seems it's been corrected. looking through it now
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
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
tbf he does read it.
I've gone through it. It's mainly due to an increase in their tv revenue by about £100m and them making £30m more profit on player sales. The tv revenue is fair because it would been thoroughly audited and I think the EPL forfeited part of it during project restart. They also reached the Champions League final.
Did they sell anyone last season?
Their commercial recenue increased by around £30m
£54m Leroy Sane, £19m Angelino, and £16m Otamendi say hi!
LangleyBlue1970
Well-Known Member
It is on Sky Sports. Not looked on BeebHow come ‘City income overtakes rag shits’ (or similar wording) isn’t a headline on the BBC football page?
Same for me KS.(73). It is said we have to go through the bad times to appreciate the good ones, how true. Hope I have some more years left to see that lot over the road humiliated by us. Thank you to the Sheikh and Khaldoon and everybody at City.I know that making money and beating the rags on revenue is not the point of Manchester City but oh how their boiling piss gladdens my heart.
Khaldoon says it and we are proving it, the objective is to make Manchester City THE BEST. I think we are now. Oh YES.
I can hardly believe what I have just typed. I'm 73 now, so many years of being patronized and belittled by the rags. KARMA KARMA KARMA.
(Calm down, you old fool.)
feelymcfeel
Well-Known Member
two posts under that post you put up in the same thread (i didnt know how to embed it)
View attachment 34336
Christ, it sounds like he almost agrees with what the accounts say.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
It has. This line caught my eye:seems it's been corrected. looking through it now
An impairment charge of £18.7m has been recognised based on an assessment of first team players that are not expected to be a member of the first team playing squad.
I wonder who that could be referring to?
feelymcfeel
Well-Known Member
It has. This line caught my eye:
An impairment charge of £18.7m has been recognised based on an assessment of first team players that are not expected to be a member of the first team playing squad.
I wonder who that could be referring to?
Have we finally bit the bullet on Kaka?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
More likely Isco.Have we finally bit the bullet on Kaka?
feelymcfeel
Well-Known Member
There's still time. I keep my dancing shoes by the door on the off chance.More likely Isco.
Fair dos.tbf he does read it.
I've gone through it. It's mainly due to an increase in their tv revenue by about £100m and them making £30m more profit on player sales. The tv revenue is fair because it would been thoroughly audited and I think the EPL forfeited part of it during project restart. They also reached the Champions League final.
Did they sell anyone last season?
Their commercial recenue increased by around £30m