There's a downloadable PDF version of it (hope the link works) if you can get it past your firewalls, far too much to copy & paste on here but it's excellent reading.Always love reading the swissramble blog, but unfortunately being at work, our IT team have blocked blogs :(
There's a downloadable PDF version of it (hope the link works) if you can get it past your firewalls, far too much to copy & paste on here but it's excellent reading.
http://pdf.printfriendly.com/pdfs/1477386353_536ced/download
The constant comparisons with the rags gets a little tiresome but it's a great read.
Another partner announced this morning.
https://www.mancity.com/news/club-n...unce-partnership-with-valvoline/1477383545335
There's an interesting idea mooted about the relatively low increase in commercial income:They are the benchmark unfortunately , different on the pitch however.
The Etihad deal now seems dated, worth at least £60-70m a season.
Or if you were going to do a large deal with city you would want as much bang for your buck and wait till pellers had gone and get much more exposure with pep at the helm ?There's an interesting idea mooted about the relatively low increase in commercial income:
'City’s commercial income grew by less than 3% to £178 million in 2015/16, which is a little perplexing, given that this has been a key element of their growth strategy. There has been some speculation that the major commercial deals are being spread around the other clubs within the City Football Group empire, while another possibility could be due to the Premier League’s Short Term Cost controls.
This form of domestic FFP restricts annual player wage cost increases to £7 million a year for the three years up to 2018/19 – except if funded by increases in revenue from sources other than Premier League broadcasting contracts. In other words, future wage growth could be funded by higher commercial income, so maybe City are keeping their powder dry here.'
Interesting times ahead perhaps?
That, and if we are making a profit, unless there is a need to boost income, the longer we can wait for new kit and sponsorship deals the better. Partly because we'll increase our profile, but also other clubs deals will set a higher benchmark. Waiting should increase the eventual deals and Nike and Etihad deals have 2 years left,and bids from other companies should get better deals than renegotiating current deals,Or if you were going to do a large deal with city you would want as much bang for your buck and wait till pellers had gone and get much more exposure with pep at the helm ?
Only a gut feeling but we are selling very very little Nike product bar the kits all the rest of the stuff is city's own brand,makes me wonder if a change is on the way ?That, and if we are making a profit, unless there is a need to boost income, the longer we can wait for new kit and sponsorship deals the better. Partly because we'll increase our profile, but also other clubs deals will set a higher benchmark. Waiting should increase the eventual deals and Nike and Etihad deals have 2 years left,and bids from other companies should get better deals than renegotiating current deals,
That said I' m sure Etihad will be preffered partner.
IAS would class it as a sale on the date it was activated. You could be creative and count it earlier but we didn't have a reason to imo.Question for you. If we loan a player out with an obligation to buy at a certain price and date, would we class that sale price as a debtor?