The owner invested into City. Lots of other clubs have some sort of owner investment, just maybe not to the same scale. But lots of other clubs are happy enough to borrow money to spend. It's not their money really, it's the lending institution's. So what's the difference?
After several years of heavy investment, City are now self financing and are making small profits. These will become huge profits once the new PL tv deal kicks in.
I'll be surprised if City don't make £50M profit after next season finishes. Unless we re-invest in the playing squad. Now there's a novel thing!
They keep going on trying to poke holes in it but the truth is, we are a well run club with perfectly legal sponsorship deals.
I ask again to our red friend, where have I or anyone on here denied how we got to where we are now.
He can't answer of course because he made it up.
comment by U2 (U20610)
posted 28 minutes ago
largest sponsor is Etihad paying about £30M a season for shirt sponsorship and the stadium naming rights. About £25M for shirt sponsorship and £5M a season for stadium naming rights.
Since we got over £2M just for the sponsorship on the bridge that links the stadium to the CFA, that £5M a season for stadium naming rights looks low.
The shirt sponsorship is low compared to the other 'big guns'. Utd. £53M, Chelsea £40M, Liverpool and Arsenal £30M.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's right, Abu Dhabi's ruling family-owned airline, whose Chairman and CEO also happens to sit on your board of directors.
City, like Etihad, is an extension of the Crown of Abu Dhabi, and City's continuing primary source of commercial funding comes from Abu Dhabi's ruling family.
That's all I was saying. Again, it's been deemed perfectly legal. But why deny it?
comment by LQ no kato not now (U6305)
posted 14 minutes ago
They keep going on trying to poke holes in it but the truth is, we are a well run club with perfectly legal sponsorship deals.
I ask again to our red friend, where have I or anyone on here denied how we got to where we are now.
He can't answer of course because he made it up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My bad Loz; I've not been very clear. Maybe my use of the term 'roots' was misleading.
My argument was that I hear some City fans deny that the club is still very heavily funded by the Crown of Abu Dhabi, when that clearly isn't the case.
Your top sponsor (by a strong margin) is wholly owned and directed by the same family that owns the club.
Given the sponsorship covers the whole campus and shirts it's actually not the best deal out there.
But I'm sure we are on top of that.
You want to talk about dodgy dealings look at United tax avoidence.
The club is not still heavily funded by the Crown of Abu Dhabi. That was the case in the first instance, bit not anymore.
In 2013/14, City's income was just under £350M.
Gate receipts were a shade under £50M. That's regular punters.
PL income was about £102M.
CL/EL income was £31M.
That's about £180M already that in no way comes from Abu Dhabi.
You can argue that City still get £30M from Etihad, a sizeable sum, but which is less than 10% of total income which makes it relatively small.
But you won't even accept that shirt sponsorship and stadium naming rights are undervalued at £30M a season. In fact, I sincerely believe that this should be much nearer to £50m a season.
On the open market, City would get a lot more than £30M.
It's deemed legal because it is legal.
Loz
No, of course it's not illegal. I've not argued that it is; or even that it's unfair. Just stating the facts. People can make their own minds up around the questions of ethics.
U2
Yes, in the open market the club would now probably get much more than £30m per season from the shirt sponsorship and naming rights.
Will be interesting to see whether City and Etihad choose to retain their partnership or whether City will go out to tender looking for the highest bidder when the time comes.
Clubs tend not to go out to tender for contracts. They aren't public bodies. They put out feelers instead.
Pretty sure BT and Nissan sponsor us more now than Etihad, around 20% of our sponsorship comes from Abu Dhabi.
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 19 hours, 57 minutes ago
FFP was just the top clubs trying to solidify their position at the top permanently.
__________________
You guys can keep typing this as many times as you want but it remains nothing more than your own pet theory.
"Think about yourselves by all means but don't try to paint it as this holly amazing thing that will protect small clubs going into administration and worse"
___________________
Twist peoples' words all you want. The fact remains that at least part of the reason for FFP (which were the exact words I used) was to protect clubs from financial ruin.
Nobody said anything about some "holy amazing thing" that you are now blathering on about.
Sorry, you believe Platini???
Twist peoples' words all you want. The fact remains that at least part of the reason for FFP (which were the exact words I used) was to protect clubs from financial ruin.
So they went after City who have huge financial backing behind them and ignored clubs with crippling debt.
"Twist peoples' words all you want. The fact remains that at least part of the reason for FFP (which were the exact words I used) was to protect clubs from financial ruin."
It was in terms of what they publicly said (we're just talking about UEFA ffp here), but the fact it only looks at the profit and loss immediately disproves that. Portsmouth or Leeds would have passed ffp and still entered administration. Southampton would have failed it despite them being now held up as a great example (rightly) of how to grow a club.
It was actually put in as Platinis only way he could disband the G14.
And there in a nutshel Borris has hit the nail on the head.
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
Twist peoples' words all you want. The fact remains that at least part of the reason for FFP (which were the exact words I used) was to protect clubs from financial ruin.
So they went after City who have huge financial backing behind them and ignored clubs with crippling debt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The dippers just called Binky; they're wanting their victim card back
Joses going to borrow that card for his fa agenda next season
"Twist peoples' words all you want. The fact remains that at least part of the reason for FFP (which were the exact words I used) was to protect clubs from financial ruin."
A lot of the people at Bayern Munich who were critical about City when they helped bring in FFP are now either in jail or under investigation, for fraud.
More or less sums it up.
So they went after City who have huge financial backing behind them and ignored clubs with crippling debt
__________________
No doubt you have evidence that it was all about City and that's all anyone ever cared about right? I look forward to reading that....
Nobody cares about any other club - the whole of Europe conspired against your beloved club unfairly because....yeah just because everyone hates City.
Ok then...if you prefer that version of events then let's go with it.
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 hour, 48 minutes ago
So they went after City who have huge financial backing behind them and ignored clubs with crippling debt
__________________
No doubt you have evidence that it was all about City and that's all anyone ever cared about right? I look forward to reading that....
Nobody cares about any other club - the whole of Europe conspired against your beloved club unfairly because....yeah just because everyone hates City.
Ok then...if you prefer that version of events then let's go with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you wait three days and that's the best you've got???
Give him some credit he tried really hard.
It's easier just to tell him to fek off.
Sign in if you want to comment
Why do some people not understand FFP?
Page 5 of 6
6
posted on 9/6/16
The owner invested into City. Lots of other clubs have some sort of owner investment, just maybe not to the same scale. But lots of other clubs are happy enough to borrow money to spend. It's not their money really, it's the lending institution's. So what's the difference?
After several years of heavy investment, City are now self financing and are making small profits. These will become huge profits once the new PL tv deal kicks in.
I'll be surprised if City don't make £50M profit after next season finishes. Unless we re-invest in the playing squad. Now there's a novel thing!
posted on 9/6/16
They keep going on trying to poke holes in it but the truth is, we are a well run club with perfectly legal sponsorship deals.
I ask again to our red friend, where have I or anyone on here denied how we got to where we are now.
He can't answer of course because he made it up.
posted on 9/6/16
comment by U2 (U20610)
posted 28 minutes ago
largest sponsor is Etihad paying about £30M a season for shirt sponsorship and the stadium naming rights. About £25M for shirt sponsorship and £5M a season for stadium naming rights.
Since we got over £2M just for the sponsorship on the bridge that links the stadium to the CFA, that £5M a season for stadium naming rights looks low.
The shirt sponsorship is low compared to the other 'big guns'. Utd. £53M, Chelsea £40M, Liverpool and Arsenal £30M.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's right, Abu Dhabi's ruling family-owned airline, whose Chairman and CEO also happens to sit on your board of directors.
City, like Etihad, is an extension of the Crown of Abu Dhabi, and City's continuing primary source of commercial funding comes from Abu Dhabi's ruling family.
That's all I was saying. Again, it's been deemed perfectly legal. But why deny it?
posted on 9/6/16
comment by LQ no kato not now (U6305)
posted 14 minutes ago
They keep going on trying to poke holes in it but the truth is, we are a well run club with perfectly legal sponsorship deals.
I ask again to our red friend, where have I or anyone on here denied how we got to where we are now.
He can't answer of course because he made it up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My bad Loz; I've not been very clear. Maybe my use of the term 'roots' was misleading.
My argument was that I hear some City fans deny that the club is still very heavily funded by the Crown of Abu Dhabi, when that clearly isn't the case.
Your top sponsor (by a strong margin) is wholly owned and directed by the same family that owns the club.
posted on 9/6/16
Is that illegal?
posted on 9/6/16
Given the sponsorship covers the whole campus and shirts it's actually not the best deal out there.
But I'm sure we are on top of that.
You want to talk about dodgy dealings look at United tax avoidence.
posted on 9/6/16
The club is not still heavily funded by the Crown of Abu Dhabi. That was the case in the first instance, bit not anymore.
In 2013/14, City's income was just under £350M.
Gate receipts were a shade under £50M. That's regular punters.
PL income was about £102M.
CL/EL income was £31M.
That's about £180M already that in no way comes from Abu Dhabi.
You can argue that City still get £30M from Etihad, a sizeable sum, but which is less than 10% of total income which makes it relatively small.
But you won't even accept that shirt sponsorship and stadium naming rights are undervalued at £30M a season. In fact, I sincerely believe that this should be much nearer to £50m a season.
On the open market, City would get a lot more than £30M.
posted on 9/6/16
It's deemed legal because it is legal.
posted on 9/6/16
Loz
No, of course it's not illegal. I've not argued that it is; or even that it's unfair. Just stating the facts. People can make their own minds up around the questions of ethics.
U2
Yes, in the open market the club would now probably get much more than £30m per season from the shirt sponsorship and naming rights.
Will be interesting to see whether City and Etihad choose to retain their partnership or whether City will go out to tender looking for the highest bidder when the time comes.
posted on 9/6/16
Clubs tend not to go out to tender for contracts. They aren't public bodies. They put out feelers instead.
posted on 9/6/16
Pretty sure BT and Nissan sponsor us more now than Etihad, around 20% of our sponsorship comes from Abu Dhabi.
posted on 9/6/16
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 19 hours, 57 minutes ago
FFP was just the top clubs trying to solidify their position at the top permanently.
__________________
You guys can keep typing this as many times as you want but it remains nothing more than your own pet theory.
"Think about yourselves by all means but don't try to paint it as this holly amazing thing that will protect small clubs going into administration and worse"
___________________
Twist peoples' words all you want. The fact remains that at least part of the reason for FFP (which were the exact words I used) was to protect clubs from financial ruin.
Nobody said anything about some "holy amazing thing" that you are now blathering on about.
posted on 9/6/16
Sorry, you believe Platini???
posted on 9/6/16
Twist peoples' words all you want. The fact remains that at least part of the reason for FFP (which were the exact words I used) was to protect clubs from financial ruin.
So they went after City who have huge financial backing behind them and ignored clubs with crippling debt.
posted on 9/6/16
"Twist peoples' words all you want. The fact remains that at least part of the reason for FFP (which were the exact words I used) was to protect clubs from financial ruin."
It was in terms of what they publicly said (we're just talking about UEFA ffp here), but the fact it only looks at the profit and loss immediately disproves that. Portsmouth or Leeds would have passed ffp and still entered administration. Southampton would have failed it despite them being now held up as a great example (rightly) of how to grow a club.
It was actually put in as Platinis only way he could disband the G14.
posted on 9/6/16
And there in a nutshel Borris has hit the nail on the head.
posted on 9/6/16
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
Twist peoples' words all you want. The fact remains that at least part of the reason for FFP (which were the exact words I used) was to protect clubs from financial ruin.
So they went after City who have huge financial backing behind them and ignored clubs with crippling debt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The dippers just called Binky; they're wanting their victim card back
posted on 9/6/16
Joses going to borrow that card for his fa agenda next season
posted on 9/6/16
"Twist peoples' words all you want. The fact remains that at least part of the reason for FFP (which were the exact words I used) was to protect clubs from financial ruin."
posted on 9/6/16
A lot of the people at Bayern Munich who were critical about City when they helped bring in FFP are now either in jail or under investigation, for fraud.
More or less sums it up.
posted on 9/6/16
posted on 13/6/16
So they went after City who have huge financial backing behind them and ignored clubs with crippling debt
__________________
No doubt you have evidence that it was all about City and that's all anyone ever cared about right? I look forward to reading that....
Nobody cares about any other club - the whole of Europe conspired against your beloved club unfairly because....yeah just because everyone hates City.
Ok then...if you prefer that version of events then let's go with it.
posted on 13/6/16
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 hour, 48 minutes ago
So they went after City who have huge financial backing behind them and ignored clubs with crippling debt
__________________
No doubt you have evidence that it was all about City and that's all anyone ever cared about right? I look forward to reading that....
Nobody cares about any other club - the whole of Europe conspired against your beloved club unfairly because....yeah just because everyone hates City.
Ok then...if you prefer that version of events then let's go with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you wait three days and that's the best you've got???
posted on 13/6/16
Give him some credit he tried really hard.
posted on 13/6/16
It's easier just to tell him to fek off.
Page 5 of 6
6