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

[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

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.

I'm not gonna dispute that, but I don't think it should have ever been able to reach that point, Say if FFP was there 20 years ago, could United and Arsenal have done what they did? Could United have afforded to expand their stadium (major source of revenue) whilst splashing out £20-30m each transfer window. Or would they have been forced into making a decision and forming priorities. I agree with what you say, but all that it proves is that the Premier League is broken no matter what. We've reached a point where if you want a competitive 20 team league you need each club to have a billionaire there with unrestricted spending, Now i'm not saying i'm even against that, but that's just a bit of a monster when you compare it to the American models which try and promote equality in the NHL, NBA, NFL and that. As they have salary caps, and all teams/franchises are expected to spend within their means, and they have a much more level playing field. That would be impossible for the PremierLeague now, and is it ever gonna be fixable, say FFP goes away. What about the other 14-15 teams in the division? Serious question, how would you address the inequality with the other 14-15 teams in the division

 

[SWP's back]

He's just a troll. Ignore him. The website I quoted covers all the major leagues. For anybody who is interested just check out
their figures for the Premier League ... they look pretty accurate to me!

Looking at all the web sources the 'average' average attendance figures given for Malaga CF last season are around the 21,500-22,500 mark so your source was pretty generous tbf.

But so far on this thread and the Guardiola one alone we've had our owner being from Dubai, Malaga's ejection from European Football being unconnected to unpaid transfer fees and wages, Seven horse races in the noughties in the French League, Shaktar being the dominant force in Ukrainian football, 20 odd thousand fans making you a better supported club than 65k+ and that's just off the top of my head. This lad is comedy gold tbh.

Apologies for confusing 2 cities in the same country there.

If FFP didn't exist Malaga wouldn't have been ejected from Europe would they? So as much as you say it's nothing to do with FFP, if there was no FFP, they wouldn't have been ejected. Thats the truth.

The noughties in the French League, Nantes, Lyon, Lille, Lens, Auxerre, Monaco, PSG, Bordeaux, Lille and Marseille were all involved in title races, as in they all finished in the top 3. Thats actually 9 different teams. It's irrelevant that Lyon won so many, as your man said before, just because PSG will win 3 in a row, it doesn't make it a one horse race. So we can apply his same logic to the Lyon scenario of the noughties then can't we?

I think it's obvious to anyone that knows anything about Ukrainian football that Shakhtar have dominated recent times. 8 titles in 10 years is domination.

With regards to Malaga I said that as their fans aren't fickle, and are the only set of fans in Spain that travel away in big numbers. Which to me is a sign of a good set of fans. I can't imagine you thinking at the Etihad that a team would have good support if they turned up with only 100-200 fans in their allocation.

It may be comedy gold, but where exactly was I unbelievably wide of the mark with any of that?

Yes cock breath you were. Now jog on.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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 foreveru 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.

That answer ain't worth a fig because it completely overlooks the fact that to play that "winning exciting football", we had to be given £500 odd million by a Sheikh out of his own pocket, to buy the players capable of delivering it! Without that initial investment our sponsorship levels and earnings potential would be negligible in comparison to those of the established elite

 

[route46]

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.

I'm not gonna dispute that, but I don't think it should have ever been able to reach that point, Say if FFP was there 20 years ago, could United and Arsenal have done what they did? Could United have afforded to expand their stadium (major source of revenue) whilst splashing out £20-30m each transfer window. Or would they have been forced into making a decision and forming priorities. I agree with what you say, but all that it proves is that the Premier League is broken no matter what. We've reached a point where if you want a competitive 20 team league you need each club to have a billionaire there with unrestricted spending, Now i'm not saying i'm even against that, but that's just a bit of a monster when you compare it to the American models which try and promote equality in the NHL, NBA, NFL and that. As they have salary caps, and all teams/franchises are expected to spend within their means, and they have a much more level playing field. That would be impossible for the PremierLeague now, and is it ever gonna be fixable, say FFP goes away. What about the other 14-15 teams in the division? Serious question, how would you address the inequality with the other 14-15 teams in the division

well yeh utd could have expanded the stadium as stadium costs don't count in FFP reckoning

 

[SWP's back]

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.

Hahahaha. Fuck off. When you're in a hole you really should stop digging.

You were wrong so just admit it or fuck off.

Preferably the latter you fucking troll.

 

[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

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

I don't know. There's 54 UEFA members, all of which have a professional football league except Gibraltar, Lietchenstein and Luxembourg, although Vaduz in the Swiss League are from one of the L countries. Out of the 54 leagues, how many are like the Prem, where the top 4/5 are the same every year. Scotland, England, Spain, France maybe, Germany maybe, Portugal, Ukraine. Thats 6 countries where there are serious inequalities, which would mean the other 48 leagues are an even playing field with different champions every other year, different sides finishing in the top 3/4 of their league. And you know its true, I can think of teams we've played in Europe, like yourselves from Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, who just disappear off for a few years as the competition is so even and anything can happen, and the champions are on a conveyor belt.

 

[-nibz-]

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.

I'm not gonna dispute that, but I don't think it should have ever been able to reach that point, Say if FFP was there 20 years ago, could United and Arsenal have done what they did? Could United have afforded to expand their stadium (major source of revenue) whilst splashing out £20-30m each transfer window. Or would they have been forced into making a decision and forming priorities. I agree with what you say, but all that it proves is that the Premier League is broken no matter what. We've reached a point where if you want a competitive 20 team league you need each club to have a billionaire there with unrestricted spending, Now i'm not saying i'm even against that, but that's just a bit of a monster when you compare it to the American models which try and promote equality in the NHL, NBA, NFL and that. As they have salary caps, and all teams/franchises are expected to spend within their means, and they have a much more level playing field. That would be impossible for the PremierLeague now, and is it ever gonna be fixable, say FFP goes away. What about the other 14-15 teams in the division? Serious question, how would you address the inequality with the other 14-15 teams in the division

It was you greedy bastards that broke it in the first place. Don't fucking blame us.

 

[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.

Hahahaha. Fuck off. When you're in a hole you really should stop digging.

You were wrong so just admit it or fuck off.

Preferably the latter you fucking troll.

Google the title of the book if you want, you can download it as a PDF, and what I said, those attendance figures, they're in there

 

[-nibz-]

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.

Hahahaha. Fuck off. When you're in a hole you really should stop digging.

You were wrong so just admit it or fuck off.

Preferably the latter you fucking troll.

Google the title of the book if you want, you can download it as a PDF, and what I said, those attendance figures, they're in there

Since when have book's spoke true? Have you read the pisscans?

 

[redmanc34]

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.

I'm not gonna dispute that, but I don't think it should have ever been able to reach that point, Say if FFP was there 20 years ago, could United and Arsenal have done what they did? Could United have afforded to expand their stadium (major source of revenue) whilst splashing out £20-30m each transfer window. Or would they have been forced into making a decision and forming priorities. I agree with what you say, but all that it proves is that the Premier League is broken no matter what. We've reached a point where if you want a competitive 20 team league you need each club to have a billionaire there with unrestricted spending, Now i'm not saying i'm even against that, but that's just a bit of a monster when you compare it to the American models which try and promote equality in the NHL, NBA, NFL and that. As they have salary caps, and all teams/franchises are expected to spend within their means, and they have a much more level playing field. That would be impossible for the PremierLeague now, and is it ever gonna be fixable, say FFP goes away. What about the other 14-15 teams in the division? Serious question, how would you address the inequality with the other 14-15 teams in the division

It was you greedy bastards that broke it in the first place. Don't fucking blame us.

I never blamed you. Also as i'm not in the board of directors at United it isn't exactly my fault is it.

 

[waspish]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thread has gone repetitive...

 

[redmanc34]

Hahahaha. Fuck off. When you're in a hole you really should stop digging.

You were wrong so just admit it or fuck off.

Preferably the latter you fucking troll.

Google the title of the book if you want, you can download it as a PDF, and what I said, those attendance figures, they're in there

Since when have book's spoke true? Have you read the pisscans?

Ahh but the internet does? The same website that says that about Malaga's attendances also says you paid £42m for Mangala and £26m for Milner which i've been told is utter bollocks apparently. But it must be true though cos Malagas attendance figures are on that website and they're gospel

 

[SWP's back]

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.

Hahahaha. Fuck off. When you're in a hole you really should stop digging.

You were wrong so just admit it or fuck off.

Preferably the latter you fucking troll.

Google the title of the book if you want, you can download it as a PDF, and what I said, those attendance figures, they're in there

I e got a book from the fifties in my library that goes on about India being the crown jewel in the empire.

Sadly it's also out of date.

You're on the Internet posting tonight, why don't you use the fucking thing, give your head a wobble and then admit you were wrong.

Hell, some poor twat even gave you the official Malaga website link.

 

[route46]

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.

Hahahaha. Fuck off. When you're in a hole you really should stop digging.

You were wrong so just admit it or fuck off.

Preferably the latter you fucking troll.

Google the title of the book if you want, you can download it as a PDF, and what I said, those attendance figures, they're in there

well I would bin the book if I was u as it is obviously full of shit .........ur not the author are u???

 

[-nibz-]

I'm not gonna dispute that, but I don't think it should have ever been able to reach that point, Say if FFP was there 20 years ago, could United and Arsenal have done what they did? Could United have afforded to expand their stadium (major source of revenue) whilst splashing out £20-30m each transfer window. Or would they have been forced into making a decision and forming priorities. I agree with what you say, but all that it proves is that the Premier League is broken no matter what. We've reached a point where if you want a competitive 20 team league you need each club to have a billionaire there with unrestricted spending, Now i'm not saying i'm even against that, but that's just a bit of a monster when you compare it to the American models which try and promote equality in the NHL, NBA, NFL and that. As they have salary caps, and all teams/franchises are expected to spend within their means, and they have a much more level playing field. That would be impossible for the PremierLeague now, and is it ever gonna be fixable, say FFP goes away. What about the other 14-15 teams in the division? Serious question, how would you address the inequality with the other 14-15 teams in the division

It was you greedy bastards that broke it in the first place. Don't fucking blame us.

I never blamed you. Also as i'm not in the board of directors at United it isn't exactly my fault is it.

We've reached a point where if you want a competitive 20 team league you need each club to have a billionaire there with unrestricted spending

Well that's not possible now is it, thanks to you Arsenal and co running to teacher.

 

[BenLlewellyn]

Investment into a one-team league is good because it adds competition, investment into a league with competition gives a team an advantage, but at the end of the day success is the main objective for a club.

Our investment has been good for this league, in our two title wins we've created suspense and world-wide recognition for the club and the league, the title race has gone to the final day both times and we've provided the most dramatic moment in Premier League history. Without us the rags would've walked this league in the last 7 years by winning 5 and it would be described as another Serie A where we've got only one team competing.

In terms of our revenue we're very much in a similar situation as Atletico Madrid, at this moment we're both being dwarfed by our city neighbours (in revenue remember), of course that will change if we both continue our progress, but this means we can't spend as much cause we got to limit our losses. Remember Atletico won La Liga and got to a Champs League final, sold two of their most influential players, and replaced them with Mandzukic + torres and Siquera. Barca went out of the champs league in the quarters and came second in La Liga and still spent more than them.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Google the title of the book if you want, you can download it as a PDF, and what I said, those attendance figures, they're in there

I can't be arsed googling your evidence but lets assume it's true. Your figures are for the two previous seasons, mine are for 2014-15.
Assuming Malaga were getting 95% fill rates and are now getting 75% that speaks volumes for the loyalty of their support.

 

[redmanc34]

Hahahaha. Fuck off. When you're in a hole you really should stop digging.

You were wrong so just admit it or fuck off.

Preferably the latter you fucking troll.

Google the title of the book if you want, you can download it as a PDF, and what I said, those attendance figures, they're in there

well I would bin the book if I was u as it is obviously full of shit .........ur not the author are u???

Amazing, so it proves you wrong, its full of shit. City announce to every newspaper going that Mangala cost £42m, they're all lying. City announce to every media outlet Milner cost £26m. They're all lying. The attendance you gave me for Getafe, that's from the 14-15 season yeah? The book covers the 12-13, and 13-14 season. That has been made clear. I can't make it any clearer to you. Also why would any club lie about their attendance figures?

 

[route46]

Google the title of the book if you want, you can download it as a PDF, and what I said, those attendance figures, they're in there

I can't be arsed googling your evidence but lets assume it's true. Your figures are for the two previous seasons, mine are for 2014-15.
Assuming Malaga were getting 95% fill rates and are now getting 75% that speaks volumes for the loyalty of their support.

ive looked at last season attendances for Malaga and again he is chatting shit............most games are 2/3rds full around the 20k mark

 

[SilverFox2]

Not suggesting that they should have but I seem to remember that MUFC did not shoulder the full cost of their stand expansions ?
Not an FFP issue of course even today but because a certain capacity was needed for the UK to stage a major event was the stand cost subsidised ?