Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

[KeninDC]

Never in a million years were City getting £40m a year before they'd even so much as played in the Champions League. Even now Barcelona only get £30m a year for their kit sponsorship now. If we want to be generous and pretend the stadium is worth £10m a year are we also going to stretch that to pretend they could get as much as Barcelona?

I'm neutral here-but here's the conclusion from the Swiss Ramble:

"There may be a whiff of creative accounting around this incredible deal, but there’s also genuine substance and benefit to the community. City’s commercial growth might have been fuelled by money from companies that are at the very least “friendly” towards their owner, but when the deals are broken down the sums are not inordinately high, so are more or less in line with benchmarks."

 

[acnumber9]

I'm neutral here-but here's the conclusion from the Swiss Ramble:

"There may be a whiff of creative accounting around this incredible deal, but there’s also genuine substance and benefit to the community. City’s commercial growth might have been fuelled by money from companies that are at the very least “friendly” towards their owner, but when the deals are broken down the sums are not inordinately high, so are more or less in line with benchmarks."

From that very blog it says Bayern Munich earn £5m a season from stadium sponsorship. So City basically have a better deal than Barcelona for kit sponsorship and a better stadium deal than Bayern. It my be close to the benchmarks but it goes above them for a club not even close to the same level.

 

[KeninDC]

From that very blog it says Bayern Munich earn £5m a season from stadium sponsorship. So City basically have a better deal than Barcelona for kit sponsorship and a better stadium deal than Bayern. It my be close to the benchmarks but it goes above them for a club not even close to the same level.

@acnumber9 - Sounds like you should do an in-depth piece rebutting the information out there supporting the Etihad's valuation. I'd be interested in reading it.

Regarding the Allianz versus Etihad naming rights difference-the author posits that the difference may be reasonable given the EPL's TV reach relative to the Bundesliga.

Determining value is not an exact science-seems to me that the Etihad deal is aggressive, but not necessarily untoward. If this was a legal dispute I'd be interested in hearing both sides. So-go for it.

 

[BobbyManc]

From that very blog it says Bayern Munich earn £5m a season from stadium sponsorship. So City basically have a better deal than Barcelona for kit sponsorship and a better stadium deal than Bayern. It my be close to the benchmarks but it goes above them for a club not even close to the same level.

Are you actually reading the article? It quite clearly says Barcelona's shirt deal is worth £10m a year more than City's. Besides, as the article points out, no one knows what Etihad have valued each aspect of the sponsorship at so it is pointless to compare it to another deal. We don't know what it is worth, but your bias and agenda won't stop you claiming it to be worth as much as Barcelona's.

 

[acnumber9]

Are you actually reading the article? It quite clearly says Barcelona's shirt deal is worth £10m a year more than City's. Besides, as the article points out, no one knows what Etihad have valued each aspect of the sponsorship at so it is pointless to compare it to another deal. We don't know what it is worth, but your bias and agenda won't stop you claiming it to be worth as much as Barcelona's.

How would anyone know? The deal is bundled together. The writer himself says he doesn't know but tells us the kit deal is £20m. How is he or you figuring that one out? He is taking a guess. But let's say it is £20m, that means the stadium sponsorship is worth almost 4 times as much as Bayern's if we factor a little in for your training complex. Have a think about that and get back to me with how realistic that is.

 

[acnumber9]

@acnumber9 - Sounds like you should do an in-depth piece rebutting the information out there supporting the Etihad's valuation. I'd be interested in reading it.

Regarding the Allianz versus Etihad naming rights difference-the author posits that the difference may be reasonable given the EPL's TV reach relative to the Bundesliga.

Determining value is not an exact science-seems to me that the Etihad deal is aggressive, but not necessarily untoward. If this was a legal dispute I'd be interested in hearing both sides. So-go for it.

What more would you like me to say than I already have? If you combine the best kit sponsorship deal with the best stadium sponsorship it is still less than a deal Man City give themselves before they'd played a single Champions League game.

 

[KeninDC]

What more would you like me to say than I already have? If you combine the best kit sponsorship deal with the best stadium sponsorship it is still less than a deal Man City give themselves before they'd played a single Champions League game.

Ok. Thanks. Very helpful.

 

[BobbyManc]

How would anyone know? The deal is bundled together. The writer himself says he doesn't know but tells us the kit deal is £20m. How is he or you figuring that one out? He is taking a guess. But let's say it is £20m, that means the stadium sponsorship is worth almost 4 times as much as Bayern's if we factor a little in for your training complex. Have a think about that and get back to me with how realistic that is.

Well you claimed City's deal was worth as much as Barca's which nobody claimed.

I have no need to get back to your hypothetical figures thank you very much. They have as much worth as me saying the stadium deal is valued at £1m a year. You can pluck figures out your arse as much as you like but they count for nothing.

 

[acnumber9]

Well you claimed City's deal was worth as much as Barca's which nobody claimed.

I have no need to get back to your hypothetical figures thank you very much. They have as much worth as me saying the stadium deal is valued at £1m a year. You can pluck figures out your arse as much as you like but they count for nothing.

I hypothesised. I even pointed out in my posts that's what I was doing. Sorry if you missed that. I don't need to pluck figures out my arse. If their kit deal isn't as big as Barca's then their stadium sponsorship is even more ridiculous. Slice it what way you want. City's deal combined is bigger than the next biggest kit and stadium sponsors combined. Anyone believing that deal could be done legitimately is stark raving bonkers.

 

[Plugsy]

If the rules continue to be flouted as PSG seem intent to do, UEFA has an issue as they'd effectively have clubs who have toed the line and those who have decided they don't have to. Whilst acceptance of the rules and a willingness to comply may garner sympathy from fellow influential clubs, not many are going to be happy about sticking to the rules and adjusting finance accordingly if clubs such as PSG are simply going to decide they don't want to.

Clubs who openly flout the rules may find themselves not only punished by UEFA but also isolated by their peers, which could be an even more perilous situation than having UEFA pissed off at them.

 

[BobbyManc]

I hypothesised. I even pointed out in my posts that's what I was doing. Sorry if you missed that. I don't need to pluck figures out my arse. If their kit deal isn't as big as Barca's then their stadium sponsorship is even more ridiculous. Slice it what way you want. City's deal combined is bigger than the next biggest kit and stadium sponsors combined. Anyone believing that deal could be done legitimately is stark raving bonkers.

You're making the quite common error in again restricting the Etihad deal to simply shirt and stadium sponsorship. It isn't.

If you don't need to pluck figures out your arse then why are you doing it? My answer is you are doing so because an article from the respected SwissRamble blog has clearly looked into the issue more than you or I and has concluded the Eithad deal is reasonable. But your agenda and bitterness won't let you accept that possibility.

 

[Plugsy]

I hypothesised. I even pointed out in my posts that's what I was doing. Sorry if you missed that. I don't need to pluck figures out my arse. If their kit deal isn't as big as Barca's then their stadium sponsorship is even more ridiculous. Slice it what way you want. City's deal combined is bigger than the next biggest kit and stadium sponsors combined. Anyone believing that deal could be done legitimately is stark raving bonkers.

Exactly, whether or not it convenes FFP is irrelevant to the fact that it's a myth City are self-sufficient. The revenue they earn as a club that isn't artificially inflated, invented or in any other way cooked due to the owner and his various business ties and influence would not come close to covering their present wage bill quite apart from all other financial obligations they have. For example if they split transfer fees over instalments as is very likely, God knows how much of the spending of the last two season they still have left to pay.

It's what's astonishing about City fans running around pretending that the club is self-sufficient. Without the owner it's likely that 75-80% of the squad would have to be demolished. Even WITH the money that doesn't really exist they're in the red by over £50m

 

[Barca84]

We don't know what it is worth, but your bias and agenda won't stop you claiming it to be worth as much as Barcelona's.

Pot kettle pal. Are you seriously claiming to have an objective view on your club and its FFP status? You've done nowt except view it all through blue tinted glasses to the extent of hilariously portraying the bankrolling of City as some sort of heroic and valiant assault on some evil footballing cartel. You'll defend them to the hilt because you're a fan but, shock horror, you'll find somewhat different views elsewhere and not just on a United forum.

 

[acnumber9]

You're making the quite common error in again restricting the Etihad deal to simply shirt and stadium sponsorship. It isn't.

If you don't need to pluck figures out your arse then why are you doing it? My answer is you are doing so because an article from the respected SwissRamble blog has clearly looked into the issue more than you or I and has concluded the Eithad deal is reasonable. But your agenda and bitterness won't let you accept that possibility.

You obviously missed me mentioning the training complex too.

The figures I've used are what is widely reported. I've merely attributed them as generously as possible in comparison to similar publicised deals. I've also said combined they're bigger than if you combine Bayern's stadium deal and Barcelona's shirt deal. You keep your buried in the sand though and pretend City could've got that deal legitimately if it makes you happy. Nothing's going to convince me the deal is realistic compared against what the sports biggest clubs can muster. Certainly not an individual's opinion.

 

[BobbyManc]

Pot kettle pal. Are you seriously claiming to have an objective view on your club and its FFP status? You've done nowt except view it all through blue tinted glasses to the extent of hilariously portraying the bankrolling of City as some sort of heroic and valiant assault on some evil footballing cartel. You'll defend them to the hilt because you're a fan but, shock horror, you'll find somewhat different views elsewhere and not just on a United forum.

If you look through this thread you'll also see I have openly admitted to being biased. My problem is the other poster seemed to accuse me of it without accepting his own bias in the matter. Views on FFP differ among the 'neutral' fans, obviously. But this particular argument is about the Etihad deal. And UEFA have no problem with it. The SwissRamble blog felt it to be reasonable enough. Yet some people seem unable to grasp that.

 

[BobbyManc]

You obviously missed me mentioning the training complex too.

The figures I've used are what is widely reported. I've merely attributed them as generously as possible in comparison to similar publicised deals. I've also said combined they're bigger than if you combine Bayern's stadium deal and Barcelona's shirt deal. You keep your buried in the sand though and pretend City could've got that deal legitimately if it makes you happy. Nothing's going to convince me the deal is realistic compared against what the sports biggest clubs can muster. Certainly not an individual's opinion.

On no. Well if you can't be convinced that it is a realistic deal then what chance do City have of convincing UEFA who will assess it much more stringently than you have!?

Oh wait...

 

[acnumber9]

1. UEFA had no say because it is not their call whether it was a RPT. It if it was it would have been flagged up by the relevant authorities. City and their auditors have to disclose it as a RPT if it is one. If they lied, they would face the consequences and not from UEFA.

2. UEFA did have a say over whether it was fair value, just as they did regards the PSG Qatari tourism (?) deal. They deemed it fair value

On no. Well if you can't be convinced that it is a realistic deal then what chance do City have of convincing UEFA who will assess it much more stringently than you have!?

Oh wait...

You're contradicting yourself at every turn. When did UEFA have their say on this fair value that you say they cannot have a say on?

 

[BobbyManc]

You're contradicting yourself at every turn. When did UEFA have their say on this fair value that you say they cannot have a say on?

"UEFA did have a say over whether it was fair value". I said that in point number 2. UEFA could assess whether it was fair value but it was not their decision to make whether it was RPT. Nice try though.

 

[acnumber9]

"UEFA did have a say over whether it was fair value". I said that in point number 2. UEFA could assess whether it was fair value but it was not their decision to make whether it was RPT. Nice try though.

When did they do this and why if it wasn't their decision if it could be considered? I'd be delighted to read about this but google hasn't been helpful.

 

[Beachryan]

I've tried to wade through most of this thread and it's generally pretty good stuff.

Here's another analysis of the Etihad deal that is not from a City forum that seems to conclude the deal is within valid ranges. As I said earlier-getting money from Etihad certainly reduced search costs, but that doesn't mean they would not have been able to secure similar amounts from other sources.

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/07/manchester-citys-incredible-deal-know.html

I don't have a huge problem with the value of that deal, rather the source. It's fine to say that it is somewhat in line with market but I think everyone knows that no way would others have been willing to take that risk. Any sponsorship would have been far more incentive driven, and contingent on future success, rather than just being in line with the very best sponsorship in world football for a club that wasn't at the time at that level.

The most interesting question for me has always been and will always be: what does the Sheikh get out of this arrangement? These are the absolute facts of the matter:

1. He has no known previous affinity for that region of Manchester - this is not philanthropy that appears personal
2. He will NEVER get a return on his investment in City. He will have spent over 1bn to maybe swing 10m a year if things go really well. Literally sticking that 1bn in a savings account would be more profitable over his life than 'investing' in City
3. He doesn't go to matches. We hear that he watches from home, but if I had access to a small fleet of private jets and more money than God I'd at least go to my team's football matches
4. The main revenue for City has come from his relatives

The only conclusion I've ever been able to come up with is that you just can't apply business logic to sovereign wealth at that level. Abramovich I totally get - he needed to get money out of Russia, needed a UK domicile and actually appears to derive enjoyment from his asset.

City isn't an 'investment'. It is indeed, a 'project'. I just don't believe I'll ever have any idea why losing 1bn on a football team in some far off land is more advantageous than spending it improving your infrastructure, or even just investing it on the market and using the returns to better things. My working theory is that it's such a tiny amount of money to Mansour it really is just something fun to pass the time. Like us throwing a fiver on United winning the league next year.

 

[BobbyManc]

When did they do this and why if it wasn't their decision if it could be considered? I'd be delighted to read about this but google hasn't been helpful.

When did they do it? Whenever they assessed our accounts for FFP. They can assess whether it was fair value. They don't assess whether it is a RPT as when the accounts are handed over unless we claim it is a RPT then it is accepted that it isn't. Like I said, they had no problem with the Etihad deal but we did have to agree that we would not renegotiate the deal which is fair enough.

 

[BobbyManc]

I've tried to wade through most of this thread and it's generally pretty good stuff.


I don't have a huge problem with the value of that deal, rather the source. It's fine to say that it is somewhat in line with market but I think everyone knows that no way would others have been willing to take that risk. Any sponsorship would have been far more incentive driven, and contingent on future success, rather than just being in line with the very best sponsorship in world football for a club that wasn't at the time at that level.

The most interesting question for me has always been and will always be: what does the Sheikh get out of this arrangement? These are the absolute facts of the matter:

1. He has no known previous affinity for that region of Manchester - this is not philanthropy that appears personal
2. He will NEVER get a return on his investment in City. He will have spent over 1bn to maybe swing 10m a year if things go really well. Literally sticking that 1bn in a savings account would be more profitable over his life than 'investing' in City
3. He doesn't go to matches. We hear that he watches from home, but if I had access to a small fleet of private jets and more money than God I'd at least go to my team's football matches
4. The main revenue for City has come from his relatives

The only conclusion I've ever been able to come up with is that you just can't apply business logic to sovereign wealth at that level. Abramovich I totally get - he needed to get money out of Russia, needed a UK domicile and actually appears to derive enjoyment from his asset.

City isn't an 'investment'. It is indeed, a 'project'. I just don't believe I'll ever have any idea why losing 1bn on a football team in some far off land is more advantageous than spending it improving your infrastructure, or even just investing it on the market and using the returns to better things. My working theory is that it's such a tiny amount of money to Mansour it really is just something fun to pass the time. Like us throwing a fiver on United winning the league next year.

£1bn is not a small amount to anyone. No one invests that much just to pass the time. Man City is all about selling the image of Abu Dhabi. Manchester City as things stand will not directly reward Mansour but may indirectly benefit Abu Dhabi. Same reason Qatar are hosting the World Cup. They are never going to make the money back that they spend but it will be absolutely monumental in enhancing the status and image of Qatar.

 

[acnumber9]

When did they do it? Whenever they assessed our accounts for FFP. They can assess whether it was fair value. They don't assess whether it is a RPT as when the accounts are handed over unless we claim it is a RPT then it is accepted that it isn't. Like I said, they had no problem with the Etihad deal but we did have to agree that we would not renegotiate the deal which is fair enough.

And when did they say it was fair value? I'd love to read the statement on that. Have you got a link handy?

 

[Beachryan]

£1bn is not a small amount to anyone. No one invests that much just to pass the time. Man City is all about selling the image of Abu Dhabi. Manchester City as things stand will not directly reward Mansour but may indirectly benefit Abu Dhabi. Same reason Qatar are hosting the World Cup. They are never going to make the money back that they spend but it will be absolutely monumental in enhancing the status and image of Qatar.

You can't tell me that a football club in Manchester is the best way to promote the 'image' of Abu Dhabi for $1.6bn or so. That is not optimal marketing spend.

The World Cup makes slightly more sense, as it will ensure the focus of the world for a few weeks. But at that cost...it's staggering. And that's just the bribes!

 

[Barca84]

The only conclusion I've ever been able to come up with is that you just can't apply business logic to sovereign wealth at that level. Abramovich I totally get - he needed to get money out of Russia, needed a UK domicile and actually appears to derive enjoyment from his asset.

City isn't an 'investment'. It is indeed, a 'project'. I just don't believe I'll ever have any idea why losing 1bn on a football team in some far off land is more advantageous than spending it improving your infrastructure, or even just investing it on the market and using the returns to better things. My working theory is that it's such a tiny amount of money to Mansour it really is just something fun to pass the time. Like us throwing a fiver on United winning the league next year.

I think you're missing the point with the City project. IT is certainly not just a fun way to "pass time" but rather a very important exercise in global PR. The Abu Dhabi regime is a brutal and repressive one where human rights hold little value and where torture is common practice as a form of crushing dissent. The purchase of City is an attempt to spring clean their "brand" so to speak - it's Abu Dhabi's shop window in the west with which they are attempting to portray that they are actually really quite lovely and concerned for the well being of their fellow man. They'll do this by, for example, spending what to them is a pittance on developing an impoverished area of a western industrial city. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch can tell you all you need to know about this lot and it's deeply ironic that a club from Manchester, a city inextricably linked to the historic struggle for workers rights, is being used as nothing more than a vehicle by a regime that denies those very same rights to its people.

City are being ridden for political purposes. They were chosen largely because what better shop window was there to use than the poor relations of perhaps the biggest global brand in football. The owners sole interest is to take attention away from the shop of human rights horrors that is the UAE.

 

[PedroMendez]

You can't tell me that a football club in Manchester is the best way to promote the 'image' of Abu Dhabi for $1.6bn or so. That is not optimal marketing spend.

The World Cup makes slightly more sense, as it will ensure the focus of the world for a few weeks. But at that cost...it's staggering. And that's just the bribes!

he also bought/invested in "New York City FC", "Melbourne Heart FC" and "YF Marinos" (Yokohama).

Its a global long term investment to create a brand/image about Abu Dhabi. At the moment these guys (at least the elite) have almost unlimited funds, because they own huge amounts of oil (about 10% of the world´s oil reserves). They understood, that oil wont guarantee wealth forever (long-long-long term considerations). Their biggest intention is the diversification of their economy. They have many investments that could be considered as "waste of money" but in the long run it might pay out. High-tech, education and good relations/connections in a globalized world are their only way to secure their power (and their wealth) in the future. They are too small to rely on military force.
Its always hard to evaluate/understand a longterm strategy. They want to "cash in" on these investments in 20-30 years. At the moment they are totally fine without them.

 

[KeninDC]

I've tried to wade through most of this thread and it's generally pretty good stuff.


I don't have a huge problem with the value of that deal, rather the source. It's fine to say that it is somewhat in line with market but I think everyone knows that no way would others have been willing to take that risk. Any sponsorship would have been far more incentive driven, and contingent on future success, rather than just being in line with the very best sponsorship in world football for a club that wasn't at the time at that level.

The most interesting question for me has always been and will always be: what does the Sheikh get out of this arrangement? These are the absolute facts of the matter:

1. He has no known previous affinity for that region of Manchester - this is not philanthropy that appears personal
2. He will NEVER get a return on his investment in City. He will have spent over 1bn to maybe swing 10m a year if things go really well. Literally sticking that 1bn in a savings account would be more profitable over his life than 'investing' in City
3. He doesn't go to matches. We hear that he watches from home, but if I had access to a small fleet of private jets and more money than God I'd at least go to my team's football matches
4. The main revenue for City has come from his relatives

The only conclusion I've ever been able to come up with is that you just can't apply business logic to sovereign wealth at that level. Abramovich I totally get - he needed to get money out of Russia, needed a UK domicile and actually appears to derive enjoyment from his asset.

City isn't an 'investment'. It is indeed, a 'project'. I just don't believe I'll ever have any idea why losing 1bn on a football team in some far off land is more advantageous than spending it improving your infrastructure, or even just investing it on the market and using the returns to better things. My working theory is that it's such a tiny amount of money to Mansour it really is just something fun to pass the time. Like us throwing a fiver on United winning the league next year.

Fair points all around. Here's my punt on why the Sheikh invested in City--and it may be crazy. I get the sense that Dubai and Abu Dhabi want to differentiate themselves from other Middle East countries that may be perceived as less friendly towards western investors and governments. So--by sponsoring City you establish yourself as pretty tame and friendly towards the west. Given that City was bought in 2008--one billion pounds over six years is about 160 billion per year-which is a rounding error for these guys. But-it buys goodwill, which is what I think was the purpose of the exercise.

I know this sounds like I got the information from transmissions that I received from my tinfoil antenna--so I'm open to any other ideas.

EDIT--Looks like the previous two posters beat me to it.

 

[BobbyManc]

You can't tell me that a football club in Manchester is the best way to promote the 'image' of Abu Dhabi for $1.6bn or so. That is not optimal marketing spend.

The World Cup makes slightly more sense, as it will ensure the focus of the world for a few weeks. But at that cost...it's staggering. And that's just the bribes!

Depends what they are trying to achieve. Evidently, Mansour and his advisers felt purchasing a football club and turning them into a trophy-winning one was a very good way of promoting their image.

 

[Plugsy]

If City is purely a PR promotional vehicle, which sounds plausible, surely taking on the authorities over FFP is something they'll only wish to take so far. It's not hugely great PR, if that's what it is, to be a rogue/anti-establishment element

 

[BobbyManc]

If City is purely a PR promotional vehicle, which sounds plausible, surely taking on the authorities over FFP is something they'll only wish to take so far. It's not hugely great PR, if that's what it is, to be a rogue/anti-establishment element

Well they've not taken on the authorities at all so far and I don't think they intend to do so.

 

[Plugsy]

Well they've not taken on the authorities at all so far and I don't think they intend to do so.

Aren't the first 30 odd pages of this thread essentially you insisting they'd initiate legal proceedings against UEFA for violating European competition law?

 

[BobbyManc]

Aren't the first 30 odd pages of this thread essentially you insisting they'd initiate legal proceedings against UEFA for violating European competition law?

I don't think I ever insisted City would take legal action.

 

[PedroMendez]

If City is purely a PR promotional vehicle, which sounds plausible, surely taking on the authorities over FFP is something they'll only wish to take so far. It's not hugely great PR, if that's what it is, to be a rogue/anti-establishment element

well....they didnt make a big fuss about FFP, do they?
Just look at their chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak. This guy is extremly polite, calm and professional, never complains about anything; always perfectly styled in suit and prepared. At a event like the "world economics forum" or the "government summit", his appearance/talk is (slightly) different. Their PR is different to a club like Chelsea. Way more thought through/professional. They know exactly what they want to communicate and arrange everything accordingly.

 

[Manchester Dan]

well....they didnt make a big fuss about FFP, do they?
Just look at their chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak. This guy is extremly polite, calm and professional, never complains about anything; always perfectly styled in suit and prepared. At a event like the "world economics forum" or the "government summit", his appearance/talk is (slightly) different. Their PR is different to a club like Chelsea. Way more thought through/professional. They know exactly what they want to communicate and arrange everything accordingly.

I have a lot of time for Khaldoon, he just oozes class. You may have criticisms about the way we are run financially, but I don't think anybody can argue that the way our whole executive team conduct themselves is fantastic - a far cry from your typical foreign investors these days. Can you imagine a Vincent Tan running a club with similar levels of investment (actually, I want to see that!).

 

[Manchester Dan]

I've tried to wade through most of this thread and it's generally pretty good stuff.

I don't have a huge problem with the value of that deal, rather the source. It's fine to say that it is somewhat in line with market but I think everyone knows that no way would others have been willing to take that risk. Any sponsorship would have been far more incentive driven, and contingent on future success, rather than just being in line with the very best sponsorship in world football for a club that wasn't at the time at that level.

The most interesting question for me has always been and will always be: what does the Sheikh get out of this arrangement? These are the absolute facts of the matter:

1. He has no known previous affinity for that region of Manchester - this is not philanthropy that appears personal
2. He will NEVER get a return on his investment in City. He will have spent over 1bn to maybe swing 10m a year if things go really well. Literally sticking that 1bn in a savings account would be more profitable over his life than 'investing' in City
3. He doesn't go to matches. We hear that he watches from home, but if I had access to a small fleet of private jets and more money than God I'd at least go to my team's football matches
4. The main revenue for City has come from his relatives

The only conclusion I've ever been able to come up with is that you just can't apply business logic to sovereign wealth at that level. Abramovich I totally get - he needed to get money out of Russia, needed a UK domicile and actually appears to derive enjoyment from his asset.

City isn't an 'investment'. It is indeed, a 'project'. I just don't believe I'll ever have any idea why losing 1bn on a football team in some far off land is more advantageous than spending it improving your infrastructure, or even just investing it on the market and using the returns to better things. My working theory is that it's such a tiny amount of money to Mansour it really is just something fun to pass the time. Like us throwing a fiver on United winning the league next year.

I think it's difficult to form an opinion on the enjoyment he gets out of football in general based on his lack of live attendance - he's a far busier man than Abramovich. As well as being deputy prime minister of UAE, he also owns, chairs and councils various large investment businesses. Consider how little you see our key politicians at the football, with their sides playing just down the road - add a day of travelling either side of that and it's just far too time consuming.

I think there is definitely an element of PR involved in terms of putting UAE on the map in the west, and an element of fun too. You mention it would be wiser to invest it elsewhere, but they are already investing everywhere - they aren't exactly running out of money to invest. Sheikh Mansour helped to bail out Barclays during the collapse in 2008, and sold his shares for a £2.25bn profit in 2010. When money is no object, you clearly build nice things and enjoy them.

 

[PedroMendez]

I have a lot of time for Khaldoon, he just oozes class. You may have criticisms about the way we are run financially, but I don't think anybody can argue that the way our whole executive team conduct themselves is fantastic - a far cry from your typical foreign investors these days. Can you imagine a Vincent Tan running a club with similar levels of investment (actually, I want to see that!).

dont get me wrong. If you want to have an investor, you properly want to have Khaldoon your chief executive. I never said or implied, that your investors are doing a bad job. I am just saying, that he is presenting a picture, that is actually not reality. He still hails his king and is actually a royalist/monarchist regardless of what he is saying in western media. Manchester City is one of the best marketing campaigns the world has ever seen. Just google his speeches on those two events and listen to them. If you dont see a difference to his "everyday business", you are ignorant or blind.

 

[Beachryan]

I think it's difficult to form an opinion on the enjoyment he gets out of football in general based on his lack of live attendance - he's a far busier man than Abramovich. As well as being deputy prime minister of UAE, he also owns, chairs and councils various large investment businesses. Consider how little you see our key politicians at the football, with their sides playing just down the road - add a day of travelling either side of that and it's just far too time consuming.

I think there is definitely an element of PR involved in terms of putting UAE on the map in the west, and an element of fun too. You mention it would be wiser to invest it elsewhere, but they are already investing everywhere - they aren't exactly running out of money to invest. Sheikh Mansour helped to bail out Barclays during the collapse in 2008, and sold his shares for a £2.25bn profit in 2010. When money is no object, you clearly build nice things and enjoy them.

That's exactly how I view City. A nice thing an insanely wealthy man occasionally gets to enjoy. Kind of like a yacht.

Only difference, of course, is that if buying a 1bn yacht and racing it against a bunch of smaller, cheaper yachts in a competitive league isn't that much fun. Oh wait, that's the America's Cup

 

[Barca84]

Well they've not taken on the authorities at all so far and I don't think they intend to do so.

It was reported that they were furious with the FFP sanctions. The reason for that is that it's been a PR disaster for them and it would have looked even worse if they had taken them on.

For those who sing the praises of Khaldoon you should think twice. He "oozes class" does he? This man has been largely responsible for managing Dubai's international image. For public relations think propoganda.This man with the smile, sharp suit and unfailing politeness is charged with trying to kid the west that their regime is one of recognisable western values, progressive and human rights focused. Meanwhile back in the UAE someone somewhere is getting tortured for dissent - ordinary working folk the majority of whom are denied the right to even vote . If it wasn't for the fact that we as a country are in with this lot for several billion ££££ worth of arms manufacture (a dozen Typhoon fighters anyone?) they wouldn't get close to passing a fit and proper owners test

Classy they are not.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

I hear Goebbels was a pretty classy individual too.

 

[Crustanoid]

That's exactly how I view City. A nice thing an insanely wealthy man occasionally gets to enjoy. Kind of like a yacht.

Only difference, of course, is that if buying a 1bn yacht and racing it against a bunch of smaller, cheaper yachts in a competitive league isn't that much fun. Oh wait, that's the America's Cup

City are like the guy that can't complete the rubic cube, so peels off the stickers and sticks them back on.....then proclaims that he's mastered it