2021-2022 Annual report - City post club record profits and revenues

[daveoswald]

Far too obvious for lazy and stero typical thinking of the rag and dipper supporters coupled with their sense of entitlement.

Two sets of abject twats.

correct, half of the clowns can't even get right what country Sheikh mansour is from.

 

[Metalartin]

I get that but surely not to the extent of the big increase in the last couple of years ?

Here is as good as a crack as I've seen anyone take at it:



That all looks pretty reasonable to me, for last years accounts, given our success. This year would have had the £53m City were missing from matchday income in last years accounts. So the comparison from this years, to last years accounts is a bit flawed, if anyone tries to work that angle: "Oh look it increased by almost £50m, it's a miracle ;)". The commercial revenue itself did rise by £37m but lets not be hasty, the City rise is real. It is entirely possible City are attracting more and more global sponsors recently:
https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/...-sales-cristiano-ronaldo-lionel-messi-1911665

The smaller deals are numerous and the amounts of each aren't going to be public(I'd imagine UEFA do get that information) but we can see how many there are and average it out because we know what the major deals are worth. Etihad increased the deal to around £67m a couple of years back... I did my own post on this for anyone questioning whether City are worth this. We could easily ask for more.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Being the most successful English team in last 10 years generates money. Broadcasting £249 million (and champions league money received over last 5 years is £479 million); match day revenue £54 million; player profits £68 million (£137 million playersprofit in last 2 years); Puma kit deal £65 million; Nexen sleeve sponsor £10 million. Total from these examples = £446 million.
Even if all the rest of money was from UAE (which it isn't), this would equal just 27% of total income.

Operating income is £613m from, as you say, £249m broadcasting, £54m matchday and £309mil commercial.
Player profits (whilst highly relevant) are not included at the top line operating income/loss.

Under the "Abu Dhabi" clause introduced from 2015/2016 in UEFA FFP regs (at the behest of the cartel) we were effectively capped at 30% of total operating revenue for Abu Dhabi based sponsors. Whilst UEFA FFP now about to change to a new regime, it means for 21/22:

30% of £613m = effective cap of c£180m for Abu Dhabi sponsors. It's hard to envisage we are anywhere close to this and have been compliant with FFP since 2015/2016. (Der speigel wasn't connected - main charge was mansour used his own money for sponsorship which was proved to be bollocks)

Rags, dippers, Arse etc know this but dippers particularly continue to moan.

Edit: The "Abu Dhabi" clause - I posted this in September. This means I must be a rag, or have no balls or work for Der spiegel :)

After the 2014 FFP settlement there was genuine disquiet with the G14 boys because in their eyes we got away with it. 2 of the 3 red shirts strongly lobbied UEFA and it culminated with the new UEFA rule effective from 15/16 which allowed more owner investment for any new boy and, directly aimed at us, the effective 30% cap (of total income) on sponsorship income originating from abu Dhabi based companies. We played ball and presumably have stuck to it ever since. Why wouldn't we? It suited us because our other revenues were growing naturally so as they increased we could also increase the sponsorship money if needed and the 30% cap was not going to impact us.

 

[daveoswald]

Operating income is £613m from, as you say, £249m broadcasting, £54m matchday and £309mil commercial.
Player profits (whilst highly relevant) are not included at the top line operating income/loss.

Under the "Abu Dhabi" clause introduced from 2015/2016 in UEFA FFP regs (at the behest of the cartel) we were effectively capped at 30% of total operating revenue for Abu Dhabi based sponsors. Whilst UEFA FFP now about to change to a new regime, it means for 21/22:

30% of £613m = effective cap of c£180m for Abu Dhabi sponsors. It's hard to envisage we are anywhere close to this and have been compliant with FFP since 2015/2016. (Der speigel wasn't connected - main charge was mansour used his own money for sponsorship which was proved to be bollocks)

Rags, dippers, Arse etc know this but dippers particularly continue to moan.

{Der Speigel wasn't connected- main charge was Mansour used his own money for sponsorship which was bollocks}... Which totally demolishes the state owned bull shine.

 

[Metalartin]

Well, it's the first I've heard of a 30% cap. I can't work out if mr Advocate is being sarcastic and it's aimed at all state owned business... Or it's a rule specifically targetting Abu Dhabi/the UAE. Can they do that?

Anyway, if it's of the overall revenue. For last years accounts it's an estimated £96m(UAE based income), which is under 17% of the full revenue of the club. That would be 35% of City's commercial revenue. I'm not sure about this years accounts but I can't see it being wildly different.

 

[Sir peace frog]

Being the most successful English team in last 10 years generates money. Broadcasting £249 million (and champions league money received over last 5 years is £479 million); match day revenue £54 million; player profits £68 million (£137 million players profit in last 2 years); Puma kit deal £65 million; Nexen sleeve sponsor £10 million. Total from these examples = £446 million.
Even if all the rest of money was from UAE (which it isn't), this would equal just 27% of total income.

the champions league approx £100,000,000 per season
win the league cup and you get £100,000 .

respect to us for putting out decent teams every year , i bet it costs us a few million in bonuses when we win the league cup.

haha the owners must shake their heads when we boo the champions league anthem and get excited about going to wembley in the league cup hahaha

 

[daveoswald]

We must lose big revenues because it is so difficult to buy food and drink in the stadium. I have been to every PL stadium and think we are one of the worst for service (certainly in my area of East Upper)

When i get to a game, i don't bother with a half time pint, as much as i would like one, can't be arsed with the ques.

 

[Metalartin]

I took a look at the reaction to SwissRamble's tweet and noticed there's still Liverpool fans smugly denying the Etihad sponsorship was already deemed fair market value long ago. "Nah it's inflated la, got no fans innit" kind of talk.

I've found were CAS said they agreed with it:



Does anyone know the bullet point or page number where City brought up UEFA's approved auditors concluded the Etihad sponsorship was within fair market value?

It would be useful to have the relevant line of text on hand, to shut people like that up but the only reference I could find, is from point 150. However, that seems to be saying UEFA themselves didn't agree(though that might not be referencing Etihad, since it's redacted).

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Here is as good as a crack as I've seen anyone take at it:



That all looks pretty reasonable to me, for last years accounts, given our success. This year would have had the £53m City were missing from matchday income in last years accounts. So the comparison from this years, to last years accounts is a bit flawed, if anyone tries to work that angle: "Oh look it increased by almost £50m, it's a miracle ;)". The commercial revenue itself did rise by £37m but lets not be hasty, the City rise is real. It is entirely possible City are attracting more and more global sponsors recently:
https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/...-sales-cristiano-ronaldo-lionel-messi-1911665

The smaller deals are numerous and the amounts of each aren't going to be public(I'd imagine UEFA do get that information) but we can see how many there are and average it out because we know what the major deals are worth. Etihad increased the deal to around £67m a couple of years back... I did my own post on this for anyone questioning whether City are worth this. We could easily ask for more.

I referenced cityblue brain before and his work is good.
I think he has underestimated UAE sponsorship income and the £65m-£67.5m was confirmed over 8 years ago.
That's a long time ago and presumably increased since then. Before anyone jumps on me again this is irrelevant as per the "Abu Dhabi" clause but is a nice to know or guestimate.

Harder still for the other Abu Dhabi sponsorships which back in 2014 (Etisalat, Aabar and TouristCA Abu Dhabi) were reported as a collective c£50mi)

 

[Devil's Advocate]

{Der Speigel wasn't connected- main charge was Mansour used his own money for sponsorship which was bollocks}... Which totally demolishes the state owned bull shine.

Yep.
As others have said if they use "state funded" it is accurate because of the Abu Dhabi sponsorships and they are mainly state owned companies.