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

[MeatHunterrr]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Absolutely, we can way more revenue than we are making now on and off the pitch. For example our matchday revenue was £40m, which was less than Liverpool who weren't in CL. Arsenal has almost £100m matchday revenue etc. Thats just one example, but of course not at the expense of ticket prices. But still the £40m is quite low, and can easily be increased.

I'm not sure that our ticket/matchday revenue can ever be as high as Arsenal's, even after the stadium expansion ... just because Londoners seem 'happy' to pay more - how else do you explain:

Cheapest season-tickets:
Arsenal: £985
City: £299

Still it can be more than £40m, when Liverpool had £45m without CL.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Soriano predicts our revenue for the 2014-2015 season to be around £400m. With our wage bill being around £230m (plus a few other operating costs) that leaves a huge reservoir of cash to spunk on our own galacticos.

Do you have a source for this, or a report etc?

It would be remarkable if we were to exceed Man Utd's revenues at this stage of our development (with the ground development, training ground etc still to be completed, and City just establishing ourselves as one of Europe's top clubs)

It's €400m not £400m. So about £330m for the 2013/14 financial year. Still good although the usual suspects will no doubt be whingeing that it's all Abu Dhabi money and the Sheikh buys all the season tickets.

I'm quite blown away by this. I think a few Utd fans will be absolutely gob-smacked if this comes to pass

 

[Blue Theatre]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Absolutely, we can way more revenue than we are making now on and off the pitch. For example our matchday revenue was £40m, which was less than Liverpool who weren't in CL. Arsenal has almost £100m matchday revenue etc. Thats just one example, but of course not at the expense of ticket prices. But still the £40m is quite low, and can easily be increased.

I'm not sure that our ticket/matchday revenue can ever be as high as Arsenal's, even after the stadium expansion ... just because Londoners seem 'happy' to pay more - how else do you explain:

Cheapest season-tickets:
Arsenal: £985
City: £299

Still it can be more than £40m, when Liverpool had £45m without CL.

True - we ought to be able to charge similar prices to Liverpool or United.

But in practice, our average season-ticket prices are the lowest in the Premier Leage - even though the entertainment and goals at the Etihad are the best around, and we are Champions.

Not sure why we charge the least ? (Not arguing for an increase, or course ! Just wondering and thinking about FFP implications).

 

[mcfcinprague]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

And a smaller stadium/attendances

 

[stony]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Absolutely, we can way more revenue than we are making now on and off the pitch. For example our matchday revenue was £40m, which was less than Liverpool who weren't in CL. Arsenal has almost £100m matchday revenue etc. Thats just one example, but of course not at the expense of ticket prices. But still the £40m is quite low, and can easily be increased.

iirc, the reason our matchday revenue is so low, is because we count the corporate side separately, whereas Liverpool and other clubs count it in with matchday and season ticket sales.

 

[MeatHunterrr]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Absolutely, we can way more revenue than we are making now on and off the pitch. For example our matchday revenue was £40m, which was less than Liverpool who weren't in CL. Arsenal has almost £100m matchday revenue etc. Thats just one example, but of course not at the expense of ticket prices. But still the £40m is quite low, and can easily be increased.

iirc, the reason our matchday revenue is so low, is because we count the corporate side separately, whereas Liverpool and other clubs count it in with matchday and season ticket sales.

that explains it quite clearly then. anyway, it will increase a bit when the expansion is completed.

 

[meltonblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

For all the comments on FFP and the impact it has on competition, I still think more could be said about it not actually being fit for purpose for it's initial stated aim, which was to protect clubs and improve their "financial health". I don't see how it can be when all it takes into account is the profit and loss, and even them some parts are exempt.

I think more should be done to challenge it just on that part, it still allows clubs to be laden with debt.

The competitive side of things, I don't think there will never be answer for in football as long as it is a free market.

 

[BongoBlue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

We'll never be a big club until we have an 'Official Global Noodle Partner' of our own.

We should get Pot Noodle on board, surely no one his bigger than those bad boys!

As we're owned by an Arabian, shouldn't we have an 'Official Sheep Testicles Partner'?

Or am I talking bollocks?

I've just bought a Nissan, to add to my Brother laser printer. Got a Philips screwdriver as well.

Did you trade in your Saab for the Nissan then..?? ;)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Absolutely, we can way more revenue than we are making now on and off the pitch. For example our matchday revenue was £40m, which was less than Liverpool who weren't in CL. Arsenal has almost £100m matchday revenue etc. Thats just one example, but of course not at the expense of ticket prices. But still the £40m is quite low, and can easily be increased.

iirc, the reason our matchday revenue is so low, is because we count the corporate side separately, whereas Liverpool and other clubs count it in with matchday and season ticket sales.

We certainly used to but I don't think we do that anymore. The problem is that our premium/corporate offering is less than 5% of total capacity whereas the rags have over 10% of total capacity assigned to premium offerings. Being able to fill the same ratio of seats once we've expanded to 60,000 could see match day income increase to over £70m.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Absolutely, we can way more revenue than we are making now on and off the pitch. For example our matchday revenue was £40m, which was less than Liverpool who weren't in CL. Arsenal has almost £100m matchday revenue etc. Thats just one example, but of course not at the expense of ticket prices. But still the £40m is quite low, and can easily be increased.

iirc, the reason our matchday revenue is so low, is because we count the corporate side separately, whereas Liverpool and other clubs count it in with matchday and season ticket sales.

We certainly used to but I don't think we do that anymore. The problem is that our premium/corporate offering is less than 5% of total capacity whereas the rags have over 10% of total capacity assigned to premium offerings. Being able to fill the same ratio of seats once we've expanded to 60,000 could see match day income increase to over £70m.

We've miles to go on the corporate side though haven't we. I mean, there's loads of businesses who will take a box at the swamp for a season for customer promotional stuff and relationship building. They go for the swamp because they think it's what more of their customers would want. I've worked in IT for 30 years and it's always been this way. Wentworth, Twickenham and the swamp.