can try and jusify it, but it certainly points to succesfully getting around ffp. In 2011, the 2nd biggest club in Manchester attracted a bigger sponsorship deal than Real Madrid. Just let that sink in for a second, then continue to argue that it makes sense.

 

[LegendCantona7]

No i'm not making that suggestion for what regards 2011. However the discussion centered a lot around what could be realistic today. Afterall it's no secret that the Arabs pumped in a lot of money but the real question was wether city's growth is sustainable and then i'd say it is given what they could get today.

Last post of the day, you will need to wait for a day fr more reply's.

A sponsorship deal that was agreed in 2011 does not apply to what is realistic today. For a good 5 years your side was getting more money than Barcelona, United and Real Madrid for their shirt sponsor. It was not from some random company who were willing to pay you guys that money, the companies owner of your shirt sponsor is related to the owner of Manchester City. Uniteds, Barcelona and Real Madrids sponsor are linked to companies that have no association with the club with the exception of wanting their name on the front. You cannot say the same about City.

Lets look at the shirt manufactor deals. City signed a 6 year deal with Nike in 2013 worth 72m, that is 12m a year. United signed a 75m a year deal with Adidas a year later. I guess that indicates how Citys Etihad shirt sponsorship deal is inflated. Even with the new Puma deal City are going to sign or have signed, they have not surpassed Uniteds Adidas deal. Whilst "some how" they managed to get a 40m a year shirt sponsorship deal in 2011, surpassing United, Real Madrid and Barcelona. But cannot get a deal for the shirt manufactor that beats all 3 clubs in 2018. Thats because City cannot inflate a shirt manufacturer deal, all due to no one in the owners family make them.

 

[padr81]

4 of your main Sponsors come from companies owned by the Sheikhs family. In 2011 you signed a £400m 10 year shirt sponsorship deal from the Etihad, how realistic is that? Especially when it is from the owners family and if you were offered a sponsorship deal from a company that was not related to your owner, what would the figure be? No where near 400m over 10 years.

Oh I can't help myself, just when I'm out I get pulled back in. The Etihad deal is more than shirt sponsorship.. christ on a bike. Everything you posted afterwards is invalid because of this.

 

[Denis_unwise]

Last post of the day, you will need to wait for a day fr more reply's.

I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath. I suggest you use the down time to form a coherent & rational response. City are claiming that revenues are topping £500M. When taking everything into account & looking at things objectively most supporters of other teams conclude that this isn't possible. The onus is now on you to tell us how in effect you have produced a modern day miracle. Your reply should be backed by cold hard facts which are available in the public domain. Idle conjecture will not get us anywhere & we will continue going round in circles.

Oh I can't help myself, just when I'm out I get pulled back in. The Etihad deal is more than shirt sponsorship.. christ on a bike. Everything you posted afterwards is invalid because of this.

We know that the Etihad deal didn't just include shirt sponsorship. It included the stadium naming rights & sponsorship of the land around it. The point being made was that all that still didn't make you worth £400M to any company at that time.

 

[padr81]

I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath. I suggest you use the down time to form a coherent & rational response. City are claiming that revenues are topping £500M. When taking everything into account & looking at things objectively most supporters of other teams conclude that this isn't possible. The onus is now on you to tell us how in effect you have produced a modern day miracle. Your reply should be backed by cold hard facts which are available in the public domain. Idle conjecture will not get us anywhere & we will continue going round in circles.



We know that the Etihad deal didn't just include shirt sponsorship. It included the stadium naming rights & sponsorship of the land around it. The point being made was that all that still didn't make you worth £400M to any company at that time.

No its wasn't read his comment, its bad enough you make shit up but at least read your own fans opinion. He called it a 400m 10 year shirt sponsorship.

But wait there is more and explained better and in a clearer way than I ever could: http://www.sportingintelligence.com...even-be-an-undervaluation-of-their-worth-220802/

 

[Jack - City Fan]

4 of your main Sponsors come from companies owned by the Sheikhs family. In 2011 you signed a £400m 10 year shirt sponsorship deal from the Etihad, how realistic is that? Especially when it is from the owners family and if you were offered a sponsorship deal from a company that was not related to your owner, what would the figure be? No where near 400m over 10 years.

Just for the sake of facts, the deal signed at that time and which you are quoting was not a shirt deal, it was a deal for shirt sponsorship and stadium sponsorship and other things, and it was still less than United earned from a deal for just their shirts. I say this to put it into context, it was comparably nothing like the sort of value United got for their shirt sponsor at the time so comparing the 2 is slightly unjust. City gave up far more and earned far less, as they should have done.
It's tough to calculate the exact figure/proportion of what of that deal is shirt and what is stadium etc, but its worth noting that cities shirt sponsorship deal before that was only worth 2.3 million a year at that point. A 3rd of what Arsenals was earning them.

 

[Xeno]

It's tough to calculate the exact figure/proportion of what of that deal is shit

It’s all shit.

 

[christopp]

As somebody who works around different schools in manchester and the surrounding areas I can tell you now its starting to change. The last 10 years progress for city may not show in the stands not but believe me if tbey continue within the next 5-10 it will do. The majority of children are now supporting city within schools with united fans now outnumbered in the majority. This is a major change from when I was young and shows how city are becoming more popular for the youth

 

[LegendCantona7]

Oh I can't help myself, just when I'm out I get pulled back in. The Etihad deal is more than shirt sponsorship.. christ on a bike. Everything you posted afterwards is invalid because of this.

What renaming the stadium too? About 5m a year. The shirt sponsor claimed a large proportion of that deal. It still does not explain how a club that did not win the league title in so many years managed to get a shirt sponsorship deal bigger than some European powerhous

Just for the sake of facts, the deal signed at that time and which you are quoting was not a shirt deal, it was a deal for shirt sponsorship and stadium sponsorship and other things, and it was still less than United earned from a deal for just their shirts. I say this to put it into context, it was comparably nothing like the sort of value United got for their shirt sponsor at the time so comparing the 2 is slightly unjust. City gave up far more and earned far less, as they should have done.
It's tough to calculate the exact figure/proportion of what of that deal is shirt and what is stadium etc, but its worth noting that cities shirt sponsorship deal before that was only worth 2.3 million a year at that point. A 3rd of what Arsenals was earning them.

It was £40m a year which included stadium naming rights, some do not even know what that is. There are a few saying it is as little as £2m a year. They also said the money generated would improve facilities and so on. Isnt that the case with any money generated from income for a football club. Have a read of this, 3 years after they banked the original, they renegotiated deal to the double the amount. If true, funny how a club can easily do this, if that does not indicate how inflated the deal was and easily manipulated the deal can become, due to the fact the owner of the sponsor is a close relative of the owner for Manchester City.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/foot...ys-new-80million-per-year-sponsorship-5290985

 

[M113FF]

What renaming the stadium too? About 5m a year. The shirt sponsor claimed a large proportion of that deal. It still does not explain how a club that did not win the league title in so many years managed to get a shirt sponsorship deal bigger than some European powerhous


It was £40m a year which included stadium naming rights, some do not even know what that is. There are a few saying it is as little as £2m a year. They also said the money generated would improve facilities and so on. Isnt that the case with any money generated from income for a football club. Have a read of this, 3 years after they banked the original, they renegotiated deal to the double the amount. If true, funny how a club can easily do this, if that does not indicate how inflated the deal was and easily manipulated the deal can become, due to the fact the owner of the sponsor is a close relative of the owner for Manchester City.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/foot...ys-new-80million-per-year-sponsorship-5290985

That article was written in March 15. So, approaching City's accounting year end for 2014-2015. From the accounts there was just a £6mill increase in commercial income between y/e 2015 and y/e 2016. No sign of a £40mill increase.

 

[SupaFella]

No City fan will deny that we have been "leveraged", aka a lot of capital has been invested to bring the team to the top and that is indeed nothing that any team could reaslistly do withought outside investment. And yes that 400 million deal for 10 years could be argued to be part of that. But crucially this is not really what this discussion was about or something that any city fan will care about. The core of the discussion was wether this revenue and cost structure would be sustainable, the argument was made that Abu dhabi is still pumping in far more capital than we could realisticly earn withought them even today and it's exactly that notion that i was questioning. I believe that we could easily sustain the same revenue we have today withought our sugar daddy's, and that crucially an somewhat empty etihad is of relative low importance given the revenue that can be gotten from other sources. And hence the notion that the 40 million contract was unrealistic in 2011 is irrelevant for City's stature today too, indeed nowadays a 40 million yearly sponsorship deal is actually too cheap.

I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath. I suggest you use the down time to form a coherent & rational response. City are claiming that revenues are topping £500M. When taking everything into account & looking at things objectively most supporters of other teams conclude that this isn't possible. The onus is now on you to tell us how in effect you have produced a modern day miracle. Your reply should be backed by cold hard facts which are available in the public domain. Idle conjecture will not get us anywhere & we will continue going round in circles.

Again Denis_unwise the burden of the proof is upon you as it is you who claim that City would not be able to reach it's stated revenue withought indirect investment from abu dhabi.
When it regards the discussion of the 400m sponsorhsip deal for 10 years i'm sure you understand that city could easily get a 40 million per year deal nowadays for sponsorship.

As somebody who works around different schools in manchester and the surrounding areas I can tell you now its starting to change. The last 10 years progress for city may not show in the stands not but believe me if tbey continue within the next 5-10 it will do. The majority of children are now supporting city within schools with united fans now outnumbered in the majority. This is a major change from when I was young and shows how city are becoming more popular for the youth

Nice to hear, thanks for the input.

 

[Denis_unwise]

As somebody who works around different schools in manchester and the surrounding areas I can tell you now its starting to change. The last 10 years progress for city may not show in the stands not but believe me if tbey continue within the next 5-10 it will do. The majority of children are now supporting city within schools with united fans now outnumbered in the majority. This is a major change from when I was young and shows how city are becoming more popular for the youth

Nice try but a poor attempt at wumming pal. Take this shit back to BM when you go back there. Majority of kids support who their dad's support. It will be generations before City can even begin to dream of usurping Utd in playgrounds up & down the country. They have the (purported) GOAT Manager, playing the best football that's ever been seen (reportedly) & they are the biggest spenders in the history of the league. All this yet they can't fill the stadium. This is City at their highest point & they've been unable to capture the publics imagination.

Again Denis_unwise the burden of the proof is upon you as it is you who claim that City would not be able to reach it's stated revenue withought indirect investment from abu dhabi.
When it regards the discussion of the 400m sponsorhsip deal for 10 years i'm sure you understand that city could easily get a 40 million per year deal nowadays for sponsorship.

All i ask is you look at things objectively. City were a club who were mostly known for lurching from 1 disastrous situation to another. A laughing stock to most of the league. You were a yo-yo club going nowhere fast. We are now to believe that in the decade since the takeover you are the 2nd highest earning club in the league. You will likely post record league revenues in your next accounts overtaking Utd. This may be slightly believable if you had dominated the league, had success in Europe & were packing out your stadium week in week out. You have not done any of these things though. This is why we are telling you that the revenue figures you are posting are not legitimate. It can not & would not happen.

On another note to make a profit in your last accounts Mansour has had to inject £58M of his own money into the club. In your latest financial statement it was disclosed that you are still financially reliant on Mansour. I have posted the link earlier in this thread. I have backed up my assertions with proof so now where is yours.

 

[Jack - City Fan]

Nice try but a poor attempt at wumming pal. Take this shit back to BM when you go back there. Majority of kids support who their dad's support. It will be generations before City can even begin to dream of usurping Utd in playgrounds up & down the country. They have the (purported) GOAT Manager, playing the best football that's ever been seen (reportedly) & they are the biggest spenders in the history of the league. All this yet they can't fill the stadium. This is City at their highest point & they've been unable to capture the publics imagination.





All i ask is you look at things objectively. City were a club who were mostly known for lurching from 1 disastrous situation to another. A laughing stock to most of the league. You were a yo-yo club going nowhere fast. We are now to believe that in the decade since the takeover you are the 2nd highest earning club in the league. You will likely post record league revenues in your next accounts overtaking Utd. This may be slightly believable if you had dominated the league, had success in Europe & were packing out your stadium week in week out. You have not done any of these things though. This is why we are telling you that the revenue figures you are posting are not legitimate. It can not & would not happen.

On another note to make a profit in your last accounts Mansour has had to inject £58M of his own money into the club. In your latest financial statement it was disclosed that you are still financially reliant on Mansour. I have posted the link earlier in this thread. I have backed up my assertions with proof so now where is yours.

It seems like the best way to tell how profitable or otherwise City's currently are would be to look at a deal outside of the Abu Dhabi and compare it to other clubs, if its around the market value then you'd have to think that if they chose to go on the open market with things such as shirt sponsors they'd achieve roughly market value on that too.
I'd suggest comparing the City Puma shirt deal with the United Adidas deal? One thing I will say is that I'm not sure that the playgrounds up and down the country are what is taken into account a great deal when evaluating a sponsorship, I would imagine what is most important is a teams prominence on television, be it the champions league, cups or simply "bigger games". I say this just to illustrate stadium fillings and kids in playground isn't as relevant to sponsorship opportunities as team success.

 

[christopp]

Nice try but a poor attempt at wumming pal. Take this shit back to BM when you go back there. Majority of kids support who their dad's support. It will be generations before City can even begin to dream of usurping Utd in playgrounds up & down the country. They have the (purported) GOAT Manager, playing the best football that's ever been seen (reportedly) & they are the biggest spenders in the history of the league. All this yet they can't fill the stadium. This is City at their highest point & they've been unable to capture the publics imagination.





All i ask is you look at things objectively. City were a club who were mostly known for lurching from 1 disastrous situation to another. A laughing stock to most of the league. You were a yo-yo club going nowhere fast. We are now to believe that in the decade since the takeover you are the 2nd highest earning club in the league. You will likely post record league revenues in your next accounts overtaking Utd. This may be slightly believable if you had dominated the league, had success in Europe & were packing out your stadium week in week out. You have not done any of these things though. This is why we are telling you that the revenue figures you are posting are not legitimate. It can not & would not happen.

On another note to make a profit in your last accounts Mansour has had to inject £58M of his own money into the club. In your latest financial statement it was disclosed that you are still financially reliant on Mansour. I have posted the link earlier in this thread. I have backed up my assertions with proof so now where is yours.

Believe what you like pal, im not a city or united fan just a passing interest in football. But trust me atm the schools in manchester and surrounding areas are now largely populated with city fans

 

[SupaFella]

On another note to make a profit in your last accounts Mansour has had to inject £58M of his own money into the club. In your latest financial statement it was disclosed that you are still financially reliant on Mansour. I have posted the link earlier in this thread. I have backed up my assertions with proof so now where is yours.

Well no, this is no proof of youre assertion as this relates to profit and not revenue. Youre claim was that our revenue was unrealistic. Since profit can be easily inpacted by player transfers and since posting profits every year is potentially uninterresting given taxes it's not much of an indicator at all.

City were a club who were mostly known for lurching from 1 disastrous situation to another. A laughing stock to most of the league. You were a yo-yo club going nowhere fast.

But the past is irrelevant, the discussion is on wether City's revenue today is realistic.

We are now to believe that in the decade since the takeover you are the 2nd highest earning club in the league.

City also won the premier league 3 times in that decade which puts it in the absolute top of the PL. The investments were already bearing fruit sportivly in 2011 and were 7 years past that in which city won it 2 times more. I don't see how this would make it so unbelievable that city would rise to the top regions of revenue because of that, not only have the sportive results been good but so are the prospects for the future.

his may be slightly believable if you had dominated the league, had success in Europe & were packing out your stadium week in week out.

I don't see why we should hold this as a metric of what a "believable resulting revenue" should be. In the end youre really talking "gut feeling here rather than using any substance in numbers and to be frank my gut feeling tells otherwise. You should not expect that everyone shares youre gut feeling.

This is why we are telling you that the revenue figures you are posting are not legitimate. It can not & would not happen.

Give proof that "it can not or would not happen" under the sportive results that City had over the last 10 years. Well you can't. You expect me to follow you in youre "sense of reasons" but i think you should have the sense of emphaty that it's wishfull thinking that i would do so.

Frankly i have called upon you enough now to substantiate youre arguments with relevant numbers. You have simply failed to do so and all youre other arguments look more like an attempt to wring under from it. I don't expect that the next post of yours will change anything to this at this rate.

 

[jontheblue]

If you worked for a company who were potentially looking to enter into football sponsorship and had to report to your employer's board, what would you say ? One Manchester club has a rich history of winning and a huge fanbase but has won nothing of note for 7 years, seemingly with disruption in the dressing room, no clear identity, a focus on making money rather than on winning and being a centre of excellence, no sound strategies on leadership and in general terms, seems to be on the decline echoing Liverpoool after their period of domination. The other Manchester club is breaking records, playing incredibly exciting football, has one of the world's greatest managers, has at it's absolute focus despite the huge size of the project the winning of multiple titles and being a centre of excellence in everything it does, is inspiring the next generation of kids......which one sounds more appealing ? Just as United fans have taken some time to get over the fact that the majority of players will no longer choose united over city if the financial terms are the same, they seem unable to accept that for sponsors, right now, today, looking at it from the outside, one is the past and one is the future

That's before you take into account the natural synergy for companies in the UAE to be associated with a club that has abu dhabi mentioned in almost every article you read about them.

There's other evidence too, from the chinese investment that valued the company at far more than Mansour has put in to the UEFA rules that if a deal is put through at more than market rate, it's size will be pegged back (for FFP purposes) to market rate.

United fans should be more worried about just how devastating another few years of failure to perform will be on their sponsorship than the frankly, plain as the nose on your face reasons, that sponsors right now, love city

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

If you worked for a company who were potentially looking to enter into football sponsorship and had to report to your employer's board, what would you say ? One Manchester club has a rich history of winning and a huge fanbase but has won nothing of note for 7 years, seemingly with disruption in the dressing room, no clear identity, a focus on making money rather than on winning and being a centre of excellence, no sound strategies on leadership and in general terms, seems to be on the decline echoing Liverpoool after their period of domination. The other Manchester club is breaking records, playing incredibly exciting football, has one of the world's greatest managers, has at it's absolute focus despite the huge size of the project the winning of multiple titles and being a centre of excellence in everything it does, is inspiring the next generation of kids......which one sounds more appealing ? Just as United fans have taken some time to get over the fact that the majority of players will no longer choose united over city if the financial terms are the same, they seem unable to accept that for sponsors, right now, today, looking at it from the outside, one is the past and one is the future

That's before you take into account the natural synergy for companies in the UAE to be associated with a club that has abu dhabi mentioned in almost every article you read about them.

There's other evidence too, from the chinese investment that valued the company at far more than Mansour has put in to the UEFA rules that if a deal is put through at more than market rate, it's size will be pegged back (for FFP purposes) to market rate.

United fans should be more worried about just how devastating another few years of failure to perform will be on their sponsorship than the frankly, plain as the nose on your face reasons, that sponsors right now, love city

You'd love it if we cared about your plucky little club.

We don't.

 

[Kapardin]

If you worked for a company who were potentially looking to enter into football sponsorship and had to report to your employer's board, what would you say ? One Manchester club has a rich history of winning and a huge fanbase but has won nothing of note for 7 years, seemingly with disruption in the dressing room, no clear identity, a focus on making money rather than on winning and being a centre of excellence, no sound strategies on leadership and in general terms, seems to be on the decline echoing Liverpoool after their period of domination. The other Manchester club is breaking records, playing incredibly exciting football, has one of the world's greatest managers, has at it's absolute focus despite the huge size of the project the winning of multiple titles and being a centre of excellence in everything it does, is inspiring the next generation of kids......which one sounds more appealing ? Just as United fans have taken some time to get over the fact that the majority of players will no longer choose united over city if the financial terms are the same, they seem unable to accept that for sponsors, right now, today, looking at it from the outside, one is the past and one is the future

That's before you take into account the natural synergy for companies in the UAE to be associated with a club that has abu dhabi mentioned in almost every article you read about them.

There's other evidence too, from the chinese investment that valued the company at far more than Mansour has put in to the UEFA rules that if a deal is put through at more than market rate, it's size will be pegged back (for FFP purposes) to market rate.

United fans should be more worried about just how devastating another few years of failure to perform will be on their sponsorship than the frankly, plain as the nose on your face reasons, that sponsors right now, love city

This assumes success = sponsors. In reality, it is the fanbase who determine the amount of sponsors. For all the talk about us being a jaded old club devoid of style or direction, our fan base eclipses City thrice the world over atleast. And such a fanbase, bar a few fair weather fans, remain largely loyal despite the so-called bad times, buying merchandise and subscriptions etc. And this is what attracts sponsors.

It will take years for City to build such a loyal global fanbase, and so most of your sponsors are likely to originate from the UAE for now, in whom the Abu Dhabi Government has a sizeable stake.

 

[jontheblue]

You'd love it if we cared about your plucky little club.

We don't.

You're posting on a thread about city, but don't care about city. You look really smart

 

[jontheblue]

This assumes success = sponsors. In reality, it is the fanbase who determine the amount of sponsors. For all the talk about us being a jaded old club devoid of style or direction, our fan base eclipses City thrice the world over atleast. And such a fanbase, bar a few fair weather fans, remain largely loyal despite the so-called bad times, buying merchandise and subscriptions etc. And this is what attracts sponsors.

It will take years for City to build such a loyal global fanbase, and so most of your sponsors are likely to originate from the UAE for now, in whom the Abu Dhabi Government has a sizeable stake.

That's one part of sponsorship, absolutely. Our fanbase is of course, most definitely smaller.But there is also an element of sponsorship that is based on newspaper column inches, tv interest, etc. I don't think United are finished, far from it. Only an idiot would write them off. But again, sponsors looking at the 'right now' will only see one club with the momentum, the excitement and the international interest.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

You're posting on a thread about city, but don't care about city. You look really smart

You're posting about City on a Manchester United forum.

 

[Kapardin]

That's one part of sponsorship, absolutely. Our fanbase is of course, most definitely smaller.But there is also an element of sponsorship that is based on newspaper column inches, tv interest, etc. I don't think United are finished, far from it. Only an idiot would write them off. But again, sponsors looking at the 'right now' will only see one club with the momentum, the excitement and the international interest.

I'd argue that even that is determined by fanbase and is in favor of United. Mourinho losing 4 games in a row with us would probably get more clicks than City winning the league precisely for that reason, and in a way, even negative coverage would attract sponsors, since there are more fans for United based news obviously.

I don't grudge City their success. It's pretty much normal in the modern game for a previously modest club to be elevated by a generous owner. I suppose the damning fact is that we have as much resources as City do, earned by ourselves, to go toe-to-toe with City, and yet don't due to mismanagement and incompetence. But I don't believe City will ever become bigger than United; even if we become Arsenalesque for the next 20 years.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Fine. The floor is all yours. Go ahead and enlighten me on the factual inaccuracies in my post.

The obvious reasons being that City's accounts are audited by an independent global auditor using European accounting standards and then those accounts are examined by Uefa, both organisations being satisfied that no sponsorship was by a related party and that sponsorship levels were at a reasonable level?

No such thing mate.

IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) is maybe what you are looking for, but your post indicates you have no idea what you are talking about, therefore I suggest that we can discount everything that you post.

 

[Sassy Colin]

City's commercial revenue is as much as Arsenal's and Liverpool's combined and few lap it up saying it's actual growth

So City have larger commercial revenues that the 2nd & 3rd biggest clubs in the league, Liverpool & Arsenal. The 4th biggest club in the league, Spurs, lagging way behind.

Chelsea should be around West Ham/Everton level and City should be around, maybe, Stoke levels.

 

[cyberman]

So City have larger commercial revenues that the 2nd & 3rd biggest clubs in the league, Liverpool & Arsenal. The 4th biggest club in the league, Spurs, lagging way behind.

Chelsea should be around West Ham/Everton level and City should be around, maybe, Stoke levels.

Chelsea should be Citys prototype. Theres no way they should be having twice the growth from a 5th of the success.

 

[tenpoless]

Believe what you like pal, im not a city or united fan just a passing interest in football. But trust me atm the schools in manchester and surrounding areas are now largely populated with city fans

Nice to hear, thanks for the input.

What kind of input was that exactly?

If City's commercial revenue was claimed to be as big as Liverpool's or Arsenal's then it'll be a bit more realistic. But to be almost as big as both combined? no chance, take a look at your empty seats. Sponsors are looking for audiences to advertise their brands, in the case of football clubs the number of supporters or fans. If people can't even be bothered to turn up (even worse now that you claimed Manchester is largely populated by City fans) to watch City in a Champions League match then Why would They even be interested in the club's merchandise? let alone the sponsors.

The fact that You managed to win the league 3 times in a decade and still have empty seats in important matches is amazing. And still, no City fans have given a proper explanation about the club's commercial revenue, only the same old "well it is possible these days, we won the league, blahblahblah" which means feck all.

 

[jontheblue]

You're posting about City on a Manchester United forum.

In a thread about City. Your point ?

 

[jontheblue]

I'd argue that even that is determined by fanbase and is in favor of United. Mourinho losing 4 games in a row with us would probably get more clicks than City winning the league precisely for that reason, and in a way, even negative coverage would attract sponsors, since there are more fans for United based news obviously.

I don't grudge City their success. It's pretty much normal in the modern game for a previously modest club to be elevated by a generous owner. I suppose the damning fact is that we have as much resources as City do, earned by ourselves, to go toe-to-toe with City, and yet don't due to mismanagement and incompetence. But I don't believe City will ever become bigger than United; even if we become Arsenalesque for the next 20 years.

Look there's no question how popular United still are. Hence having greater commercial income. But the gap is closing and I think the worrying time for United is if there are another few years of uncertainty because that's when the commercial sponsors start to lose faith

It's your second paragraph that gets to the crux of the problem for United. Where is the indication that right now, money is the answer to United's problems. Bigger ? I don't know, depends on the definition for a start. I readily admit United will be significantly bigger by most definitions for decades to come. But commercially, with every year that City win/improve and United don't, suggestions that sponsors aren't putting in real, legitimate money to City will star to look more and more absurd