Our total commercial income is 218m, and we know Etihad is £40m per year, or 18.4%.
So I don't see any way that the 85% non Abu Dhabi sponsorships figure can be true.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
La Liga want Man City investigation
- Thread starter Tanzeylee
- Start date
Our total commercial income is 218m, and we know Etihad is £40m per year, or 18.4%.
So I don't see any way that the 85% non Abu Dhabi sponsorships figure can be true.
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
Our total commercial income is 218m, and we know Etihad is £40m per year, or 18.4%.
So I don't see any way that the 85% non Abu Dhabi sponsorships figure can be true.
Exactly.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Perhaps it's 85% of our overall revenue is from non Abu Dhabi organisations?Exactly.
I've seen a breakdown of the numbers somewhere, but for the life of me, I cannot remember where.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 28,115
I think our Abu Dhabi based commercial income is roughly about 25% of the total commercial invome- formally about 20% but the enhanced Etihad deal has clearly increased the total a bit. As a propotion of the overall total it isn't very much.
Interestingly I can't see Etisalat listed as a related party any more so Sheikh Mansour must have sold his shares in them to another party - pobably the Abu Dhabi narional wealth fund.
The point that needs to be noted though is that the 25% is not the importaant value. It's how much we could have got elsewhere should we have chosen to do so.
Interestingly I can't see Etisalat listed as a related party any more so Sheikh Mansour must have sold his shares in them to another party - pobably the Abu Dhabi narional wealth fund.
The point that needs to be noted though is that the 25% is not the importaant value. It's how much we could have got elsewhere should we have chosen to do so.
Last edited:
Gulf Oil is and always has been an American company. The Gulf in the name is the Gulf of Mexico, where the town the company was founded lies next to. So they aren't hypocrites with their arab money jibes, but they are with their oil money bullshitSame with ManUre; Gulf Oil International..... But they earned their money through football didn't they? However we actually earned more on the pitch than they did! :-)
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,383
Looking at other clubs it's clear this oil money jibe we get is quite ironic, anyone else wonder just how much of football sponsorships is in some way related to oil? I'm also wondering(granted probably wont see the effects of it in my lifetime) how much the move to electric cars(assuming the UK isn't the only country doing this) is going to affect things?
Last edited:
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Someone posted on here when the annual report came out. I think it relates to total income not just sponsorships. Given the scale of TV money it sounds about right.Where'd you get that 85% figure from?
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Might have said this earlier in the thread but I reckon sponsors from Abu Dhabi contribute about 15% of our total revenue, maybe a bit more. But even if Etihad wasn't our shirt sponsor then someone else would be at £40m a season. So it's really only the other 3 who give us additional revenue and how much can that be? £15m?Someone posted on here when the annual report came out. I thnk it relates to total income not just sponsorships. Given the scale of TV money it sounds about right.
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
Why?What about best way forward all clubs is only spent 150 million each year can't go over that amount cap on transfers spent
And why didn't the likes of the greedy scouters suggest this when they were using the pools' money to buy up the best players from all the other clubs.
Fucking hypocrites.