comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by פlǝuƃɥᴉs (U19365)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 hours, 39 minutes ago
Clubs with Significant Shareholder Loans (as of late 2024/early 2025)

Everton: £451 million
Brighton: £373 million
Arsenal: £259 million
Chelsea: £146 million
Liverpool: £137 million
Leicester City: £132 million (figure reduced after some loans were converted to equity)
Bournemouth: £115 million
Wolves (Wolverhampton Wanderers): £65 million

Clubs with No Listed Shareholder Loans (as of late 2024) Manchester City, Manchester United, Newcastle United, Tottenham Hotspur, and West Ham United

The American owned clubs must be laughing their bollox off.

"We spend our own money"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
u realise what a loan is right? its paid backit is their own money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve obviously missed the point, loans aren’t included in PSR so it was a loophole that owners were using to put their own money in.

The whole motive behind FFP and PSR was to stop clubs with wealthy owners doing that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As opposed to signing stupidly over inflated sponsorship deals that were way above market value, deals that the biggest clubs on the planet couldn't achieve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d love to see an example, before Puma our biggest deal was £20m a year for shirt AND stadium rights at a time United were getting £75m a year just for their training tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your 2011 Etihad deal is reported as £400m over 10 years,


That compares to Arsenals £90m over 15 years with Emirate 5 years early.

and in 2011, City had acheived very little.

and just to correct you, United DHL training kit sponsor was £40m, not the £75m you've rounded up to.

City's deals now are all more or less market value. They certainly were not back at the start considering their status at the time.

Spurs had a sponsor deal with Investec in 2011, which was £5m a season.

£40ma season was pretty much market leading at the time for a club who once came in the top 4. It would be like Newcastle suddenly getting sponsorship on a par with City

Your 2011 Etihad deal is reported as £400m over 10 years.

Reported by who?

£200m of that was to build the new acadamy which has already paid for itself.

Are you suggesting the acadamy doesn't exist?

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Your 2011 Etihad deal is reported as £400m over 10 years.

Reported by who?

£200m of that was to build the new acadamy which has already paid for itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

reported by almost every reputable outlet.

As for what you spent it on, that isnt relevant. None the less, this is from the gov.uk website:

"Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, today (Monday 8th December) opened the new Manchester City Football Academy, the centrepiece of a £200 million city regeneration project.

The City Football Academy lies at the centre of an 80 acre regeneration project in Eastern Manchester, funded by the Abu Dhabi United Group and in partnership with Manchester City Council."

So far you've claimed you've never had a sponsorship deal over £20m before the Puma one.

You've claimed United got £75m from DHL for their training kit sponsor

and now that Etihad paid for the new academy.

You've got a great imagination

Was it the Sun or the Mirror that gave you this information?

Maybe it was Abdul down at the local mini-canb office

Timeline of Events

1. March 2010:
An agreement was made between Manchester City FC, the City Council, and New East Manchester to explore new leisure attractions, giving the club permission to build and expand new facilities in the area.

2. September 2011:
The City Football Academy, an 80-acre facility, was announced.

3. July 2011:
The lucrative Etihad Stadium naming rights deal with Etihad Airways was announced, and it included financial support for the wider Etihad Campus development.

4. December 2014:
The City Football Academy officially opened, bringing all of Manchester City's senior and youth teams to one location.

The Sponsorship Deal and the Academy

The Etihad Campus project encompassed more than just the football academy; it also included a community hub and other developments in East Manchester.

The Etihad Airways sponsorship deal supported the club's vision for the Etihad Campus, which was to be a state-of-the-art complex with a new training ground and sports science center.

The deal was announced in conjunction with the club's acquisition of the derelict Clayton Aniline site in 2010, a key location for the construction of the new academy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like Google are in on the deception as well.

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

Excellent article on the original sponsorship deal.

Of course, Devonshire KC, FCCA, MBA (Harvard) is more likely to believe Alfie from down the pub.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
https://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/07/manchester-citys-incredible-deal-know.html

Excellent article on the original sponsorship deal.

Of course, Devonshire KC, FCCA, MBA (Harvard) is more likely to believe Alfie from down the pub.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know even less about this case than the 115 but it seems like City have kinda got the better of the EPL?

comment by Insufferable-Piffle (U4388)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
https://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/07/manchester-citys-incredible-deal-know.html

Excellent article on the original sponsorship deal.

Of course, Devonshire KC, FCCA, MBA (Harvard) is more likely to believe Alfie from down the pub.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know even less about this case than the 115 but it seems like City have kinda got the better of the EPL?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most media outlets agree, it's only Ian Herbert in the Mail and in-house legal and accounting guru, Devonshire that think differently.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 57 minutes ago
Was it the Sun or the Mirror that gave you this information?

Maybe it was Abdul down at the local mini-canb office
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Athletic

Where did you get your info from? the fairies 🧚‍♀️

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 57 minutes ago
Was it the Sun or the Mirror that gave you this information?

Maybe it was Abdul down at the local mini-canb office
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Athletic

Where did you get your info from? the fairies 🧚‍♀️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links?

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 57 minutes ago
Was it the Sun or the Mirror that gave you this information?

Maybe it was Abdul down at the local mini-canb office
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Athletic

Where did you get your info from? the fairies 🧚‍♀️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's if he did? Don't be a homophobe.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 57 minutes ago
Was it the Sun or the Mirror that gave you this information?

Maybe it was Abdul down at the local mini-canb office
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Athletic

Where did you get your info from? the fairies 🧚‍♀️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't need links....the emails the subject of all these legal cases set out the monies *2013* £35m Etihad, £16.5m from.Etisalat, all there in black and white from City execs.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 57 minutes ago
Was it the Sun or the Mirror that gave you this information?

Maybe it was Abdul down at the local mini-canb office
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Athletic

Where did you get your info from? the fairies 🧚‍♀️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't need links....the emails the subject of all these legal cases set out the monies *2013* £35m Etihad, £16.5m from.Etisalat, all there in black and white from City execs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why no links?

It took me less than 5 minutes to supply you with 2.

City’s deal includes one unique element, the Etihad Campus, which is perhaps the cleverest and certainly the most innovative part of the agreement. This is a gigantic redevelopment project on 80 acres of land adjacent to the stadium, including a relocated training ground, youth academy, a sports science facility, office space, a call centre and City Square retail outlets. The academy will be seriously impressive, catering for up to 400 young players, with 16 football pitches, a 7,000 capacity stadium for youth matches and on-site accommodation.

Such a development will not only benefit the community, but will bring a raft of sponsorship opportunities. Nothing like this has been done before, so it will be very difficult for UEFA to assess and almost impossible to deem unfair. In fact, this is exactly the type of expenditure that UEFA is trying to encourage with direct youth and community development costs being totally excluded from the FFP break-even calculation. For someone with pockets as deep as Sheikh Mansour, this is effectively “free” money, at least in terms of FFP.

There's a snippet from one of my links.

I don't expect you to read the full article as it's full of facts, verified data and even graphs.

Stuff you ave absolutely no interest in.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by פlǝuƃɥᴉs (U19365)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 hours, 39 minutes ago
Clubs with Significant Shareholder Loans (as of late 2024/early 2025)

Everton: £451 million
Brighton: £373 million
Arsenal: £259 million
Chelsea: £146 million
Liverpool: £137 million
Leicester City: £132 million (figure reduced after some loans were converted to equity)
Bournemouth: £115 million
Wolves (Wolverhampton Wanderers): £65 million

Clubs with No Listed Shareholder Loans (as of late 2024) Manchester City, Manchester United, Newcastle United, Tottenham Hotspur, and West Ham United

The American owned clubs must be laughing their bollox off.

"We spend our own money"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
u realise what a loan is right? its paid backit is their own money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve obviously missed the point, loans aren’t included in PSR so it was a loophole that owners were using to put their own money in.

The whole motive behind FFP and PSR was to stop clubs with wealthy owners doing that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As opposed to signing stupidly over inflated sponsorship deals that were way above market value, deals that the biggest clubs on the planet couldn't achieve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d love to see an example, before Puma our biggest deal was £20m a year for shirt AND stadium rights at a time United were getting £75m a year just for their training tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your 2011 Etihad deal is reported as £400m over 10 years,


That compares to Arsenals £90m over 15 years with Emirate 5 years early.

and in 2011, City had acheived very little.

and just to correct you, United DHL training kit sponsor was £40m, not the £75m you've rounded up to.

City's deals now are all more or less market value. They certainly were not back at the start considering their status at the time.

Spurs had a sponsor deal with Investec in 2011, which was £5m a season.

£40ma season was pretty much market leading at the time for a club who once came in the top 4. It would be like Newcastle suddenly getting sponsorship on a par with City
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There wasn’t a comparable at the time to say it was market leading. In the original ffp that we settled with Uefa though, they deemed it fair value so if it was inflated, it wasn’t for very long at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways


https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6610762/2025/09/09/man-city-premier-league-apt-settlement-explainer/

And they case decision.....see page 60 to save you scrolling

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf

*CAS Decision

So you're still in denial that the original £400m deal covered the cost of the new acadamy as well?

I'm wasting my time here.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
So you're still in denial that the original £400m deal covered the cost of the new acadamy as well?

I'm wasting my time here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Show me where it says the deal covered the cost of the new academy?

Let me help....it doesnt. It actually is the sponsorship of the new academy. They sponsored the stadium too. It's not the same as paying for the stadium. In fact the academy was finished long before 200m will have been received from this deal. They sponsored an academy that wouldn't even exist for 3 years.

Im not in denial, but i do know how to read!!!.(the very link you provided) .

Blinkered Boris' imagination running wild again.

The sponsorship paid for the fekin thing

Jeez, it took 3 years to build, it wasn't built in a day and it started with the expensive task of buying up the land in the first place.

Just give up and admit finance isn't you're forte instead of slinging out purile insults.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 day, 15 hours ago
The sponsorship paid for the fekin thing

Jeez, it took 3 years to build, it wasn't built in a day and it started with the expensive task of buying up the land in the first place.

Just give up and admit finance isn't you're forte instead of slinging out purile insults.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You sound like those idiotic Liverpool fans who claimed that Liverpool didnt spend £35m on Carroll, Chelsea did, because Chelsea bough Torres and that money only briefly passed through teh hands of Liverpool on its way o Newcatsle...ergo, Chelsea paid for him

You have no idea what the sponsorship money paid for. The official statement when the academy was opened was that it was the owners investment in the club/community/regeneration.

You question my knowledge (admittedly, not an expert!) of finances but you fail to understand that a sponsorship deal reflects the worth of that exposure and association. SO naturally a shirt deal (worn every match, sold across the world) is worth more than a stadium sponsor (seen and referred to every home match, on TV etc) which is worth far more than an academy sponsor (barely seen or referred anywhere, exposure being mainly local, but a nice little add-on to the main deals).

Ergo sponsorship of an academy is not worth the £200m it costs to build, and especially at the deal values in 2011.

not to mention the fact that if this were the case, the money paid to sponsor the academy (£200m) would be the same as the money paid for the rest of the deal - the stadium and shirt (£200m)

Boris thinks the 2 elements of the deal are of the same value and says "finance isnt my forte"

£200m for shirt and stadium plus £200m for the acadamy were ballpark figures used for conveinience.

As City don't have shareholders, the only people that were entitled to look at the actual figures were the PL and UEFA, neither of which objected at the time.

Maybe you're good at something else.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 26 minutes ago
£200m for shirt and stadium plus £200m for the acadamy were ballpark figures used for conveinience.

As City don't have shareholders, the only people that were entitled to look at the actual figures were the PL and UEFA, neither of which objected at the time.

Maybe you're good at something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"The sponsorship paid for the fekin thing"

Its one thing to get a massive deal and spend money on infrastructure, or players or whatever.

It is entirely different to claim that the deal was so big because the intention was for Etihad to pay for the academy, something that has a relative low value in sponsorship terms.

As said, that might be a bolt-on to the main deal which may add some value to it, but you've tried to make the case that is was such a big deal because of the academy, that the academy sponsorship added serious value, enough to pay for its build.

This simply does not stack up as an argument, even without looking at the books.

Funny how in this case you accept that the "PL and UEFA, neither of which objected at the time"

but over on the other thread you aint accepting the same position on United's covid losses and decision by the PL....calling it

"Corruption at it’s most blatant"

Blinkered Boris at it again.