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

[route46]

have we cleared up the Malaga 95% attendance bollocks???

 

[redmanc34]

I'll say good luck to you in your quest against FFP, and I'm being serious, but I can't see you getting anywhere. For the simple fact of this. Abdullah Al-Thani, billionaire of the Qatari Royal Family bought Malaga CF a few years back. This guy is serious, about as serious as your guy. Anyway he invested a but of money in the club, and then same up with a scheme to invest in the local area. His scheme was to build a SportCity in Malaga centre, by La Rosaleda stadium similar to what you have with the Etihad Campus, along with that he wanted to build a new port in Marbella that could accommodate his yacht.
Anyway Al-Thani goes to Malaga council with these plans, he has the plot of land sorted and everything. Malaga council say to him that any construction work of this size needs to be run past the Andalucian Council first, the regional government by Malaga. This is based in Sevilla. Now Sevilla detests Malaga, as a city, and also Sevilla and Real Betis hate Malaga and see themselves as the two powerhouses in Andalucian football. So on that basis, planning permission is rejected. Al-Thani who is worth £2b is pissed off, appeals the decision in the court and loses. This is a government where street lights are turned off on the main motorway after 11 at night because they can't afford to have them on, and yet Al-Thani with all that money and all those possible backhanders couldn't even get them to approve his plans.
Now compare that small skint regional government to a corporation the size of UEFA, they hold 10x the power of the Andalucian government, which is why I feel the money Mansour has maybe won't hold much sway. As I said, good luck to you in the court, but after what happened at Malaga I think it's a long shot

A nice try, but totally irrelevant and in no way bears any similarity with that of City and Sheikh Mansour. Malaga did receive a UEFA ban if that is what you are alluding to, but this was because of unpaid debts, something that City cannot be accused of. If you want to make an issue of what Mansour has done for City ...and Manchester as a whole ...then ask what the Glazer family has done for it's own catchment area. The answer, as we know, is NOTHING. Indeed, they used borrowed money to buy your club and then loaded this debt onto your club's balance sheet in the hope that success would be maintained thus generating enough revenue to at least pay the interest on this debt. So far they have succeeded but the whole point is that DEBT became part of the rag empire means of existence, something that was supposed to be the reason for the implementation of FFP, but this has been twisted around to conveniently ignore debt and to focus on high spending instead and not only that but to make up the rules as they go along. This twisting of the ideals of FFP from the original debt to one of high spending is unethical and as far as I am concerned is why I believe that City were wrong in not challenging FFP in it's original form. By failing to do so, the club just allowed these ongoing changes to become set in stone and we have damaged ourselves by allowing it to happen.

Here's one for you then. Long-term how will FFP favour United. See the club is valued at £1b, so if one person outright is to purchase the club he's gonna have to be similar to Mansour in terms of wealth. Yet he's gonna know now he can't invest in the club he's bought at all. Especially if he wants to buy the club and pay off the remaining loan debt at the same time, gonna cost around £1.5b. Its a lot to pay for something that you can no longer customise due to strict FFP rulings. So I see the point you make, that it's not right because United still have £500-600m left to pay on loans, but this probably favours your club long-term over United anyway. As mentioned, we're gonna struggle to find a billionare who's going to want to buy a club that he can't do anything with.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Today Dynamo Moscow have been ruled to have overspent by UEFA and their punishment is going to be decided by the panel.

Monaco, Inter and Roma are still under investigation. Cases against Lyon, Bursaspor and Anzhi have been closed.

Is it encouraging we aren't mentioned or are we being looked at separately because we already failed?

I imagine that we haven't failed yet but that David Gill is currently working on rule changes that are to be applied
retrospectively based upon the accounts we have submitted. I imagine that this would take time because he
has to ensure that none of the G14 also fall foul of them. Just my imagination you understand.

 

[redmanc34]

Today Dynamo Moscow have been ruled to have overspent by UEFA and their punishment is going to be decided by the panel.

Monaco, Inter and Roma are still under investigation. Cases against Lyon, Bursaspor and Anzhi have been closed.

Is it encouraging we aren't mentioned or are we being looked at separately because we already failed?

I imagine that we haven't failed yet but that David Gill is currently working on rule changes that are to be applied
retrospectively based upon the accounts we have submitted. I imagine that this would take time because he
has to ensure that none of the G14 also fall foul of them. Just my imagination you understand.

Inter are G-14 though

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Here's one for you then. Long-term how will FFP favour United.

It will favour you because you have the largest turnover and therefore profit in the PL and one of the largest in the world.
You can outspend all your domestic rivals which whilst not guaranteeing success gives you a permanent (assuming you don't
totally cock up) competitive advantage.

 

[laserblue]

Not really, I think what Mansour has done in regards to the Etihad Campus and that is fantastic. He has set you up for life with that, and I take my hat off to it. The only part of his model I had doubts over was your high wage bill at a time where your expenses massively outweighed your income, because it is a risky game, especially if he was to walk away. But he's getting that under control now anyway

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Your credibility has taken another dive with that one. What next? It will all collapse when the oil runs out? Or another often quoted desperate rag claim?

Nope. the WAS is past tense. That was my point mate. Other wise I would have said "especially if he decides to walk away" see the difference.

You've totally, but conveniently, overlooked the essential point that Sheikh Mansour was never, ever going to walk away "when he gets bored" as the rag hordes never tired of telling us. The fact that many of them are still saying it (trust me they are) as well as the oil running out crap shows just how desperate, bitter, obsessed, small time and classless the rags are.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Today Dynamo Moscow have been ruled to have overspent by UEFA and their punishment is going to be decided by the panel.

Monaco, Inter and Roma are still under investigation. Cases against Lyon, Bursaspor and Anzhi have been closed.

Is it encouraging we aren't mentioned or are we being looked at separately because we already failed?

I imagine that we haven't failed yet but that David Gill is currently working on rule changes that are to be applied
retrospectively based upon the accounts we have submitted. I imagine that this would take time because he
has to ensure that none of the G14 also fall foul of them. Just my imagination you understand.

Inter are G-14 though

I was actually joking with that post but let's see what happens to Inter shall we?
Liverpool were investigated by UEFA who unsurprisingly found that they had scraped through.

 

[CityFan94]

Redplastic34 still hasn't answered my question.

He said investment isn't good in football and that PSG's investment has turned Ligue 1 into a one team league, as they could win 3 in a row.

United won 3 in a row from 2006-2009. Was the Premiership a one team league during that period?

If so, surely the investment of Chelsea and ourselves has helped the league, since we've both won the league since. It's made it more exciting, since it had became a one team league, going by your criteria.

Until last season, United had finished at least second every season since 2009, so would have won every title without ourselves and Chelsea having a lot of money from investment.

Wouldn't that have been boring? That would have been a one team league, right? Just like the SPL, as you said about PSG.

 

[redmanc34]

Redplastic34 still hasn't answered my question.

He said investment isn't good in football and that PSG's investment has turned Ligue 1 into a one team league, as they could win 3 in a row.

United won 3 in a row from 2006-2009. Was the Premiership a one team league during that period?

If so, surely the investment of Chelsea and ourselves has helped the league, since we've both won the league since. It's made it more exciting, since it had became a one team league, going by your criteria.

Until last season, United had finished at least second every season since 2009, so would have won every title without ourselves and Chelsea having a lot of money from investment.

Wouldn't that have been boring? That would have been a one team league, right? Just like the SPL, as you said about PSG.

I have actually answered that previously. I don't disagree with that, but my point was that the majority of European leagues are more evenly competed and that investment in fact takes the competition element away, and does just create a one team league. At the same time I have always said the Premier League is different and it should have never got to the point where clubs such as yourself have to pump that amount of money into your club just to compete. I also said if this ruling came along earlier, say 15-20 years ago it probably could have stopped the domination United and Arsenal had over the league

 

[route46]

do u accept ur statement about Malaga being best supported and 95% full was a load of shit???

 

[Newman Noggs]

Here's one for you then. Long-term how will FFP favour United. See the club is valued at £1b, so if one person outright is to purchase the club he's gonna have to be similar to Mansour in terms of wealth. Yet he's gonna know now he can't invest in the club he's bought at all. Especially if he wants to buy the club and pay off the remaining loan debt at the same time, gonna cost around £1.5b. Its a lot to pay for something that you can no longer customise due to strict FFP rulings. So I see the point you make, that it's not right because United still have £500-600m left to pay on loans, but this probably favours your club long-term over United anyway. As mentioned, we're gonna struggle to find a billionare who's going to want to buy a club that he can't do anything with.

That's the whole point just there. It benefits you because, now you are a bad investment, no one else can invest to achieve the turnover you've got. High turnover equals high spending equals success. It's a formula that has been proven to work over 23 years. It's how you won all those titles. FFP seeks to ossify that position forever which works to your benefit. But I'm sure you know that.

 

[redmanc34]

do u accept ur statement about Malaga being best supported and 95% full was a load of shit???

Not really no, my source is something called "Guia de La Liga" Desafio Mundial. Its a book, with an in depth profile of Spanish and European football, composed by Marca. It includes everything about a club, literally everything, season ticket holders, supporters clubs etc. The figures I have are the average attendance from 12-13 and 13-14.

 

[CityFan94]

Redplastic34 still hasn't answered my question.

He said investment isn't good in football and that PSG's investment has turned Ligue 1 into a one team league, as they could win 3 in a row.

United won 3 in a row from 2006-2009. Was the Premiership a one team league during that period?

If so, surely the investment of Chelsea and ourselves has helped the league, since we've both won the league since. It's made it more exciting, since it had became a one team league, going by your criteria.

Until last season, United had finished at least second every season since 2009, so would have won every title without ourselves and Chelsea having a lot of money from investment.

Wouldn't that have been boring? That would have been a one team league, right? Just like the SPL, as you said about PSG.

I have actually answered that previously. I don't disagree with that, but my point was that the majority of European leagues are more evenly competed and that investment in fact takes the competition element away, and does just create a one team league. At the same time I have always said the Premier League is different and it should have never got to the point where clubs such as yourself have to pump that amount of money into your club just to compete. I also said if this ruling came along earlier, say 15-20 years ago it probably could have stopped the domination United and Arsenal had over the league

To consistently compete at the top of the Premiership, you need to pay big money on transfer fees and wages for top players. Fact. No club has consistently been in the top four since 92 without that.

To be able to be a self sustaining club whilst paying that transfer fees and wages, like United and Arsenal, you need a huge income. That income comes from the Champion's League, more tv money for finishing higher in the league and more sponsorship. How many years have United and Arsenal had that sort of income? It's an enormous advantage over the rest of the league, the likes of Newcastle, Spurs and Villa.

We've been in the top four for 5 seasons now and our income has just reached the level high enough for us to start to breakeven. That's how long it takes to reach the income level of the top English clubs. Five successive top four finishes. How is any club supposed to do that without investment? It's impossible. That's why nobody has ever done it since the Premiership started in 92.

Enormous initial investment is the ONLY way for a club to move up and consistently compete at the top of the Premiership. You can't even rely on great youth players to come through now, just ask Southampton.

Huge initial investment is the only way to success in the Premier League.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Today Dynamo Moscow have been ruled to have overspent by UEFA and their punishment is going to be decided by the panel.

Monaco, Inter and Roma are still under investigation. Cases against Lyon, Bursaspor and Anzhi have been closed.

Is it encouraging we aren't mentioned or are we being looked at separately because we already failed?

I imagine that we haven't failed yet but that David Gill is currently working on rule changes that are to be applied
retrospectively based upon the accounts we have submitted. I imagine that this would take time because he
has to ensure that none of the G14 also fall foul of them. Just my imagination you understand.

Inter are G-14 though

I'm probably in a minority on here in welcoming the diversion your visitation has created, but whilst you've made a few reasonable points, equally there have been other moments when you haven't exactly helped yourself either.....this being one of them.
Wilf may or may not be joking with that statement - although 5 years worth of snide shit from first Platini, who only stopped directly referencing City in his FFP propaganda after UEFA's lawyers told him not to, and more latterly c*nts like Rummenigge, tells me that that is exactly what Gill is busy doing at this moment - but if Inter have been cited then there will be one of two outcomes. Either they are still an important enough player at the cartel's table for the investigation to be a whitewash, complete with not guilty verdict a la Candlepool, or their star will be deemed to have fallen just far enough for them to be considered expendable by UEFA, in order to perpetuate the illusion of FFP having been designed to apply to all.

 

[redmanc34]

Here's one for you then. Long-term how will FFP favour United. See the club is valued at £1b, so if one person outright is to purchase the club he's gonna have to be similar to Mansour in terms of wealth. Yet he's gonna know now he can't invest in the club he's bought at all. Especially if he wants to buy the club and pay off the remaining loan debt at the same time, gonna cost around £1.5b. Its a lot to pay for something that you can no longer customise due to strict FFP rulings. So I see the point you make, that it's not right because United still have £500-600m left to pay on loans, but this probably favours your club long-term over United anyway. As mentioned, we're gonna struggle to find a billionare who's going to want to buy a club that he can't do anything with.

That's the whole point just there. It benefits you because, now you are a bad investment, no one else can invest to achieve the turnover you've got. High turnover equals high spending equals success. It's a formula that has been proven to work over 23 years. It's how you won all those titles. FFP seeks to ossify that position forever which works to your benefit. But I'm sure you know that.

And you don't believe you can achieve that? It's only sponsorship and shirt sales in China and India that make us have such a high revenue. FFP doesn't stop clubs from seeking out high monetary investment from sponsors does it, and thats well within the rules. We're shite and Adidas want to pay us silly money to make our kit. The fact that the Premier League has so much global coverage on TV means that City now, playing winning exciting football can easily catch peoples eye, and attract that sort of revenue from sponsorship. Like someone else said, the reason United do so well in that department is because we literally have a sponsor for everything. (Which isn't something to be proud of at all) And some of your fans have mentioned thats where your club is maybe a little naive still. You could go out there and get stupid shit like an official toothpaste partner, Look at what we have, we have a fucking noodle sponsor. I mean why? If you go out and do that, you can compete with United easily.

 

[route46]

do u accept ur statement about Malaga being best supported and 95% full was a load of shit???

Not really no, my source is something called "Guia de La Liga" Desafio Mundial. Its a book, with an in depth profile of Spanish and European football, composed by Marca. It includes everything about a club, literally everything, season ticket holders, supporters clubs etc. The figures I have are the average attendance from 12-13 and 13-14.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-malaga/spielplan/verein/1084/saison_id/2014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-malag ... on_id/2014</a>

I gave u that link

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.malagacf.com/en/malaga/report/349/9/51426" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.malagacf.com/en/malaga/report/349/9/51426</a>

the one above is from the Malaga website

at the bottom it reads....................in front of a 19,939-strong crowd at la rosaleda

which ironically is the same figure the first link gave :-)

 

[Marvin]

Redplastic34 still hasn't answered my question.

He said investment isn't good in football and that PSG's investment has turned Ligue 1 into a one team league, as they could win 3 in a row.

United won 3 in a row from 2006-2009. Was the Premiership a one team league during that period?

If so, surely the investment of Chelsea and ourselves has helped the league, since we've both won the league since. It's made it more exciting, since it had became a one team league, going by your criteria.

Until last season, United had finished at least second every season since 2009, so would have won every title without ourselves and Chelsea having a lot of money from investment.

Wouldn't that have been boring? That would have been a one team league, right? Just like the SPL, as you said about PSG.

I have actually answered that previously. I don't disagree with that, but my point was that the majority of European leagues are more evenly competed and that investment in fact takes the competition element away, and does just create a one team league. At the same time I have always said the Premier League is different and it should have never got to the point where clubs such as yourself have to pump that amount of money into your club just to compete. I also said if this ruling came along earlier, say 15-20 years ago it probably could have stopped the domination United and Arsenal had over the league

What do you think caused the timing of the ruling? Why did they look at spending and not debt even though teams like Leeds had got into problems?

La Liga is evenly competed? The Bundesliga? Serie A?

Free market economics where a handful of clubs monopolise resources kills sport, but FFP wasn't about regulating the game for all it was about stopping new entrants.

Even if you see the motivation as well intended, what is the net effect? What does it stop? Takeovers and investment and behold since it was introduced the wave of investment and foeign takeovers has stopped and its now difficult for the likes of Everton, Newcastle and Villa

It's actually beneficial in a narrow point of view from City's perspective because it means no one else can come in and follow the City model. But on the other hand it will slowly srangle football. How long are Everton, Newcastle and Sunderland fans going to be content watching their clubs struggle

 

[uwe rosler 28]

That's the whole point just there. It benefits you because, now you are a bad investment, no one else can invest to achieve the turnover you've got. High turnover equals high spending equals success. It's a formula that has been proven to work over 23 years. It's how you won all those titles. FFP seeks to ossify that position forever which works to your benefit. But I'm sure you know that.

And you don't believe you can achieve that? It's only sponsorship and shirt sales in China and India that make us have such a high revenue. FFP doesn't stop clubs from seeking out high monetary investment from sponsors does it, and thats well within the rules. We're shite and Adidas want to pay us silly money to make our kit. The fact that the Premier League has so much global coverage on TV means that City now, playing winning exciting football can easily catch peoples eye, and attract that sort of revenue from sponsorship. Like someone else said, the reason United do so well in that department is because we literally have a sponsor for everything. (Which isn't something to be proud of at all) And some of your fans have mentioned thats where your club is maybe a little naive still. You could go out there and get stupid shit like an official toothpaste partner, Look at what we have, we have a fucking noodle sponsor. I mean why? If you go out and do that, you can compete with United easily.

To be fair every sponsorship deal we sign is looked into by uefa! I never see a deal United sign under scrutiny from uefa! There is an agenda out there against us and psg and its so obvious!

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Redplastic34 still hasn't answered my question.

He said investment isn't good in football and that PSG's investment has turned Ligue 1 into a one team league, as they could win 3 in a row.

United won 3 in a row from 2006-2009. Was the Premiership a one team league during that period?

If so, surely the investment of Chelsea and ourselves has helped the league, since we've both won the league since. It's made it more exciting, since it had became a one team league, going by your criteria.

Until last season, United had finished at least second every season since 2009, so would have won every title without ourselves and Chelsea having a lot of money from investment.

Wouldn't that have been boring? That would have been a one team league, right? Just like the SPL, as you said about PSG.

I have actually answered that previously. I don't disagree with that, but my point was that the majority of European leagues are more evenly competed and that investment in fact takes the competition element away, and does just create a one team league. At the same time I have always said the Premier League is different and it should have never got to the point where clubs such as yourself have to pump that amount of money into your club just to compete. I also said if this ruling came along earlier, say 15-20 years ago it probably could have stopped the domination United and Arsenal had over the league

I would argue that the exact opposite is true. The Spanish league has been a two horse race for donkey's years and FFP will only cement Barca and Madrid's position further. As to the Bundesliga, Munich, one of FFP's biggest advocates, have it stitched up even tighter. They routinely rape their rivals of their best players and without major investment in another club, they will continue to win the Bundesliga until the end of time. As to the Prem, only huge investment at City and Chelsea has prevented United walking off with the title for the last 9 years on the trot

 

[Newman Noggs]

That's the whole point just there. It benefits you because, now you are a bad investment, no one else can invest to achieve the turnover you've got. High turnover equals high spending equals success. It's a formula that has been proven to work over 23 years. It's how you won all those titles. FFP seeks to ossify that position forever which works to your benefit. But I'm sure you know that.

And you don't believe you can achieve that? It's only sponsorship and shirt sales in China and India that make us have such a high revenue. FFP doesn't stop clubs from seeking out high monetary investment from sponsors does it, and thats well within the rules. We're shite and Adidas want to pay us silly money to make our kit. The fact that the Premier League has so much global coverage on TV means that City now, playing winning exciting football can easily catch peoples eye, and attract that sort of revenue from sponsorship. Like someone else said, the reason United do so well in that department is because we literally have a sponsor for everything. (Which isn't something to be proud of at all) And some of your fans have mentioned thats where your club is maybe a little naive still. You could go out there and get stupid shit like an official toothpaste partner, Look at what we have, we have a fucking noodle sponsor. I mean why? If you go out and do that, you can compete with United easily.

As the poster above says, you can only achieve those sales on the back of success. You can only achieve success by investment which is now banned. If nothing else, we proved that there's nothing special about United, Liverpool etc that hasn't been bought. Unsurprisingly, exposing that reality has not gone down well with those who benefit from perpetuating the myth of certain clubs being special and having history and others not. A myth, incidentally that needs a football media stuffed with people who have an interest in perpetuating the lie, Neville, Carragher, Redknapp etc to keep it going.