Deloitte Football Rich List (merged)

[Blueboy73]

Neuer originally cost 30 million EUR - but as there were success related bonusses for Schalke in the contract that granted Schalke some millions for every trophy Bayern won the consecutive 5 years he was about 40 million. For a goalkeeper in 2011 with at that time some caps, who had shown sparks in some matches but was still far away from the class he later showed. Do not forget that he would not have been goalkeeper in the national team if Enke would not have taken his life and Adler would not have been injured. He was not the goatkeeper back then - still a prospect.

Even if some fans of conspiracies on this board love to connect the Spiegel with Bayern - it is the last magazine I (as somebody that knows the affiliations of the German press) would connect with FC Bayern. It is probably the magazine that is as much hated by the Bayern officials as by the fans here. But yes - believe that when it connects to your world view - that is more important than real facts today. But what do I know. But I guess blueboy 73 is a fluent German speaker who knows all about German magazines?

Lewandowski wanted to transfer already two years earlier. He was not allowed then as Kagawa was transferred to United. Dortmund did not want to let him go in the next year either when they still could get a transfer sum. But I actually did not want to include Neuer and Lewy into this - that is more than 9 and more than 6 years ago. The argument that Bayern takes the best players from the other Bundesliga teams just does not fit anymore as they are the only players in the starting eleven with such a history. In the recent 6 seasons the best players of the Bundesliga that weren't Bayern players mainly went to England - not to Bayern. And it is just "normal" that a player that does not want to transfer to another country would atleast try to go to the only top club in the respective country.

Bayern is most seasons in the Champions League until late in the competition - has won the last season. They do not have international exposure? Or fans? The thing is that they genuinely stand for a country more than e.g. the English clubs do. That is why the German big brands are first interested to advertise with an internationally famous German brand in the world. When you look at the companies that are club partners it is usually big German brands - not international brands. And if you look at the other big clubs in the Bundesliga you will recognize that (even if they have less exposure internationally) have high commercial revenues compared to their broadcast and stadium revenue, too. A factor might be that the Bundesliga has a far more exposure in German free TV than the EPL has in England.



No, it is not just because of the finances. Dortmund e.g. has as much distance in revenue to the other German clubs as Bayern has - but they aren't clear no. 2 in Germany either - especially when they are the only club that had a real summer break before the season with preparation camp etc. That they lose against Bayern or maybe other top teams is ok - but when e.g. in the recent weeks Leipzig, Dortmund or Leverkusen lost to e.g. 17th Mainz, Freiburg, Union Berlin etc. - it is more than just finances. Yes, Bayern should win most of the years because of the higher revenues etc. - but not every year. And that is either explained with the Greatness of this Bayern team - or the Weaknesses of the others - Financial disparities already calculated into this.

I do not like to lose - but yes, I would wish to have a harder fight in some of the years. But I enjoy it, too, when teams that get overhyped by the media badly fail ( I guess I love some media pundits as much as you do) - when it is one of the so called competitors (I like it when clubs like Freiburg, Union Berlin etc. overachieve as underdogs). As much as I love e.g. Liverpool to fail as the club and Klopp are pretty much overhyped in Germany.

But let's see it from another point of view. From the quality your team can have it should usually win the EPL each season with a big margin. But they do not. Is it because of the other teams strenghts or because of your own weaknesses? Maybe Liverpool overachieved the recent two years, but in the years Leicester and Chelsea won you lost the championship not because they were so strong but you showed weaknesses.

You took your time replying and disappointingly you have failed to address any of my points around the disparity in the commercial deals Bayern are awarded from companies( that just happen to hold a stake in them) when compared with international exposure or address the point around your rancid club tapping up players consistently over a number of years via their media mouthpieces such as Der Spiegel and other paid shills or via public statements from the convicted criminals on your board.

Companies look at international exposure when looking to sponsor football clubs these days ( even German companies) and you still can't explain why the deals Bayern are able to secure are comparable with clubs that attract far bigger TV audiences worldwide than Bayern do on a consistent basis.
Football is an international business these days and believe it or not it doesn't start and end at the German border or revolve around a club that is run by convicted criminals.

I'm not saying Bayern aren't a big club known worldwide with followers in other countries but the fact remains that you are playing in a league that is far less watched internationally, meaning less exposure for sponsors and therefore attract much smaller broadcasting revenues than the EPL and have a huge financial advantage over every other club in the league which ironically makes it less competitive and less attractive to broadcasters outside Germany.
Despite this Bayern are somehow able to secure commercial deals comparable with clubs that receive far more international exposure and you still can't explain why, instead you choose to skirt around the issue with more bullshit.

How do you know Neuer wouldn't have been national number 1 if Endler and Adler hadn't been in the frame ?
Do you have a crystal ball ?
I suspect not so I'll just write that statement off as you talking more bollocks.

For you to say we should be winning our league every year and not doing so shows "weakness" Is quite frankly the most ridiculous statement I've have ever read on this board and believe me there have been some absolute beauties on here.
We don't hold any transfer records nationally or internationally and we do not have the highest or even the second highest wage bill in the EPL.
City have similar revenues to Utd and Liverpool and have only overtaken Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal in recent years due to sustained success despite the various witch hunts and attacks orchestrated by clubs like yours scheming in the background.

Bayern's turnover is almost double their next nearest rivaling the Bundesliga which is Dortmund who are way ahead of the next teams on the list so for you to compare our recent league record against yours is even more bollocks on your part when you compare what we're both up against
Your wage bill is far bigger than your nearest rival so you're hardly competing on a level playing field are you?

It would be interesting to see how Bayern would fare in the EPL but you wouldn't be able to rest players before UCL games and you'd be playing far more league and cup games.

It's no wonder Pep walked out on you to join us when it's clearly a far bigger challenge to succeed in the EPL than it is in the Bundesliga which is basically a one team Mickey Mouse league these days.

 

[KPXBLN]

Personally think we should all chill out. Who cares what a Bayern fan (who in my opinion is actually being fairly polite) thinks about City?
Also, for what it's worth, in my experience (living in Germany), Bayern have massive exposure here, in the largest and richest country in Europe, where football is pretty much the only sport that anyone cares about. The domestic market alone is worth a lot of money to a sponsor, not to mention the fact that Bayern have consistently been one of the best teams in the world for years. They're pretty much guaranteed to get to the late stages of the champions league every year, and won it last year. It's not surprising that they're an appealing brand for major German manufacturers.
But also, who cares?!

 

[Blueboy73]

Personally think we should all chill out. Who cares what a Bayern fan (who in my opinion is actually being fairly polite) thinks about City?
Also, for what it's worth, in my experience (living in Germany), Bayern have massive exposure here, in the largest and richest country in Europe, where football is pretty much the only sport that anyone cares about. The domestic market alone is worth a lot of money to a sponsor, not to mention the fact that Bayern have consistently been one of the best teams in the world for years. They're pretty much guaranteed to get to the late stages of the champions league every year, and won it last year. It's not surprising that they're an appealing brand for major German manufacturers.
But also, who cares?!

Nobody cares in the big scheme of things but that isn't the point.
Football isn't confined to the domestic markets anymore and sponsors are paying a premium for international exposure and the EPL dwarfs the Bundesliga for worldwide TV exposure.
Even nationally I would argue that the EPL generates far bigger revenues for it's clubs in the UK than the Bundesliga does in Germany.
The point is that Bayern's commercial deals are way over what you would expect to receive when based on the international exposure the Bundesliga receives even when you factor in exposure from thr UCL.
When tied in with the fact that most of these sponsors just happen to own a significant stake in them, the fact that several of their board members are convicted criminals, the fact that these convicted criminals are constantly making inflammatory comments about my club and our owners and the fact that these same people hold prominent positions in UEFA at a time that UEFA tried to ban my club from Europe based on out of context and fabricated evidence provided by a German publication makes me think that something underhand is in play here.

 

[KPXBLN]

The fact that the sponsors have close relationships to the club isn't in itself proof of corruption though, unless you'd say the same in City's case which I'd assume you wouldn't. The question is whether the amount of money they pay is a fair market value, which it probably is in my opinion given the high profile of Bayern the club (as opposed to the Bundesliga in general) across Europe and the world. Beyond that, I couldn't give a toss about whatever jumped up bavarians say to their friendly journalists about City, they're just mouthing off. We don't have to let it bother us.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

The fact that the sponsors have close relationships to the club isn't in itself proof of corruption though, unless you'd say the same in City's case which I'd assume you wouldn't. The question is whether the amount of money they pay is a fair market value, which it probably is in my opinion given the high profile of Bayern the club (as opposed to the Bundesliga in general) across Europe and the world. Beyond that, I couldn't give a toss about whatever jumped up bavarians say to their friendly journalists about City, they're just mouthing off. We don't have to let it bother us.

Have to agree - German football revolves around them - their sponsor deals will reflect that. Its great for their finances but no one cares about the German league table. I wouldnt want to swap to be in a one horse league.

 

[Blueboy73]

The fact that the sponsors have close relationships to the club isn't in itself proof of corruption though, unless you'd say the same in City's case which I'd assume you wouldn't. The question is whether the amount of money they pay is a fair market value, which it probably is in my opinion given the high profile of Bayern the club (as opposed to the Bundesliga in general) across Europe and the world. Beyond that, I couldn't give a toss about whatever jumped up bavarians say to their friendly journalists about City, they're just mouthing off. We don't have to let it bother us.

The difference is City's sponsors don't own a significant ( or for that matter any part) of the the club though do they?
You're right, the close relationships don't prove corruption but lack of proof didn't stop UEFA going after us after bring pressured by these criminals using information provided by a German publication did it?
Again like the Bayern fan, you can't explain why the commercial deals they get (from companies that own them) don't reflect the international exposure.
Take a look at the worldwide viewing figures for Bundesliga and Bayern games in the UCL and compare it with clubs in the EPL and you will see that the exposure Bayern receive is far lower than many clubs here both nationally and internationally.
Sponsors are paying for global exposure to billions of viewers not just a country of just over 80 million, additionally the majority of football fans from Germany I have spoken tohate Bayern with a passion and I would imagine that this is reflected in Germany too.
As I said to the other poster, the world doesn't start and finish at the German border.
Utd are sponsored by Chevrolet and you can't even buy a new Chevrolet in the UK so ask yourself why they pay so much for this?
Additionally several EFL clubs are sponsored by online betting companies from the far east, again ask yourself why.
Like you, I also couldn't care what some pompous, arrogant criminals say about our club but I do care when they're going beyond that which, despite what you may think they clearly are.
On a separate note, if you wish to reply please use the "reply" button at the bottom as that is what it si there for :)

 

[MeatHunterrr]

The fact that the sponsors have close relationships to the club isn't in itself proof of corruption though, unless you'd say the same in City's case which I'd assume you wouldn't. The question is whether the amount of money they pay is a fair market value, which it probably is in my opinion given the high profile of Bayern the club (as opposed to the Bundesliga in general) across Europe and the world. Beyond that, I couldn't give a toss about whatever jumped up bavarians say to their friendly journalists about City, they're just mouthing off. We don't have to let it bother us.

You are again completely missing the point. Bayern sponsors actually own stakes in them.

I think its fair to say Bayern's sponsors are completely overvalued and thus should be banned by UEFA for about 2-3 years unless they reduce them significantly.

Anyone who thinks Bayern sponsors are market value when they actually own stakes in them is either Bayern apologist or completely deluded.

 

[KPXBLN]

You are again completely missing the point. Bayern sponsors actually own stakes in them.

I think its fair to say Bayern's sponsors are completely overvalued and thus should be banned by UEFA for about 2-3 years unless they reduce them significantly.

Anyone who thinks Bayern sponsors are market value when they actually own stakes in them is either Bayern apologist or completely deluded.

Etihad is owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, City are owned by members of the Abu Dhabi royal family. That is a "close" relationship, like I said.

As for the value of Bayern's sponsorship, I don't work in the sport business so I would happily defer to anyone with genuine expertise on the matter, but like I said given their decades-long record of success domestically and in Europe, their squad of some of the world's best players, their current prominence and success in the world's biggest club competition, and their total dominance of the game in a major (and rich) part of the footballing world, I think it's not unreasonable to think that major companies would want to sponsor them. I also don't see why it would be in the financial interest of Adidas, Audi or Allianz, which are all massive corporations with accountabilities to shareholders etc, to overpay. But like I say, I'm happy to defer to someone with expertise in the business. I'm even more happy though to leave it at this point - as I said, I don't see the point of getting emotional about another club or the pronouncements of their owners.

 

[Blueboy73]

Etihad is owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, City are owned by members of the Abu Dhabi royal family. That is a "close" relationship, like I said.

As for the value of Bayern's sponsorship, I don't work in the sport business so I would happily defer to anyone with genuine expertise on the matter, but like I said given their decades-long record of success domestically and in Europe, their squad of some of the world's best players, their current prominence and success in the world's biggest club competition, and their total dominance of the game in a major (and rich) part of the footballing world, I think it's not unreasonable to think that major companies would want to sponsor them. I also don't see why it would be in the financial interest of Adidas, Audi or Allianz, which are all massive corporations with accountabilities to shareholders etc, to overpay. But like I say, I'm happy to defer to someone with expertise in the business. I'm even more happy though to leave it at this point - as I said, I don't see the point of getting emotional about another club or the pronouncements of their owners.

Again missing the point completely.
Nobody who sponsors City has a stake in the club unlike many of the various corporations that sponsor Bayern.
Many clubs around the world have close contacts whose companies sponsor them (City, United, Liverpool for example), but not too many are sponsored by organisations that part own them.
Overpaying Bayern for inflated sponsorship deals does help those companies as it increases the value of an entity (Bayern) that they have a stake in by increasing it's turnover and balance sheet value.
It also increases their chances of success in what is already a one team league which by default leads to a bigger share of the pot for prize money, even in a league that is far less lucrative than the EPL.
You have again failed to address the point about the vastly inferior TV audiences Bayern attract for Bundesliga and UCL matches when compared with clubs in the EPL which is the main attraction for sponsors who want global and not just domestic exposure.
Like you said, may as well leave it at this point as I'm basically pissing in the wind labouring a key point that you either can't or won't answer.

 

[Marvin]

Etihad is owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, City are owned by members of the Abu Dhabi royal family. That is a "close" relationship, like I said.

As for the value of Bayern's sponsorship, I don't work in the sport business so I would happily defer to anyone with genuine expertise on the matter, but like I said given their decades-long record of success domestically and in Europe, their squad of some of the world's best players, their current prominence and success in the world's biggest club competition, and their total dominance of the game in a major (and rich) part of the footballing world, I think it's not unreasonable to think that major companies would want to sponsor them. I also don't see why it would be in the financial interest of Adidas, Audi or Allianz, which are all massive corporations with accountabilities to shareholders etc, to overpay. But like I say, I'm happy to defer to someone with expertise in the business. I'm even more happy though to leave it at this point - as I said, I don't see the point of getting emotional about another club or the pronouncements of their owners.

City are part-owned by Sheikh Mansour. That's one member of a nebulous UAE royal family. Basically anyone who is seriously wealthy in the Gulf-States is likely to be an aristocrat. Sheffield United are owned by a member of the Saudi royal family but few people claim that Sheffield Utd are owned by the Saudi state.

Leicester City, Chelsea, Everton are all owned by oligarchs. That's the nature of capitalism in Eastern Europe and the middle-east, whilst in the USA and the UK wealth is not so directly related to state power. It's not clear to me which is better given that the architects of most of these gulf states are the foreign offices of these liberal states.

 

[Maldeika]

Again missing the point completely.
Nobody who sponsors City has a stake in the club unlike many of the various corporations that sponsor Bayern.
Many clubs around the world have close contacts whose companies sponsor them (City, United, Liverpool for example), but not too many are sponsored by organisations that part own them.
Overpaying Bayern for inflated sponsorship deals does help those companies as it increases the value of an entity (Bayern) that they have a stake in by increasing it's turnover and balance sheet value.
It also increases their chances of success in what is already a one team league which by default leads to a bigger share of the pot for prize money, even in a league that is far less lucrative than the EPL.
You have again failed to address the point about the vastly inferior TV audiences Bayern attract for Bundesliga and UCL matches when compared with clubs in the EPL which is the main attraction for sponsors who want global and not just domestic exposure.
Like you said, may as well leave it at this point as I'm basically pissing in the wind labouring a key point that you either can't or won't answer.

Just as an example...

You and 13 others own a supermarket. Would you overpay for your groceries in that shop - the other 13 profit from it in the same way you do...

That does not make any sense.

There is a reason why this companies invest into Bayern - they can make profit of it as the footballing companies have improved in their value over the last 10 to 20 years and to be ahead of competitors of the own branch, when it means sponsoring contracts with the club. The Bayern fans even think that it is even a disadvantage for the sponsoring contracts and we would get more out of the sponsoring contracts when there weren't any affiliations between the club and the companies.

Bayern's sponsoring contracts aren't overinflated. It is mainly German manufacturing companies advertising with the biggest German footballing team of the biggest economy in Europe in the World's biggest sport. And there is different manufacturing companies of the same branches competing with each other.

 

[Blueboy73]

Just as an example...

You and 13 others own a supermarket. Would you overpay for your groceries in that shop - the other 13 profit from it in the same way you do...

That does not make any sense.

There is a reason why this companies invest into Bayern - they can make profit of it as the footballing companies have improved in their value over the last 10 to 20 years and to be ahead of competitors of the own branch, when it means sponsoring contracts with the club. The Bayern fans even think that it is even a disadvantage for the sponsoring contracts and we would get more out of the sponsoring contracts when there weren't any affiliations between the club and the companies.

Bayern's sponsoring contracts aren't overinflated. It is mainly German manufacturing companies advertising with the biggest German footballing team of the biggest economy in Europe in the World's biggest sport. And there is different manufacturing companies of the same branches competing with each other.

Oh hello, where have you been hiding for the last week?
The companies mentioned benefit by over paying sponsorship as they own a part of the club so they're benefiting directly from the increase in value that results in them paying into something they already own.
It's quite simple really,perhaps the convicted criminals that run Bayern thought this one up?
As I've stated previously, the football world doesn't start and end at the German border despite your over inflated opinion of the attraction of the Bundesliga to sponsors.
I asked you almost a week ago to explain why a club playing in a league that isn't particularly popular when compared to the EPL and has nowhere near it's exposure is able to attract deals of this size and you still can't answer.
The Bundesliga is small fry compared to the EPL for worldwide exposure and popularity and the exposure of the UCL doesn't make up for this either.
Wherever I travel around the world or on holiday, I see plenty of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man Utd, Liverpool, Juventus, AC Milan and more recently Man City shirts but I never see any Bayern shirts on my travels.
You've basically admitted that Bayern's sponsors are paying for domestic exposure to around 80 million people, most of whom follow other clubs and hate Bayern.
Other clubs sponsors such as those listed above, are paying less for worldwide exposure to billions of people than Bayern's sponsors are to a mainly domestic market.
You can claim that Bayern's deals aren't over inflated until you are blue in the face but the facts speak for themselves and show that they clearly are.

 

[KPXBLN]

The companies mentioned benefit by over paying sponsorship as they own a part of the club so they're benefiting directly from the increase in value that results in them paying into something they already own.

To be fair to him, leaving aside the question about TV audiences, he's pointed out that the companies concerned only own a small portion of the club. Allianz, Audi and Adidas own about 8.3% each. If your theory is that these companies are overpaying on sponsorship because they reckon they'll make the money back (plus extra) as a result of increasing the club's profits, then you have to reckon with the fact that more than 90% of any increased profit the club makes as a result of money put in by any one of those three companies is not coming back to that company. If I'm Allianz and I overpay on a sponsorship by, say, €100 million, then I have to expect that profits are going to increase by a minimum of €1.2 billion as a result for it to be worth it.

Unless what I'm really interested is not increasing the club's profits through prize money or shirt sales or whatever, so I can get my 8.3% of the increase, but instead raising the profile of my company through connecting my company's brand with a major sporting brand a.k.a. what a company typically has in mind when it sponsors a club. From my perspective that's why I reckon these companies are paying what they (and their accountants, advisors, shareholders etc) will perceive to be market value. At the end of the day they're big companies run by ruthless people who love making money.

 

[Blueboy73]

To be fair to him, leaving aside the question about TV audiences, he's pointed out that the companies concerned only own a small portion of the club. Allianz, Audi and Adidas own about 8.3% each. If your theory is that these companies are overpaying on sponsorship because they reckon they'll make the money back (plus extra) as a result of increasing the club's profits, then you have to reckon with the fact that more than 90% of any increased profit the club makes as a result of money put in by any one of those three companies is not coming back to that company. If I'm Allianz and I overpay on a sponsorship by, say, €100 million, then I have to expect that profits are going to increase by a minimum of €1.2 billion as a result for it to be worth it.

Unless what I'm really interested is not increasing the club's profits through prize money or shirt sales or whatever, so I can get my 8.3% of the increase, but instead raising the profile of my company through connecting my company's brand with a major sporting brand a.k.a. what a company typically has in mind when it sponsors a club. From my perspective that's why I reckon these companies are paying what they (and their accountants, advisors, shareholders etc) will perceive to be market value. At the end of the day they're big companies run by ruthless people who love making money.

You've hit the nail on the head which is what I've been saying all along.
Adidas, Allianz,Audi and co are basically overpaying as it increases the balance sheet value of an organisation that they part own.
Whilst the criminals who run Bayern are holding prominent positions in UEFA and the ECA this won't be called out any time soon.
The amount they are paying doesn't tally when you compare it with the amount other clubs who receive far greater exposure receive which is my point.

 

[KPXBLN]

You've hit the nail on the head which is what I've been saying all along.
Adidas, Allianz,Audi and co are basically overpaying as it increases the balance sheet value of an organisation that they part own.
Whilst the criminals who run Bayern are holding prominent positions in UEFA and the ECA this won't be called out any time soon.
The amount they are paying doesn't tally when you compare it with the amount other clubs who receive far greater exposure receive which is my point.

that's not exactly what I'm trying to say though. My point is that I would find it hard to understand why they would overpay, given that once the money has left the bank account of Adidas or whoever and gone into the Bayern coffers, 91.7% of whatever profit comes back doesn't belong to Adidas. to me, (and like I said, I'm no football business expert it's just my opinion), it seems more probable that Adidas views the relationship with Bayern as a way of making more money directly for Adidas rather than more money for Bayern and therefore very indirectly for Adidas.

 

[Blueboy73]

that's not exactly what I'm trying to say though. My point is that I would find it hard to understand why they would overpay, given that once the money has left the bank account of Adidas or whoever and gone into the Bayern coffers, 91.7% of whatever profit comes back doesn't belong to Adidas. to me, (and like I said, I'm no football business expert it's just my opinion), it seems more probable that Adidas views the relationship with Bayern as a way of making more money directly for Adidas rather than more money for Bayern and therefore very indirectly for Adidas.

It's a long term investment for them.
They pay, or should I say overpay into an organisation that they partly own which then increases steadily in value over the years.
It's like me sponsoring my own company which basically has a monopoly in my domestic market.
The Bundesliga is predictable and no longer competitive, which may be why the international TV deals they secure are so low when compared to say the EPL, so Bayern are guaranteed to be successful and will therefore grow in value.
Fundamentally nobody can explain why these deals are comparable or bigger than those with clubs that receive far more domestic and international exposure.

 

[Eebo]

To be fair to him, leaving aside the question about TV audiences, he's pointed out that the companies concerned only own a small portion of the club. Allianz, Audi and Adidas own about 8.3% each. If your theory is that these companies are overpaying on sponsorship because they reckon they'll make the money back (plus extra) as a result of increasing the club's profits, then you have to reckon with the fact that more than 90% of any increased profit the club makes as a result of money put in by any one of those three companies is not coming back to that company. If I'm Allianz and I overpay on a sponsorship by, say, €100 million, then I have to expect that profits are going to increase by a minimum of €1.2 billion as a result for it to be worth it.

Unless what I'm really interested is not increasing the club's profits through prize money or shirt sales or whatever, so I can get my 8.3% of the increase, but instead raising the profile of my company through connecting my company's brand with a major sporting brand a.k.a. what a company typically has in mind when it sponsors a club. From my perspective that's why I reckon these companies are paying what they (and their accountants, advisors, shareholders etc) will perceive to be market value. At the end of the day they're big companies run by ruthless people who love making money.

Not quite correct as company valuations are based on a MULTIPLE of earnings (profits), so the value mod all the shares in the company is calculated using X times profit. The multiple (X) used depends on the growth and prospects of the business. If the the multiple is 13 or above then overpaying by £1million increases the value of the whole company by £13million+, and if you own 1/13 of the business you are no worse off.
It is unlikely that the multiple would be that high, but my point is that the business is not valued by its profits but by a multiple of those profits.

 

[Sir Joe Aguero]

So, we're favourites to win the league, which makes it 5 league titles in 10 years. The best manager in the world. One of the best defences in the world. Best midfielder in the world. Best youngster/English player in the world. Arguably the best squad in the world. 10 clubs under CFG. Never missed the Champions League in 10 years.

The Etihad deal is coming up. For stadium & shirt rights, £40mil a season looks a bargain. Considering the above, we could easily push for £80mil a season.

If we expand the stadium as planned, that's another 6-8000 seats, which could increase matchday income by 10% (around £6mil a season), and we'd be able to push for better deals as more people would see our sponsorship.

Fucking hell it's looking rosy.

 

[aguero93:20]

So, we're favourites to win the league, which makes it 5 league titles in 10 years. The best manager in the world. One of the best defences in the world. Best midfielder in the world. Best youngster/English player in the world. Arguably the best squad in the world. 10 clubs under CFG. Never missed the Champions League in 10 years.

The Etihad deal is coming up. For stadium & shirt rights, £40mil a season looks a bargain. Considering the above, we could easily push for £80mil a season.

If we expand the stadium as planned, that's another 6-8000 seats, which could increase matchday income by 10% (around £6mil a season), and we'd be able to push for better deals as more people would see our sponsorship.

Fucking hell it's looking rosy.

I think we renegotiated the Etihad deal a few years back to 60m.

 

[Sir Joe Aguero]

I think we renegotiated the Etihad deal a few years back to 60m.

Wouldn't we have seen it on the books? When does it expire mate?