Try https://bluecitybrain.substack.com/p/manchester-citys-202223-finances for 10 years of figures (but not a commerical partner breakdown) from @BlueBrain (i think - not posted since sept 2023)
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.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Asa's left peg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 4,018
- Location
- Sandbach via Rusholme
- Team supported
- Some team in the CFG
There are lots of experts, espcially in finance, at the moment. Some are more expert than others. The name for this sub group of experts is KFA's.It’s bizarre they look to have put a fair amount of work into the article yet our figure is completely wrong could not be right unless they have made a decision to exclude certain income without any rules from any body or even explanation. It’s even worse when the source link takes you to our last set of accounts which isn’t in the period mentioned and shows a massive profit but covers some of the calendar year mentioned
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Masters is an employee of the Premier League, which is owned by the 20 clubs in it.Masters is the **** in charge, he's the one conniving with and doing the deals for the redshirts in the back rooms. He's the one who had to pass a utd and dipper interview to get the job. He's the **** doing their bidding and bringing charges. Scudamore was a far stronger and able person for the job, and I'm sorry to see a blue fighting Masters corner.
He's a greasy, pole climbing, arse licking red shill ****.
However, with ManUre, the Dippers, ArseAnal & Spuds having power so heavily weighted in their favour, it's fair to say that Masters is merely the Cartel clubs' puppet.
They tell him to jump, he asks how high. They tell him to bend over, he asks dry or vaseline today. That's his job & if he doesn't like it, there are several arse-licking yes men waiting in the wings who're more than happy to replace him & take their orders from the Red Mafia & Spuds.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
It's not bizarre at all, how many just on here have clicked on it? How many non City fans have clicked on it just because our name is there?It’s bizarre they look to have put a fair amount of work into the article yet our figure is completely wrong could not be right unless they have made a decision to exclude certain income without any rules from any body or even explanation. It’s even worse when the source link takes you to our last set of accounts which isn’t in the period mentioned and shows a massive profit but covers some of the calendar year mentioned
I don’t think you understand my point wasn’t that the fact the article exists is odd it makes perfect sense that it does and it should exist what’s odd is our figures not making any sense especially when it’s not even written to grab anti city click bateIt's not bizarre at all, how many just on here have clicked on it? How many non City fans have clicked on it just because our name is there?
GiveMeSport: "We are looking for writers who can commit to producing 15 1,500-word articles per week (ideally Mon-Fri, three per day) paid at a rate of £25 per article"I don’t think you understand my point wasn’t that the fact the article exists is odd it makes perfect sense that it does and it should exist what’s odd is our figures not making any sense especially when it’s not even written to grab anti city click bate
That's why the data is wrong, and no-one is going to fix it.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Of course we're added for the click bait, we're the biggest name in the PL if not in world football. Any click bait article is missing out if they don't include us, actual facts don't concern them. I can't see why this would be news to any Blue.I don’t think you understand my point wasn’t that the fact the article exists is odd it makes perfect sense that it does and it should exist what’s odd is our figures not making any sense especially when it’s not even written to grab anti city click bate
BeerIsTheBest
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 1,964
Wow and you’re correct. In old money: 3 A4 pages @ 500 words per page. Repeat three per day each weekday and ongoing. I would guess an average hour a page start to finish if you’re a accomplished writer.GiveMeSport: "We are looking for writers who can commit to producing 15 1,500-word articles per week (ideally Mon-Fri, three per day) paid at a rate of £25 per article"
That's why the data is wrong, and no-one is going to fix it.
Fifteen articles, 45 pages of A4 a week. That’s some volume and basically full time hours on a treadmill.
Forgetting the £375 earned per week if all published- what quality of work could someone produce without inventing shit up or making assumptions or copying others.
I bet the final submission isn’t quality checked let alone fact checked.
Wow and you’re correct. In old money: 3 A4 pages @ 500 words per page. Repeat three per day each weekday and ongoing. I would guess an average hour a page start to finish if you’re a accomplished writer.
Fifteen articles, 45 pages of A4 a week. That’s some volume and basically full time hours on a treadmill.
Forgetting the £375 earned per week if all published- what quality of work could someone produce without inventing shit up or making assumptions or copying others.
I bet the final submission isn’t quality checked let alone fact checked.
This is how Mail Online operates as well - or at least used to about 10 years ago.
It's mostly staffed by new graduates and unemployed journalists trying to get some money in the door while they look for another job. I had a friend from Uni do it and he said it's about as shit a job as you can imagine. It pays badly, it's quite hard work, you don't get your own desk or anything, it's a really mean place to work (people and bosses) and you get loads of shit and abuse online for weeks whenever some stupid article you've been told to write goes viral for being stupid.