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

[SilverFox2]

stinks to high heaven.

Err, ok. Not sure what I did wrong except discuss in civil manner but that's not welcome?

Mansour owns City. Not the UAE government.

Sheikh Mansour is a member of the government. The government is a dynastic rule by the Al Nahyan Family. You think he funds City from his personal savings jar? ADUG just like Etihad are proxy vehicles by the government to create exposure,brand awareness,positive image overseas for Abu Dhabi ( and UAE )and also serve as alternative investment/income sources to lower reliance on oil. All are funded by the government's wealth or the Al Nahyan royal family's wealth because it is one and the same. Maybe the clue is in the name - Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment. Also realise that ADUG is investing in Manchester. What purpose would that serve Sheikh Mansour if his investment in City is in a private capacity only. Obviously he is doing to build goodwill around Abu Dhabi for the nature of investment across is part of the government policy.

EDIT: Either way it's a shame that football is reduced to a swinging contest of who has the most generous sponsor. :/

He funded the Barclays money out of his own personal savings jar and kept the £3billion profit as a result.

Just as Hakkassan Group is also funded out of the businesses he decides to invest it.

He has since lost a personal shitload on Virgin Galactic.

And he invested in MCFC well before FFP was suddenly rushed through on the requests of Berlusconi and Abramovich.

It was publicly announced at the time that this was a private investment for Mansour.

Not the Abu Dhabi government.

With no FFP in circulation at the time, there was absolutely nothing to prevent others at that time taking the acclaim, certainly those with more power than our owner.

Mansour has been very litigious when some reports have crossed the line and assert the club is owned by a state.

Keep up.

Surely our critics should be able to make some sort of conspiracy theory regarding the Barclay bailout ?
Did they used to sponsor the FA or England about that time ?

The fact that the UK Government were spared pouring more taxpayers money into yet another Bank may also be seen as some sort of wink wink nod nod investment with Gordon Brown or whoever else was supposed to be in charge of Government Finance at that time.

There again perhaps he was doing what he is good at, investing (despite the Virgin disaster).

 

[TrueBlue1705]

Let me make this as simple as I can as you are seemingly to struggle with this incredibly basic concept. I swear to God if you can't pick this up then you're not even trying.

Sheikh Mansour owns Manchester City lock, stock. 100% share ownership. The investment into the club is derived from his personal wealth.

Etihad Airways is owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi just like General Motors were owned by your Government or these other 146 airlines that are Government owned.

A Government consists of many different people in many different roles. The UAE Government has somewhere in the region of ~500 employees across its various ministries and departments. One of those 500 people is Sheikh Mansour, who is Joint Deputy Prime Minister which is mainly ceremonial and also runs the Department of Presidential Affairs which looks after protocols for the President.

You are suggesting that Manchester City and Etihad are owned by the same people. This is because Etihad are owned by the Abu Dhabi Government, which is the Government of the Emirate, and Sheikh Mansour is from that Emirate but works for the Government of the UAE which is the country.

This is like suggesting that because the state of Hawaii owns Honolulu Airport and Barack Obama is the US President, than Barack Obama actually owns Honolulu Airport.

As I pointed out earlier, the reason you have gotten this wrong is because it's an Arab country and you couldn't give a shit about the details because all Arabs are the same person to you lot. Thanks, and bye bye.

Even I don't believe that Sheikh Mansour's ownership is entirely separate from the aims and objectives of the UAE. He's a legal front, nothing more. I'd already told you how the Etihad sponorship was funded, which is one clue, plus the fact that Khaldoon is the chairman being another. He's possibly even more important in Abu Dhabi than Sheikh Mansour, being effectively Sheikh Mohammed's right-hand man.

Yes it's all legally separate but no one should be under any illusion that we're anything more than a PR front for the Abu Dhabi Executive Council.

And may I add, this wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for Gill and his murky G14 cronies implementing FFP to stop City.

Rich benefactors have always funded clubs since football became a professional sport, so why is there a problem now? Fear that others may follow City's lead and buy other clubs outside of the elite who have potential, thus changing the football landscape forever, that's why.

No way were the G14 ever going to sit back and watch the foundations of their power base be eroded by the Manchester City tide, no way...... As for Manchester City, let's not angry, let's get even.

This

 

[BlueAnorak]

The FFP fines should be out at the end of the week.
I wonder what trick they'll use this year to keep us under FFP restrictions?

 

[aguero93:20]

The FFP fines should be out at the end of the week.
I wonder what trick they'll use this year to keep us under FFP restrictions?

Article CIX (ii), all teams playing in the north of England (not featuring the word 'united' in their name) that have won a league title in the preceding 25 years that spend more than £2.50 per annum on wages shall be fined and have squad places reduced on a year by year basis cumulatively until they reach the above figure.
David Gill

 

[FanchesterCity]

The original G14 and UEFA made the fatal assumption that growth in football would continue along the same lines it always had... they'd market the big domestic clubs as a 'European League' and just keep the lions share of the money.
The 'CL' was a compromise of trying to merge the old European Cup and a new European League.... so they ended up with a Champions League that afforded many more games, and more money.

What they failed to recognise was that football clubs have never been particularly well run businesses, and so their assumptions on growth were very simplistic. They thought investors would just invest in the biggest clubs completely completely forgetting that a lot of investors prefer to make a killing in 'start ups' - or smaller businesses that they can grow rapidly and make a fortune on.

They also failed to see the attraction of sugar daddies wanting to build their own empires, rather than invest and share in a ready made one. There's simply not a lot of kudos in investing in Real Madrid. There's far more in 'building' a smaller club into a giant.

In some ways, football has grown even more than the original G14 could have imagined, and in a lot of ways, it HAS still grown in the general direction they thought, it's just not been with the clubs the clubs or investors they assumed.

Like I said, the G14 were big clubs, but lousy businesses. They were the equivalent of people who have the best house on the street, and assume everybody will want to buy that house. In reality, developers can't do much more with that house, but they can buy a far cheaper one on the road, and do it up to the same standard.... making much more profit.

In football's case, it's not necessarily about hard profit either, but the kudos of having grown a club. That's something else they missed, because they assumed investors would gravitate to the already big clubs and seek financial gain.

The situation we've been in recently is akin all the posh neighbours in the street not liking all the building work you're having done as they think it's making the street look untidy and devaluing their property. However, once it's done, and they get used to it, they suddenly realise that your improvements actually help THEM get a better price, as you've improved the street overall.
This is where City are at.... initially, they loathe it, then they slowly realise that you're making CL more exciting and making them all more money. They they point the finger at the new 'worst house on the street' which might be the likes of both Milan clubs etc

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Be interesting to see what sanctions Inter are hit with tomorrow.

Under Morratti, one of the main clubs who approached Platini to put these plans in place.

I wonder if their new owner Erick Thohir will have something to say.

Can't say it looks good for a Yaya move to there at present?

 

[blueinsa]

Be interesting to see what sanctions Inter are hit with tomorrow.

Under Morratti, one of the main clubs who approached Platini to put these plans in place.

I wonder if their new owner Erick Thohir will have something to say.

Can't say it looks good for a Yaya move to there at present?

Like Liverpool, they will be cleared of any wrong doing.

 

[BLUE THUNDER]

FFP is rigged, we all know that. PSG received the same sanctions as us. How can that be possible, did they breach the rules to the same extent as us, was that a just a coincidence?

Self interest rules the day and no greater example than the implementing of FFP to suit the needs of the cartel. The minute we show ambition with transfers the cartel will cut us down with their interpretation of the rules.
We need the court case to succeed, then it will be every man (team) for themselves.

 

[BlueAnorak]

FFP is rigged, we all know that. PSG received the same sanctions as us. How can that be possible, did they breach the rules to the same extent as us, was that a just a coincidence?

Self interest rules the day and no greater example than the implementing of FFP to suit the needs of the cartel. The minute we show ambition with transfers the cartel will cut us down with their interpretation of the rules.
We need the court case to succeed, then it will be every man (team) for themselves.

Actually as PSG were bought a year or so later, their pre 2010 wage bill wasn't that big. Ours was at least 3 times bigger and the change in the FFP returns spreadsheet after we had submitted our 2011-12 account meant we could never discount pre June 2010 wages from our FFP account. That meant failure by over a €100 million - not a couple of million € as we would have done if pre June 2010 wages could be discounted.

As such we failed FFP to a tune of around 80% of PSG's failure (which itself was lower than expected because UEFA allowed HALF the Qatari tourist board's subsidy as valid FFP income). As such our failure can be considered in the same ball park as theirs.

The board will regret not taking UEFA to court, because we will be shafted again.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

There is precedent with FFP now. We were hit because it was all new and very open to interpretation however Euefa will have to apply the same interpretation to others.

I know there is a lot of conspiracy theory on here but in reality such things will have to be implemented consistently or there will be embarrassing court cases. It will be interesting to see how clubs hit by hard times can cope with £40m fines but they will have to do it- them’s the rules now!