Whether or not
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2019
- Messages
- 938
- Team supported
- MCFC
Good to see plucky, punching above their weight, little Liverpool in at number 3. How they manage to compete with all these rich money clubs is just miraculous.
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.
Manchester City 2nd Deloitte Football Money League for 2022/23 (pg16)
- Thread starter Kinkladze's crazy skills
- Start date
I think we might spend big. If Bernie and Gundog both go and Kev is getting on, we might need to spend big in midfield. Oh, and at left back!With the move from FFP to Financial sustainability the important figure is wages/ transfer fee (over contract)/ agency fees etc.
Ours is 57% and is allowed at 90/ 80/ 70 over the next 3 years.
The club is so well run that they might not want to, but if ever there was a time to really spend it is now.
Nope. New stability rules have come in.Is that the premier ffp rules? I don’t think so Premier rules are still the same as they were!
flb
Well-Known Member
Id like to see either Foden or Jack more central tbh in the event of Bernardo leaving and Kev's legs catching up with him.I think we might spend big. If Bernie and Gundog both go and Kev is getting on, we might need to spend big in midfield. Oh, and at left back!
The revenue gap could be higher but for the way we handle hospitality catering revenue.
I believe Liverpool account for all their catering revenues (and costs) whereas we only count the contract payment we get from F3, who take the revenue and also the costs, paying us an agreed fee for that. That's why their matchday income is significantly higher than ours in an identically sized stadium.
So Liverpool might report catering revenue for matchday hospitality catering of £35m but also include, say, £30m in costs. Whereas we'll just report, say, £5m revenue and no costs. So they're reporting £30m more revenue but without any impact on the bottom line, as the net revenue is the same.
We must of thought in the long run doing that way was better for revenue purposes! I wonder if we will do it how liverpool doing it in future?!
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
It’s great that the commercial revenue and prize money are so high and the ownership should take huge credit for that. That being said, it does make the ticket prices look even more ridiculous and their justification even worse, for which the ownership should be rightly criticised.
Nope. New stability rules have come in.
Is there an article on that?
jaseisblue
Well-Known Member
The left back position, our eternal money pit. It’s like that old run down house that just swallows your money.I think we might spend big. If Bernie and Gundog both go and Kev is getting on, we might need to spend big in midfield. Oh, and at left back!
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
It's great news, seem to remember the comments in the media last year were we were only top due to Covid.
If we priced games better like tonight for one off games we'd still be quids in.
Sort it out city.
If we priced games better like tonight for one off games we'd still be quids in.
Sort it out city.
Liverpool have much fewer season cards than us in order to sell one off tickets at higher prices.The revenue gap could be higher but for the way we handle hospitality catering revenue.
I believe Liverpool account for all their catering revenues (and costs) whereas we only count the contract payment we get from F3, who take the revenue and also the costs, paying us an agreed fee for that. That's why their matchday income is significantly higher than ours in an identically sized stadium.
So Liverpool might report catering revenue for matchday hospitality catering of £35m but also include, say, £30m in costs. Whereas we'll just report, say, £5m revenue and no costs. So they're reporting £30m more revenue but without any impact on the bottom line, as the net revenue is the same.