comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve - Jose'd he wouldn't be our Special One? (U1132)
posted 6 minutes ago
Agreed MUDD. Woodward delivered the 4 players he was asked to, what more could he do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer window 'winners' many said...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well whether people agree or not - Im sure Woodward must be suffering from piles by now.

There was a time when we just concentrated on the manager and players.....

comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 24 seconds ago
There was a time when we just concentrated on the manager and players.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a time when we used jumpers for goalposts

Fabregas not signing for us was down to Moyes, not Woodward, in my opinion.

The players didn't want to play for him.

There are a bunch of problems with this article.

Woodward was on a steep learning curve from day one. The club struggled in the transfer market following his appointment; there's no doubt about that.

But given the short period of time given to Moyes, an appointment which Ed wasn't responsible for, and LVG's tenure being cut short after a mixed but - on balance - disappointing couple of seasons, Jose's appointment looked, and still looks to me, a smart one. We couldn't afford to string the rebuilding job out much longer, and appointed one of the most successful and talented managers in the world with a history of delivering results quickly.

He's fared well in the transfer market over the last 12-18 months (remember, he doesn't pick the targets, only delivers what the manager has asked for).

And on the commercial side, the club is pulling away from each and every other PL club at an increasing rate despite disappointments on the pitch, which is a large part of of the reason why we were able to acquire the players on the manager's wish list, regardless of the cost.

comment by (U21188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 24 seconds ago
There was a time when we just concentrated on the manager and players.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a time when we used jumpers for goalposts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Today really wasn't down to Woodward who gets far too much credit and abuse for what he does.

Today is down to the manager and the players and no one else. I'm convinced we have the players to challenge at the top of the league but we need to play at a much higher tempo. Once we do that we'll be a lot better.

comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 33 minutes ago
How people applaud him for getting the likes of Pogba is baffling. If you offer me a million today, I will give you my 300k flat no hesitation and move out the same day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
this is what i think of woodward transfers, nothing to applaud about it.

problem is utd have been making terrible decisions since 2011. While city have been making the right decisions as painful as it is to admit

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.

Sorry OP but the only thing I can fault Woodward for is Rooneys contract and letting Moyes buy Fellaini.

Woodward isn't the one picking this team at the moment.

I have no complaints about most of the players selected today but two vital positions in terms of creativity and tempo/control were filled by Fellaini and Rooney when we could do with better really.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I bet Rooney would like the look of that vacant AM role Play-a-maker

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I.e

--------------------De Gea------------------
RB --------Smalling---Bailly--------Shaw
----------------------Blind--------------------
--------Pogba----------------Herrera--------
--------------------att mid----------------------
---------------Ibra--------Rashford---------

==========================
I actually like that team as long as rooney is not the #10

comment by mour money_mour problemz (U13920)
posted 8 minutes ago
I.e

--------------------De Gea------------------
RB --------Smalling---Bailly--------Shaw
----------------------Blind--------------------
--------Pogba----------------Herrera--------
--------------------att mid----------------------
---------------Ibra--------Rashford---------

==========================
I actually like that team as long as rooney is not the #10
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stick Mkhitaryan there and swap Herrera and Pogba around and I think it could work.

If teams dropped deep we have the aerial threat of Zlatan or if they push up it leaves space behind for Rashford/Martial.

"And on the commercial side, the club is pulling away from each and every other PL club at an increasing rate"

No you're not

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 hours, 23 minutes ago
"And on the commercial side, the club is pulling away from each and every other PL club at an increasing rate"

No you're not
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't count income from your owners through the various companies their family controls.

That's fine, you don't need to.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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%.

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

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-