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

[Metalartin]

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)

Firstly, he said he found the details of 7 major deals via publicly available information. Only 3 of those are UAE based. The smaller deals are guesses but they are listed publicly as commercial partners. Don't they sort of have to be by definition? You're not buying this "hidden deals" bollocks are you?

So the smaller deals are guesses, but because we know our maximum commercial value(deloitte) for last years accounts, we know there's only £78m(or less) to settle between 38 different commercial partners for the rest of it. Only 4 of those are UAE based. Is it really reasonable to suggest out of 38 partners, most of it is coming from 4 UAE based partners?

He's done some guesstimation based on what we know sure but I don't think we throw it all out of the window on pure speculation. Maybe the Etihad deal has increased, the rest of the UAE deals, I very much doubt have increased that much. Aren't they mostly recent deals bar Etisalat? Visit Abu Dhabi is likely up to date information which settles the major deals. We had some smaller short term event based deals(Expo Dubai) if I remember right. It does look like we are keeping the number of those UAE deals down deliberately, by swapping them out like that. I doubt City would want more attention drawn to the Etisalat deal in particular again(if it has increased, they'll have gone with conservative valuations at negotiations), so it would be a stretch to assume most of the increases last year and this year are attributed to Etihad.

Personally, I would want to see something of substance before I believe the increases in the past two seasons is "all UAE money". Even if we do have the 30% rule to fall back on, it's the optics as well. The club were even looking for a new shirt sponsor(confirmed) in 2018/19 up until the pandemic hit. That says to me the ownership/board want to show the club is global player now. Less reliant on UAE based deals, not more reliant.

Edit(confusing): 8 Years ago would make 2014. What am I looking at firstly because it looks like that source is suggesting we increased from £45m in 2011/12, to £65m in 2012/13. A £20m increase after just one year of the deal we signed in 2011. It just doesn't seem likely we'd risk renegotiating so quickly into a 10 year deal to me. Maybe we did though.

Or were those projections to work out if we had a right to increase our deal(s) in 2014?

 

[Metalartin]

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.

Same for Arsenal, Real Madrid, Bayern and more too then. It's not really accurate in the context they use it, lets not be disingenuous about that, we know what's implied in their use of the term.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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:

Even the CFCB 's own valuations of these sponsorship rights for
2012/2013 rangedfi·om £40 million to £77 million for Etihad per year and £4
View attachment 60546

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).

View attachment 60547

On a quick search closest I can find is this on Page 27 point 37
Even the CFCB 's own valuations of these sponsorship rights for
2012/2013 ranged from £40 million to £77 million for Etihad

The actual was £67.5mil so under the highest value in the range

 

[Metalartin]

On a quick search closest I can find is this on Page 27 point 37
Even the CFCB 's own valuations of these sponsorship rights for
2012/2013 ranged from £40 million to £77 million for Etihad

The actual was £67.5mil so under the highest value in the range

So we did renegotiate after one season? But (some of) their own approved auditors said it was already fair market value in 2012/13.

Sorry, I've done a few edits of my most recent post as I've been processing this, you may want to re-read that before replying(edit: in fact reply tomorrow or not if you wish, it's late now and I'm frazzled lol). You don't need to answer the last part though, since that looks to have answered it. I think many were working on the assumption that City could take less one year, to have more in the next, to explain some of those figures in the emails. Page 63 in the CAS report for example. £45m(2011/12), 65m(2012/13), £67.5m(2013/14). Since £77m was the upper limit, I think we have our maximum, even if it has increased but we have no idea really. I still say looking for a new shirt sponsor in 2018/19 can be looked at as a change in direction, with regards to relying on UAE deals/taking away the ammunition from the agenda pushers.

Good find btw.

 

[aguero93:20]

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)

Fulham and Newcastle are worse imo. Never tried Anfield as I know for a fact they fuck with the away fans food and drink and haven't been to the 'Tottenham Hotspur NFL' stadium yet.

 

[aguero93:20]

This means I must be a rag, or have no balls or work for Der spiegel :)

Fucks sake, I'm quite fond of you so I hope you've no balls or work for Der Spiegel in that case.

 

[BlueBrain]

did a little thread on the results

 

[shilly8903]

This 8 x bet company does seems a little fishy when you look into them, obviously the sponsorship money is a drop in the ocean it’s not a lot, but the actual company seems very dodgy! Should we be using company’s like this with how things get portrayed in the media.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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

Mancini's full contract details were dropped earlier in the year and clearly spells out the Premier League was the most important and dispels the usual media shit that our owners only wanted to win the Champions League.

The hierarchy of bonuses in Mancini's contract was:

the Club will pay you the following bonuses:
(i)in the event of the Team being in the following positions in the league table
of the Premier League at the end of a Season, the following:
(A) first place - £4,000,000;
(B) second place - £2,500,000;
(C) third place - £2,000,000; or
(D) fourth place - £1,500,000;

(ii) in the event of the Team having achieved the following in respect of the
UEFA Champions League in a Season, the following (though, for the
avoidance of doubt, only the highest one of any earned):
(A) winning - £3,000,000;
(B) losing finalist - £2,000,000;
(C) semi-finalist - £1,500,000; or
(D) qua rter-finallist - £1,000,000;

(iii) in the event of the Team having achieved the following in respect of the
UEFA Europa League in a Season, the following (though, for the avoidance of
doubt, only the highest one of any earned):
(A) winning - £1,500,000; or
(B) losing finalist - £500,000;

(iv) in the event of the Team having achieved the following in respect of the FA
Challenge Cup in a Season, the following (though, for the avoidance of
doubt, only the highest one of any earned):
(A) winning - £1,500,000; or
(B) losing finalist - £500,000; and

(v) in the event of the Team winning the Football League Cup in a Season, the
sum of £1,000,000 (except if the Team wins such in the current Season, in
which event you will receive the sum of £400,000

 

[Metalartin]

This 8 x bet company does seems a little fishy when you look into them, obviously the sponsorship money is a drop in the ocean it’s not a lot, but the actual company seems very dodgy! Should we be using company’s like this with how things get portrayed in the media.

I agree, we have to be realistic. As unfair as it is, we do not get the same benefit of the doubt that an Arsenal, Fullham, United; and all the other PL clubs that were listed in those money laundering-betting company articles from a few years back do(many PL clubs linked). They wont accept "everyone else is doing it" as an excuse for turning a blind eye, to not really being sure how legit these companies are.

Funnily enough, isn't that what happened when City got sanctioned in the early 1900s. Which allowed United to poach the spine of the the team, who won them their first title? Many clubs were said to have been paying players over the £4 wage cap limit, to keep their best players happy but it was City they made an example of.