CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

Shaelumstash said:
Lot to get through, but I'm happy to go through this bit by bit because there's an awful lot of misconception, misinformation and general untruths in this. I don't blame you though, as a lot of the stuff you've written is well-worn cliché trotted out on social media, and it's tough to separate the truth from the nonsense. Particularly for newer fans.

The "sustainable Bayern model vs the City model" - I'm not sure if you've looked too deeply in to this, but it seems to be coming from a place of naiveté. Bayern's 2018/19 accounts show excluding player trading, their revenue was €660m compared to €590m for City.

Bayern's €660m revenue; TV €211m, Commercial €357m, Match day €92m.

City's €590m revenue; TV €279m, Commercial €250m, Match day €60m.

The main reason for City's TV revenue being so much higher is because they're in the Premier League, which is the most watched sports league in the world, which of course makes it the most attractive for sponsors and therefore revenue.

The Bundesliga is obviously a minor league in comparison, and with it being seen as a boring, one team league (Bayern have won 8 on the spin) and much of the managerial and playing talent leaving Germany for England, there seems little prospect of the Bundesliga catching the PL in commercial terms anytime soon.

So in TV revenue terms, it's a safe bet to say that City's revenue from TV appears much more sustainable model than Bayern's.

City's commercial revenue being over €100m less than Bayern's, on paper seems to be an argument for Bayern's model being more sustainable. But it's important to note, since these accounts, City's kit deal has gone up from €13m a season with Nike to €72m a year with Puma, which gives you some indication of the increase in City's appeal to major sponsors over the last few years.

Bayern are heavily reliant on commercial sponsorship from partners such as adidas, Allianz, VW etc. Interestingly enough, all of these companies have a shareholding in Bayern and a place on their board. So they're essentially "sponsoring themselves". Something City were this week found to be categorically NOT doing by the 3 independent judges at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, of course.

"MANCHESTER CITY DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS COMMERCIAL INCOME." They are CAS's exact words. Although, I appreciate there are alternative viewpoints on Twitter etc.

Which leads nicely in to your "not sustainable when either the oil-well dries up, or the benefactor loses interest" line.

So assuming you'd agree that Premier League TV revenue for City probably wouldn't be affected too much by the oil drying up in the UAE, let's look at the commercial income potential.

So, let's put aside for one second the relationship that Bayern have with adidas, Allianz and VW, and assume that all of those deals are at a market rate. Let's assume that Bayern haven't been "disguising equity funding as commercial income". We don't know this for certain, like we do with City, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Let's look at the commercial reach of each club and the potential exposure for the brands who sponsor them. It's difficult to find accurate figures for the worldwide TV reach of each league. But according the PL, it has the potential to reach 4.7bn people, broadcast in 212 territories, to 643m homes. It's easily the most watches sports league in the world. The Bundesliga? Not so much.

Sponsors want eyeballs on their brand. It's not Bayern's fault they play in an unattractive league. But maybe that's why the vast majority of their sponsors are German. It's a domestic league for a domestic audience. Nothing wrong with that.

So let's look at each club's potential reach - how many fans are engaging with them day-to-day. On Twitter, City have 8.1m followers. Bayern have 4.8m on their German language page, and 1.1m on their English language page (6.9m total). On Instagram, it's 19.5m for City, 21.7m for Bayern.

Similar numbers, both with huge worldwide fan bases. That's attractive to sponsors. Perhaps City's 8.1m Twitter followers and 19.5m Instagram followers are only there for the oil, but my best guess is they're there because they're engaged in the team and if the ownership changed, it wouldn't make too much of a difference?

It's another interesting point, what would happen if the Sheikh up and left? Well as the club has zero debt, if Mansour gave it all up tomorrow, we'd still have a world class squad, manager, training facilities and stadium, and wouldn't owe him a penny.

As the club is now financially self-sufficient (based on revenue from TV, match day, commercial etc and does not require any equity investment) it would be a pretty attractive proposition for any owner if Sheikh Mansour decided to give it away for free.

In fact, there have been equity purchases of 10% of CMC in China and Silverlake from the US. Their share purchases value the holding company of the club at £5.5bn. Seen as Sheikh Mansour's investment in to City itself is around £1.5bn, you'd have to say it's been fairly good business.

So in terms of sustainability, and City's vulnerability if the Sheikh walked away tomorrow, I'm not sure what your view is based on? In what way would it be vulnerable? And vulnerable to what, exactly?

The club is financially self sustainable right now. As demonstrated in its audited accounts. It's not disguising equity funding as commercial income, as has been proven in an independent court. And it has zero debt. So what are you basing the vulnerability on, maybe there's something I've missed, or is it just misinformed Twitter chit-chat you're basing it on?

As for Liverpool - it's important to note that Liverpool's run of success in the 70s and 80s was off the back of major investment from the Moore's family of Littlewood's pools fame. They were a 2nd Division club who invested heavily in the playing squad to kick-start their period of success and then the club was managed very well for the following decade through a series of managers. Similar to City, really.

United went on a spending splurge never before seen in English football after the cash injection of floating on the stock market in the early 90s (equity funding, not commercial revenue) and they broke the British transfer record 3 times in 5 years before Fergurson had won the league.

In fact, in 1989, Fergurson took charge of the most expensive team ever assembled in the history of football, this 4 years in to the job and before he'd even won a trophy, remember.

Leeds were a similar sized club to City pre-2008. Leeds had won 3 titles to City's 2, but City had won more FA Cups and more League Cups, and the same amount of European trophies, (although City's was more prestigious).

City's attendances have tended to be a touch higher than Leeds'. Prior to the takeover, City's average was 42k and Leeds 26k. Last time both teams were in the top flight at the same time, City's was 2004 - Leeds average attendance was 36k and City's 46k.

When City went down to the 3rd tier, our average attendance was 28k. Leeds average in the 3rd tier was around 24k, with their highest season average being 26k.

So what is it that makes Leeds more "proper" to City in your view? Is it just the lack of success over the last 12 years, or are there some other factors I'm perhaps missing?

Leicester, I assume was some kind of joke, so maybe I'll leave that one out?

So to conclude, I don't blame you for having the ignorances and misconceptions. Unfortunately, the way social media works, negativity seems to spread far more easily than truth. That's not your fault.
Click to expand...


I wish I could remember half of this stuff. Brilliant read. I want to see the reply to this, I bet there isn’t one!
 
Shaelumstash said:
Lot to get through, but I'm happy to go through this bit by bit because there's an awful lot of misconception, misinformation and general untruths in this. I don't blame you though, as a lot of the stuff you've written is well-worn cliché trotted out on social media, and it's tough to separate the truth from the nonsense. Particularly for newer fans.

The "sustainable Bayern model vs the City model" - I'm not sure if you've looked too deeply in to this, but it seems to be coming from a place of naiveté. Bayern's 2018/19 accounts show excluding player trading, their revenue was €660m compared to €590m for City.

Bayern's €660m revenue; TV €211m, Commercial €357m, Match day €92m.

City's €590m revenue; TV €279m, Commercial €250m, Match day €60m.

The main reason for City's TV revenue being so much higher is because they're in the Premier League, which is the most watched sports league in the world, which of course makes it the most attractive for sponsors and therefore revenue.

The Bundesliga is obviously a minor league in comparison, and with it being seen as a boring, one team league (Bayern have won 8 on the spin) and much of the managerial and playing talent leaving Germany for England, there seems little prospect of the Bundesliga catching the PL in commercial terms anytime soon.

So in TV revenue terms, it's a safe bet to say that City's revenue from TV appears much more sustainable model than Bayern's.

City's commercial revenue being over €100m less than Bayern's, on paper seems to be an argument for Bayern's model being more sustainable. But it's important to note, since these accounts, City's kit deal has gone up from €13m a season with Nike to €72m a year with Puma, which gives you some indication of the increase in City's appeal to major sponsors over the last few years.

Bayern are heavily reliant on commercial sponsorship from partners such as adidas, Allianz, VW etc. Interestingly enough, all of these companies have a shareholding in Bayern and a place on their board. So they're essentially "sponsoring themselves". Something City were this week found to be categorically NOT doing by the 3 independent judges at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, of course.

"MANCHESTER CITY DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS COMMERCIAL INCOME." They are CAS's exact words. Although, I appreciate there are alternative viewpoints on Twitter etc.

Which leads nicely in to your "not sustainable when either the oil-well dries up, or the benefactor loses interest" line.

So assuming you'd agree that Premier League TV revenue for City probably wouldn't be affected too much by the oil drying up in the UAE, let's look at the commercial income potential.

So, let's put aside for one second the relationship that Bayern have with adidas, Allianz and VW, and assume that all of those deals are at a market rate. Let's assume that Bayern haven't been "disguising equity funding as commercial income". We don't know this for certain, like we do with City, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Let's look at the commercial reach of each club and the potential exposure for the brands who sponsor them. It's difficult to find accurate figures for the worldwide TV reach of each league. But according the PL, it has the potential to reach 4.7bn people, broadcast in 212 territories, to 643m homes. It's easily the most watches sports league in the world. The Bundesliga? Not so much.

Sponsors want eyeballs on their brand. It's not Bayern's fault they play in an unattractive league. But maybe that's why the vast majority of their sponsors are German. It's a domestic league for a domestic audience. Nothing wrong with that.

So let's look at each club's potential reach - how many fans are engaging with them day-to-day. On Twitter, City have 8.1m followers. Bayern have 4.8m on their German language page, and 1.1m on their English language page (6.9m total). On Instagram, it's 19.5m for City, 21.7m for Bayern.

Similar numbers, both with huge worldwide fan bases. That's attractive to sponsors. Perhaps City's 8.1m Twitter followers and 19.5m Instagram followers are only there for the oil, but my best guess is they're there because they're engaged in the team and if the ownership changed, it wouldn't make too much of a difference?

It's another interesting point, what would happen if the Sheikh up and left? Well as the club has zero debt, if Mansour gave it all up tomorrow, we'd still have a world class squad, manager, training facilities and stadium, and wouldn't owe him a penny.

As the club is now financially self-sufficient (based on revenue from TV, match day, commercial etc and does not require any equity investment) it would be a pretty attractive proposition for any owner if Sheikh Mansour decided to give it away for free.

In fact, there have been equity purchases of 10% of CMC in China and Silverlake from the US. Their share purchases value the holding company of the club at £5.5bn. Seen as Sheikh Mansour's investment in to City itself is around £1.5bn, you'd have to say it's been fairly good business.

So in terms of sustainability, and City's vulnerability if the Sheikh walked away tomorrow, I'm not sure what your view is based on? In what way would it be vulnerable? And vulnerable to what, exactly?

The club is financially self sustainable right now. As demonstrated in its audited accounts. It's not disguising equity funding as commercial income, as has been proven in an independent court. And it has zero debt. So what are you basing the vulnerability on, maybe there's something I've missed, or is it just misinformed Twitter chit-chat you're basing it on?

As for Liverpool - it's important to note that Liverpool's run of success in the 70s and 80s was off the back of major investment from the Moore's family of Littlewood's pools fame. They were a 2nd Division club who invested heavily in the playing squad to kick-start their period of success and then the club was managed very well for the following decade through a series of managers. Similar to City, really.

United went on a spending splurge never before seen in English football after the cash injection of floating on the stock market in the early 90s (equity funding, not commercial revenue) and they broke the British transfer record 3 times in 5 years before Fergurson had won the league.

In fact, in 1989, Fergurson took charge of the most expensive team ever assembled in the history of football, this 4 years in to the job and before he'd even won a trophy, remember.

Leeds were a similar sized club to City pre-2008. Leeds had won 3 titles to City's 2, but City had won more FA Cups and more League Cups, and the same amount of European trophies, (although City's was more prestigious).

City's attendances have tended to be a touch higher than Leeds'. Prior to the takeover, City's average was 42k and Leeds 26k. Last time both teams were in the top flight at the same time, City's was 2004 - Leeds average attendance was 36k and City's 46k.

When City went down to the 3rd tier, our average attendance was 28k. Leeds average in the 3rd tier was around 24k, with their highest season average being 26k.

So what is it that makes Leeds more "proper" to City in your view? Is it just the lack of success over the last 12 years, or are there some other factors I'm perhaps missing?

Leicester, I assume was some kind of joke, so maybe I'll leave that one out?

So to conclude, I don't blame you for having the ignorances and misconceptions. Unfortunately, the way social media works, negativity seems to spread far more easily than truth. That's not your fault.
Click to expand...
Fantastic
 
Plays By Sense Of Smell said:
They can earn our silence with their positive actions. Until then, the disdain brought about by the lack of trust remains.
Click to expand...

why should there be a issue with the football side of the game ?? uefa are always shouting and promoting fair play to all

but its clear as mud the elite board members and the head of uefa don't mean it, and you can bet the next plans are in-motion and the match officials will be pressured to not play fair ? the ugly and dirty side of the game is the match officials and they control the game ? from early yellow cards or just giving a team the advantage in everything from throw-inns to corners to little fouls and free kicks, it send out the message your getting nothing today

so uefa have had their tails clipped off the pitch ? but be warned they are even more powerful on the pitch when results matter
 
Shaelumstash said:
One vote makes zero difference, like one click makes zero difference.

But if everyone took the view that "Well my vote / click isn't going to make any difference, so I might as well carry on as normal" then nothing would ever change would it?

The reason the Daily Mail carry on publishing vile bullshit about "Immigrants" and "Asylum seekers" and "Remoaners" or whatever their latest xenophobic scapegoat is, is one - because their owners have a xenophobic agenda and two - their readers engage with those stories, helping to create revenue for them and keep the circle of Little Englander doom carry on exponentially.

If everyone stopped clicking on the hate-filled shite, they'd eventually have to alter their output to reflect what people did engage with. It's not going to stop just because @cleavers didn't click on it, but if then I don't click on it, and 10 more on Bluemoon don't click on it, and they all encourage their 10 mates not to, eventually it starts to make a difference.

Conversely, if you don't give a fuck and carry on supporting them, you're part of the problem.
Click to expand...
I dont think he is saying that.

He is saying that one sanctimonious person pontificating about not clicking on single articles in an unpopular newspaper is as irrelevant as an extra grain of sand being blown into Abu Dhabi.
If he is not saying that l am sorry but l bloody am.
 
ancoats said:
the good news is the media will need to find something else or somebody else now manchester city are in the clear
the FFP is not a problem anymore with manchester city, and for the last 6 seasons the turnover is growing and revenue and prize money means manchester city are the best run club in europe

in fact with the virus outbreak in world football manchester city money is needed more than ever now ? investment into manchester city and football that is what our owners are doing. unlike the glazers and the other so called elite clubs that take millions out of the game and lump it on the clubs debts ?? why the FFP was setup in the first place was not to help the game but to stop manchester city plain and simple, the elite did not want a fair fight. they like their little club and places on the uefa board (pipe and slippers) and pass the piss pot hahah and panic set in

this win was bigger than all the stars on real madrid shirts ? the hardest fight that any club have had in european football, to beat the G14 and uefa does not get much bigger. manchester city can now control the future and if the elite don't like it then tuff ? football should be a fair fight and the best team wins 11 vs 11 one ball and 2 nets. the money side of the game should be left to take care of itself
Click to expand...
Bravo sir, bravo
 
Jazzman said:
How does it actually work with CAS being the next level up from UEFA in terms of justice? Is that something UEFA can choose, or rather could they choose to not allow CAS in the future, as spoken by Senor Teabag?
Click to expand...

Teabag is a hypocrite as well as a lying racist fat bastard. Martin Samuel has pointed out that he didn't have a problem with CAS in 2016 when it halved Real Madrid's FIFA transfer ban for breaking rules over signing young players and as recently as last week when it rejected Santos's case against Barcelona over the Neymar transfer in 2013.
 
Shaelumstash said:
Lot to get through, but I'm happy to go through this bit by bit because there's an awful lot of misconception, misinformation and general untruths in this. I don't blame you though, as a lot of the stuff you've written is well-worn cliché trotted out on social media, and it's tough to separate the truth from the nonsense. Particularly for newer fans.

The "sustainable Bayern model vs the City model" - I'm not sure if you've looked too deeply in to this, but it seems to be coming from a place of naiveté. Bayern's 2018/19 accounts show excluding player trading, their revenue was €660m compared to €590m for City.

Bayern's €660m revenue; TV €211m, Commercial €357m, Match day €92m.

City's €590m revenue; TV €279m, Commercial €250m, Match day €60m.

The main reason for City's TV revenue being so much higher is because they're in the Premier League, which is the most watched sports league in the world, which of course makes it the most attractive for sponsors and therefore revenue.

The Bundesliga is obviously a minor league in comparison, and with it being seen as a boring, one team league (Bayern have won 8 on the spin) and much of the managerial and playing talent leaving Germany for England, there seems little prospect of the Bundesliga catching the PL in commercial terms anytime soon.

So in TV revenue terms, it's a safe bet to say that City's revenue from TV appears much more sustainable model than Bayern's.

City's commercial revenue being over €100m less than Bayern's, on paper seems to be an argument for Bayern's model being more sustainable. But it's important to note, since these accounts, City's kit deal has gone up from €13m a season with Nike to €72m a year with Puma, which gives you some indication of the increase in City's appeal to major sponsors over the last few years.

Bayern are heavily reliant on commercial sponsorship from partners such as adidas, Allianz, VW etc. Interestingly enough, all of these companies have a shareholding in Bayern and a place on their board. So they're essentially "sponsoring themselves". Something City were this week found to be categorically NOT doing by the 3 independent judges at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, of course.

"MANCHESTER CITY DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS COMMERCIAL INCOME." They are CAS's exact words. Although, I appreciate there are alternative viewpoints on Twitter etc.

Which leads nicely in to your "not sustainable when either the oil-well dries up, or the benefactor loses interest" line.

So assuming you'd agree that Premier League TV revenue for City probably wouldn't be affected too much by the oil drying up in the UAE, let's look at the commercial income potential.

So, let's put aside for one second the relationship that Bayern have with adidas, Allianz and VW, and assume that all of those deals are at a market rate. Let's assume that Bayern haven't been "disguising equity funding as commercial income". We don't know this for certain, like we do with City, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Let's look at the commercial reach of each club and the potential exposure for the brands who sponsor them. It's difficult to find accurate figures for the worldwide TV reach of each league. But according the PL, it has the potential to reach 4.7bn people, broadcast in 212 territories, to 643m homes. It's easily the most watches sports league in the world. The Bundesliga? Not so much.

Sponsors want eyeballs on their brand. It's not Bayern's fault they play in an unattractive league. But maybe that's why the vast majority of their sponsors are German. It's a domestic league for a domestic audience. Nothing wrong with that.

So let's look at each club's potential reach - how many fans are engaging with them day-to-day. On Twitter, City have 8.1m followers. Bayern have 4.8m on their German language page, and 1.1m on their English language page (6.9m total). On Instagram, it's 19.5m for City, 21.7m for Bayern.

Similar numbers, both with huge worldwide fan bases. That's attractive to sponsors. Perhaps City's 8.1m Twitter followers and 19.5m Instagram followers are only there for the oil, but my best guess is they're there because they're engaged in the team and if the ownership changed, it wouldn't make too much of a difference?

It's another interesting point, what would happen if the Sheikh up and left? Well as the club has zero debt, if Mansour gave it all up tomorrow, we'd still have a world class squad, manager, training facilities and stadium, and wouldn't owe him a penny.

As the club is now financially self-sufficient (based on revenue from TV, match day, commercial etc and does not require any equity investment) it would be a pretty attractive proposition for any owner if Sheikh Mansour decided to give it away for free.

In fact, there have been equity purchases of 10% of CMC in China and Silverlake from the US. Their share purchases value the holding company of the club at £5.5bn. Seen as Sheikh Mansour's investment in to City itself is around £1.5bn, you'd have to say it's been fairly good business.

So in terms of sustainability, and City's vulnerability if the Sheikh walked away tomorrow, I'm not sure what your view is based on? In what way would it be vulnerable? And vulnerable to what, exactly?

The club is financially self sustainable right now. As demonstrated in its audited accounts. It's not disguising equity funding as commercial income, as has been proven in an independent court. And it has zero debt. So what are you basing the vulnerability on, maybe there's something I've missed, or is it just misinformed Twitter chit-chat you're basing it on?

As for Liverpool - it's important to note that Liverpool's run of success in the 70s and 80s was off the back of major investment from the Moore's family of Littlewood's pools fame. They were a 2nd Division club who invested heavily in the playing squad to kick-start their period of success and then the club was managed very well for the following decade through a series of managers. Similar to City, really.

United went on a spending splurge never before seen in English football after the cash injection of floating on the stock market in the early 90s (equity funding, not commercial revenue) and they broke the British transfer record 3 times in 5 years before Fergurson had won the league.

In fact, in 1989, Fergurson took charge of the most expensive team ever assembled in the history of football, this 4 years in to the job and before he'd even won a trophy, remember.

Leeds were a similar sized club to City pre-2008. Leeds had won 3 titles to City's 2, but City had won more FA Cups and more League Cups, and the same amount of European trophies, (although City's was more prestigious).

City's attendances have tended to be a touch higher than Leeds'. Prior to the takeover, City's average was 42k and Leeds 26k. Last time both teams were in the top flight at the same time, City's was 2004 - Leeds average attendance was 36k and City's 46k.

When City went down to the 3rd tier, our average attendance was 28k. Leeds average in the 3rd tier was around 24k, with their highest season average being 26k.

So what is it that makes Leeds more "proper" to City in your view? Is it just the lack of success over the last 12 years, or are there some other factors I'm perhaps missing?

Leicester, I assume was some kind of joke, so maybe I'll leave that one out?

So to conclude, I don't blame you for having the ignorances and misconceptions. Unfortunately, the way social media works, negativity seems to spread far more easily than truth. That's not your fault.
Click to expand...
You made a gracious and flattering comment about a recent post of mine. This allows me to return the compliment, as it's truly excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.