Remember Rat Boy's rant that City couldn't possibly have larger revenues than the biggest club in the world. As broken down by you above, it doesn't take a genius to work out why we surpassed the Rags from an income perspective.The point being is that just because United may have casual supporters throughout the world, how do they monetise them? They ain’t turning up for games or buying tat in the souvenir shop. TV money is where it’s at, City have qualified for the champions league every year since 2011. United, Liverpool, Arsenal. Spurs etc haven’t. They have also made the last 16 consistently since 2014 and also made the semis and finals 4 times in the last decade. Add that also winning the Premier league title 7 times since 2012. All that turns into extra air time on tv and prize money at the end of it. Then you have the sponsorship deals that come in because companies want to be associated with success. City’s ceo embarked on a strategy of signing deals with smaller sponsors but doing so in high quantity.
All this on the bottom line stacks up into money, standing still and believing that their clubs will always be some historical cash cow has been the mistakes made by teams that play in red. All the while City’s owners are constantly looking at how they can grow the club further. Keep an eye out for the biggest arena in Europe opening in December next to City’s ground and then a hotel opening up when the expanded North stand is opening up. City can’t possibly have bigger revenue than United though can they?
It's alleged that certain organised crime groups especially in Merseyside made very good use of Standard CharterThey, and the equally deluded Liverpool fans, have this bizarre view that our revenue can't be bigger than theirs, because they have "more fans".
Even if we assume they have more fans (and evidence from social media numbers tends to dispute that) they can't get it into their pea-sized brains that there is no correlation between the number of fans and revenue. Possibly there's a view that a large fan base might be attractive to sponsors but I'd love to see some quantitative evidence of that.
United have DXC on their sleeve, who are an IT Service Provider formed by a merger between CSC and HP. I can pretty well guarantee that united fans haven't been rushing to sign contracts with DXC, or buy Team Vkeeper for their laptops. And I'm equally sure that Standard Chartered don't rely on Liverpool fans' accounts to keep their business going.
For these sponsors it's about exposure. The PL and CL are two of the most watched sporting competitions on the planet. Getting that exposure at a CL Final is like buying a Superbowl ad. This season was be our 12th consecutive season in the CL and our 13th consecutive season of finishing in the top 4 in the PL. We've won the PL 7 times to date and have now won the CL.
Etihad, and our other key sponsors, must be delighted. Because that's why they pay for the exposure.
I don’t think your dad is a unique case.Having a large fan base will be one factor as it will increase the exposure.
United v Liverpool will always attract good viewing figures for example worldwide.
I don’t think we have that just yet and if it was a 7th v 8th game, we would not get as many (or even a 1st v 2nd game with those 2 clubs I think more could watch). But that is not what is happening.
Success and the importance of the game we play in means that this year we must have played (and won) in the most viewed games.
City v Arsenal
City v United (FA Cup)
City v Real (CL semi)
City v Inter (CL final)
All my United/ Liverpool friends watched all of these games (probably hoping we lost).
But these are some of the biggest, most viewed games across the whole world this season.
The constant in that is City and also City winning, a sponsor would love to be associated with that.
The eyes of the footballing world have been on us this season.
To also take your view one step further (although not sure this is true anymore, I think they hate us with a passion).
As we a told our winning is hollow and no-one cares then our sponsors have all the exposure with no downside.
Where you speak about United fans not buying Team Viewer etc. just as they are sponsors. I can tell you my Dad would not buy any product associated with United (because he hates them). So if they where sponsored by Etihad and he wanted to go Abu Dhabi he would fly Emirates and take the hour commute.
Although he might be a unique case :-)
But that's the mistake you & a lot of rival fans make when it comes to revenue from sponsorship. City constantly winning things makes them box office & every tv station wanting to show them. It's more commercially savvy to be associated with Mcfc than spending about a million on a TV ad that 90% of people will turn off at half time.I‘ve no idea how many fans City have worldwide but whatever the number, I’d find it difficult to believe it was more than Man Utd’s global fan base.
Exactly, We had an estimated 200,000 at the parade last week, possibly more, so it blows that 100k myth right out of the water.Of course not but it is obviously more than 100k and the aim that our owners have is to expand that whether we like it or not, over on Twitter it is a playground for fans from all around the world for all teams.
The best are the rag fans from Africa calling City fans from Manchester plastics :)
I have no idea how many fans we have globally but it will be way more than 100k, I am sure we would shatter that for the NW alone tbh
United even admitted in their accounts that it's difficult to monetise fans.The point being is that just because United may have casual supporters throughout the world, how do they monetise them? They ain’t turning up for games or buying tat in the souvenir shop.
The Emirates.
View attachment 84046
So just like sponsors, the cartel can dictate what a fair value transfer isSurely this is based on inflated swap deals. Of which there have been some.
You buy x player worth £20 million of us for £60 millions and we’re buy x player worth £40 million for £80 million.
This makes a difference as on a 4 year contract you would have £20 million a year debt for £60 million in accounts all in 1 year.
Meaning a profit of £40 million, as opposed to £10 million.
The downside is the later years you have to keep doing it or eventually it catches up.
I think UEFA could put a deterrent in there to discourage or minimise, whether it would ever have teeth is debatable as would be tough to prove in most cases.
That said I agree UEFA should put it in there as it has been taken advantage of.
Not only that, only a fraction of them will be buying genuine replica shirts - the vast majority will be buying snides where not a single penny ends up in the club coffers.Another thing about fan bases, if anyone thinks that all the Liverpool, Untied, Arsenal and City fans in Africa and Asia are actually paying subscription fees to watch the PL I have a bridge to sell you, sure some actually do but the vast majority are watching on dodgy streams, they don't actually contribute to the revenue streams