You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
jrb said:stony said:jrb said:More money on the QT.
And another one from last week.
I thought part of the FFP agreement was that we didn't increase certain second tier deals. I think the Aabar one comes under that. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
City must be confident it isn't as it was taken from the OS.(link)
I know mate I saw it on there myself earlier and the ffp ruling immediately came to mind.
johnnytapia said:There may have been the odd season when Liverpool / Arsenal may have been top of attendances, but I’d wager United would be top pretty much every season 1945 to present and possibly before[/b]. They can call on a fan base, nationally and internationally, that’s as big as any in the world. We can all agree they’re c**ts. But there’s always been a lot of them.
You'd lose, then. As the European Football Attendances site shows, the first time they ever had the biggest average gates in England over a season was in 1956/7. See here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm</a>
They then also topped the chart in the following two seasons. This was firstly because they were the most successful and most free-scoring side in the country, and then because there was a wave of post-Munich sympathy. The next two times they had the biggest average gates came in their title seasons of 1964/5 and 1966/7. It's not until the late sixties that they showed the capability of topping (or being second to Liverpool on the odd occasion) in the attendance charts when they were both a declining side and not benefitting from the immediate post-Munich effect.
In the land of Barcodes
Well-Known Member
stony said:jrb said:More money on the QT.
Manchester City are delighted to announce that official Club partner, Aabar Investments (aabar), has entered into a new partnership with MCWFC.
As part of the agreement, Aabar will sponsor Manchester City Women's pre-season training camp in Abu Dhabi, as well as receive a range of match-day advertising at the new 7,000 capacity Academy Stadium.
The company will also brand Manchester City’s Community Pitch at the recently opened City Football Academy, located in the heart of East Manchester. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/MCWFC-news/2015/MCWFC-in-new-agreement-with-Aabar-Investments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/MCWFC-news/2 ... nvestments</a>
And another one from last week.
Barclays Premier League Champions, Manchester City FC have announced a three and half year global partnership with leading online forex trading firm FXPRIMUS.
FXPRIMUS will become the Club's Official Online Forex Trading Partner.
https://mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2015/January/City-announce-global-partnership-with-FXPrimus
I thought part of the FFP agreement was that we didn't increase certain second tier deals. I think the Aabar one comes under that. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
You are correct - but the deal isn't with City - it's with MCWFC. A different entity and fellow member of City Football Group.
EricBrooksGhost
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,727
Re: City & FFP (continued)
With respect to the airport and any rumour; if he buys the airport owner, MAG, he buys Stansted as well. Also MAG got a large investment the other year http://www.ifminvestors.com/us/abou...ts-group-london-stansted-airport#.VL4CuHNFCv1
With respect to the airport and any rumour; if he buys the airport owner, MAG, he buys Stansted as well. Also MAG got a large investment the other year http://www.ifminvestors.com/us/abou...ts-group-london-stansted-airport#.VL4CuHNFCv1
EricBrooksGhost said:With respect to the airport and any rumour; if he buys the airport owner, MAG, he buys Stansted as well. Also MAG got a large investment the other year
When MAG opted to go with that investment from IFM, there were two other bids - one linked to "a Hong Kong billionaire" and the other "a venture involving the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority". This was widely reported at the time, including in the Manchester Evening News here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/manchester-airports-group-confirms-industry-1234197" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ry-1234197</a>
Before IFM's investment the shareholders of Manchester Airports Group were Manchester City Council (55%) and the nine other Greater Manchester Councils (5% each). After IFM's investment, it and MCC now own just over 35% each with the other GM councils having just under 30% between them.
IIRC, at the time, there was some talk that the ADIA bid might herald developments with regard to Etihad that could be exciting for the long-term development of the Manchester and Stansted Airports. However, it was speculated that IFM would be prepared to offer a better deal for shareholders. (I don't know to what degree this is true).
Anyway, both Manchester and Stansted seem to have been posting big passenger numbers recently. See here - <a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/passenger-numbers-soar-manchester-airport-7931979" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... rt-7931979</a> - and here - <a class="postlink" href="http://www.stanstedairport.com/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/stansted-passenger-numbers-grow-at-the-fastest-annual-rate-for-nearly-10-years" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.stanstedairport.com/about-us ... y-10-years</a>.
Purely hypothetically (I claim no inside knowledge of this whatsoever), maybe IFM, having made an investment that facilitated the acquisition of Stansted, now has the opportunity to cash in on its investment at a profit. And maybe that suits all parties.
IanBishopsHaircut
Well-Known Member
Buying Manchester Airport?!
We should paint the whole thing blue
Just think...whenever the rags buy duty free it will be going into our owners pocket
Hahahaha
We should paint the whole thing blue
Just think...whenever the rags buy duty free it will be going into our owners pocket
Hahahaha
Victoria-bahs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 213
IanBishopsHaircut said:Buying Manchester Airport?!
We should paint the whole thing blue
Just think...whenever the rags buy duty free it will be going into our owners pocket
Hahahaha
call it Manchester City FC Airport--- & better still they can sponsor us as well for silly Money ;)
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
FanchesterCity said:Of course United have a much bigger fanbase, their only rival is Liverpool in terms of sheer numbers. The reasons for that are myriad, but very little of this is relevant.
Attendances and fanbase are to very different things, although generally, clubs with a large fanbase can command higher attendances - providing their stadium allows for it.
The actual revenue generated by the fanbase itself is a relatively small portion of a club's revenue. Matchday revenue it limited by capacity of the stadium, and depending on how each club wishes to account for merchandise and food sales, the typical 'spend' of those fans on matchdays.
Then there's the wider merchandising issue, which again isn't really such a huge earner. Of course, every penny counts, but it really is small fry in the grand scheme of things.
United (and other clubs with large fanbase) will always use this as an example of their 'global appeal' and use it in negotiations with sponsors and advertisers, and in for media / broadcast rights (where they are able to negotiate a deal for themselves). But that's only THEIR side of the negotiations. The sponsors will look to their champions league presence, their domestic success, they players they have, and the image they are currently portraying.
It would be foolish to just dismiss the big brand that United are. It still holds a fair bit of sway, but there are limits to how attractive that is to some sponsors. When the going is good on the pitch, sponsors will milk the 'heritage' and big name of United - because it's in their interests to do so. But when the going is not so good on the pitch, it becomes far less a valuable commodity. So what is it's a big brand... it's a losing brand. It will command less money, and will be deemed a tired and old hat brand.
City on the other hand (and really, lets not kid ourselves) don't have the huge global following of some of the big boys (yet). We're emerging. Of course we have fans all over the world. nobody's denying that, but we are still very much growing.
From a sponsors perspective, we are everything that many 'traditional' big names arent. We are new and exciting, 'going places' and changing our dynamic very quickly. That's a very positive thing to be associated with for most companies.
For instance, if you're 'Yorkshire Tea' or 'Sotheby's Auctioneers' - you might be looking to sponsor a cricket team, or perhaps a club with a more subtle image, but if you're Red Bull, or Apple, you might be far more interested in a team that reflects the same dynamic as your company (e.g. City).
The fan base of clubs really isn't such a major factor in attracting sponsors / partners and advertising. the image of the club and the reach of the the club (typically through media exposure) matters far more.
As things stand right now, United's exposure is greater than City's and our image is currently far more fresh and vibrant than ANY other club in the PL and probably most of Europe too. As long as we keep winning things, and don't get too many awful headlines, we'll be able to sell ourselves better than United can.
We also have more drive and impetus behind us because the owners have been planning this for a number of years, and are putting it all into practice as we speak. United on the other hand have been sat back and have only just come to the realisation there is work for them to do. That effectively puts them a number of years behind us in terms of 'readiness' to grow rapidly.
It would be arrogant (and foolish) to think a behemoth like United will just fall like a pack of cards. It won't. It will react. But it's slow to react because it's not agile in the way we are.
That's why (in my opinion) if we continue on the path we're heading, and there are no overwhelmingly difficult hurdles, we'll go on to surpass them in business capability and hopefully profitability. But there's a fair few ifs there. We still have a lot to do, and can't take our eye off the ball.
Do you think that the speculation about Manchester Airport on this thread illustrates the value of the purchase of MCFC ?
By that I mean it is a great advertising vehicle for ADUG as well as our current and potential sponsors.
Perhaps I am wrong but the real value of the football investment to Sheik M. (and probably AD generally) is to locally be in a a position to take advantage of business opportunities that require funds to be invested (the link between Bush and Saudi Arabia using the Bin Ladin family is an example of how this works).
In other words we as MCFC together with our global CFG members are not an end to the investments just part of the plan to globally invest AD oil money.
Sovereign wealth funds and big Pension Funds have for a long time been interested in infrastructure projects. You're just noticing it now because of the City connection. and because most of the Western states are so indebted that they have long since sold off all of their assets leaving oil-rich nations and a few Pension Funds as the only buyers.SilverFox2 said:FanchesterCity said:Of course United have a much bigger fanbase, their only rival is Liverpool in terms of sheer numbers. The reasons for that are myriad, but very little of this is relevant.
Attendances and fanbase are to very different things, although generally, clubs with a large fanbase can command higher attendances - providing their stadium allows for it.
The actual revenue generated by the fanbase itself is a relatively small portion of a club's revenue. Matchday revenue it limited by capacity of the stadium, and depending on how each club wishes to account for merchandise and food sales, the typical 'spend' of those fans on matchdays.
Then there's the wider merchandising issue, which again isn't really such a huge earner. Of course, every penny counts, but it really is small fry in the grand scheme of things.
United (and other clubs with large fanbase) will always use this as an example of their 'global appeal' and use it in negotiations with sponsors and advertisers, and in for media / broadcast rights (where they are able to negotiate a deal for themselves). But that's only THEIR side of the negotiations. The sponsors will look to their champions league presence, their domestic success, they players they have, and the image they are currently portraying.
It would be foolish to just dismiss the big brand that United are. It still holds a fair bit of sway, but there are limits to how attractive that is to some sponsors. When the going is good on the pitch, sponsors will milk the 'heritage' and big name of United - because it's in their interests to do so. But when the going is not so good on the pitch, it becomes far less a valuable commodity. So what is it's a big brand... it's a losing brand. It will command less money, and will be deemed a tired and old hat brand.
City on the other hand (and really, lets not kid ourselves) don't have the huge global following of some of the big boys (yet). We're emerging. Of course we have fans all over the world. nobody's denying that, but we are still very much growing.
From a sponsors perspective, we are everything that many 'traditional' big names arent. We are new and exciting, 'going places' and changing our dynamic very quickly. That's a very positive thing to be associated with for most companies.
For instance, if you're 'Yorkshire Tea' or 'Sotheby's Auctioneers' - you might be looking to sponsor a cricket team, or perhaps a club with a more subtle image, but if you're Red Bull, or Apple, you might be far more interested in a team that reflects the same dynamic as your company (e.g. City).
The fan base of clubs really isn't such a major factor in attracting sponsors / partners and advertising. the image of the club and the reach of the the club (typically through media exposure) matters far more.
As things stand right now, United's exposure is greater than City's and our image is currently far more fresh and vibrant than ANY other club in the PL and probably most of Europe too. As long as we keep winning things, and don't get too many awful headlines, we'll be able to sell ourselves better than United can.
We also have more drive and impetus behind us because the owners have been planning this for a number of years, and are putting it all into practice as we speak. United on the other hand have been sat back and have only just come to the realisation there is work for them to do. That effectively puts them a number of years behind us in terms of 'readiness' to grow rapidly.
It would be arrogant (and foolish) to think a behemoth like United will just fall like a pack of cards. It won't. It will react. But it's slow to react because it's not agile in the way we are.
That's why (in my opinion) if we continue on the path we're heading, and there are no overwhelmingly difficult hurdles, we'll go on to surpass them in business capability and hopefully profitability. But there's a fair few ifs there. We still have a lot to do, and can't take our eye off the ball.
Do you think that the speculation about Manchester Airport on this thread illustrates the value of the purchase of MCFC ?
By that I mean it is a great advertising vehicle for ADUG as well as our current and potential sponsors.
Perhaps I am wrong but the real value of the football investment to Sheik M. (and probably AD generally) is to locally be in a a position to take advantage of business opportunities that require funds to be invested (the link between Bush and Saudi Arabia using the Bin Ladin family is an example of how this works).
In other words we as MCFC together with our global CFG members are not an end to the investments just part of the plan to globally invest AD oil money.