When will the Board finally remove Woodward from his role ? Since Gill left the football management has been shambolic. For years Woodward talked about how he had a succession plan in place once Fergie left so that the transition would be smooth and with minimum impact on the success of the club. So he appointed David Moyes who only had experience at low to mid tier clubs, no European experience and no trophies. Then he appointed LvG a man who said he was having one last role before retiring and the entire experience felt like a slow death. Now he has appointed Mourinho after he has lost his aura and backed him with £150m and the result is 3 consecutive defeats. We've flooded the transfer market with cash and pay the highest wages to average players making us guilty of inflating transfer fees and wages and increasing the worst aspects of the game. The agents have Woodward in their pockets.
Even off the field we are losing our edge. Despite having the highest TV income we are only the 3rd most successful club commercially and the gap is widening with RM and FCB. Also the model is staid and repetitive - Man City are seen as being more dynamic in terms of their commercial plans especially in the digital field. His sidekick Arnold who Woodward brought to the club has been in the role too long and has become fat and content.
The fact is whichever way you look at it Woodward has done a poor job and taken home several millions per year and has accumulated a fortune in shares (its in the report and accounts) but his performance has been dreadful. The Glazers stick by him because he was the banker that helped them buy the club and ultimately it was Woodward that structured the debt based deal that has seen a fortune go out of the club in service fees.
I think our problems will continue until he is sacked
Woodward at the heart of the problem
posted on 18/9/16
That's fine, you don't need to.
posted on 18/9/16
melts
What proportion of City's commercial income comes from Etihad, Etisalat, TCA Abu Dhabi and aabar?
Is there anything plausible in the public domain giving an idea of the proportion of City's commercial revenue stream that comes from outside Abu Dhabi?
posted on 19/9/16
So Etihad are our biggest Abu Dhabi partner and they give us between 35 and 40m per annum, which gives them stadium naming rights, training complex and shirt sponsorship, so it's actually due for renegotiation.
In terms of in the public domain, we don't share sponsorship details but the revenue growth we had the season before last (as it only went up by 4m last accounts) was when we signed deals with Nissan, BT and SAP.
Also bear in mind we sold a stake to China, so I wouldn't be surprised to see more deals lined up there.
Even so, your revenue is still huge in conparison, but growth percentage wise, we are slightly quicker and that is mainly down to the group activities (New York and Melbourne).
posted on 19/9/16
Lumping all the Abu Dhabi ones in, id say 60 to 65 million, which is less than 20% of our overall revenue (probably a lot less this year, will have to wait for the accounts though).
Etihad have done very well out of it though. Remember, football clubs don't actually make that much money, even United. Etihad are more of the financial concern than us and it shows in their turnover.
posted on 19/9/16
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
Lumping all the Abu Dhabi ones in, id say 60 to 65 million, which is less than 20% of our overall revenue (probably a lot less this year, will have to wait for the accounts though).
Etihad have done very well out of it though. Remember, football clubs don't actually make that much money, even United. Etihad are more of the financial concern than us and it shows in their turnover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's still something like 40% of City's commercial revenue though isn't it?
And Etihad hasn't really done well out of anything. It would've been out of business more than a decade ago without the royals' money. It's had £38bn of subsidies across its lifetime. That's an absurd amount of money.
posted on 19/9/16
Sorry, where have you got that number from? Are you sure you aren't counting all of the gulf airlines there?
It's the fastest growing airline in the world over the past decade, id say they are doing very well...
Two seasons ago yes, but it will be significantly less than that now. Alhough, Etihad should be around 40% of commercial revenue on their own considering what they are sponsoring.
Training ground and shirt for you guys is around 75m of a commercial total of 268, so around 28%. Add in if you sold the naming rights for Old Trafford and considering what you get for Carrington, that would be 40% too, and that's not taking into account the sheer volume of other sponsorships you've got making up the 60%.
posted on 19/9/16
comment by Stretty - mr mourinho (U3123)
posted 12 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve - Jose'd he wouldn't... (U1132)
posted 42 minutes ago
Agreed MUDD. Woodward delivered the 4 players he was asked to, what more could he do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I seriously can't believe mourinho looked at how much We needed and thought 4 was gonna be enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never thought i would see the day where stretty would call Jose incompetent
posted on 19/9/16
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 hours, 32 minutes ago
Sorry, where have you got that number from? Are you sure you aren't counting all of the gulf airlines there?
It's the fastest growing airline in the world over the past decade, id say they are doing very well...
Two seasons ago yes, but it will be significantly less than that now. Alhough, Etihad should be around 40% of commercial revenue on their own considering what they are sponsoring.
Training ground and shirt for you guys is around 75m of a commercial total of 268, so around 28%. Add in if you sold the naming rights for Old Trafford and considering what you get for Carrington, that would be 40% too, and that's not taking into account the sheer volume of other sponsorships you've got making up the 60%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My bad melts, it's $38bn, not £38bn, and yes that's across the three Gulf airlines (New York Times).
Although the same article states that Etihad has benefitted from $17bn in the last ten years alone roughly a third of which was funding allocated directly to cover operating losses (not including further cash to purchase planes and cover infrastructure costs).
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/business/etihad-airways-rapid-growth-frustrates-rivals.html?_r=0&referer=http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9mSs2_RIN9XUGsAHCtB4iA5;_ylu=X3oDMTEzdm1wb21jBGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDTU9VSzAxXzEEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1474269521/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nytimes.com%2f2015%2f03%2f03%2fbusiness%2fetihad-airways-rapid-growth-frustrates-rivals.html/RK=0/RS=YKawKdx2PVk12OLtVSITHmHGv0I-
posted on 19/9/16
Yeah Etihad responded to that saying it was false (and the number was significantly less). As the spokesman says in that article though, their remit is to get an ROI for their stakeholder, which they have done. The American Airlines are unhappy because it takes it off them. Slightly ironic in a way that they have been outcapitalised!
posted on 19/9/16
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 42 minutes ago
Yeah Etihad responded to that saying it was false (and the number was significantly less). As the spokesman says in that article though, their remit is to get an ROI for their stakeholder, which they have done. The American Airlines are unhappy because it takes it off them. Slightly ironic in a way that they have been outcapitalised!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is both ironic and entertaining, watching the wonderfully hypocritical free market-propounding yet ridiculously protectionist Americans moan about subsidies, agreed.