ender4 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Any one know how they have faired financially this year. How will they meet UEFAs Fair play rule? 2010/2011: Revenue - £153m Wages - £174m Annual Loss - £195m They are nowhere close to meeting FFP as things stand. but they have the £40m a season for Etihad sponsorship for 2011/12, CL payments of around £40m, rumours that Umbro are willing to give a one-off payment of £200m to keep them as long-term shirt-makers, and all sorts of other things in the pipeline to increase their revenue. they're also allowed to discount players wages who were bought before a certain point (2010?), and as long as they are reducing their losses each year and show that they are moving towards break-even, they will probably be given an extra couple of years to sort themselves out. By which time you'd expect their wages would plateau (or even fall), and revenue will keep on climbing as the become even more successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 they've signed with nike already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 City's rise crippled us, as they took our two best players and with us being us we couldn't adequately replace them. The PL was the ganechanger, United exploited it huigely and it propelled them up, Chelsea broke it, and City are just copying Chelsea. The way football is. Clubs trying to do it the proper way like Everton are in danger of being close to a financial trapdoor. Footballs ****, but City aren't purely to blame. You can't really blame anyone at all. There are no rules to stop a Man City or a Chelsea doing what they've done. Rampant capitalism is what has broken football, just the same as it's broken most other things. I'm not so sure football can be compared to the real world in that respect. "Rampant capitalism" works in the real world because businesses are just that - businesses. With football clubs it's a little different as they are obviously more than just businesses hence why it doesn't really work in football. I'm not sure football clubs are "obviously more than just businesses".. maybe once they were, but these days? I'd have to disagree. Football is big business first, sport second, fans and community a very distant last. Capitalism works nowhere. It **** everything it touches. Although maybe that's unfair... you could equally say that people's greed for money above all other things **** everything... be it sport, music, food, the planet... I blame the lizard people.Football clubs are still much more than businesses to the fans. That's why this "rampant capitalism" doesn't work in football from the perspective of the fans. It does work in the real world actually. It may not be perfect but it's better than anything else out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 What did City do that Chelsea didnt? They used money to attract players to the club who otherwise woudn't have been interested. Chelsea signed players who would arguably have signed for them anyway, but City signing Robinho and co was (initially at least) all down to the fact they waved a huge wad of cash at them. That's the difference for me. Chelsea didnt do much more than Villa did, they used financial backing to propell them a bit further up the league. They were already a good side, investment only ever took them up 3-5 places. You could argue that in the context of relativity, Villa relied on owner backing more than Chelsea did during Oneill's years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Revisionist history ftw. Chelsea had been overspending ever since Matthew Harding took over, in fact they spent so much of his money they were in genuine danger of "doing a Leeds" before Leeds went belly up. If they hadnt beat Liverpool on the final day of the 2002/03 season then they would probably have never been taken over by Roman Abramovich (the match report makes for interesting reading, especially as it was written just weeks before the takeover) and might still be playing lower league football now. So if anything Chelsea are worse than City because they went on sugar daddy funded spending sprees twice. But as ever, football has an incredibly short memory and anything which happened more than ten years ago is considered ancient history. I do wonder what happens when a Chinese billionaire decides he wants a Premier League club in 2020 and people declare that to be the day football died because they have already forgotten the route which Man City took to the top. You are living proof it's already happened with Chelsea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I think transfers are the worst thing about football. If you a small club produces a good player ,a big club comes along and steals him. The NFL draft system is much better. Whoever finishes lasts gets the first pick (of the best young players) in the draft. Whoever finishes first gets the last pick. Much more fair. I also like the cricket model where everyone plays for their local team. Again much more fair. Transfers should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Revisionist history ftw. Chelsea had been overspending ever since Matthew Harding took over, in fact they spent so much of his money they were in genuine danger of "doing a Leeds" before Leeds went belly up. If they hadnt beat Liverpool on the final day of the 2002/03 season then they would probably have never been taken over by Roman Abramovich (the match report makes for interesting reading, especially as it was written just weeks before the takeover) and might still be playing lower league football now. So if anything Chelsea are worse than City because they went on sugar daddy funded spending sprees twice. But as ever, football has an incredibly short memory and anything which happened more than ten years ago is considered ancient history. I do wonder what happens when a Chinese billionaire decides he wants a Premier League club in 2020 and people declare that to be the day football died because they have already forgotten the route which Man City took to the top. You are living proof it's already happened with Chelsea. Totally this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted May 30, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 30, 2012 The NFL draft system is much better. Whoever finishes lasts gets the first pick (of the best young players) in the draft. Whoever finishes first gets the last pick. There's no relegation/promotion though. So ultimately small clubs will always remain small clubs, big clubs will always be big clubs. How is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Maybe something like a salary cap would help ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 The NFL draft system is much better. Whoever finishes lasts gets the first pick (of the best young players) in the draft. Whoever finishes first gets the last pick. There's no relegation/promotion though. So ultimately small clubs will always remain small clubs, big clubs will always be big clubs. How is that fair? Not true. Any team has a shot at winning it all with the right coaching and transfers. Look at the NBA for example where the Oklahoma City thunder, relatively new franchise playing in their second Conference Final in a row. Of course there are 'big teams', but the gulf is nowhere near as wide as it is in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 The NFL draft system is much better. Whoever finishes lasts gets the first pick (of the best young players) in the draft. Whoever finishes first gets the last pick. There's no relegation/promotion though. So ultimately small clubs will always remain small clubs, big clubs will always be big clubs. How is that fair? Not really. The "small clubs" will get access to the best young players in the draft which help them them improve and catch up with the "big clubs." The big clubs never get relegated in England anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Maybe something like a salary cap would help ? Good point. If Man United can only offer the same wages as Wigan Athletic then maybe a player would be more likely to be loyal and stay at Wigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted May 30, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 30, 2012 Maybe something like a salary cap would help ? Good point. If Man United can only offer the same wages as Wigan Athletic then maybe a player would be more likely to loyal and stay at Wigan.They will ALWAYS find loopholes - payment in kind, bonuses, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 30, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 30, 2012 Plus I think salary caps would breach European Law or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 What about wage budget caps? So a clubs total wage bill can only be x amount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted May 30, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 30, 2012 The NFL draft system is much better. Whoever finishes lasts gets the first pick (of the best young players) in the draft. Whoever finishes first gets the last pick. There's no relegation/promotion though. So ultimately small clubs will always remain small clubs, big clubs will always be big clubs. How is that fair? Not really. The "small clubs" will get access to the best young players in the draft which help them them improve and catch up with the "big clubs." The big clubs never get relegated in England anyway. So what you're suggesting is... Newly promoted sides (with fans of 20kish) get to have Van Persie and Rooney, and then the Man UTDs and Arsenals (with fans of 60kish) pick the newley promoted teams players, and then and struggle and nearly get relegated? Then will this formula be used in all divisions of football? Or just the Premier League? That's just stupid. It would never ever ever ever work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 It cant work here, but not for those reasons. We dont have a system of college athletics like they do in the USA. We do have many rival leagues, which is a problem they do not have in the USA. The Premier League are interested in having a strong Premier League. If they impose a draconian salary cap then the best players just piss off to play in Spain or Italy instead, the league isnt as attractive to TV audiences, the TV deal takes a nosedive and everybody loses a ton of money. The league is in a hole it cant get back out of and the top players are still earning £10m a year, its just that they are doing it overseas. Football in Europe is a victim to that most American of concepts, the free market. There is nothing we can really do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Wasn't it Jimmy Hill who got rid of the salary cap in football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 i saw 2 kids, probably 7/8 in city shirts in kiddy today depressing times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Oddly more City fans in Stafford these days that there used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts