How much Big Six clubs have earned by selling academy players

[Xhavenjoe]

We made a huge profit on Enes Unal although he had no involvement with the academy.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Given these figures I’m suspicious some ‘fair play’ ruling preventing us from doing this is being drafted as I type.

 

[JASR]

’lots of revenue, we make up about 2/3 of the total amount of revenue by the top 6’

But our revenue, is all just dodgy oil related sponsorship revenue...

This is just one of the ways, that puts us ahead of the pack in earning revenue, and leads to the inexorable chasing down of the established long term revenue incumbent leader.

Chelsea’s figure is surprisingly low, maybe they earn more in loan fees, rather than selling on? Given the stockpiling they do.

United figure is...just.. dire... for an ‘acclaimed’ academy/youth setup.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

But our revenue, is all just dodgy oil related sponsorship revenue...

This is just one of the ways, that puts us ahead of the pack in earning revenue, and leads to the inexorable chasing down of the established long term revenue incumbent leader.

Chelsea’s figure is surprisingly low, maybe they earn more in loan fees, rather than selling on? Given the stockpiling they do.

United figure is...just.. dire... for an ‘acclaimed’ academy/youth setup.

Their figure is so low because they all play in the first team now you know. It’s the ‘United way’.

 

[cleavers]

You certainly can't make any case for Mooy, who barely even set foot on the campus let alone in the academy. He may never have played for the first team, so qualifies according to some journo at the mirror, but he'd moved on before his car engine had gone cold on the car park, so if he is in the list, the list is crap.

 

[IH8MUFC]

Don’t clubs make money on loaning players?

You are probably right. FIFA are looking to put a stop to that gravy train with their new rules.

 

[Jalfraag]

nobody apart from you has ever mentioned the new academy!

You stated you could argue a case for adding Iheanachos sale to those figures, those figures were for players who had played less than 10 games. Please explain how you can add a player with 64 appearances to a list of players who have made less than 10 appearances?

I'm not going to post again as this is derailing the thread. Safe to say though Iheanacho can not be added.

Because that's how 16 year olds are attracted to the club, unless you think the pull of Ashton Market is the clincher over Paris and Barcelona.

 

[sir baconface]

This is undoubtedly great business for City.

It would be interesting to hear views on the ethics of having so many academy products out on loan. Are we (and Chelsea) selfishly flexing our financial muscles to hog the best kids? Or are we providing development that’s for the overall good of the game?

 

[crazyg]

This is undoubtedly great business for City.

It would be interesting to hear views on the ethics of having so many academy products out on loan. Are we (and Chelsea) selfishly flexing our financial muscles to hog the best kids? Or are we providing development that’s for the overall good of the game?

Yes to both questions.

 

[taleofbluehalves]

But our revenue, is all just dodgy oil related sponsorship revenue...

This is just one of the ways, that puts us ahead of the pack in earning revenue, and leads to the inexorable chasing down of the established long term revenue incumbent leader.

Chelsea’s figure is surprisingly low, maybe they earn more in loan fees, rather than selling on? Given the stockpiling they do.

United figure is...just.. dire... for an ‘acclaimed’ academy/youth setup.

It goes to show lots of our Academy players are building successful careers. Kudos to the Academy and also Txiki.