£1 Billion Spent

[bluemoondays]

The £930.4m is the total cash outlay between 2008 and the last set of figures.

We earned £365.3m in the same period so the shortfall is £565.1m.

Included in that shortfall are things like £61.6m spent regenerating the area around the stadium so its not as bad as some like to make out.

Thanks Moomba - that makes sense - or not, depending on how you look at it :)

 

[hertsblue]

Utd buy player for 30 million = 30 million
City buy payer for 30 million = 55 million (fee, wages, signing on fee, fax and postal charges, chauffer to bring him to ground, telephone/mobile cost etc etc)

 

[Scotland_WC2010]

When people mention the money City have spent to get to where they are, I think it's ridiculous to include the price that you were bought for as that isn't something that's relevent. All that should be looked at is player costs and wages and the cost of that isn't unreasonably high.

 

[The Future's Blue]

They do like to spout shit about us don't they. It's strange that they add or wage bill to the totals, all in an attempt to get us to that £1 Billion mark, sometimes they'll even quote in $ to make the amount look larger.

One thing I don't understand is, even with ammortisation, why we don't hold a value for a player, I mean, don't we count these as assets?

Take Joe Hart, how much is he worth? You've got to say a minimum £20 mil if you take De Gea's signing into account. And what about Vince, how much above his £6 mil signing cost is he now actually worth?

I wonder how much our team is actually worth, not cost?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

When people mention the money City have spent to get to where they are, I think it's ridiculous to include the price that you were bought for as that isn't something that's relevent. All that should be looked at is player costs and wages and the cost of that isn't unreasonably high.

It is even more ridiculous that they exclude any turnover from the calculation. Can you imagine 5Live's wake up to money doing a piece on M&S's year end figures but they omit the sales from the equation?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Well you can make any financial indicators you want but they only make sense when you compare them to other clubs. So we spent 930, so what? For all we know from Conn's article, United's comparative spend could have been 1.5 billion or 500 million. So what does the 930 actually mean? It means it's a good headline, that's all.

I say again, Conn's piece may have been a good analysis, but the headline stunk.

As it happens, United's comparable is around 800 million, so not so far different actually.

When people mention the money City have spent to get to where they are, I think it's ridiculous to include the price that you were bought for as that isn't something that's relevent. All that should be looked at is player costs and wages and the cost of that isn't unreasonably high.

It is even more ridiculous that they exclude any turnover from the calculation. Can you imagine 5Live's wake up to money doing a piece on M&S's year end figures but they omit the sales from the equation?

 

[oakiecokie]

Bearing in mind that although the Rags were valued at over £1B,was it some 12 months ago,I imagine that Citys valuation has a least doubled,maybe even tripled over the same period.
Or am I being a tad optimistic ??

 

[MSP]

Utd buy player for 30 million = 30 million
City buy payer for 30 million = 55 million (fee, wages, signing on fee, fax and postal charges, chauffer to bring him to ground, telephone/mobile cost etc etc)

They did it to chelsea yesterday too, it's suddenly 80 million transfer.

PS. The only thing I care about money spent is that it gets the best possible value for our owners and make them happy.

Couldn't give a shit what someone else thinks about it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

A tad imho.

Matchday and media revenues are capped by size of the stadium and by the pots at, and success in, the PL and the CL, so it is commercial income that is the key indicator of value in my mind (and that equates to "following", fanbase). That is why "plastics" and "glory-hunters" are so important. With the best will in the world, I think we can say that the major commercial incomes recently contracted have been driven by the owners rather than the attraction of the club itself.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that commercial income will increase rapidly now we have won the FA Cup and are PL champions. We will only see a real "self-sustaining" value increase in the "brand" MCFC over the next three to five years if that success is maintained, I would guess.

Bearing in mind that although the Rags were valued at over £1B,was it some 12 months ago,I imagine that Citys valuation has a least doubled,maybe even tripled over the same period.
Or am I being a tad optimistic ??