Financial Fair Play/Financial Report (merged)

[BoyBlue_1985]

So some one pays the rags 70,000,000 quid per season to manufacture their kit. If you call a shirt £55 that means they would have to sell 1,272,727 shirts per season to break even! That's excluding materials and labour costs!

I'd love to know how many genuine rag kits get sold per season.

Its not just shirts though is it?

 

[aguero93:20]

So some one pays the rags 70,000,000 quid per season to manufacture their kit. If you call a shirt £55 that means they would have to sell 1,272,727 shirts per season to break even! That's excluding materials and labour costs!

I'd love to know how many genuine rag kits get sold per season.

Its not just shirts though is it?

Yeh, Image rights and advertising too.

 

[Blue Coop]

United getting a £70m shirt deal is a sign of how big the club is (I hate them, but that's what 20 years of sustained success does to your brand), and it highlights exactly why FFP is laughable to be branded 'fair', but we all knew that. We should be happy we got onto the conveyor belt in time and can challenge while we build our own brand through our own success.

 

[petrusha]

We signed a 6-year, £72m deal with Nike last summer according to the press. This was originally a 10-year, £60m deal with Umbro in 2009 but that got renegotiated with Nike when they sold Umbro.

I thought that the £72m was the guaranteed portion of the contract but that (because City is a club that's developed rapidly in the last few years and may continue to do so) the contract is heavily weighted towards bonus payments. In other words, what City receive could be substantially more depending on what we win and what levels of sales we rack up.

Clubs that are more established as part of the elite can demand that payment levels be guaranteed (as opposed to being conditional on these types of things) because that's seen as less of a risk to the kit manufacturer than agreeing guaranteed payments with a parvenu. However, I'll bet that if we propser between now and the end of the Nike deal then we'll be pulling in quite a bit more than £12m a year.

Of course, I stand to be corrected if anyone has information to the contrary from an authoritative source.

 

[Anonymous]

We signed a 6-year, £72m deal with Nike last summer according to the press. This was originally a 10-year, £60m deal with Umbro in 2009 but that got renegotiated with Nike when they sold Umbro.

I thought that the £72m was the guaranteed portion of the contract but that (because City is a club that's developed rapidly in the last few years and may continue to do so) the contract is heavily weighted towards bonus payments. In other words, what City receive could be substantially more depending on what we win and what levels of sales we rack up.

Clubs that are more established as part of the elite can demand that payment levels be guaranteed (as opposed to being conditional on these types of things) because that's seen as less of a risk to the kit manufacturer than agreeing guaranteed payments with a parvenu. However, I'll bet that if we propser between now and the end of the Nike deal then we'll be pulling in quite a bit more than £12m a year.

Of course, I stand to be corrected if anyone has information to the contrary from an authoritative source.

Excellent use of "parvenu"; well played sir.

 

[Dodgemeister]

We signed a 6-year, £72m deal with Nike last summer according to the press. This was originally a 10-year, £60m deal with Umbro in 2009 but that got renegotiated with Nike when they sold Umbro.

I thought that the £72m was the guaranteed portion of the contract but that (because City is a club that's developed rapidly in the last few years and may continue to do so) the contract is heavily weighted towards bonus payments. In other words, what City receive could be substantially more depending on what we win and what levels of sales we rack up.

Clubs that are more established as part of the elite can demand that payment levels be guaranteed (as opposed to being conditional on these types of things) because that's seen as less of a risk to the kit manufacturer than agreeing guaranteed payments with a parvenu. However, I'll bet that if we propser between now and the end of the Nike deal then we'll be pulling in quite a bit more than £12m a year.

Of course, I stand to be corrected if anyone has information to the contrary from an authoritative source.

Excellent use of "parvenu"; well played sir.

Well if I hadn't just googlerised it, I'd have thought it meant someone had just farted!!! well learn something new or should I say par venu everyday!!!5555

 

[fbloke]

Its good news that united and arsenal are signing these big deals because every time a club does something like this is removes any doubt that City's sponsorships are legitimate.

If united sign a 10 year deal at £x per year then City have the opportunity to ask for similar, if not more for other deals when they get signed.

Interestingly Liverpool have just signed a kit deal for their training gear,something united have previously done with DHL.

So let's look a little bit beyond today and think about how the talented Tom Glick and his team could perhaps take advantage of the developments both on and off the field we will see rather soon at City.

 

[jrb]

I think when the construction dust finally settles at the new training academy later this year, we will hear about numerous new sponsorship deals..

These include the training academy itself and the training kit, unless both come under the Etihad sponsorship deal?(do they?), and other sponsorship opportunites like the footbridge, etc.

More importantly. I have absolutely no concerns about sponsorship deals and how far we are behind the other big clubs ATM. One thing we have in the pipeline which none of those clubs have anything like or will have, is the proposed leisure destination and Etihad Campus, which will surround the stadium.

The revenue gained from that will match anything those clubs can generate from football related sponsorship deals.<br /><br />-- Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:37 pm --<br /><br />I think when the construction dust finally settles at the new training academy later this year, we will hear about numerous new sponsorship deals..

These include the training academy site itself and the training kit, unless both come under the Etihad sponsorship deal?(do they?) And other sponsorship opportunites like the footbridge.

More importantly. I have absolutely no concerns about sponsorship deals and how far we are behind the other big clubs ATM. One thing we have in the pipeline which none of those clubs have anything like or will have, is the proposed leisure destination and Etihad Campus, which will surround the stadium.

The revenue gained from that will match anything those clubs can generate from football related sponsorship deals.

 

[aguero93:20]

I think when the construction dust finally settles at the new training academy later this year, we will hear about numerous new sponsorship deals..

These include the training academy itself and the training kit, unless both come under the Etihad sponsorship deal?(do they?), and other sponsorship opportunites like the footbridge, etc.

More importantly. I have absolutely no concerns about sponsorship deals and how far we are behind the other big clubs ATM. One thing we have in the pipeline which none of those clubs have anything like or will have, is the proposed leisure destination and Etihad Campus, which will surround the stadium.

The revenue gained from that will match anything those clubs can generate from football related sponsorship deals.

The campus is sponsored by Etihad, pretty sure we can get individual assets within the campus (such as the minihad and the bridge) separate sponsorship deals.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Question, if we start building leisure and training facilities say in Melbourne, New York etc. and stick our badge or name on does that mean we can take a load of profit out of them?

I can imagine the possibility of joint Melbourne Heart/MCFC stores and NYCFC/MCFC Stores being potentially lucrative.