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

[iceman]

What is it with people remembering Garry Cook with rose tinted specs?

"Totally professional"
The man was a business man with very little knowledge of football.
A walking PR disaster who missed out on nearly every truly high profile player.
Additionally, and most damningly, he insulted Nedum Onuoha's mother, who was going through cancer treatment.

He was important for the club as his aggressive style was very useful for a club trying to make a mark but he would have eventually become obsolete anyway and his position was completely untenable after the email regarding Nedum's mother.

I'm sorry but the guy was a nob (call me tosser all you like). He was relatively good at his job but his continuous PR mistakes make him a complete liability. I am 1,000,000% happier with who we have now than Cook.

His brother Thomas was OK tho

 

[levets]

Portsmouth, a very big club at one time.

Oh I know that... but I bet most wouldn’t have known they were back 2 back champions

 

[FrankSwift1]

Why does football need more money and not less? In 2026 Phil Foden would play for Man City for 100k per week if that was the going rate, if Mbappe is on £1m per week he wouldn't. Its that simple as far I'm concerned, your proposal for more investment probably keeps things ticking over for another 10 years but eventually it bursts.

All your arguments are valid, of course money has been the dominant factor since the beginning of time. However what's changed is the amounts, while Cantona and Keane may have been expensive at the time the figures involved didn't threatened the existence of the club if they went wrong. Now the numbers are so big that Barcelona can't pay their wages because 3 transfers went badly wrong. Griezmann, Coutinho and Dembele have cost that club about 600m, you would have to fill the Nou Camp every week for 10 years to pay that.

Look at the accounts of any of the top sides and income from match day is below 10% of turnover. Commercial deals and TV are the main sources of income. The game is reliant on outside sources to pay its bills and this pandemic has shown how vulnerable that situation is, French TV deal collapsed, English teams faced with claw backs, Inter's owners wanting out. The championship has to be the best example too much money in the game. 17 clubs pay more in wages that they take in in turnover, is there any other industry where that happens? Would it happen if there wasn't billions at the bottom of the rainbow? They are gambling their existence on getting lucky. Its madness at every level although at least the fans do have something to look forward too, its not the foregone conclusion of most leagues.

There has to be a tipping point when fans in Germany, France and Italy stop tuning in to see the usual 3 crowned as Champions, Spain at least spilts its winners. Looking the age profile of this City squad no one could say they would be surprised if they won the league for the next 5 years.

By that point Bayern will have 15/15,
PSG 12/12,
Juve 12/13,
City 8/9,

Neutrals won't pay to watch it, no viewers equals no TV deal and less commercial income. The game has to be in a position to survive once that happens and it can only happen by lowering the costs of wages and transfers.

Some interesting points made here but there is no chance that one team, City or anyone else will dominate the PL. There league is in the fortunate position of having several teams with the capability to spend money to compete and win the title.

Only 5 teams have ever won 3 titles in a row and noone has ever won 4. I don't see that changing any time soon.

I do think though that it's a reasonable bet that Bayern and Psg will with all the titles in the next 5 years.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Why does football need more money and not less? In 2026 Phil Foden would play for Man City for 100k per week if that was the going rate, if Mbappe is on £1m per week he wouldn't. Its that simple as far I'm concerned, your proposal for more investment probably keeps things ticking over for another 10 years but eventually it bursts.

All your arguments are valid, of course money has been the dominant factor since the beginning of time. However what's changed is the amounts, while Cantona and Keane may have been expensive at the time the figures involved didn't threatened the existence of the club if they went wrong. Now the numbers are so big that Barcelona can't pay their wages because 3 transfers went badly wrong. Griezmann, Coutinho and Dembele have cost that club about 600m, you would have to fill the Nou Camp every week for 10 years to pay that.

Look at the accounts of any of the top sides and income from match day is below 10% of turnover. Commercial deals and TV are the main sources of income. The game is reliant on outside sources to pay its bills and this pandemic has shown how vulnerable that situation is, French TV deal collapsed, English teams faced with claw backs, Inter's owners wanting out. The championship has to be the best example too much money in the game. 17 clubs pay more in wages that they take in in turnover, is there any other industry where that happens? Would it happen if there wasn't billions at the bottom of the rainbow? They are gambling their existence on getting lucky. Its madness at every level although at least the fans do have something to look forward too, its not the foregone conclusion of most leagues.

There has to be a tipping point when fans in Germany, France and Italy stop tuning in to see the usual 3 crowned as Champions, Spain at least spilts its winners. Looking the age profile of this City squad no one could say they would be surprised if they won the league for the next 5 years.

By that point Bayern will have 15/15,
PSG 12/12,
Juve 12/13,
City 8/9,

Neutrals won't pay to watch it, no viewers equals no TV deal and less commercial income. The game has to be in a position to survive once that happens and it can only happen by lowering the costs of wages and transfers.

There's quite a lot wrong with this post but I'll confine myself to two points.

1) The amounts of money involved have changed because the amounts earned from tv have changed. The successful clubs of the 80s drove up transfer fees and wages in accordance with income based on the secure knowledge that they had the CL income to outprice any competition. When the flaw in that plan became apparent they brought in FFP. Football is wholly sustainable if clubs like Barca, United etc would only live within their means like City do. If you can't afford Mbappe, Haaland or whoever, don't buy him and, certainly, don't borrow yet more money to attempt to maintain a false position in football's hierarchy achieved only through unsustainable borrowing. Do this, and the economics will re-balance.

2) You say neutrals won't watch it but they did when united and liverpool were dominating. What you are really saying is that if anyone else dominates for a few years, it's bad news for football.

Fortunately, City dominating has elevated the art of football in England to a new level and shown certain managers up for the football dinosaurs they are. English football should thank us in the long run. But won't because the media see everything through the prism of united and liverpool.

 

[JASR]

United won 12 of the 1st 20 premier leagues.
united won 2x3 on the bounce in the 1st 20 PL.
united were never out of the top 3 in the 1st 20 PL.

that’s domination. And it could easily have been another 3 in that period without the mould breaking arrival of Chelsea investment.
so 15/20... no wonder they arrogantly ‘dna’ lorded it over every other club, with the coat tail hangers on of arsenal (picking up the scraps).

With Blackburn winning one with investment, there were only 4 different winners in the 1st 20 years, and it’s 4 not just 3 due to Chelsea investment.

I didn’t like Chelsea investment, (it wasn’t us), but I knew it benefitted the PL, and gave hope to other clubs, rather than duopoly monotony of United and the lesser Arsenal hanging on.

and then City investment arrived, like Chelsea before them, and that was suddenly not good for the ‘product’ and the triopoly monopoly, and the drawbridge was raised Before any other club could do the same.

id say City have a rather good chance of 5/10 PL’s in the last decade this year. it’s a good 50% (for us) but it’s not winning 75% of every PL like United would have done (and probably higher) without Chelsea (and then us) arriving. The other 5 PLs in the last 10 years, have been spread over 4 clubs. That’s practically double the amount of different winners in the last 10 years, compared to the 20 years prior, and in 1/2 the timeframe.

The (since Feb) ‘PL is boring with City winning’ crowd...no! it was incredibly boring when United/Arsenal carved it up between them - excepting if you were in the minority of overall fans by being a united or arsenal supporter....

Now it’s carved up by 6+, City just happens to be the current (but still less than united) dominant team, due to
a) planning
b) investment (when you could)
c) not believing in the recent past never changing history bollox like the intransient duopoly+Chelsea+Liverpool

To make it even less dominated, and a better product, allow bloody external investment for all, rather than pandering to the current debt ridden clubs United/arsenal/Liverpool, and get it opened up for all clubs to compete!

it’s not hard, is it? Is it?!?

 

[BobbyBoy]

There's quite a lot wrong with this post but I'll confine myself to two points.

1) The amounts of money involved have changed because the amounts earned from tv have changed. The successful clubs of the 80s drove up transfer fees and wages in accordance with income based on the secure knowledge that they had the CL income to outprice any competition. When the flaw in that plan became apparent they brought in FFP. Football is wholly sustainable if clubs like Barca, United etc would only live within their means like City do. If you can't afford Mbappe, Haaland or whoever, don't buy him and, certainly, don't borrow yet more money to attempt to maintain a false position in football's hierarchy achieved only through unsustainable borrowing. Do this, and the economics will re-balance.

2) You say neutrals won't watch it but they did when united and liverpool were dominating. What you are really saying is that if anyone else dominates for a few years, it's bad news for football.

Fortunately, City dominating has elevated the art of football in England to a new level and shown certain managers up for the football dinosaurs they are. English football should thank us in the long run. But won't because the media see everything through the prism of united and liverpool.

On point 1 Barcelona and Madrid are relevant now. In 3 years it could be City, say they buy Halaand for 200m and pay him 300k per week, he turns out to be shite and the next wonder kid the following year is the same. Suddenly who have 2 players you have invested 400m in and they're costing you 600k per week. The difference between Halaand and Cantona is getting rid of them if they don't work out. Complete guess work here but I'd imagine Utd could pay off Cantona or sell him and the overall impact is minimal. With Halaand the total outlay would be north of 25% of Citys turnover, you get it wrong 3 times in a row like Barcelona and suddenly you're fucked.

On point 2 I think you're comparing apples with oranges. When Liverpool where dominating there was no football to turn off. With Utd you had the novelty for the first few years of football on the telly and the 2nd spell of dominance they had good challengers most years. This looks completely different, City's spell has coincided with a period when football had already reached saturation point and people now have had their football going routines broken. Its the worst possible time for a non competitive league. Dominance is fine once hope exists for everyone else, City need someone to be competitive, I can't see who that is going to be.

Edit point 2 is not what I'm talking about. My point is transfers and wages are too high, 2 or 3 bad decisions shouldn't cripple a club. The dominance of any team is a side point and once they're brilliant like City are and Utd and Liverpool were then its perfectly normal. When they're average like Juventus you have a problem.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

What is it with people remembering Garry Cook with rose tinted specs?

"Totally professional"
The man was a business man with very little knowledge of football.
A walking PR disaster who missed out on nearly every truly high profile player.
Additionally, and most damningly, he insulted Nedum Onuoha's mother, who was going through cancer treatment.

He was important for the club as his aggressive style was very useful for a club trying to make a mark but he would have eventually become obsolete anyway and his position was completely untenable after the email regarding Nedum's mother.

I'm sorry but the guy was a nob (call me tosser all you like). He was relatively good at his job but his continuous PR mistakes make him a complete liability. I am 1,000,000% happier with who we have now than Cook.

Despite his PR blunders Garry Cook was pivotal in our success and so was Mancini. City needed shaking up on and off the field. He was the right person at that time. Of course the club has now moved on to even greater success under a stronger management team.

 

[Metalartin]

On point 1 Barcelona and Madrid are relevant now. In 3 years it could be City, say they buy Halaand for 200m and pay him 300k per week, he turns out to be shite and the next wonder kid the following year is the same. Suddenly who have 2 players you have invested 400m in and they're costing you 600k per week. The difference between Halaand and Cantona is getting rid of them if they don't work out. Complete guess work here but I'd imagine Utd could pay off Cantona or sell him and the overall impact is minimal. With Halaand the total outlay would be north of 25% of Citys turnover, you get it wrong 3 times in a row like Barcelona and suddenly you're fucked.

On point 2 I think you're comparing apples with oranges. When Liverpool where dominating there was no football to turn off. With Utd you had the novelty for the first few years of football on the telly and the 2nd spell of dominance they had good challengers most years. This looks completely different, City's spell has coincided with a period when football had already reached saturation point and people now have had their football going routines broken. Its the worst possible time for a non competitive league. Dominance is fine once hope exists for everyone else, City need someone to be competitive, I can't see who that is going to be.

Edit point 2 is not what I'm talking about. My point is transfers and wages are too high, 2 or 3 bad decisions shouldn't cripple a club. The dominance of any team is a side point and once they're brilliant like City are and Utd and Liverpool were then its perfectly normal. When they're average like Juventus you have a problem.

On point 1 you completely missed his point, which was spending within your means. You had to come up with a fantasy scenario where City not only break transfer records and pay the highest wages(neither of these have been true since the takeover up until now) but also do it back to back, to land themselves in trouble. This is not the way City do business and that's why the club has no debt. If you're going to talk about percentage of turnovers, at least do the legwork(give the figures) rather than guess. Turnovers today dwarf what United were getting in the 90s, so you could well be wrong in that assumption.

On Point 2, you've given me an opportunity to use one of my favourite sayings: Liverpool started the 60s in div2, where they spent the best part of a decade before they were financially doped back into significance by Littlewoods' owners. They weren't dominating the 60s at all, the 60s to mid 70s were actually a golden era in some peoples eyes, many different teams competing. Liverpool didn't dominate until the late 70s to the 80s. Match of the day was very much a big thing by then and there was the odd televised game. Besides that, it's quite clear the English game still grew during this period, so I don't think your point is valid on Liverpool's domination.

As for your United apologist view(typical Spurs fan ;) ), these "first few years" of dominance accounted for a full decade, it was one of the least competitive decades on record. It was far less competitive than this recent decade and yet the game grew just like it did in the 80s.

In both of those eras there were plenty of fans saying Liverpool's/United's dominance was bad for football/making it boring it's just that the press weren't adding to it like they do these days and social media meltdowns weren't a thing back then either.

The problem IMO, is people have rose tinted specs about what the 90s actually represented to English football(most historians say it was the worst thing to happen competitively). They have this idea that loads of teams were competing, that any team could win it, that's a fallacy, that was United's era with Arsenal occasionally doing more than just challenging. The fact is, there have been far closer title races in the past decade and the top 4 has had more variation too. The big 3 has become a big 6 and the gap to the big clubs has widened but that was going to happen with or without Chelsea and City. I don't think Spurs would have found a way into the top 4 without Chelsea and City upsetting the status quo either. Weakening United and Arsenal has helped other clubs in many respects but their fans are blind to it.

 

[Metalartin]

@BobbyBoy On your last point, transfers and wages are too high, but City aren't first port of call for that so it's not the reason why City are better than everyone else as you seem to be suggesting. It's United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Real, Barca, Juve who are most to blame for the out of control transfer market. City have made a few transfer errors no doubt but no more than the next big 6 club. Other than Mendy who suffered a bad injury and has not looked the same since(which can happen with any signing). Pick a player in the current squad who you think City overpaid for and tell me why. The market is what it is, City might not always sign bargains but they do set hard limits when trying to sign their targets.

The damage was done well before City got taken over, I suggest you look up the progression of the world record transfer fees, it was always heading the way it's gone which is why it's wrong how fans of those clubs now try and point the finger at City. Also, you should note that City's highest transfer fee is closer to Spurs than any other big 6 club. In fact, people try and ignore the fees received for Danilo and Otamendi when talking about the fees paid for the players coming in the opposite direction. That is a symptom of the selling clubs trying to balance their own books to stay within FFP limits. Otherwise you could knock 10 to 15m off both of those transfers because they definitely over paid us for them, it's obvious to see what's going on at some clubs.

 

[BobbyBoy]

@BobbyBoy On your last point, transfers and wages are too high, but City aren't first port of call for that so it's not the reason why City are better than everyone else as you seem to be suggesting. It's United, Chealsea, Liverpool, Real, Barca, Juve who are most to blame for the out of control transfer market. City have made a few transfer errors no doubt but no more than the next big 6 club. Other than Mendy who suffered a bad injury and has not looked the same since(which can happen with any signing). Pick a player in the current squad who you think City overpaid for and tell me why. The market is what it is, City might not always sign bargains but they do set hard limits when trying to sign their targets.

The damage was done well before City got taken over, I suggest you look up the progression of the world record transfer fees, it was always heading the way it's gone which is why it's wrong how fans of those clubs now try and point the finger at City. Also, you should note that City's highest transfer fee is closer to Spurs than any other big 6 club. In fact, people try and ignore the fees received for Danilo and Otamendi when talking about the fees paid for the players coming in the opposite direction. That is a symptom of the selling clubs trying to balance their own books to stay with in FFP limits. Otherwise you could knock 10 to 15m off both of those transfers because they definitely over paid us for them, it's obvious to see what's going on at some clubs.

You have taken me up wrong, City was the example I used in reference to Halaand. Halaand and overall cost was the point I was trying to make, change City to Liverpool or anyone else its not important.

My point was a player purchase like that shouldn't jeopardise a clubs viability. On the open market without buy out clauses he will cost 200m and another 100m in wages. Its not inconceivable a club buys him and it goes bellyup. Some sort of control is needed or we will be looking at Ollie Watkins type level players costing 100m in 10 years.