2014/15 accounts released - £10.7m profit

[Prestwich_Blue]

Does anyone have any idea what percentage of our commercial revenue comes from the Middle East?

Not for sure as they don't publish a breakdown. But I'd say about £60m or a third of our total comercial revenue. But even if it wasn't Etihad, we'd still have a shirt and stadium sponsor and at market rates that would probably cover most of that, so it's not like we would lose all that £60m if we had no Abu Dhabi sponsorship.

 

[Rolee]

Not for sure as they don't publish a breakdown. But I'd say about £60m or a third of our total comercial revenue. But even if it wasn't Etihad, we'd still have a shirt and stadium sponsor and at market rates that would probably cover most of that, so it's not like we would lose all that £60m if we had no Abu Dhabi sponsorship.

Thanks PB, I keep hearing from bitter cunts that we'd have very little commercial revenue if it wasn't for Abu Dhabi. As the club don't publish a breakdown I've got nothing factual to go on to put them in their place, that's why I'm curious to know.

 

[Centurions]

Saw this and ran straight for the Daily Mail comments page to give myself a good laugh!

It took literally 4 comments unit the words "Dirty Arab Money" came up.. Which I read as "COMMENT NULL VOID"

I'm always amazed that what is essentially a racist comment (that always appears at some point) never gets picked up by the media and removed.

 

[M18CTID]

Thanks PB, I keep hearing from bitter cunts that we'd have very little commercial revenue if it wasn't for Abu Dhabi. As the club don't publish a breakdown I've got nothing factual to go on to put them in their place, that's why I'm curious to know.

The trouble with the bitter cunts that spout that nonsense is that they still think it's 2009 and City haven't progressed one bit on or off the field. There was a time when Abu Dhabi based income indeed accounted for a much bigger percentage of our income but that percentage is diminishing year on year. We've signed a mind-boggling number of commercial deals with non-UAE companies over the past few years that these mouth-breathing fucktards either don't know about or choose not to want to know.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks PB, I keep hearing from bitter cunts that we'd have very little commercial revenue if it wasn't for Abu Dhabi. As the club don't publish a breakdown I've got nothing factual to go on to put them in their place, that's why I'm curious to know.

Well they have nothing factual either have they?. It's just one of the usual, bitter, anti-City cliches.

Don't forget commercial income isn't just Etihad, Aabar and other sponsors. It's the sale of merchandise, our kit deal, non-football events at the stadium. non match-day catering and other items.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Well, they said they wanted to see football clubs being run on a sound business footing!
A lesson in being careful what you wish for!!!

 

[Jazzman]

In a discussion on another web site someone had to give in, and ended with " .. as long as the Sheik doesn't want his money back". Am I right in assuming that, as there is no debt to him (unlike Chelski), the only thing he could really do would be to sell the club, and try to recoup his investment that way?

It seems by the way that no one considers that the club has increased a lot in value, when they talk about the 1 billion that HH Sheik Mansour has "thrown away" to build up Manchester City. The money is not gone as such, because the club is now worth much more than before. Or do I see this wrong?

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

Wait we're self sustainable now? Does that mean if "the Arabs get bored and fuck off" we won't be in the shit then?

 

[CelesteItis]

Last year's fine should be refunded to City, with interest.

Since the corrupt Platini is facing charges, and that fine came from a corrupt goal posts moving by the Uefa accountants.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

In a discussion on another web site someone had to give in, and ended with " .. as long as the Sheik doesn't want his money back". Am I right in assuming that, as there is no debt to him (unlike Chelski), the only thing he could really do would be to sell the club, and try to recoup his investment that way?

It seems by the way that no one considers that the club has increased a lot in value, when they talk about the 1 billion that HH Sheik Mansour has "thrown away" to build up Manchester City. The money is not gone as such, because the club is now worth much more than before. Or do I see this wrong?

Re. your first paragraph, you are quite right in assuming that. ADUG puts in money via the purchase of shares, which we issue as required. He will only get back what any buyer pays for those shares. He could get back more than he paid or he could get back less.

You are also right with your second paragraph. I can tell you that just before the ADUG takeover, when Shinawatra had put us on our knees financially, I was talking with others (including David Bernstein) about buying the club and we were told the price was around £20m to buy it as a going concern, which is roughyl what Shinawatra paid for the shares in 2007. If we let it go into administration, the price was more likely to be around £2m. It's difficult to know what the potential value is as there's nothing recent to judge it against but they talk about the rags being worth up to £1.5bn. Even if we were worth half that, that's showing some return for the money. In the next few years, we'll hopefully be one of the world's leading clubs and showing net profits of £100m every year. That's worth a billion of anyone's money.