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

[SPIDERBOY]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Slightly off topic but it will be interesting to see how the Glazers deal with the debt issue as it is perfectly manageable as long as a) they maintain revenues b) they limit spending to less than revenues c) they hold off drawing cash out via dividends or consultancy fees.

I do see a scenario that would mean the clubs debt increases and that's not too far away if they have to repeat the summer spending again.

They'll probably do something really desperate like ask the Premier league if they can have sponsors on the back of their shirts as well as the front.

According to a report in the Sunday Times they have been refused permission to sell replica shirts with sponsor details on them by the Premier league, bloody great, they are very afraid of what is happening

Link?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Slightly off topic but it will be interesting to see how the Glazers deal with the debt issue as it is perfectly manageable as long as a) they maintain revenues b) they limit spending to less than revenues c) they hold off drawing cash out via dividends or consultancy fees.

I do see a scenario that would mean the clubs debt increases and that's not too far away if they have to repeat the summer spending again.

They'll probably do something really desperate like ask the Premier league if they can have sponsors on the back of their shirts as well as the front.

Got rejected by all the other clubs, so it's not going to happen. Got thrown out before even going to a vote. And since the other clubs' reasons for rejecting the proposition was financial (the main sponsors will pay less if they're competing for shirt advertising space) then you can bet it won't become popular overnight like a lot of other things the rags have tried to introduce have.

I seem to recall Peter Kenyon orchestrating a vote on clubs beeping their own TV income when he was CEO of united -which was defeated 19-1 iirc.

They really have no shame.

 

[whp.blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

They'll probably do something really desperate like ask the Premier league if they can have sponsors on the back of their shirts as well as the front.

Got rejected by all the other clubs, so it's not going to happen. Got thrown out before even going to a vote. And since the other clubs' reasons for rejecting the proposition was financial (the main sponsors will pay less if they're competing for shirt advertising space) then you can bet it won't become popular overnight like a lot of other things the rags have tried to introduce have.

I seem to recall Peter Kenyon orchestrating a vote on clubs beeping their own TV income when he was CEO of united -which was defeated 19-1 iirc.

They really have no shame.

Was there swearing in it?

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

They'll probably do something really desperate like ask the Premier league if they can have sponsors on the back of their shirts as well as the front.

Got rejected by all the other clubs, so it's not going to happen. Got thrown out before even going to a vote. And since the other clubs' reasons for rejecting the proposition was financial (the main sponsors will pay less if they're competing for shirt advertising space) then you can bet it won't become popular overnight like a lot of other things the rags have tried to introduce have.

I seem to recall Peter Kenyon orchestrating a vote on clubs beeping their own TV income when he was CEO of united -which was defeated 19-1 iirc.

They really have no shame.

And that, in one, was the reason for the introduction of the Premier League. Certain big clubs wanted to keep TV revenues for themselves rather than spreading the money throughout the FL's 92 clubs. The argument was that TV audiences tune in to watch the big clubs whereas they would have little interest in lower league games. The up-and-coming SKY TV realised this potential and the first of the big broadcasting deals was signed, leaving the other three divisions out on a limb. It does annoy me, in a placid sort of way, when senior names at some of these big clubs are quick to condemn City for attempting to maximize their income, yet the same hypocrites held no sympathy towards those clubs who were to have their incomes slashed because of this eagerness to get on the PL SKY bandwagon.

 

[abu13]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Got rejected by all the other clubs, so it's not going to happen. Got thrown out before even going to a vote. And since the other clubs' reasons for rejecting the proposition was financial (the main sponsors will pay less if they're competing for shirt advertising space) then you can bet it won't become popular overnight like a lot of other things the rags have tried to introduce have.

I seem to recall Peter Kenyon orchestrating a vote on clubs beeping their own TV income when he was CEO of united -which was defeated 19-1 iirc.

They really have no shame.

And that, in one, was the reason for the introduction of the Premier League. Certain big clubs wanted to keep TV revenues for themselves rather than spreading the money throughout the FL's 92 clubs. The argument was that TV audiences tune in to watch the big clubs whereas they would have little interest in lower league games. The up-and-coming SKY TV realised this potential and the first of the big broadcasting deals was signed, leaving the other three divisions out on a limb. It does annoy me, in a placid sort of way, when senior names at some of these big clubs are quick to condemn City for attempting to maximize their income, yet the same hypocrites held no sympathy towards those clubs who were to have their incomes slashed because of this eagerness to get on the PL SKY bandwagon.

I think this is what pisses me off most of all, all the lower league teams really struggle financially and if one of them was fortunate enough to have a wealthy investor come in and throw vast sums into the club why shouldnt they make the most of it.

We get all the shit but we were a club who were yo-yoing through the divisions and have seen both sides of the coin.

The twats like the Rags, dippers, Arse and Everton ( dont forget these fuckers, as they were one of the drivers of the PL) have only seen the upside.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

New PL TV deal up fro grabs in 6 months time according to one of today's papers. Can't remember which paper the article was in.

The new deal could be worth up to £4bill, with the TV companies fighting over the rights. Think it worked out at £7mill per-game, if I remember correctly.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Got rejected by all the other clubs, so it's not going to happen. Got thrown out before even going to a vote. And since the other clubs' reasons for rejecting the proposition was financial (the main sponsors will pay less if they're competing for shirt advertising space) then you can bet it won't become popular overnight like a lot of other things the rags have tried to introduce have.

I seem to recall Peter Kenyon orchestrating a vote on clubs beeping their own TV income when he was CEO of united -which was defeated 19-1 iirc.

They really have no shame.

And that, in one, was the reason for the introduction of the Premier League. Certain big clubs wanted to keep TV revenues for themselves rather than spreading the money throughout the FL's 92 clubs. The argument was that TV audiences tune in to watch the big clubs whereas they would have little interest in lower league games. The up-and-coming SKY TV realised this potential and the first of the big broadcasting deals was signed, leaving the other three divisions out on a limb. It does annoy me, in a placid sort of way, when senior names at some of these big clubs are quick to condemn City for attempting to maximize their income, yet the same hypocrites held no sympathy towards those clubs who were to have their incomes slashed because of this eagerness to get on the PL SKY bandwagon.

And 10 years before the PL those self-same big clubs (including the rags, Liverpool & Arsenal) blackmailed the other clubs into handing over the 25% gate money they previously got from the home club, thereby widening the fnancial gap virtually at a stroke.

 

[SPIDERBOY]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Apologies,but once again this is all over my head....what's this regards the premier league refusing them permission to sell shirts with sponsorship details on them?
Are they seriously in the shit?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Apologies,but once again this is all over my head....what's this regards the premier league refusing them permission to sell shirts with sponsorship details on them?
Are they seriously in the shit?

I don't know if that's the case or if the Glazers are simply being greedy, but the other clubs weren't interested as it would have driven down the price of front of shirt sponsors and cost most of them money. Shirt sponsors pay to be the prime brand associated with a club, not one of many.

 

[SPIDERBOY]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Apologies,but once again this is all over my head....what's this regards the premier league refusing them permission to sell shirts with sponsorship details on them?
Are they seriously in the shit?

I don't know if that's the case or if the Glazers are simply being greedy, but the other clubs weren't interested as it would have driven down the price of front of shirt sponsors and cost most of them money. Shirt sponsors pay to be the prime brand associated with a club, not one of many.

Are they wanting to put a sponsor on the back?.........not been in this thread for a while.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Apologies,but once again this is all over my head....what's this regards the premier league refusing them permission to sell shirts with sponsorship details on them?
Are they seriously in the shit?

I don't know if that's the case or if the Glazers are simply being greedy, but the other clubs weren't interested as it would have driven down the price of front of shirt sponsors and cost most of them money. Shirt sponsors pay to be the prime brand associated with a club, not one of many.

Are they wanting to put a sponsor on the back?.........not been in this thread for a while.

They must have as they approached the Premier League about it. I'd agree with the other clubs though, even for those cunts, Chevrolet imo wouldn't be impressed and they'd struggle to get another big shirt sponsor if the sponsor had to share the shirt.
Personally this looks to me to be a knee jerk reaction to the leak about our new deals, as no sponsor has been linked. The rags would have thought their new deals would be enough to hold a financial advantage over the PL for the next 5-10 years, they won't be too confident in that now.

 

[SPIDERBOY]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I don't know if that's the case or if the Glazers are simply being greedy, but the other clubs weren't interested as it would have driven down the price of front of shirt sponsors and cost most of them money. Shirt sponsors pay to be the prime brand associated with a club, not one of many.

Are they wanting to put a sponsor on the back?.........not been in this thread for a while.

They must have as they approached the Premier League about it. I'd agree with the other clubs though, even for those c**ts, Chevrolet imo wouldn't be impressed and they'd struggle to get another big shirt sponsor if the sponsor had to share the shirt.
Personally this looks to me to be a knee jerk reaction to the leak about our new deals, as no sponsor has been linked. The rags would have thought their new deals would be enough to hold a financial advantage over the PL for the next 5-10 years, they won't be too confident in that now.

Thanks

 

[Atypical]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

As above I think same for Chelsea with the sudden urge to sort the stadium out.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

As above I think same for Chelsea with the sudden urge to sort the stadium out.

Add Spurs to that list.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I.

shock and awe will resonate throughout the CL and PL cartels, as well as the rest of the PL, when the new sponsorship deals are made public.

 

[Bluewonder]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

As above I think same for Chelsea with the sudden urge to sort the stadium out.

Add Spurs to that list.

And Liverpool.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I seem to recall Peter Kenyon orchestrating a vote on clubs beeping their own TV income when he was CEO of united -which was defeated 19-1 iirc.

They really have no shame.

And that, in one, was the reason for the introduction of the Premier League. Certain big clubs wanted to keep TV revenues for themselves rather than spreading the money throughout the FL's 92 clubs. The argument was that TV audiences tune in to watch the big clubs whereas they would have little interest in lower league games. The up-and-coming SKY TV realised this potential and the first of the big broadcasting deals was signed, leaving the other three divisions out on a limb. It does annoy me, in a placid sort of way, when senior names at some of these big clubs are quick to condemn City for attempting to maximize their income, yet the same hypocrites held no sympathy towards those clubs who were to have their incomes slashed because of this eagerness to get on the PL SKY bandwagon.

And 10 years before the PL those self-same big clubs (including the rags, Liverpool & Arsenal) blackmailed the other clubs into handing over the 25% gate money they previously got from the home club, thereby widening the fnancial gap virtually at a stroke.

Sadly Peter Swales was also in favour of this move.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

As above I think same for Chelsea with the sudden urge to sort the stadium out.

Add Spurs to that list.

And Liverpool.

They're all pissing in the wind though the cunts, especially the self styled 'Man U*d of the south'.

 

[keith's curle]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Are they wanting to put a sponsor on the back?.........not been in this thread for a while.

They must have as they approached the Premier League about it. I'd agree with the other clubs though, even for those c**ts, Chevrolet imo wouldn't be impressed and they'd struggle to get another big shirt sponsor if the sponsor had to share the shirt.
Personally this looks to me to be a knee jerk reaction to the leak about our new deals, as no sponsor has been linked. The rags would have thought their new deals would be enough to hold a financial advantage over the PL for the next 5-10 years, they won't be too confident in that now.

Thanks

As far as I can tell they were only looking at doing it on replica shirts. I could be wrong, but that's the way I read it. I realise that's splitting hairs, but I think its a significant point.

Also, on it being a knee-jerk reaction, I'd be surprised if they hadn't been thinking of this for a while. The Glazers' are out to wring every single penny they can out of the cash cow imo. I don't think they are waiting for something to react to, they are distinctly pro-active. They probably have the next half dozen schemes cooking up as we speak. I'd say the only notice they take of us is to see if we come up with an idea they hadn't thought of, and their benchmark for returns isn't us, but how much of the club's income they can get into their own pockets.

If I was taking my masters in business they would feature prominently in my research, they are so single minded and driven there are no distracting side issues apart from football.

 

[unexpected item]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Just noticed City Women (on BT Sport 2 now btw) have Nissan on the back of their shirts and Vitality on their shorts.