Spurs fans...

[Bluemoon115]

Our club is run on sound business principles, whereas yours isn't.

It's as simple as that.

Explain how City aren't, in detail, or apologise for that remark.

 

[THFC6061]

Our club is run on sound business principles, whereas yours isn't.

It's as simple as that.

Explain how City aren't, in detail, or apologise for that remark.

Well for starters, the last set of financial figures available has City spending 106.4% of their total income on player's wages.

UEFA recommend a maximum spend of no more than 70% to be financially viable.

Any business, be it a football club or anything else, can't spend more than it's total income on wages and expect to be run on sound financial principles.

The season previous to that had City declaring a loss of £89.7 million - the highest figure in the Premier League that season.

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/PremierLeagueFinances.html

 

[Sonic Temple]

Our club is run on sound business principles, whereas yours isn't.

It's as simple as that.

Explain how City aren't, in detail, or apologise for that remark.

Well for starters, the last set of financial figures available has City spending 106.4% of their total income on player's wages.

UEFA recommend a maximum spend of no more than 70% to be financially viable.

Any business, be it a football club or anything else, can't spend more than it's total income on wages and expect to be run on sound financial principles.

The season previous to that had City declaring a loss of £89.7 million - the highest figure in the Premier League that season.

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/PremierLeagueFinances.html

So if Redknapp went out and spent £100m on 3 of 4 quality players and stuck them on £100k plus each week you would be totally pissed off because your principals had been thrown out of the window, pull the other one you would be happy as a pig in shit and don't deny it.

 

[BusterPhillips]

Our club is run on sound business principles, whereas yours isn't.

It's as simple as that.

Explain how City aren't, in detail, or apologise for that remark.

Well for starters, the last set of financial figures available has City spending 106.4% of their total income on player's wages.

UEFA recommend a maximum spend of no more than 70% to be financially viable.

Any business, be it a football club or anything else, can't spend more than it's total income on wages and expect to be run on sound financial principles.

The season previous to that had City declaring a loss of £89.7 million - the highest figure in the Premier League that season.

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/PremierLeagueFinances.html

400m sponsorship + CL money = piss all over FFPR

Spurs are being run like a bank, profits get paid as dividends and you think that's good for spurs and their fans, thick twats

 

[Chungo]

Our club is run on sound business principles, whereas yours isn't.

It's as simple as that.

Explain how City aren't, in detail, or apologise for that remark.

Well for starters, the last set of financial figures available has City spending 106.4% of their total income on player's wages.

UEFA recommend a maximum spend of no more than 70% to be financially viable.

Any business, be it a football club or anything else, can't spend more than it's total income on wages and expect to be run on sound financial principles.

The season previous to that had City declaring a loss of £89.7 million - the highest figure in the Premier League that season.

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/PremierLeagueFinances.html

Do you want your owners to make money or do you want to win football matches?

 

[bluevengence]

City owe fook all ...not a cent...nothing...zilch...a big fat ZERO
to anyone and have millions in the bank........sounds fine to me

 

[Skashion]

Well for starters, the last set of financial figures available has City spending 106.4% of their total income on player's wages.

UEFA recommend a maximum spend of no more than 70% to be financially viable.

Any business, be it a football club or anything else, can't spend more than it's total income on wages and expect to be run on sound financial principles.

The season previous to that had City declaring a loss of £89.7 million - the highest figure in the Premier League that season.

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/PremierLeagueFinances.html

As I said earlier, your assessment is wholly and utterly blighted by short-term thinking. Thankfully our owner is not so afflicted.

 

[quiet_riot]

Well for starters, the last set of financial figures available has City spending 106.4% of their total income on player's wages.

UEFA recommend a maximum spend of no more than 70% to be financially viable.

Any business, be it a football club or anything else, can't spend more than it's total income on wages and expect to be run on sound financial principles.

Granted, the >100% figure doesn't work, but when FFP comes into force, our outgoings will be roughly the same, yet our income from CL and epic sponsorship will be much, much more. So that's pretty sound where I come from. Especially when any previous 'losses' can easily be soaked up by the Sheikh converting them to shares.

Quite sad that you STILL think we're being run badly, Mansour and co didn't get to where they are by being shit at running businesses you know.

 

[afroad]

Mansour and co didn't get to where they are by being shit at running businesses you know.

If we're being picky they got where they are from finding lots of oil in the ground where they lived.

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

City bashing again - yawnnnnnnnnnnnn.................

How much for a Spuds ST? What´s the catchment area of North London and it´s environs ? 6 or 7 million? And only 2 clubs? Not to mention a double income per capita than Greater Manchester.
With those types of advantages you should be doing much better not hoping for another "Appy Arry" wheeler-dealer bargain