City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

Jam Tomorrow said:
There’s certain things the club don’t or won’t do to improve our image, one of them is to get rid of Etihad and all the signage, get them off our kit, off our stadium name etc etc Etihad is pure toxic, it perpetuates the myth that the others cling to. I would rather we cut a less lucrative deal and juggle our books even if that means cutting a player or two, it’s now way past a joke. The Etihad deal is a millstone, my understanding is it’s about 10% of our total income and these days hardly represents a good deal.
Click to expand...

Why do you think they invested this much in us if they can't also promote Abu Dhabi brands?
 
Centurions said:
Can't say it would bother me either way, I'm not calling for us to ditch them though.
Click to expand...
Another poster was earlier in the thread

The theme in response has been - ...........why would we react to the snide comments of the dippers and others by doing something they want?

They will remain malevolent towards CITY in their words and actions anyway
 
I think some posters need to grow a pair of fucking bollocks. So fucking what if the media or fans try to give grief over a sponsor. Try going into work in the 90s on a Monday when them rag bastards had won again and 20 plus blokes are ripping the shit out of you. I only listened to one of them coz he went , so I ain't going to listen to wankers today who know fuck all about our great club.
 
bitterfuse said:
I don't get all this "drop Etihad" nonsense. Etihad fly directly from Manchester Airport so it makes perfect commercial sense for them to shirt and/or stadium sponsor a Manchester team. I think some some of our fans are paying a little too much attention to our increasingly jealous detractors.
Click to expand...
Questions would be asked if they come up with a big deal while losing over $1b a year on a regular basis. It certainly isn't perfect commercial sense.
 
bitterfuse said:
I don't get all this "drop Etihad" nonsense. Etihad fly directly from Manchester Airport so it makes perfect commercial sense for them to shirt and/or stadium sponsor a Manchester team. I think some some of our fans are paying a little too much attention to our increasingly jealous detractors.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It doesn't get more state sponsored than Aeroflot.

Here's their route map, and I wonder who the 'Official Carrier of Manchester United' is?

1641615286057.png
 
ultimateharold said:
Indeed. It doesn't get more state sponsored than Aeroflot.

Here's their route map, and I wonder who the 'Official Carrier of Manchester United' is?

View attachment 33974
Click to expand...
The only time Aeroflot appear in Manchester is when they send an aeroplane to fly the rags somewhere which is madness since they have to position it in from Russia and back again empty not very good for the plant
 
Jam Tomorrow said:
There’s certain things the club don’t or won’t do to improve our image, one of them is to get rid of Etihad and all the signage, get them off our kit, off our stadium name etc etc Etihad is pure toxic, it perpetuates the myth that the others cling to. I would rather we cut a less lucrative deal and juggle our books even if that means cutting a player or two, it’s now way past a joke. The Etihad deal is a millstone, my understanding is it’s about 10% of our total income and these days hardly represents a good deal.
Click to expand...
The Etihad is not a neither toxic or millstone and makes perfect sense for both club and owners Shirt football sponsorship is all about getting a brand known and kept in the public domain this is exactly what the Etihad sponsorship has done. Its been fantastic value for the airline how much would the exposure time cost worldwide if they had to pay for the Tv time it gets? Etihad and City are linked forever and whatever this "myth" you refer to that I say fuck it grow a pair and do it soon
 
Manchester City spend a lot of money in the transfer market but we are now following the Manchester United model under Gill and Ferguson which was to earn money off the pitch and plough it into the football team.

And in the last few seasons Manchester City have not been the biggest spenders in the transfer market. For example, it's ironic that in the last three years Alan Davies team, Arsenal, have significantly outspent Manchester City:

2021-22 (to date)
Arsenal - £121m
City - £30m
2020-21
Arsenal - £60m
City - £86m
2019-20
Arsenal - £96m
City - £80m

Net spend sourced from transfermkt.co.uk

There's an opportunity for Arsenal to re-establish themselves as a top 4 club. They should do it. They have a core of young players and they have a fantastic opportunity to build a team around them, and once they get into the Champions League places they should stay there. Rather them than Man Utd. It looks like City, Chelsea, Liverpool plus one with Arsenal the most likely.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Asking for a friend, do Standard Charter have a High Street presence that would in any way attract your average Britain consumer...

It's just that RAWK asks why Etisalat would have any need to sponsor City. You know, being only available in the Emirates and Egypt...

Never change, Dippers. Never change.
Click to expand...
Standard Charter global brand washing through Slitherpool FC...
 
It's now 23:00 hours on the 24 hour life-cycle of Liverpool FC but you concentrate on City's spending whilst Salah and Van Dijk grow old.

1641640213352.png
 
Gordyola said:
The Etihad is not a neither toxic or millstone and makes perfect sense for both club and owners Shirt football sponsorship is all about getting a brand known and kept in the public domain this is exactly what the Etihad sponsorship has done. Its been fantastic value for the airline how much would the exposure time cost worldwide if they had to pay for the Tv time it gets? Etihad and City are linked forever and whatever this "myth" you refer to that I say fuck it grow a pair and do it soon
Click to expand...
you tell him big man
 
Fuzzy80 said:
Be a sad day when the Etihad sponsorship finishes.

I can’t see why it would, possibly the kit but I can’t see the value for the stadium sponsor and campus having the same value for another company.

This is no conspiracy but it is known as the Etihad, if it became the Amazon Stadium it would still be known as the Etihad.

Think of the Emirates
Click to expand...

Time will tell.
 
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