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

[laserblue]

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.

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

It made a change that they did so out of their own pocket seeing as the swamp was built, rebuilt and had a state of the art cantilever stand added at some other fucker's expense. (Actually, the first paid for by their first sugar daddy and the other two by the UK taxpayers).

 

[CityFan94]

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

I think it's difficult because what would help the league probably wouldn't help the top teams in Europe.

I'd like more emphasis placed on the club academys. I'm not a fan of the homegrown rule, playing in this country from 15. I think clubs should have to develop their own players more from their own academys, not signing 15 year olds from all over Europe. A rule where you have to have a good amount of club trained players (been at your club since 12 years old) would be good I think. The better your youth academy, the better your first team. It's different teams in the late stages of the U18 youth cup every year.

I think it's a shame that Southampton only got a year with Shaw in the first team, for example. Big clubs poaching all the good young players before they've played a few years at the 'smaller' club hurts the other teams in the league. If Southampton had kept their players like Shaw, Lallana and Chambers, and built on that, maybe they could have started to compete. But bigger clubs bought them all.

The TV money distributed evenly would help a lot too. Getting more money for finishing higher up the league just helps the bigger clubs become stronger IMO.

Financials become a bit of a farce with all these sponsorships, but it's the only way to compete in 2015 with FFP. I think the Premiership has become completely obsessed with money and the transfer market is just stupid now.

 

[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

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?

ok lets go here

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/malaga-cf/spielplan/verein/1084/plus/?saison_id=2013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/malaga-c ... on_id=2013</a>

 

[redmanc34]

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

Here's a source from this season that contradicts your earlier source
<a class="postlink" href="http://malaga.eldesmarque.com/malaga-cf/malaga-reportajes/38536-la-rosaleda-esta-en-zona-champions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://malaga.eldesmarque.com/malaga-cf ... -champions</a>

 

[route46]

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

Here's a source from this season that contradicts your earlier source
<a class="postlink" href="http://malaga.eldesmarque.com/malaga-cf/malaga-reportajes/38536-la-rosaleda-esta-en-zona-champions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://malaga.eldesmarque.com/malaga-cf ... -champions</a>

am I missing something??? I don't speak Spanish but from what I can make out Malaga have capacity of 30k and average just under 25k

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

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.

Germany is bossed by Bayern, Italy controlled by Juve, Portugal is either Porto or Benfica, France is PSG, Spain is Real or Barca, maybe Atleti, Greece is Olympiacos, Ukraine is Shakhtar or Dynamo, Austria with RB Salzburg, Croatia Dinamo, Greece Olympiacos, is it really a refreshing change for PSV to beat Ajax to the title for a change in Holland, it's often the same suspects in Turkey as well, Basel in Switzerland, Partizan have largely bossed Serbia, BATE in Belarus as well, Ludogorets have reigned in Bulgaria etc.

Teams finishing 3rd/4th occassionally is neither here nor there, the money isn't in most of those leagues to allow them to grow and sustain their position. Relative to their league, they get one go at it and are crushed by their dominant teams in their league, who boss their league and then proceed to get knocked out in playoff rounds in the CL. The Eastern European leagues are just money devoid versions of the Bundesliga and La Liga, even less interesting than the Prem.

It's not the money and investment that kills competition, it's the monopoly of that money, no matter how lucrative or scarce that resource is. It's why you get the Bayerns, Reals and Barcas, and subsequently get Partizan, Dinamo, BATE. The only difference is UEFA will try to starve the latter group because they're terrified of the APOEL Nicosia's of this world upsetting the apple cart and stopping only the globally lucrative teams from making the CL finals. UEFA couldn't give a fuck what happens in those leagues beyond it and FFP does sod all to redress the balance in those leagues, or to provide any form of stimulus to those leagues to allow European competition to return to its former glory days where the likes of Steaua could go and beat Barcelona. UEFA have killed European football, the only difference is now they're killing it for 99% of the remaining Western hopefuls.

 

[spacecadet]

I'm not fond of having rags in the house, but it's hard to take when normally good posters on here got booted off for the 'Duggangate scandal.' Someone push the switch ffs.

 

[redmanc34]

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

Here's a source from this season that contradicts your earlier source
<a class="postlink" href="http://malaga.eldesmarque.com/malaga-cf/malaga-reportajes/38536-la-rosaleda-esta-en-zona-champions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://malaga.eldesmarque.com/malaga-cf ... -champions</a>

am I missing something??? I don't speak Spanish but from what I can make out Malaga have capacity of 30k and average just under 25k

Thats 5,000 higher than you quoted for this season. The figures I have for 12-13 were official. Just doing a bit more reading there, season ticket sales have gone down at Malaga due to unemployment in the region the past 2 seasons, but they still maintain 80% of capacity, even though they have lost around 3,000 season ticket holders from the economic crisis. Which for a region with high employment in comparison with Barcelona and Madrid is exceptional.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

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 ?

It was touch and go at one stage who would get the WC, either Maine Road or the swamp, but with city in decline at that time and the FL authorities in this country on a guilt trip following 1958, the swamp won out and they were given the funding, at tax payers expense, to build the first cantilever stand of it's kind complete with corporate boxes and these would go on to provide a huge money spinner which would serve that club well over the following decades. No other club was given such a rebuild boost to anywhere near that level.

 

[route46]

Here's a source from this season that contradicts your earlier source
<a class="postlink" href="http://malaga.eldesmarque.com/malaga-cf/malaga-reportajes/38536-la-rosaleda-esta-en-zona-champions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://malaga.eldesmarque.com/malaga-cf ... -champions</a>

am I missing something??? I don't speak Spanish but from what I can make out Malaga have capacity of 30k and average just under 25k

Thats 5,000 higher than you quoted for this season. The figures I have for 12-13 were official. Just doing a bit more reading there, season ticket sales have gone down at Malaga due to unemployment in the region the past 2 seasons, but they still maintain 80% of capacity, even though they have lost around 3,000 season ticket holders from the economic crisis. Which for a region with high employment in comparison with Barcelona and Madrid is exceptional.

i didn't give u an average.... i gave u an individual game(Getafe) where the official Malaga website backed up the attendance figure to a man given by transfer market

 

[jrb]

So Redmanc, what do you make of the argument from the majority of United(and Arsenal) fans that Sheikh Mansour's investment in City is morally wrong in footballing terms, and there is a right and a wrong way of achieving success on the pitch.

Sugar Daddies, Oil money, doping, buying success, etc.(as opposed to self-made money, bringing through and winning trophies with youth players, etc)

 

[redmanc34]

am I missing something??? I don't speak Spanish but from what I can make out Malaga have capacity of 30k and average just under 25k

Thats 5,000 higher than you quoted for this season. The figures I have for 12-13 were official. Just doing a bit more reading there, season ticket sales have gone down at Malaga due to unemployment in the region the past 2 seasons, but they still maintain 80% of capacity, even though they have lost around 3,000 season ticket holders from the economic crisis. Which for a region with high employment in comparison with Barcelona and Madrid is exceptional.

i didn't give u an average.... i gave u an individual game(Getafe) where the official Malaga website backed up the attendance figure to a man given by transfer market

Fair enough, but their average is decent, everyone has a bad day, Getafe aren't exactly a draw, they get about 6,000 a week

 

[SilverFox2]

I think it's difficult because what would help the league probably wouldn't help the top teams in Europe.

I'd like more emphasis placed on the club academys. I'm not a fan of the homegrown rule, playing in this country from 15. I think clubs should have to develop their own players more from their own academys, not signing 15 year olds from all over Europe. A rule where you have to have a good amount of club trained players (been at your club since 12 years old) would be good I think. The better your youth academy, the better your first team. It's different teams in the late stages of the U18 youth cup every year.

I think it's a shame that Southampton only got a year with Shaw in the first team, for example. Big clubs poaching all the good young players before they've played a few years at the 'smaller' club hurts the other teams in the league. If Southampton had kept their players like Shaw, Lallana and Chambers, and built on that, maybe they could have started to compete. But bigger clubs bought them all.

The TV money distributed evenly would help a lot too. Getting more money for finishing higher up the league just helps the bigger clubs become stronger IMO.

Financials become a bit of a farce with all these sponsorships, but it's the only way to compete in 2015 with FFP. I think the Premiership has become completely obsessed with money and the transfer market is just stupid now.

As you point out success in the League means a greater share of what is really PL or CL money which by design is self sustaining.and open to manipulation by its main benefactors.
I agree about the importance of academies so If Greg Dyke is really wanting to bring forward new talent for the England team perhaps he should sponsor exactly that via academies rather than relying on top clubs trickling it down.
There could be a bonus for introducing academy players to PL appearances (irrespective of nationality) with special rewards for English players.

Work out your own scheme but currently they are simply trousering the BT and Sky money with no plan for the England team future. In fact it gives incentive to top 4 to find best in the world not best in UK academies.

We at City have a state of the art academy that Sheik M. had the vision to provide, perhaps a bit of money back would help and the likes of Southampton would directly benefit from this PL investment irrespective of where the players eventually finish up.

 

[80s Shorts]

So Redmanc, what do you make of the argument from the majority of United(and Arsenal) fans that Sheikh Mansour's investment in City is morally wrong in footballing terms, and there is a right and a wrong way of achieving success on the pitch.

Sugar Daddies, Oil money, doping, buying success, etc.(as opposed to self-made money, bringing through and winning trophies with youth players, etc)

50th Anniversary of the Munich air disaster, sponsored by AIG.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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.

I fear your arguments are now scraping the bottom of the barrel old boy. In terms of financial reward, only 4 of the leagues in Europe offer the prospect of serious returns, be they monetary or prestige related. The Premier League, the Bundesliga, La Liga and, at a push, the ailing (both morally and financially) Serie A. Beyond that the Portuguese, French and Dutch leagues are B listers and the rest, broadly speaking, an irrelevance. You may get the odd parochial oil magnate throwing (or laundering) money at clubs in the old Soviet block, but in terms of threatening the trophy and income winning streams of Europe's old guard, they are inconsequential, and it doesn't really matter if those leagues operate under an FFP or investment based governing system. No-one's watching, no-one cares.
City however, uniquely threaten at least one of the cartel in a way that even PSG don't. There will always be a glass ceiling on PSG, because of the overall lack of appeal of playing in the French league. Prior to Sheikh Mansour coming along though, United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea were able to enjoy almost unfettered access to the Chimps League trough. I think in the last 18 years only Everton, Spurs and Villa have ever broken the cycle and even then for one season only. At a conservative estimate, City's new found presence in the top 4 since 2011, has cost the dippers alone somewhere North of £100m, and if you think FFP has anything to do with anything else other than hobbling City (and also preventing a repeat of City at say Valencia, Newcastle, Everton or Sevilla), then you are living in cloud cuckoo land

 

[Seosa]

The problem in England started a fair while ago. A key perpetrator now holds one of English football's leading positions...

 

[redmanc34]

So Redmanc, what do you make of the argument from the majority of United(and Arsenal) fans that Sheikh Mansour's investment in City is morally wrong in footballing terms, and there is a right and a wrong way of achieving success on the pitch.

Sugar Daddies, Oil money, doping, buying success, etc.(as opposed to self-made money, bringing through and winning trophies with youth players, etc)

As I said earlier, it's a shame it's got to this point where a well supported club like yourself has to pump so much money into your club to get top 4, so everything below is not a dig at City, its just how I feel, and there's a lot about United I hate anyway.

But to me personally I do agree there is a right way to go about things in football, this isn't a dig at City by the way, because i'm staring to get very disillusioned by whats happening at United. But for me the greatest achievement I have ever heard of in football is Celtics European Cup Win in 1967. The whole squad were from within a 30 mile radius of Celtic Park. That would be the dream for me, for United just to compete with a squad of 25 lads from say Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Lancashire and the odd one from Merseyside, not even talking winning trophies but just being competitive. I fully support promoting from within rather than buying players, always have done, and as I say that's why us going out signing di Maria doesn't excite me as much as seeing a lad we produced breaking through and playing well.
To me that's what I prefer and we have this record of having a product of the academy in our squad in every game since 1938. The moment that comes to an end i'll be done with that club, as it'll be everything I detest about modern football, and it's slowly getting that way unfortunately.

But thats just my opinion, I think its far more rewarding, and you have more of a sense of pride in your club from having lads you produced. After all, thats what football was originally about when it was formed. Just like it is at Amateur grass roots level still now. Back in the day though it would be a bunch of lads from Gorton, play a bunch of lads from Salford, and then you can say, "yeah Salford are the best at football" or "Gorton are the best at football" then it evolved to a whole team of Mancs playing a whole team of scousers etc, and then it becomes about the city. And I also feel that as a fan you feel closer to those lads, because if they're local, they could be your mates, or you at least have that common ground, so you have a connection.

 

[route46]

Thats 5,000 higher than you quoted for this season. The figures I have for 12-13 were official. Just doing a bit more reading there, season ticket sales have gone down at Malaga due to unemployment in the region the past 2 seasons, but they still maintain 80% of capacity, even though they have lost around 3,000 season ticket holders from the economic crisis. Which for a region with high employment in comparison with Barcelona and Madrid is exceptional.

i didn't give u an average.... i gave u an individual game(Getafe) where the official Malaga website backed up the attendance figure to a man given by transfer market

Fair enough, but their average is decent, everyone has a bad day, Getafe aren't exactly a draw, they get about 6,000 a week

haha so we have gone from 95% full, most loyal in spain, recently lost fans due to the economic crisis, Getafe not a big draw............just be a man admit u dropped a bollock and we can move on

 

[redmanc34]

So Redmanc, what do you make of the argument from the majority of United(and Arsenal) fans that Sheikh Mansour's investment in City is morally wrong in footballing terms, and there is a right and a wrong way of achieving success on the pitch.

Sugar Daddies, Oil money, doping, buying success, etc.(as opposed to self-made money, bringing through and winning trophies with youth players, etc)

50th Anniversary of the Munich air disaster, sponsored by AIG.

If you read what i've wrote in reply to that question there you'll see I hate that shite. Can't stand it

 

[80s Shorts]

So Redmanc, what do you make of the argument from the majority of United(and Arsenal) fans that Sheikh Mansour's investment in City is morally wrong in footballing terms, and there is a right and a wrong way of achieving success on the pitch.

Sugar Daddies, Oil money, doping, buying success, etc.(as opposed to self-made money, bringing through and winning trophies with youth players, etc)

50th Anniversary of the Munich air disaster, sponsored by AIG.

If you read what i've wrote in reply to that question there you'll see I hate that shite. Can't stand it

Well that is the club that you support.