Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Entertainment Discussion Forums > Sports Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 20-11-2011, 21:25   #81
d2000s
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland
Posts: 5,461
Thanks: 35
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Brown View Post
Surely they've looking at a £225m loss for the forthcoming year (the loss on wages is £155m alone, plus the £75m in player purchases).

The massive (and dubious) £400m sponsorship from Etihad is spread over 10 years, so only £40m per season. The proposed new £200m kit deal is only £26m per season in reality. That's £66m, barely making a dent in their £225 deficit.
They have other income streams and cost-cutting measures to come. Mr Mansour 2nd cousin, Alf, and his company, Alf Clothing, is going to become the new kit manufacturer, he is going to pay £60m a year. Mr Mansour is going to start buying an expensive half-time cheese toastie, that will add up to about £50m a season I hear which goes straight to the club.....he likes his toasties.
I also hear that all their players are going to take a 80% pay drop, saving the club over £100m. Luckily for the players they are also all going to become Etihad "ambassadors"....... which coincidently brings a salary that make up for the loss.

d2000s is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 07:43   #82
Fever Dawg
Genetically different
 
Fever Dawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Place Unbeknownst
Posts: 10,242
Thanks: 6
Thanked 11 Times in 6 Posts
Last year they started 'sponsoring' my local non-league club, Hyde United. They have been called Hyde United and played in red & white for almost a century.
All of a sudden the 'United' was dropped and they are now known as Hyde FC. The ground has been painted sky blue, the club badge completely changed and the kit changed to blue & white.
Fever Dawg is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 08:20   #83
rustybin
Xbox/PSN Tag: Rustybin69
 
rustybin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 24,073
Thanks: 1,211
Thanked 917 Times in 487 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fever Dawg View Post
Last year they started 'sponsoring' my local non-league club, Hyde United. They have been called Hyde United and played in red & white for almost a century.
All of a sudden the 'United' was dropped and they are now known as Hyde FC. The ground has been painted sky blue, the club badge completely changed and the kit changed to blue & white.
It's all for the greater good, I can't believe you can't see that.
rustybin is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 08:28   #84
Pisces Iscariot
The Pumpkin Smasher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 7,032
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
In Hyde's case it probably is! They were gone without City's sponsorship and would never have been able to invest £250k in their ground themselves. If part of the deal is that they have to let City paint the ground in their colours then so be it.
Pisces Iscariot is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 08:33   #85
jockosjungle
Alone in the Atlantic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Falkland Islands
Posts: 24,131
Thanks: 291
Thanked 1,314 Times in 926 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2000s View Post
They have other income streams and cost-cutting measures to come. Mr Mansour 2nd cousin, Alf, and his company, Alf Clothing, is going to become the new kit manufacturer, he is going to pay £60m a year. Mr Mansour is going to start buying an expensive half-time cheese toastie, that will add up to about £50m a season I hear which goes straight to the club.....he likes his toasties.
I also hear that all their players are going to take a 80% pay drop, saving the club over £100m. Luckily for the players they are also all going to become Etihad "ambassadors"....... which coincidently brings a salary that make up for the loss.

SUrely there would need to be some sort of fair market value used in any such financial fair play rules? Otherwise the rules would be a joke.

Also I don't care how rich your owners are, nobody is going to be able to afford to take such losses over an extended period

R
jockosjungle is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 08:34   #86
rustybin
Xbox/PSN Tag: Rustybin69
 
rustybin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 24,073
Thanks: 1,211
Thanked 917 Times in 487 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pisces Iscariot View Post
In Hyde's case it probably is! They were gone without City's sponsorship and would never have been able to invest £250k in their ground themselves. If part of the deal is that they have to let City paint the ground in their colours then so be it.
Oh, I agree completely - it was the lesser of two evils. But it still goes against the argument that the City money is being spent for the good of Manchester - there were strings attached in this case and there will be strings attatched elsewhere.
rustybin is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 08:35   #87
rustybin
Xbox/PSN Tag: Rustybin69
 
rustybin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 24,073
Thanks: 1,211
Thanked 917 Times in 487 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbullivant View Post
Also I don't care how rich your owners are, nobody is going to be able to afford to take such losses over an extended period

R
Now the bulk of the buying is done, the owners could take a £200m a year hit on wages indefinitely were it not for the Fair Play rules.
rustybin is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 08:46   #88
Fever Dawg
Genetically different
 
Fever Dawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Place Unbeknownst
Posts: 10,242
Thanks: 6
Thanked 11 Times in 6 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pisces Iscariot View Post
In Hyde's case it probably is! They were gone without City's sponsorship and would never have been able to invest £250k in their ground themselves. If part of the deal is that they have to let City paint the ground in their colours then so be it.
The club weren't "gone", they had avoided being wound up before City got involved. Of course the money has secured their near future but they've completely lost their identity in the process. The main stand even has a huge City badge on it FFS.
It's very sad to see a club being bribed in that way just to survive.
Fever Dawg is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 09:15   #89
d2000s
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland
Posts: 5,461
Thanks: 35
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbullivant View Post
SUrely there would need to be some sort of fair market value used in any such financial fair play rules? Otherwise the rules would be a joke.

Also I don't care how rich your owners are, nobody is going to be able to afford to take such losses over an extended period

R
I just think it's going to be a few years before they close all the loopholes. Hopefully it works eventually, but we are going to have to be patient.
d2000s is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 09:58   #90
Pisces Iscariot
The Pumpkin Smasher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 7,032
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fever Dawg View Post
The club weren't "gone", they had avoided being wound up before City got involved. Of course the money has secured their near future but they've completely lost their identity in the process. The main stand even has a huge City badge on it FFS.
It's very sad to see a club being bribed in that way just to survive.
They didn't settle their VAT bill until July last year and even if they'd managed to do that without City getting involved they'd still have been on the brink all season as the income wasn't covering their expenses. The club will be safe until 2013 now and it would have been a brave man that put money on that 18 months ago.

The club say that they changed back to their original colours and name as part of the 125 year anniversary and I see little reason to not believe that. City wouldn't achieve anything by forcing them to change their name and colours as very few people actually care - the reason they were so close to going under in the first place!

The ground is going to be home to City's reserves and academy for three years so I don't see a problem with the City logo. Hyde still have there's up and when City move one after they've built their new facilities Hyde will replace the City logo with the word Hyde again.
Pisces Iscariot is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 10:09   #91
Fever Dawg
Genetically different
 
Fever Dawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Place Unbeknownst
Posts: 10,242
Thanks: 6
Thanked 11 Times in 6 Posts
The name change was announced 5 days before the partnership with City. Only a complete idiot would say the two weren't linked.

Last edited by Fever Dawg; 21-11-2011 at 10:53.
Fever Dawg is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 10:19   #92
Grunge
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warrington
Posts: 2,959
Thanks: 45
Thanked 27 Times in 24 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamBrunt View Post
I have a question for Citysmith as I honestly can't work how they're going to do it ...

City's losses last year were £195m (and that doesn't include the £75M they spent in the summer which will obviously be shown in next year figuress) and their wage bill exceeds their turnover [ eg Gate receipts of £19,676,000, wage Bill of £173,977,000 ]

According to FFP rules you must not have more than, on average, a £14M loss per year for the next 3 years. Given that 2011-2012 you are effectively starting at £75M loss how are City going to get to the required financial state ?
The FFP rules are quite complicated on what is and isn't included, Players salary is not included if they were bought before may 2010, so the likes of Santa Cruz, Tevez, Adebayor, Vieira, Sylvinho, Jo, SWP, Robinho, Onuoha, Bridge, Bellamy & Given etc etc are not actually included in them, and they are all considered surplus to requirement and are being sold.

Plus the FFP rules dont actually kick in for another 3 years so the current accounts will be viewed for a trend of income/expenditure and state that if the trend in growth suggests that the club will be self sufficient then thats enough for them.

So it's mostly clubs that are making losses and have no growth trend that need to be worried.

Our 195m losses dont take into consideration the Etihad deal, or the incsease in PL TV rights and CL money.

To save time ( i Have not had time to read and fully understand the numbers ) Im going to put a few bullet points from here

*£35m added as a one off "Exceptional item" ( Loss on Tevez? Assisted loans of players?.. .No idea personally )

*Revenue increase from £125m to £153m, we will easily top £200m next year. possibly even £230m,

*Taking £155m spent on players into consideration, we're only down £24m,

clearing all the surplus players should cover that, and with the increase in revenue coming in we should break even by the time the FFPR kick in and still have an upwards growth trend ( See Citysmiths post talking about £200m umbro deal )

One other thing I did hear ( gossip and rumour ) was all non essential staff from the club are being transferred into the academy to get there salaries away from the FFPR too.

I'll stick with my prediction, in 3 years time we will be making a profit ( based on income/outgoings ) and have no debt. It will take maybe 5/10 more years after that to break even with spending and start to make profit for the owner.

Last edited by Grunge; 21-11-2011 at 10:26.
Grunge is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 10:23   #93
Pisces Iscariot
The Pumpkin Smasher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 7,032
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fever Dawg View Post
The name change was announced 5 days before the partneship with City. Only a complete idiot would say the two weren't linked.
Most of the renovations were also done at that point too. You have to wonder just how long before then City got involved. Perhaps early enough to help them from going under...

If it makes you happy to think City are forcing Hyde to change their identity then that's your choice.

Last edited by Pisces Iscariot; 21-11-2011 at 10:25.
Pisces Iscariot is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 10:33   #94
Grunge
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warrington
Posts: 2,959
Thanks: 45
Thanked 27 Times in 24 Posts
I cant remember who it was to direct this at the right person. ( Edit: It would appear to be RustyBin )

So, the billion or so Man City are spending doing up east Manchester is only to the benefit of MCFC, I can see why you say that as everything that is being done at the moment benefits the club as well as the City, just because it benefits The club directly, does not mean it's not a benefit to the city.

But here's one, hundreds of jobs being created at Manchester Airport by Etihad. This is totally outside Man City's influence but wouldn't have happened without Man City!.

And just a feel good story, Man City save a 114 year old boys boxing club. But I guess that benefits Man city in some way too?

Last edited by Grunge; 21-11-2011 at 10:40.
Grunge is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 10:41   #95
AdamBrunt
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 26,333
Thanks: 197
Thanked 376 Times in 262 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunge View Post
Plus the FFP rules dont actually kick in for another 3 years so the current accounts will be viewed for a trend of income/expenditure and state that if the trend in growth suggests that the club will be self sufficient then thats enough for them.
Yes, the FFP rules don't kick in for another 3 years but when they do start they will be based on the previous 3 years accounts ie you have 3 yrs to 'break even' not 6.

Good luck in getting rid of all those players (yes Bellamy and Given have already gone) but you make it sound like you'll be able to shift the likes of Adebayor and Tevez easily

What increase in PL TV rights ? The contract isn't up for renegotiation until the end of the 2012-2013 season.

Did you also pick that revenue increase, from £153M to £230M, out of thin air ? Or are you assuming that City are going to win the PL and CL every year from now on ? I am taking the Daily Star (!!!) article with a massive pinch of salt btw.

Finally, if that rumour is true - how are UEFA going to allow that ? If they did surely every club could just move their reserve players' salaries to their academies as well ? How do define "non essential" ?

And that's before UEFA have even seriously looked at the £400m Etihad deal which everyone else suspects to be extremely dodgy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunge View Post
But here's one, hundreds of jobs being created at Manchester Airport by Etihad. This is totally outside Man City's influence but wouldn't have happened without Man City!.
Explain to me how that works - Etihad realise the potential in Manchester Airport but that's only because of Man City ?? That would be like saying the only reason Emirate airlines add flights at Heathrow is because of Arsenal.

Last edited by AdamBrunt; 21-11-2011 at 10:45.
AdamBrunt is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 10:52   #96
campdave
Trusted User
 
campdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 6,179
Thanks: 13
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunge View Post

But here's one, hundreds of jobs being created at Manchester Airport by Etihad. This is totally outside Man City's influence but wouldn't have happened without Man City!.
That makes no sense. Etihad already operated out of Manchester international and wanted to increase services to become profitable. This is down to City because?

Edited - ******* hell, I agree with Adam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunge View Post
And just a feel good story, Man City save a 114 year old boys boxing club. But I guess that benefits Man city
in some way too?
Good for City - but they won't be the only football club involved in projects in the community.

Last edited by campdave; 21-11-2011 at 11:00.
campdave is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 11:04   #97
Grunge
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warrington
Posts: 2,959
Thanks: 45
Thanked 27 Times in 24 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamBrunt View Post
Yes, the FFP rules don't kick in for another 3 years but when they do start they will be based on the previous 3 years accounts ie you have 3 yrs to 'break even' not 6.
I never said we did, However there are parts in there that start if there is a trend in growth pointing they wont kick you out of the CL, maybe there will be other small things they can do?.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamBrunt View Post
Good luck in getting rid of all those players (yes Bellamy and Given have already gone) but you make it sound like you'll be able to shift the likes of Adebayor and Tevez easily
It doesn't matter if we don't get rid of them, all of the salaries of the players mentioned don't count to FFPR anyway but money we get in from selling them count as income for the FFPR.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamBrunt View Post
What increase in PL TV rights ? The contract isn't up for renegotiation until the end of the 2012-2013 season.
Maybe im wrong on that one, I read somewhere about increases in PL TV rights but I cant seem to find it again so am probably wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamBrunt View Post
Did you also pick that revenue increase, from £153M to £230M, out of thin air ? Or are you assuming that City are going to win the PL and CL every year from now on ? I am taking the Daily Star (!!!) article with a massive pinch of salt btw.
The figures were pluck from the link as I stated.

currently 153m + 35m from Etihad + £25m from group stage CL is £213m, So trying to find another £17m from extra shirt sales, extra gate sales and extra sponsorship does not seem out of the realms of possibility.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamBrunt View Post
Finally, if that rumour is true - how are UEFA going to allow that ? If they did surely every club could just move their reserve players' salaries to their academies as well ? How do define "non essential" ?
Non essential Staff, as in back room staff, not players/coaches etc etc. city hired something like 160 back room staff when the take over happened, those that dont have direct interaction with the first team can be handed over to "the campus" and there salaries removed from the overhead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamBrunt View Post
And that's before UEFA have even seriously looked at the £400m Etihad deal which everyone else suspects to be extremely dodgy.
At most I would think UEFA will say they look into it to save face with all the other clubs having a whine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamBrunt View Post
Explain to me how that works - Etihad realise the potential in Manchester Airport but that's only because of Man City ?? That would be like saying the only reason Emirate airlines add flights at Heathrow is because of Arsenal.
Out of the 1000's and 1000's of airports in the world, Etihad just happen to pick the airport in the city where they sponsor a football club to expand there operations. doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to see they are linked. if they are not it's one hell of a coincidence dont you think?

Last edited by Grunge; 21-11-2011 at 11:10.
Grunge is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 11:13   #98
campdave
Trusted User
 
campdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 6,179
Thanks: 13
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunge View Post
Out of the 1000's and 1000's of airports in the world, Etihad just happen to pick the airport in the city where they sponsor a football club to expand there operations. doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to see they are linked. if they are not it's one hell of a coincidence dont you think?
Out of the 1000s and 1000s of airports in the world, but the second largest international Airport in the UK, that they already operate out of and currently run a loss at?

Still, wahey for City, I'm convinced now.

Last edited by campdave; 21-11-2011 at 11:16.
campdave is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 11:15   #99
Grunge
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warrington
Posts: 2,959
Thanks: 45
Thanked 27 Times in 24 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by campdave View Post
Or just a pure business decision to stop making a loss?
? how would that make sense? setting up in one of the worlds most expensive countries to stop making a loss. if you have the entire world as possibilities you chose the cheapest if it's a purely financial decision.

Last edited by Grunge; 21-11-2011 at 11:18.
Grunge is offline  
Old 21-11-2011, 11:21   #100
campdave
Trusted User
 
campdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 6,179
Thanks: 13
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunge View Post
? how would that make sense? setting up in one of the worlds most expensive countries to stop making a loss. if you have the entire world as possibilities you chose the cheapest if it's a purely financial decision.
On purely financial decisions why would a company making a loss invest so much money into a football club? That's not suspicious at all.
campdave is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Manchester City 2011-2012 Thread Alan b Sports Forum 1024 09-11-2011 16:27
The Manchester City 2010-2011 Thread Alan b Sports Forum 998 28-07-2011 15:26
The Manchester City thread Guest 34189 Sports Forum 1006 02-01-2009 18:30

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.qq
Copyright ©2000 - 2021 Network N Ltd.