• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Financial Fair Play

Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

It's not like we're the only ones to sign big sponsorship deals. Ours aren't even the biggest in the league anymore, I'm sure I remember Liverpool signing a massive one
Have you seen the type of sponsorship deals that United have signed recently? They have something ridiculous like an official paint partner, which is worth a good few million. Every team is pinching pennies.


lol you have the 5th highest commerical revenue in the world. It's hardly because of your pull is it? Don't be deluded. It is over £50 more than Chelsea and double Arsenals who have been established CL participants for a good decade or so and as painful as it is are huge all around the world. Its fairly obvious that your vast increase has come about through being sponsored by your own owner for vastly inflated sums.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Arsenal plus Chelsea £152.0m

Emirates Marketing Project £138.5m

Juventus plus Inter £123.3m
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Is it just me or do City appear to not be able to attract a lot of glory hunters?
 
lol you have the 5th highest commerical revenue in the world. It's hardly because of your pull is it? Don't be deluded. It is over £50 more than Chelsea and double Arsenals who have been established CL participants for a good decade or so and as painful as it is are huge all around the world. Its fairly obvious that your vast increase has come about through being sponsored by your own owner for vastly inflated sums.

I'm not being deluded mate. The records for the next year will see us drop noticeably, as all of the other teams' sponsorship deals come into consideration. I'm just being realistic, no need to be offended by it.
I'm not going to go into defending the sponsorship deals, that argument has been done to complete death.


Is it just me or do City appear to not be able to attract a lot of glory hunters?

Very true. In terms of selling merchandise, we are well behind the others. But in terms of filling the current stadium, we're okay. I think the report said we were at 99% capacity for the last season. But if we expand the stadium then the glory hunter problem will become very apparent. That's my biggest worry. It will sound very crass on here, but for me, it's quite a nice problem to have considering what I'm used to as a City fan.
 
Last edited:
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Position Club Revenue (€m)

(last season) 2011-12 (2010-11)

1 (1) Real Madrid 512.6 (479.5)

2 (2) Barcelona 483 (450.7)

3 (3) Manchester Utd 395.9 (367)

4 (4) Bayern Munich 368.4 (321.4)

5 (5) Chelsea 322.6 (253.1)

6 (6) Arsenal 290.3 (251.1)

7 (12) Emirates Marketing Project 285.6 (169.6)

8 (7) Milan 256.9 (234.8)

9 (9) Liverpool 233.2 (203.3)

10 (13) Juventus 195.4 (153.9)

11 (16) Borussia Dortmund 189.1 (138.5)

12 (8) Internazionale 185.9 (211.4)

13 (11) Tottenham 178.2 (181)

14 (10) Schalke 174.5 (202.4)

15 (20) Napoli 148.4 (114.9)

16 (14) Marseille 135.7 (150.4)

17 (17) Lyon 131.9 (132.8)

18 (18) Hamburg 121.1 (128.8)

19 (15) Roma 115.9 (143.5)

20 (-) Saudi Sportswashing Machine 115.3 (98)

More evidence that Real Madrid are indeed the biggest club in the world, not Man United.

I know this is old news, but I still can't figure out how Emirates Marketing Project can pocket so much money from Etihad Airways for naming rights of Eastlands, and yet they are paying very little of that revenue back to the Emirates Marketing Project council, who actually own the stadium.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

City struck a deal, changing from a percentage of the gate above 32k (or something around that) to a guaranteed annual fee. Presumably they changed the terms for sponsorship at the same time.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

I'm not being deluded mate. The records for the next year will see us drop noticeably, as all of the other teams' sponsorship deals come into consideration. I'm just being realistic, no need to be offended by it.
I'm not going to go into defending the sponsorship deals, that argument has been done to complete death.
You really are mate. You talk about Liverpool and Man Utd's deals, but these are two clubs who are hugely bigger than Emirates Marketing Project, hugely famous World wide, with 10 times the number of fans that Emirates Marketing Project have and increased exposure of the same magnitude. This exposure all been achieved due to those two teams being head and shoulders the two most successful English clubs ever.

Of course there is no way to PROVE that City's deal is WAY over-valued. Your owners have been very clever there, but you know as well as we do that in the real World and having to stick to a market that doesn't include bloated revenues from companies linked to your owners, your commercial revenue would be somewhere around the level of ours. After 10 years of sustained success and the inevitable hoovering up of the glory hunters you could start to approach Chelsea's revenues and perhaps after 20 years of success your level should be that of Liverpool's.

It's pretty obvious to all but the most one-eyed City supporter (perhaps that's you?!?) that Emirates Marketing Project's commercial revenue is nowhere near market rate, to try to pretend otherwise is futile. I think deep down you know that you're simply the kid who has completed his panini football sticker albumn because his Dad bought Panini for him.... But it's fine because you're "doing it in the right way!" :lol:
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

More evidence that Real Madrid are indeed the biggest club in the world, not Man United.

I think it depends how you define it. Real Madrid are the club with the highest turnover in the World but that's simply because Spanish clubs negotiate their own TV deals, so Real Madrid and Barcelona take about 80% of the revenue's between them and the others live off the scraps of the remaining 20% We should be afraid because of we were to move to a similar system Man Utd and (to a lesser extent) Liverpool would improve their revenue's massively at the expense of all of the other teams.... oh except Emirates Marketing Project of course as I'm sure their owners would simply purchase their rights for about five times market value via one of their broadcasting companies...
 
You really are mate. You talk about Liverpool and Man Utd's deals, but these are two clubs who are hugely bigger than Emirates Marketing Project, hugely famous World wide, with 10 times the number of fans that Emirates Marketing Project have and increased exposure of the same magnitude. This exposure all been achieved due to those two teams being head and shoulders the two most successful English clubs ever.

Of course there is no way to PROVE that City's deal is WAY over-valued. Your owners have been very clever there, but you know as well as we do that in the real World and having to stick to a market that doesn't include bloated revenues from companies linked to your owners, your commercial revenue would be somewhere around the level of ours. After 10 years of sustained success and the inevitable hoovering up of the glory hunters you could start to approach Chelsea's revenues and perhaps after 20 years of success your level should be that of Liverpool's.

It's pretty obvious to all but the most one-eyed City supporter (perhaps that's you?!?) that Emirates Marketing Project's commercial revenue is nowhere near market rate, to try to pretend otherwise is futile. I think deep down you know that you're simply the kid who has completed his panini football sticker albumn because his Dad bought Panini for him.... But it's fine because you're "doing it in the right way!" :lol:

It really does make me laugh when people but things like "what you say is futile". It's like ending a sentence saying "fact", just because you believe it, doesn't really make it so. There are a number of reasons which make the Etihad sponsorship somewhat more valuable than you are insinuating, and if you had read the Deloitte report, maybe you wouldn't need me to spell it out for you.

The exposure we received last season was actually higher than anyone else's. We received more money per game, as more of our league matches were televised than anyone else's. More people saw our team play, which means more people saw the Etihad sponsor. I'm not sure, but I think basic economics tells us that means the Etihad sponsor is the most valuable in the league. Another interesting point is that we had the most Champions League games televised on terrestrial this year, too. Though this might be influenced more by the calibre of teams we were playing, the point is the same.

Now, I know I'm not stupid. Just because we were on the telly more than United and much more than Liverpool doesn't mean our sponsorships are more valuable. We don't sell anywhere near as many shirts as they do worldwide, and I seriously doubt our success will last long enough to see us match the numbers. But to call me deluded when you're the one who isn't looking at the bigger picture is hypocritical to say the least. The £40m-per-season Etihad deal doesn't just cover shirts and stadium rights. It's the whole area around the stadium too, and the approved developments that are coming in a few years. We are building a completely new stadium for reserves and youth games, completely new training facilities and a new training centre. The only thing not included in the deal is the Sixth Form school the club are building and gifting to the council.

Compare the full-scale of the deal with the rise the investors predict, and I hope you aren't too one-eyed to see we aren't exactly ignoring the FFP rules, like PSG. Our wage bill has been cut, our revenues have risen greatly in all areas, the stadium is getting filled (with some of the cheapest tickets in the league) and general expenditure is dropping. The value of the deal is definitely inflated to an extent. But so is everyone else's. All clubs are finding a way to circumvent FFP regulations. United have an Official Matchday Potato Snack Partner, and an Official Drinking Responsibly in Asia Partner.

That Panini analogy was a good one though, genuinely not heard that one before.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

It really does make me laugh when people but things like "what you say is futile". It's like ending a sentence saying "fact", just because you believe it, doesn't really make it so. There are a number of reasons which make the Etihad sponsorship somewhat more valuable than you are insinuating, and if you had read the Deloitte report, maybe you wouldn't need me to spell it out for you.

The exposure we received last season was actually higher than anyone else's. We received more money per game, as more of our league matches were televised than anyone else's. More people saw our team play, which means more people saw the Etihad sponsor. I'm not sure, but I think basic economics tells us that means the Etihad sponsor is the most valuable in the league. Another interesting point is that we had the most Champions League games televised on terrestrial this year, too. Though this might be influenced more by the calibre of teams we were playing, the point is the same.

Now, I know I'm not stupid. Just because we were on the telly more than United and much more than Liverpool doesn't mean our sponsorships are more valuable. We don't sell anywhere near as many shirts as they do worldwide, and I seriously doubt our success will last long enough to see us match the numbers. But to call me deluded when you're the one who isn't looking at the bigger picture is hypocritical to say the least. The £40m-per-season Etihad deal doesn't just cover shirts and stadium rights. It's the whole area around the stadium too, and the approved developments that are coming in a few years. We are building a completely new stadium for reserves and youth games, completely new training facilities and a new training centre. The only thing not included in the deal is the Sixth Form school the club are building and gifting to the council.

Compare the full-scale of the deal with the rise the investors predict, and I hope you aren't too one-eyed to see we aren't exactly ignoring the FFP rules, like PSG. Our wage bill has been cut, our revenues have risen greatly in all areas, the stadium is getting filled (with some of the cheapest tickets in the league) and general expenditure is dropping. The value of the deal is definitely inflated to an extent. But so is everyone else's. All clubs are finding a way to circumvent FFP regulations. United have an Official Matchday Potato Snack Partner, and an Official Drinking Responsibly in Asia Partner.

That Panini analogy was a good one though, genuinely not heard that one before.

I don't blame you for defending your team, but it's the Emirates Marketing Project fans that just shrug off the fact that they have money and act like they would have got to where they are today regardless of the money.

I wouldn't even put your club in the top 7 biggest clubs in England, so there's no way you'd be attracting these kind of deals without Sheikh Mansour and his money.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

We're 13th in the new Deloitte 'rich list'.

http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/fourfo...s-deloitte-s-football-money-league-2013.aspx?

Interesting that Saudi Sportswashing Machine have broken in at 20th. I guess the power of the Prem deals and their big gates have swung it for them.

Presumably we will slip down the Deloitte table next year on the back of our revenue fall just reported.

I'd guess we'll still be 6th amongst the English clubs, can't see Toon overtaking us.

With regards to 'financial fair play' Spain is an embarrassment. Their big two head the list and that's it for the top 20.

City make more commercially than Barca or Real ? fudge off.
 
I don't blame you for defending your team, but it's the Emirates Marketing Project fans that just shrug off the fact that they have money and act like they would have got to where they are today regardless of the money.

I wouldn't even put your club in the top 7 biggest clubs in England, so there's no way you'd be attracting these kind of deals without Sheikh Mansour and his money.

Oh yeah, any fan that acts like that should be slapped. On the pitch, we were okay. Our academy was in a good place, and we were pushing for Europa League each season. But to say we'd be champions by now is delusional. Personally, I don't know any City fan. We still constantly expect the worst, and everyone who sits around me in the ground are the same doom-and-gloom pessimists as under Shinawatra.


City make more commercially than Barca or Real ? fudge off.

Last season was a perfect storm for us, commercially. We won the league, and we were the first team to bring in massive sponsorship deals. After this season, where we probably won't win the league and other teams' deals are considered, we'll slide down the table again. Come on, keep up.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

Oh yeah, any fan that acts like that should be slapped. On the pitch, we were okay. Our academy was in a good place, and we were pushing for Europa League each season. But to say we'd be champions by now is delusional. Personally, I don't know any City fan. We still constantly expect the worst, and everyone who sits around me in the ground are the same doom-and-gloom pessimists as under Shinawatra.




Last season was a perfect storm for us, commercially. We won the league, and we were the first team to bring in massive sponsorship deals. After this season, where we probably won't win the league and other teams' deals are considered, we'll slide down the table again. Come on, keep up.


Assuming commercial deals are offered on a year by year basis?


Teams don't get big commercial deals based on a single year of performing well. Unless of course the investor is linked to the owner of the club.
 
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

City make more commercially than Barca or Real ? fudge off.

HI Wriggly, well 4-4-2 are presumably only quoting Deloitte. But the way I read it that's not true anyway. According to my tired old eyes the graphics showCity make less commercially than Real, Barca, oh and Man U for local interest :)
 
Last edited:
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play

More evidence that Real Madrid are indeed the biggest club in the world, not Man United.

I know this is old news, but I still can't figure out how Emirates Marketing Project can pocket so much money from Etihad Airways for naming rights of Eastlands, and yet they are paying very little of that revenue back to the Emirates Marketing Project council, who actually own the stadium.

If Man Utd were allowed to negotiate their own TV deal - as Real and Barca do, I believe - then they would be up there with the Spanish duo.
 
Back