The Banter Thread
- Thread starter CliffyBiro
- Start date
- Status
Setting more records
Pretty amusing by the sounds of it. "City are in a lot of trouble aren't they?", "Not really, no".. "But they are really, aren't they?", "Er.. No, they're not, in fact they could likely be the most financially solid club in the league in 3-5 years"... "Please leave".
Soldato
Impressive numbers 
Lol at that, the most financially solid club in the league haha, wages alone exceed total turnover, solid as a rock!
Would like to see an updated version of this article incorporating the 10/11 figures, would make interesting reading
http://abehnisch.com/comparing-big-club-spending/
Lol at that, the most financially solid club in the league haha, wages alone exceed total turnover, solid as a rock!
Would like to see an updated version of this article incorporating the 10/11 figures, would make interesting reading
http://abehnisch.com/comparing-big-club-spending/
Last edited:
Lol at that, the most financially solid club in the league haha, wages alone exceed total turnover, solid as a rock!
...In 3-5 years.. Our turnover is rocketing skywards, we have the fastest growing revenue of any team since the start of the PL. I've not had a chance to look yet as I'm still at work, but from a quick scan they don't include CL money or the new Etihad deal either? I'm sure the Swiss Ramble will do a good review soon enough.
That's also two experts they've had on SSN now saying we have nothing to worry about. They're going to have to start screening these idiots because it's not fitting in with the party line at all
Impressive numbers
Lol at that, the most financially solid club in the league haha, wages alone exceed total turnover, solid as a rock!
Would like to see an updated version of this article incorporating the 10/11 figures, would make interesting reading
http://abehnisch.com/comparing-big-club-spending/
oh please, unless the arabs do a runner which I cant see it, then they will continue to grow as a business
Only way you are going to win the EPL/CL is by spending mega money these days.
Soldato
Optimist is optimistic - sure turnover is increasing but you really think within 3-5 years City are going to be earning as much as Man Utd, Barca etc? Sure within that time period I can see them settling around where Chelsea, Arsenal etc are at around 250 million or so which still leaves wages at a lolworthy 70% of turnover, that is unless there are any more dodgy 'sponsorship' deals to come of course...In 3-5 years.. Our turnover is rocketing skywards, we have the fastest growing revenue of any team since the start of the PL. I've not had a chance to look yet as I'm still at work, but from a quick scan they don't include CL money or the new Etihad deal either? I'm sure the Swiss Ramble will do a good review soon enough.
That's also two experts they've had on SSN now saying we have nothing to worry about. They're going to have to start screening these idiots because it's not fitting in with the party line at all
...In 3-5 years.. Our turnover is rocketing skywards, we have the fastest growing revenue of any team since the start of the PL. I've not had a chance to look yet as I'm still at work, but from a quick scan they don't include CL money or the new Etihad deal either? I'm sure the Swiss Ramble will do a good review soon enough.
That's also two experts they've had on SSN now saying we have nothing to worry about. They're going to have to start screening these idiots because it's not fitting in with the party line at all
Of course your revenue is rocketing. You've come from nothing, started challenging towards the top of the table and signing larger commercial deals, most of which coming from Abu Dhabi. Your expenses are increasing at an even greater rate. Even if you include the Etihad deal and CL money, you'd still be losing £100m+. Will that turn around in the next 3 years to meet the FFP requirements?
Also, which expert has said you've got nothing to worry about?
Transfer fees aren't recorded as 1 lump sum on the current years accounts. All transfer fees are recorded as amortisation and spread over the life of the contract;e.g. £35m on Augero will go down as £7m per year.
Last edited:
I am not worried in the slightest, people like Sheikh Mansour and Khaldoon etc would not allow such spending and investment if there was the slightest of chances that we would fail in these FFP rules that they would have known about for years.
I really cannot see how we wont be allowed through. It may not look like it now but as plenty of financial people have said the plan is in place and it will take time but it will work.
I really cannot see how we wont be allowed through. It may not look like it now but as plenty of financial people have said the plan is in place and it will take time but it will work.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
This logic doesn't compute, firstly, own no club, or own a club, win the league and miss out on the champs league due to FFP, which would you do? You aren't "losing" being able to play in the champs league, you're gaining a club that can win the prem title. Secondly, talking up (not you particularly) the revenue is laughable. Man U have the biggest revenue in the league, by a mile still, and they couldn't afford the wages City were paying 2 years ago, let alone the wages they'll be handing out this year.
Its HIGHLY likely that a lot of the City players will be on heavy bonuses, for both being in the champs league, and winning titles. Hence the same group of players will make significantly more in a title winning year, and if Toure/Tevez/Dzeko/De Jong were all due to get say a 5-10% rise every year, and/or a rise for being in the champs league, increased income will mostly go on increased wage spending.
The ONLY way City will get inside the FFP rules is if Uefa don't rule the ridiculous shirt deal as a clear way to circumvent the rules.
But as always, firstly you've got the punishments, no one knows them, secondly you've got Uefa, are they going to stand up to any big team that breaks them, who knows, thirdly you've got the ridiculous nature of stupid rich owners having one of their other businesses pay out a shirt sponsorship fee that happens to exactly offset their operating losses. The later in a "just" and truly fair play scenario would be deemed to not count towards their profits, fair market value and all that, but again that relies on the powers that be to have some balls.... something they've never had before.
Aside from mental fee's from companies owned by the owners, City can NOT make a profit, the wages are mental, the income from the stadium is pathetic compared to the top teams, its simply not going to happen fairly.
Last edited:
No your right DM, you know far more than people who are paid millions every year and the Sheikh himself that have earnt billions maybe even trillions for Abu Dhabi through investment and business 
The deal for the Etihad would not have been done if UEFA could pull it apart otherwise both the Sheikh and Eithad would end up embarrassing themselves and Abu Dhabi.
Quite frankly no one knows what we have in place apart from the people that have set it up and i am confident they have done a good job.
The deal for the Etihad would not have been done if UEFA could pull it apart otherwise both the Sheikh and Eithad would end up embarrassing themselves and Abu Dhabi.
Quite frankly no one knows what we have in place apart from the people that have set it up and i am confident they have done a good job.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yes, however Chelsea said all the EXACT SAME THINGS, 6-7 years ago..... how much of a massive profit are they turning right now?
How far do you think your commercial/match day income will really grow. You think it will grow 50% year on year, forever? Or will it get to a point then stay fairly static. How are you going to raise your match day income, of just shy of £20mil, to match Utd/Arsenal's 100mil matchday income? The stadium isn't going to increase in capacity by over double by next year, not for 4 years at least if they started construction basically tomorrow.
Likewise you seem to be wilfully ignoring how FFP works..... AVERAGE over 3 years.
You don't have to turn £1 profit one year to remain viable, you need to become profitable AND make up for the losses made to average a small loss.
The Etihad deal is dodgy, everyone on earth knows it, however its not AS bad as it could have been, its averaging only £35mil a year, rather than a 3-4 year deal for £400mil which would be radically different. You made 195mil losses, champs league income is WELL under 50mil, winning the league from your current position is a small increase in earnings, match day income(without massive ticket price rising) isn't feasable beyond a few percent a year. Wages WILL increase yearly, 195mil loss needs to become, around 80mil profit for two years after to average a loss that would remain in the fair play rules.
SO do some maths, 195mil + 30mil a year(you already had sponsorship) + probably minimum 15mil, max 30mil from champions league a year............ Your revenue was circa £150mil, your wages were £175mil, BOTH will grow next year, ignore transfer fee's with amortization costs reducing, revenue is BELOW wages, short of asking everyone to resign lower value deals....... this is what screwed Chelsea, they wanted to resign everyone to longer term, lower priced deals and bring in new players on less money....... but they found people knew what their "new" value was to a club like Chelsea and wages have gone up not down. Chelsea are as screwed as City in having a very small stadium with a very small match day income from executive style facilities.
Your only proof that you won't break FFP rules, is someone said so. All the actual really really basic maths says no god damned way. I'll point out again, Chelsea's people said every single last thing City's have, revenue has gone through the roof, massive growth, long term plan, whoopdedoo, we're set, youth players will keep us fed for life now, we won't be spending big anymore, we'll be turning a profit in a few years, woo woo.
You know what screwed them, tiny stadium, a limit to how far revenue can actual grow and massive massive wages a tiny stadium can't support. Please explain where City will manage to continue to have 80million less in match day revenue a year than Utd/Arsenal, yet spend what will probably be in a year or two, almost double in wages over Arsenal.
I've asked many times before with this same discussion before, where will City make up the 80mil difference to Utd on match day revenue...... while ALSO spend 10's of millions more on wages.
Again I'll just point out the numbers, 150mil revenue, 174mil wages, 195mil losses........ exclude all transfer fee's, assume they go away, add on 50mil to revenue for sponsorship + champs league........ at CURRENT wage prices that would have them at a VERY slim profit.......... now over 3 years they'll be somewhere in the region of 200mil losses one year, and in theory, with no transfer fee's to deal with, 20mil profit for another two years. Now average that, now tell me where that will be close to breaking even. Now realise you've got another 3 years with HEAVY transfer fee's to still be accounted for, and 5 more years for a couple of signings, now add in wage increases..........
There isn't a chance in hell of them making it, unless they get another sponsorship deal, maybe Etihad will sign off on having a second sponsor on the shirt, for another £400mil decade long deal.
How far do you think your commercial/match day income will really grow. You think it will grow 50% year on year, forever? Or will it get to a point then stay fairly static. How are you going to raise your match day income, of just shy of £20mil, to match Utd/Arsenal's 100mil matchday income? The stadium isn't going to increase in capacity by over double by next year, not for 4 years at least if they started construction basically tomorrow.
Likewise you seem to be wilfully ignoring how FFP works..... AVERAGE over 3 years.
You don't have to turn £1 profit one year to remain viable, you need to become profitable AND make up for the losses made to average a small loss.
The Etihad deal is dodgy, everyone on earth knows it, however its not AS bad as it could have been, its averaging only £35mil a year, rather than a 3-4 year deal for £400mil which would be radically different. You made 195mil losses, champs league income is WELL under 50mil, winning the league from your current position is a small increase in earnings, match day income(without massive ticket price rising) isn't feasable beyond a few percent a year. Wages WILL increase yearly, 195mil loss needs to become, around 80mil profit for two years after to average a loss that would remain in the fair play rules.
SO do some maths, 195mil + 30mil a year(you already had sponsorship) + probably minimum 15mil, max 30mil from champions league a year............ Your revenue was circa £150mil, your wages were £175mil, BOTH will grow next year, ignore transfer fee's with amortization costs reducing, revenue is BELOW wages, short of asking everyone to resign lower value deals....... this is what screwed Chelsea, they wanted to resign everyone to longer term, lower priced deals and bring in new players on less money....... but they found people knew what their "new" value was to a club like Chelsea and wages have gone up not down. Chelsea are as screwed as City in having a very small stadium with a very small match day income from executive style facilities.
Your only proof that you won't break FFP rules, is someone said so. All the actual really really basic maths says no god damned way. I'll point out again, Chelsea's people said every single last thing City's have, revenue has gone through the roof, massive growth, long term plan, whoopdedoo, we're set, youth players will keep us fed for life now, we won't be spending big anymore, we'll be turning a profit in a few years, woo woo.
You know what screwed them, tiny stadium, a limit to how far revenue can actual grow and massive massive wages a tiny stadium can't support. Please explain where City will manage to continue to have 80million less in match day revenue a year than Utd/Arsenal, yet spend what will probably be in a year or two, almost double in wages over Arsenal.
I've asked many times before with this same discussion before, where will City make up the 80mil difference to Utd on match day revenue...... while ALSO spend 10's of millions more on wages.
Again I'll just point out the numbers, 150mil revenue, 174mil wages, 195mil losses........ exclude all transfer fee's, assume they go away, add on 50mil to revenue for sponsorship + champs league........ at CURRENT wage prices that would have them at a VERY slim profit.......... now over 3 years they'll be somewhere in the region of 200mil losses one year, and in theory, with no transfer fee's to deal with, 20mil profit for another two years. Now average that, now tell me where that will be close to breaking even. Now realise you've got another 3 years with HEAVY transfer fee's to still be accounted for, and 5 more years for a couple of signings, now add in wage increases..........
There isn't a chance in hell of them making it, unless they get another sponsorship deal, maybe Etihad will sign off on having a second sponsor on the shirt, for another £400mil decade long deal.
[Controversial]
Lets face it, City fans ain't worried because they've already stuck to fingers up to FFP once with the stadium and 'surrounding areas' sponsorship, and got away with it. They know they can pull as many similar stunts as needed to meet the regulations
[/Controversial]
Lets face it, City fans ain't worried because they've already stuck to fingers up to FFP once with the stadium and 'surrounding areas' sponsorship, and got away with it. They know they can pull as many similar stunts as needed to meet the regulations
[/Controversial]
http://www.chivascampeon.com/noticia/2009/
Hernandez interview with him using the same word as Saurez, yes it's old but If the FA are going to start discriminating against foreign cultures they are as bad as Blatter.
In my opinion, even the Terry case, no-one should be called or labelled a 'racist' unless there is unequivocal evidence. There is no solid evidence of racism in the Evra case as it's all based on implication and one man's word.
brilliant !!!
Hernandez interview with him using the same word as Saurez, yes it's old but If the FA are going to start discriminating against foreign cultures they are as bad as Blatter.
In my opinion, even the Terry case, no-one should be called or labelled a 'racist' unless there is unequivocal evidence. There is no solid evidence of racism in the Evra case as it's all based on implication and one man's word.
brilliant !!!
Soldato
I'd love to see this list of players whom Keane tried to end the careers of I really would
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AKCOn4jG9Y
Dont know if it was posted ages ago but only just seen it myself.
Dont know if it was posted ages ago but only just seen it myself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AKCOn4jG9Y
Dont know if it was posted ages ago but only just seen it myself.
He definitely wasn't paid enough for that advert..
Brad Jones's son Luca lost his battle with leukaemia last night:
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/rest-in-peace-luca-jones
RIP Luca
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/rest-in-peace-luca-jones
RIP Luca
Seems like a crap regulation that pretty much defeats the object of looking at a 3 year average.... you could just spend a HUGE amount of money in year one, giving players ridiculous 'signing on fees' (effectively paying 50%+ of their wages for next 5 years), then pay them low/normal wages so in year 2 and 3 it all looks rosy, "Oui Michel, look first year was bad but we have turned the corner, make £5m profit this year and £10m next year, tres bien non?"
Like drunkenmaster I am still waiting for Chelsea to turn the corner, they were supposed to be a profitable enterprise by now according to statements previously issued yet lost over £70m in their last announced figures, in spite of winning the double.
Soldato
Pretty much that is what City is relying on, spend massively now to secure increased commercial revenue and regular Champs League football etc so they can point to a long-term trend of improvement with a view to breaking even, I imagine within a moderate timescale such as 10 years or so as there's no way in hell they are going to get close to complying with the FFP regulations on paper.
- Status