I GOT myself into one of those ‘mini-wars’ on Twitter the other day. The type where you spew 140 characters quickly but are then forced to regret at leisure. My ire concerned news of further ‘reforms’ to UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regs, and was fuelled by the reading of a piece of transfer gossip that projected that Manchester City hoped to bag both Raheem Sterling AND Paul Pogba for about £120m. “How can those shameless fuckers be getting away with this profligacy again!” I railed. Something like that.
Anyway. I was taken to task by a Mr Ahsan Naeem — @ahsannaeem — an erudite Manchester City fan, who it transpires also really enjoys listening to The Anfield Wrap. Ahsan asked if he could make his counter case to my sophisticated dismissal of Man City’s reckless business plan and its relationship to FFP via a direct email, rather than within the constraints of Twitter. What followed was this: a thorough lecture that entirely contradicted my (and I suspect most lay) understanding of the Manchester City ownership model.
His case was something of a paradigm shift for me. Read it and see what you think. Then hassle John Henry on Twitter, and get him to have a look too. Cheers. Over to you Ahsan:
LAST summer City actually only made an operating loss of £7million. However, due to UEFA deciding that City had failed FFP with regards their 2013 accounts, they were fined £16m. This fine was ‘suspended’ in the sense that if City’s 2014-15 accounts showed that the club had turned a profit (which they will) the fine would be returned. The way in which the fines work is that UEFA simply withhold Champions League prize money. Effectively the sanctions were imposed based upon 2013, but implemented in 2014, when the club had already almost entirely wiped out their losses.
The effect of this is that as of this summer City are now free fromUEFA sanctions. At the same time their profits this summer will be significant due to the returned Champions League monies onto the books, plus the new television deal. Conservatively, before sales, City will have somewhere in the region of £75m to spend before any outgoings.
You asked the question on Twitter about how City square the circle of spending double that if not more this summer. Well, simply put, I would suggest that the club are confident that their revenues will continue to grow exponentially. If the club take the same approach as post 2011’s spending, i.e. the squad is complete so any movements with regards incoming players after this summer will be directly linked to players leaving, then it’s simply a matter of them being able to keep the wage bill steady, and then believing in their own ability to continue to grow revenues significantly enough to cover a heavy one summer outlay. As fees are amortised for accounting purposes, a heavy spend one summer is easily workable.
Our wage bill is already significantly less than it was in 2012, and with Dzeko, Jovetic and maybe another first teamer to leave on top of Milner and Lampard, that bill comes down even further. That leaves plenty of room for the wages of Sterling, Pogba, and one or two others. Even if the bill were to go up marginally from 2014 that is more than acceptable with regards to FFP because we’re a profitable business investing in it’s own future.
(All of this is of course premised on the notion that FFP will still exist in three years’ time, which judging by the recent Belgian court ruling is, in my opinion, unlikely.)
On a more general note, I’m a long time listener and a subscriber to the TAW player shows. You have generally always been relatively fair to City, up to and including The Price of Sterling show where some of you guys were honest enough to say that a move to City might actually be good for Raheem.
However, the one misconception you guys have, which in many respects is understandable, is that the club is run in an ad-hoc manner when it comes to spending with no controls in place or no interest in being sustainable. The truth is quite the opposite. When the club was bought out the owners put forward a plan, and said that they expected the club to be relatively self sustaining by the end of their first five-year cycle. That has come to fruition and yet it’s something that the club rarely, if ever, gets any credit for. It was a bold plan which required heavy investment early on, but it has paid off as we have won two leagues and two domestic cups in five years, have established ourselves in the top four, and yet this summer will show a rather large profit.
This is from December when our accounts were released:
“We have moved beyond the period of heavy investment that was required to make the Club competitive again, it is commercial growth of the kind we are seeing today that will underpin and support our operations in the future.”
The Chairman concludes that today the Club “is where we hoped it would be when we began this transformation six years ago” and eagerly looks to what lies ahead for the Club and its supporters.
Chief Executive Officer Ferran Soriano, supporting the thoughts of the Chairman points to “a new level of financial sustainability” and outlines that not only has the Club halved losses for three consecutive years, but that it has budgeted for a profit in 2014-15 and the club expects to be entering the 2015-16 season with no outstanding sanctions or restrictions.
I can hear the cries now of “yeah, but he’s just using his own companies to sponsor the club”. The reality is that since Etihad sponsored City in 2011 their own market share as an airline has grown exponentially, as have their own revenues worldwide. It represents less than 10 per cent of our overall revenue now, and it is in fact something that UEFA went through with a fine toothcomb before signing off on because it’s clear that it benefits both parties as all these kinds of deals do.
Personally, I think FFP is a quagmire of bullshit which is awful for football. Our league has grown as has the money available from Premier League television rights precisely because of the investment of Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour. This has led to a far more competitive and interesting league than the one previously dominated by Liverpool, Manchester United, and latterly Arsenal. Although you might wish those days back, I think you can understand why the supporters of clubs outside of the traditional hegemony within European football would welcome anything that gives them a chance to compete.
It’ll be interesting to see what FSG do next. I don’t for one minute believe that you’ve spent hard this summer without banking on the Sterling money coming in. But lets imagine for one minute that they have. Is there really a plan there to aggressively get you back into the top four? As Neil Atkinson said on a show recently, you can’t buy players to finish fourth — you have to buy to try to win the league because ultimately that’s exactly how City, Arsenal, United and Chelsea are going to spend.
I don’t see FSG spending like that. I see them spending in exactly the same manner as Spurs, right up to and including the signing of Firmino which has all the echoes of Lamela joining Spurs after Bale left. Their trying to find a back door to the Champions League without committing anything like the wages required to do it. This is just my opinion, but that’s not good enough for where Liverpool should be. I don’t spend the hours I do listening to the Wrap and the TAW player stuff because I hate Liverpool, quite the opposite. I feel a real affinity with the supporters, not least because one of my best friends is a life-long Red. I’d love to see you guys usurp United, but to do that you need an owner committed to doing it, with a long-term plan.
FSG’s plan seems to be bank on UEFA and FFP doing them a favour, which is never going to happen. We all know in ANY walk of life money talks, especially when it’s cash money not loaned from a banking institution.
I hope you take this in the spirit intended. Just wanted to give you a City supporters’ perspective on your question, FFP, and generally how our club is run in comparison to others. It won’t surprise you to learn that I think we have the best owners in European football and the best executives making sure that we continue to grow in the right way. This isn’t about sugar daddies and whatever other cliché you want to throw at City or Chelsea. It’s about growing a business to challenge already established businesses.
[rpfc_recent_posts_from_category meta=”true”]
Pics: David Rawcliffe-Propaganda Photo
Like The Anfield Wrap on Facebook
Subscribe to TAW Player: https://www.theanfieldwrap.com/player/subscribe
While he makes some good points I don’t think u can say city sponsorship money was anything other than using another company to allow city to spend crazy money on wages . The money they receive from etihad is way over the stand sponsorship amounts given especially at the time when the deal was done and city not having anything like the global following of the likes is Liverpool and utd
Paul Cope @paul7cope
This is a great article. @connorbsc can also reply to the 1st comment – city’s sponsorship lower than market rate…
The Etihad deal represents good value for Etihad… if you compare it against many of the deals in global support it probably under-valued…
City have yet to capitalise on the areas which other clubs have (DHL training kit sponsership from our cousins at the swamp as example)
This is a great article but it also doesn’t reflect one huge piece of development and that is the regeneration of East Manchester. A whole side of the City has benefitted from our owners commitment to invest in not only a football club but a City and it’s people – Thank you Sheikh Mansour
When was the last time the Glazers invested any money in the City of Manchester, or even Salford for that matter!
You’re a blinkered moron, the only reason united and Liverpool Football Club have huge global fanbases is because of sustained finance and success, if you took all that way your clubs would probably be no bigger than Leeds United. Oh how your clubs loved spending millions while the rest of England scraped by, hypocrites with double standards. I’m Scum
I’ve no problem with the current City model but the rest of your post is simply wrong. City were spending millions way before Liverpool. Or aren’t you old enough to remember the legendary Kevin Reeves or the magnificent Steve Daley. Liverpool’s first million pound buy? Peter Beardsley.
Our shirt and stadium sponsor is a combined £25 million per annum. Nearly the exact same amount yourselves and Spurs make from similar deals.
The Wtihad deal, as stated in the email represents 10-11% of our revenue. It was also examined by Gill and his boys at UEFA.
The Etihad deal when broken down isn’t that big.
35-40m per year for
1. Shirt Sponsorship
2. Stadium naming rights
3. And sponsorship of the new Training ground
2+3 together known as “The Etihad Campus”
You also have to remember that it’s not just about how many shirts you sell, Champions League audiences is a big factor too
Yeah, it’s laughable to dismiss the sponsorship deal and acclaim City’s supposed profits in this wa. Equally, suggesting that the sugar daddy model that causes extreme inflation in wages and fees and cements inequality gives hope to smaller clubs is bizarre.
City’s achievements are economic ones not sporting ones.
And that’s without getting into the morality of having sporting success bankrolled by the sovereign wealth fund of a repressive regime and forced migrant labour.
Nico Remind me again how much you paid for Andy Carroll ?
Daniel Sturridge left City purely for money – who does he play for now ?
Unfortunately your comments smack of envy – gone are the days of a team full of Scousers/Manc’s that can dominate European football. Unfortunately football is a business and in business typically the highest investors succeed (not always but typically)
The “it’s a business” argument is the weakest. FSG run Liverpool as a business. Even the Glazers run United as a business. The have to operate within normal financial constraints and may make investment or periodic losses to pursue a longer term investment. City spent a billion pounds as part of a PR exercise for a repressive regime. The people of south Manchester might be grateful to the Sheikh for their playing fields and leisure facilities but the people of the UAE and their migrant workers probably aren’t so grateful.
Playing fields and leisure facilities? You forgot a school (Connell Sixth Form College ), the Beswick Hub, The Manchester Institute for Health and Performance (www.mihp.co.uk) oh and the 6,000 houses to be built in the next 10 years of which the first 300 are starting this summer. All funded by Sheikh Mansour’s own company. Then there is the Chairman Khaldoon’s separate investment of a 3000 room student village in Owens Park, Manchester. When your kids go to uni in Mcr, they’ll have somewhere nice to live….So, keep hitting us with the (incorrect) human rights stick, as it’s the only one you have left.
Christ. What have education facilities in Manchester got to do with human rights abuses in the UAE?
“… and may make investment or periodic losses to pursue a longer term investment.”
That is *exactly* what City’s owners have done. City’s revenue has grown from around £70M per annum in 2008 to over £350M in 2014 – 2015, and it continues to grow. The only way to achieve that kind of growth in modern football is through a substantial upfront investment.
Let’s not get too sanctimonious about the moral persuasions of respective owners. A City fan might retort that at least theirs don’t provide planes allowing for abducted individuals to be secretly and illegally extraordinarily rendered into the control of repressive regimes where they have been brutally tortured. Nobody comes out well in those arguments so best left alone. Unless we want to face a few home truths of our own.
FSG nor Hicks & Gillette were an instrument of the US state.
Except FSG, at least their board of directors, are like the Tories of the USA.
And I didn’t suggest they were. What I did say was that they leased their planes to the CIA which were used for the purpose of renditioning suspects to places where they were subjected to torture. Profiteering from torture isn’t exactly the golden benchmark for ethical behaviour last I checked.
So City’s achievments in winning the Premier League two out of three seasons were economic, not sporting? Give me a break!
I wouldn’t even particularly describe what City’s owners have done as an ‘economic achievement’, but is it a sporting achievement? Not a chance in hell.
Didn’t LFC get most of their success via a rich benefactor aka ‘sugar daddy’ back in the day? pools money certainly helped. And we’re far from alone. The history of football is a story of rich benefactors
I kinda agree with his assessment of our owners that they are trying to find a back door to break the dominance of the top teams. I don’t think we have bad owners, just owners that are not doing everything it takes to make us consistently challenging again.
With their strategy you may break into the top 4 every few years, you may even have a title challenge, possibly even a win but it does not set us up to consistently challenge at the top of the table.
I really want the league title but we need to put ourselves in a position where we can consistently challenge. Teams don’t go from 5/6/7th to winning the league. You need to be up there for a year or 2 before you can win it.
Reality is were all just jealous they werent succesful in buying LFC!
Speak for yourself mate.
Littlewoods etc…. you bought all your success.
No history until the 70’s
Comedy Club!!
You clearly know nothing about the club, ‘littlewoods’, previous owners or anything else. There was never an ‘investment’ in the club similar to which City have benefitted. John Moores was an Everton supporter, there was financial support over the decades for both liverpool and everton from the Moores family but nothing out of the ordinary like city have benefitted from – there is no comparison whatsoever. If anything Liverpool were the poor relations to Everton, Shankly was always complaining about it.
Incidentally LFC had been league champions 7 times before the 1970s even started.
City’ have 20 sponsors of which only 4 are city owners companies
Have a look at what City’s owner has done to the Etihad stadium and look at the investment in the academy google City campus
Have a look at what City in the community does no other club comes close to this
City have the best owner in world football and all the so called BIG clubs are worried about City and Liverpool have turned themselves in to spurs going backwards
City where given a brand new stadium by Manchester council, and renamed said stadium for megabucks, bankrolled by mega rich owners. for the first few seasons. Name me any other clubs other than Chelski that have owners with more money than sense, the rest of us have to plod on with the hope of finding young talent that will be lured to a club that can afford to pay anything their agents ask for. FFP was a failed experiment that the rich clubs had the money to fight in court.
city wasn’t given a new stadium, Manchester council, sport England AND MCFC put money into it, and also if city didn’t move there then the games in 2000 would not have been in Manchester, and now our owners are using there own money to do the new south stand up
Liverpool, Manchester United, Tottenham, Newcastle , shall I continue?
Bollox
It is bollox.
“..due to UEFA deciding that City had failed FFP with regards their 2013 accounts, they were fined £16m. This fine was ‘suspended’ in the sense that if City’s 2014-15 accounts showed that the club had turned a profit (which they will) the fine would be returned. The way in which the fines work is that UEFA simply withhold Champions League prize money. Effectively the sanctions were imposed based upon 2013, but implemented in 2014, when the club had already almost entirely wiped out their losses.”
City were fined £49 million, had their spending restricted and their Champions League squad limited. I’d love to go through the guy’s email and pick it apart (not to mention being owned by a county with incredibly questionable human rights record, and let’s not get started on their previous owner) but genuinely what’s the point?!
Might as well join the rest of the horde. Spend some more money FSG!!! Put us in debt we can’t repay!!!!
As a City fan I’ve been directed here. I grew up in the 70s/80s and loved Liverpool as they stopped United winning things. Every year I saw them win the league then outspend rivals improving the squad further on likes of Aldridge, Beardsley, Barnes etc.
Ferguson came and the myth is he reestablished United with kids. The club invested hugely at the start breaking transfer record after transfer record to try to break Liverpool’s dominance.
Then came Arsenal and Fiszman, Blackburn with Walker and more recently Chelsea and City. Leeds and Newcastle attempted it but both proved having money on it’s own is no guarantee of success but without it you’re guaranteeed no long term success.
So how else were City supposed to compete? Grow organically? When every time a club produces a great talent the usual suspects swoop in and cherrypick – Rooney, Ferdinand, Lampard etc. Mid table teams have no chance, well they had one – initial owner investment until FFP came along.
And please spare City the ‘moral’ argument. This is a club that won a European trophy early than most, including Liverpool. Our recent history may be incomparable to some but we won trophies consistently over the decades pre Sky. We fell into bad ownership, something we would hope you have sympathy with but never lost our faith as our attendances reflect. All this time we shared a City with United fans gloating at every opportunity.
We deserve our shot, fortuitous as it may have been at the start. We grew our club the only way it is possible to compete. The Etihad deal IS only 10% of our revenue and our Directors have done a wonderful job diversifying our revenue streams.
Ours is a model that should be celebrated and one that hives hope to fans of other clubs instead of being villified. We are over tbe bridge that FFP has built that cements are position and makes it impoosible for others to join yet the majority of City fans want FFP gone because it is wrong. Simple as.
Couldn’t have put it better myself. Manchester City and our fans were pretty much respected by everybody before the takeover. Many people’s 2nd club. Staunch support in the face of overwhelming adversity. We hung in there regardless. Then one day we won the lottery. Despite the change in lifestyle, we didn’t change as people. Yes, the council house is now being refurbished, the gardens extended & some lovely outbuildings added. Yes we’re splashing out on expensive fittings & furniture. Yes we’ve got a couple of flashy motors, and yes the kids are growing up imagining it was always thus.
In reality, we haven’t changed – the perception of us has.
When I say respected by everybody, there’s this one club in Salford with a bunch of twats supporting ’em……
But you didn’t. City were notoriously big spenders in the early 80s. Kevin Reeves, Steve Daley and Trevor Francis all cost 1m +. Peter Beardsley was Liverpool’s first million pound player. I’ve no problem with your current model and no beef with City supporters, you deserve your time in the sun and, like you, I’m delighted when you put one over your city rivals, but let’s not rewrite history.
TBH I don’t feel qualified to comment too much on FFP and the finances of City versus other clubs in the EPL. But it does look on the surface that City’s owners have manufactured their “profits” to suit their purposes.
However, the assertion that the European leagues are now more competitive than they were in the past is laughable. Yes, LFC dominated in the 70’s and 80’s but it was possible for the likes of Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa and other clubs to compete. Is that possible now, I think not.
exactly.
it now looks like a lock out for the big money clubs and arsenal (also very well off due to the london factor).
Before abramovich, utd were the big money club but there were many competitors. Arsenal did a good job, even Newcastle had a go, Chelsea got to 2nd before abramovich and liverpool kept trying. The crucial point is that it wasn’t a predictable top 4 in that the gap could be bridged. Now it has to be oil level money, nothing else will do.
The top 4 was definitely open to competition whereas now it’s a lockout pretty much.
Utd are vulnerable but a good summer’s spending and that won’t be the case anymore even with the haphazard LVG.
I don’t think it’s a case of comparing the situation now with the 1970s. I agree it is now impossible for the likes of Forest or Villa to win the European Cup/Champions League, or even the domestic league, and that’s a bad thing.
However, you can’t pin that on City. The Champions League is the biggest reason we now effectively have a two-tier system; established CL clubs have revenues that their domestic rivals simply cannot compete with, and that gap in income grows wider every season. The result is we all know at the start of every season that one of two or three of the established CL clubs is going to win the league. That was the case before City’s new owners came along.
Where I think our league is *slightly* more competitive due to investment is that without Chelsea and City, United would probably have won the league every single year since Arsenal last won it in 2004. And let’s face it – nobody wants that!
He mentions FSG looking for a backdoor into the top 4 and not committing wages required. I’m sorry, but who was it who finished 2nd behind City the season before last? If Firmino adapts quickly and we get another top striker in, and maybe get Sturridge to play 20-odd games, then watch out because someone else might be left out of the top 4. Rodgers showed what he can do with the right players and this year we have bought 3 (so far) that will slot in and improve the starting 11. The wages paid by City have been nothing short of disgusting and if you believe you’re building a long-term sustainable model then you’re kidding yourselves. FSG have made mistakes along the way, but their vision is spot on. We will sell you Sterling for 50m and then develop Ibe into another 50m player. And there are more where he came from.
We’ve finished 2nd once in the last 6yrs.
Our finishing positions have been 6,2,7,8,6,7.
5 out of 6 of those seasons SPURS have finished above us.
2nd is nowhere near our normal finishing position.
Unless we invest properly into the team we won’t CONSISTENTLY challenge near the top of the table which I presume is what everyone wants.
This is exactly what the owners are trying to do. By building a sustainable model and investing in the Academy and the best young players around. And by backing a young coach they truly believe in. They are not fickle or impatient. They are willing to invest but within a structure that is bought-in by all internally. They will not buy players for 60m and will not hand out wages of 200k/week. Unless they have a proven superstar on their hands. This is how Liverpool have always functioned and they have proven that they truly understand the spirit of the club. As does Rodgers. And let’s not forget that our beloved club was within inches of bankruptcy a few years ago. So this is what we all want.
They spent approx £23mil in summer 2013 on Aspas, Ilori and Alberto who collectively have had little to no impact.
This scattergun approach does not work. Spending bigger on well scouted targets is the way forward.
If it wasn’t FSG that “saved” us from administration it would have been someone else. We were/are an attractive investment.
There is no club in the world that gets transfers 100% right. You are highlighting 3 players (although Ilori might still make it). Chelsea buy a multitude of players, then loan them out. If you get a Courtois out of a total of 10, then it’s worth it. FSG also bought Coutinho for 8m, Sturridge for 12m, Suarez for 20m. As I said, mistakes have been made but our owners are learning all the time and the signings this summer seem very impressive. And as for your spending “bigger” theory, how did Di Maria work out last year??
I simply highlighted those 3 players, I could name many more during their tenure.
Di Maria has never been the same since his house was burgled, since then he wants out of Manchester. He was fantastic for them before that.
As Melissa Reddy has said on here top quality signings do a lot more than the obvious. They excite the existing players, motivate them to stay and achieve more while also attracting potential new players to come to the club.
We have money, we just consistently spend it poorly. Hopefully this summer is similar to the winter we bought Sturridge & Coutinho.
the immediate starters we bought last summer is what cost us the place. Lovren, Lallana and Balotelli were never the signings to give us top 4 and Brendan is responsible for that with his odd eye for players.
Had we done better even with just the CF position we would have beaten utd. But we may have missed our chance now. If utd buy one or two decent midfielders and a defender it will transform them unfortunately.
De Gea leaving may help.
And while we keep trying to buy young players to develop them into 50mill players to sell to city they willl continue to make profits from success to comfortably afford it. Who do you think will have the more succesful future?
Fsg are trying to be clever in the way they get us to compete but they will always struggle against well run teams that have the money. Its a fairly well known fact that wage bill has a big effeect on where you end up in the league, no amount of cleverness will change that with everything else equal
Obviously you are a financial genius! You should be running a large organization, or managing a football club. Ibe a 50 million pound player? Leave it out, mate.
I was at University in Manchester in the 70s and lived for a time in Rusholme near Platt Lane – a City stronghold. Yes they threw rocks at you when you were in the away pens next to the Kippax, but having mixed with them for a few years I don’t begrudge any of their success. They were the acceptable face of football supporters in Manchester at a time when United were shite and City not much better. They, by and large, could have a reasonable conversation about football whereas United fans were just bitter and envious of us. Yes the arabs have bankrolled them, yes some of their fans are becoming tiresome, buoyed by their recent succes, but given the many years the saw them as a relative nonentity and they way they bore it, I say good luck to them
Really good read that was.
Fair play to the city fan.
All I would throw into the conversation is why did the Arabs buy City in the first place?
They were interested because City had just moved into a brand new stadium which rarely happens if ever ( West Ham aside).
Liverpool are in a different situation in regard to City in that we have decided to renovate Anfield (which I am fully behind).
This in itself brings its own pressures in regard to FFP.
City were lucky that the timing was perfect for investment from The Sheik as it coincided with the stadium move.
I do not begrudge City at all….ok maybe a little bit… Fair play to them but the argument has to be viewed from the perspective that City were handed a new ready made stadium and that made them a viable club for investing in.
If Liverpool were given a new stadium via a Commonwealth games or an Olympics then the club would be sold to a much bigger investor I am sure of that.
Again, no axe to grind with City at all… It is our owners over the past 20 years who have allowed Liverpool to drift as a club financially whilst other clubs have grasped the nettle.
FSG are the best we could have hoped for in 2010.
They are responsible and want to move the club forward and I think they understand the reason why we fell behind other elite clubs in this country in the last 20 years.
They also understand what is needed to get back to the top. IMO.
In what way did the owners of Man City “grasp the nettle” in a way that any of Liverpool’s owners could have?
Could do with an edit function on this site tbh, because I have done a bad skim read there.
HA HA HA……
In all fairness, they probably would have benefitted more by showing their mettle rather than grasping a nettle.
FSG are not too conerned by Champions League. If they were they’d have sacked Rodgers.
They know with the TV money increasing for the Premier League, the club holds more value. Add to that the new stand, and they’ll be making a nice profit when they sell up. That’s the main objective for FSG, nothing else.
They’re running the club responsibly from a business point of view. But they’ve finished below Tottenham in 4/5 seasons they’ve been in charge. Which shows they don’t know what they’re doing on the field.
I think it shows the people they trusted to spend the money don’t know what they’re doing.
Lovren, Lallana, Balotelli as the experienced heads to get top 4 ? don’t make me laugh.
BR is a terrible talent spotter.
Utter bollocks of a read.
Empty stadium during the run in with LFC for the title.
Buy one get one free tickets.
City does not have a fan base any where near LFC’S. You can’t buy that over night.
You are bank rolled on the back of oil profits.
You were given a free stadium.
When those three stars on your club crest represent European cups then you’ll be a big club. Right now you are the modern day Blackburn.
Wind your necks in.
Utter bollocks… ha ha ha, you just close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears….
Maude, thy name is Jealousy. The saddest of a sad load of comments. You obviously have no desire to be educated?. Liverpool have had one good season in the last 5. City are here to stay, my friend. Get used to it!
Bogof? At least it was an offer without penalty. No genuine Utd fan took the mickey. Why’s that? Because at the Swamp if a season card holder failed to attend a particular match such as a home game in the Champions League or cup match, their card would be rendered invalid for the next Premiership home game even though it had been paid for. No there would be no refund. So hard to believe I checked it out with a Rag friend of mine who proffered that it was a common MU ploy, accepted as inevitable. Love is blind. Can’t imagine MCFC or LFC blackmailing their fans in such a manner and thereby demanding that the fan digs deep into their children’s dinner money.
Very interesting piece. And genuinely surprised to learn that City are now effectively a sustainable business. Owners definitely deserves credit.
But comparing Liverpool to City is disingenuous – for one reason in particular. While City may be sustainable now, there’s no mention of the initial amount of money injected into the club from the owners – money that’s nowhere near to be recouped. Such an investment would surely fly in the face of FFP today (someone more knowledgeable confirm or squash this). And yes FSG did inject money too but their pot of gold is evidently nowhere near City’s owners.
And from this stems the different strategies employed by Liverpool and City. Massive initial investment from City allowed them to win titles and grow commercially. Which leads to more money, better players and so on. Success here is obviously not exclusively due to money but it surely did play a central part.
Liverpool with lesser initial investment (compounded by a debt repayment from the previous regime) was unable to achieve a similar meteoritic rise. We therefore had to figure out a different strategy – make money by buying and selling players. And in many ways this strategy is working with respect to the accounts book: Suarez, Raheem have been and will be sold with massive profits. The problem is how to translate that profit into actually winning stuff on the pitch.
This is a bigger problem for Liverpool than it is for star-studded City. But here is where we see another major difference between the two clubs. City will remain in continuous need to replenish and splash big money to get players. Liverpool on the other hand now have a pool of young players to groom and make shine. And more and more of them are breaking through – this will only increase. Which club then, is really the sustainable one?
I’m not having a go at you or Liverpool when I say this, but it depends what your definition of “sustainable” means. I think Liverpool will fall no further in their average PL finish, and may do better (I hope so), but I don’t think the approach you describe here is going to be enough to regularly challenge for the league title. It won’t bankrupt you, so it’s the right thing from a financial point of view.
But the only way a team that isn’t currently established in the CL, with all the financial rewards that brings, can really put themselves into a position to properly challenge for the title regularly is to invest a lot of money. If Liverpool, or any other club, had access to that sort of money, they’d spend it the same way City or Chelsea did, because they surely understand that’s really the only way to break into the CL gravy train.
As for City not being sustainable – we now have the 6th or 7th biggest revenue in World football. Around £350M a year and growing, I think? If we continue to spend more money than Liverpool on players, that will still be a sustainable approach given our revenue. So yes, in the long term, I think the City approach is sustainable in that it won’t lead to financial losses, and it’s a good bet to keep the club at least in the CL spots for the foreseeable future.
He makes a valid for city but his stance reinforcers a huge flaw in the system, that there’s only space for four big clubs in the premiership.
Let’s assume that only city, Chelsea and utd are currently paying to win the league. What if both arsenal and Liverpool try to match their investment?
Only 4 clubs can qualify for the CL so one of the five will fail and be financially ruined. In 5-10 years well have 4 super clubs with the gap to the rest being so massive that it can never be crossed.
City and Chelsea before then have set a precedent that will destroy the EPL
City and Chelsea
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Kind of, anyway. I agree with most of your post, except your conclusion that City and Chelsea are to blame.
CL money (prize money, increased revenue from sponsorship deals and merchandising) should be divided out amongst all the clubs in the league, a bit like we do with the PL TV money. Without that, it’s effectively a monopoly for established CL clubs who become increasingly unassailable to their domestic competitors. That would be equally true without City or Chelsea’s investment though; the names of the clubs would be different, but the two tier situation would be exactly the same.
I think *that* is the big problem with the structure of the game in Europe, not owners who want to invest large sums of money in an effort to break into the elite. That trend is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Take away City’s and Chelsea’s money and you would still have the problem of 4 clubs at the top of the financial food chain in England and everyone else trying and failing to break into that group.
Maude you little tiger. Stop getting giddy now.
lots of love
MCFC
To all those saying “City were handed a free stadium”. The City of Manchester Stadium was built for the Commonwealth games and when that finished, was in danger of becoming an underused white elephant. FYI, Manchester U***ed were offered full rights to the stadium before City but declined, on the grounds that it was too small to accommodate all the tourists their success since 1992 attracted.
City took over at the request of Manchester City Council, and the deal was that the club kept all revenues received for ticket sales up to the old 32000 capacity of Maine Road, with the remainder (ie 16000 tickets) paid to the council. In this way, MCFC was actually handing over some £3m pounds per year directly to the council.
To say that we were “handed the place on a plate” is a bit rich and smacks of people not knowing the full story. These days, our owners still pay a flat fee to the council (to the order of some £2m per season) for use of the stadium, but this is no longer based on attendance figures due to the restructuring of the deal as a result of renaming. Add to this the major economic restoration of a derelict and depressed area of East Manchester – which could have housed a Super Casino if the last Labour government had had it’s way – and I suspect you’ll find that our owners have done the city as well as the club a whole lot of good
Mate it is easier to move into a stadium that is already in existence than one you have to build from scratch.
There are no variable costs to think about.
This made City more appealing for potential investors….
The idea that City were dragged kicking and screaming into a new stadium is laughable.
‘Sport’ goes out the window when the Arabs get involved, there model is just buy success, got all this money from oil and don’t no what to do with it, can only buy so many Ferraris. Began by Quatar buying up successful Kenyan athletes, and hopefully finishes with World Cup revoked,
Nico also makes many points on human rights.
If Abramovich hadn’t led the way, to avoid being jailed in Russia, would others had followed.
Respect is earned, success now is sadly bought., just seen as another commodity.
The “Arabs” put your owners to shame. And lumping Abu Dhabi in with Qatar is like comparing Tom Werner with Malcolm Glazer. That’s last line about respect is just so cringeworthy I don’t know where to begin.
I don’t know if your a City fan or not, but do you think they get respect from other clubs fans? do they get respect in Europe? Now ask the same question about Liverpool, Alex Ferguson had huge respect for Liverpool, so much so that he used Liverpool’s success for his motivation at United.
I cannot see how that line is cringe worthy, maybe you judge things on wealth and status, which is fare enough after all its a capitalist world, but they are not my core values.
Without huge injections of cash which blew other clubs out the water, Chelsea and Man City would not have had there success, hence bought and no respect.
If you want to see how drastic the changes were, some good articles on The Tompkins Times website.
What the fellow city fan failed to mention are as follows City Football Group (CFG) companies ie the Sister clubs and the City Marketing Company and City Football services company. These mean we can make money in away no other clubs can
The second thing not mentioned is the Etihad Campus more than just a training facility
I will expand on this later. i will also explain why nothing was found wrong with our apparently related deals
Is this article a parody? I don’t want to reply seriously and risk a whooshing.
Perhaps the following article will put some meat on the bones:
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/manchester-city-roll-with-it.html
TL;DR-all of it, but this did catch my eye, amongst one or two other questionable goings on.
“Soriano has renegotiated a number of contracts with a lower basic salary, but higher bonus payments.
It should be noted that one of the clauses in UEFA’s FFP settlement states that City cannot increase their wage bill during the next two financial periods (2015 and 2016) – though performance bonuses are not included.”
It’s laughable how transparent some of the stuffgoing on.
Bonuses is how players should be paid that way the perform all clubs are free to make such deals with clubs. bonuses cannot be included in settelments partly for this reason but also because they depend on performances so fluctuate. Whats the issue?
So what you are saying is – it’s “dodgy” because City choose to pay players an incentive based salary?
OK – the basic wage is what counts towards FFP calculations. The lower, the better from City’s point of view. However, should those players win – you know – trophies & stuff they get a massive bonus. That’s wrong is it?
If City can attract players of the highest calibre within that wage/bonus structure why shouldn’t we operate that way? It’s not against the law as laid down by UEFA you know!
why don’t you just say it instead of avoiding it.
You have no problem with the league being locked out by a few big spending clubs with zero chance of others competing.
at least you could claim honesty then.
Who does not those who support FFP you mean ?After all the United would have had it very very easy without the oil clubs as you would call them
You know some of us Arl Arses used to think that these millionaires and billionaires woke up one morning and said to their advisers “Look! I’ve got more money than I’ll ever need,I’m thinking of throwing some of it down a grid or setting fire to it.” And their advisers said ” No! No! Buy a Football Club.You’ll get rid of it a lot quicker!”
Not the case though is it? Miilionaires and Billionaires want to become Zillionaires.And that’s an absolute fact!
When the serious ones come into football they recognise the opportunities and set their stalls out to win.Financial Fair Play? Don’t make me laugh.A labryinth of holding companies to confuse and misdirect takes care of that.
But are they wrong? We (LFC) got nearly £100 million of TV money in 2013/2014.Add sponsorships to that and it’s massive business opportunity.
But the big players know that.Some of them even go and watch the games.Well quite a few of them do.There are of course one or two exceptions.The Gazers seem happy to just to send over a few hundred million now and then on the basis that their investment will increase by at least that much.
Some others prefer to watch baseball!
Cheers Rob, you’ve managed to bring your Twitter mini war to TAW! Seriously, who cares how City are run, I don’t begrudge them their current success as some appear to, they (supporters that is) have watched their club get relegated twice and are now reaping the rewards of wealthy ownership. We should be concentrating on our own owners and questioning their ambition and long term goals rather than bitching about clubs.
Regular empty seats at a supposed ‘big’ club. Shameful. No real fan base. Never will either.
Three stars on the crest which mean nothing!
Sums them up : Sham of a club.
Grow up for fucks sake, that’s just embarrassing.
Generally, money buys success and always has. We’ve seen the Blackburn model, followed by Chelsea and now City. Who will be next and whose Sugar Daddy will have the biggest wallet?
Of course, it kills competitiveness.
Another way will be needed if football wants remain a sport of the people otherwise it will implode. None of the football authorities in their current form can cope (or has the will to effect change). And anyone that thinks that Sheik Mansour has the fortunes of the people of Manchester in mind when he makes his various investments is deluded.
It’ll crank on for a while yet but it is not sustainable.
Money from owners creates competition because it means clubs can fight the almost natural giants With out this owenr investment United would have won the league every year since Arsenal last one it with the exception of the period just happening now which would have been won by Liverpool and Arsenal instead we ended up with United Chelsea City swapping things about
I’m surprised by some of the comments on this article as I’ve personally always found Man City fans to be very similar to us. I don’t begrudge their success at all, and i couldn’t care less how they’ve achieved it. Realistically, how could have any team have broken into the top four and stayed there without huge sums of cash. The link that Kippax Street Kidd posted was extremely interesting
When it boils down to it, i’ll take City winning stuff over Chelsea and United every day of the week.
Great article, keep it coming lads.
To James at 9:12 today…and you think that your new stand at Anfield is being built out of the goodness of FSG’s heart?
Of course, HRH wants a return, it’s a business! But it is two-fold. The man has pumped over 1bn into the Club as well as rejuvenating a downtrodden part of Manchester. The area is probably the equivalent of a square mile around Anfield. What is being developed around there is jawdropping.
What amazes me, is that them lot in Trafford Borough, hardly come in for any criticism. Sheikh Mansour transforms a district of a major UK city, creating houses, jobs, schools, business as well as completely rejuvenating a Football Club. The Glazers use United as nothing but a means to line their own pockets, laden them with millions of debt, yet we c
Enjoy it while you can!
To the City fans.
Good luck to ya. It’s an incredible story and full respect to Sheikh Mansour. I can’t see anything wrong with the model. I’m amazed at what he’s doing. I’m always happy to bend the rules for personal gain if I can get away with it but reading this makes me think City aren’t even doing that. Who says what the correct worth is for a sponsorship deal? I can remember that a few years ago my impression of Eithad Airways was absolutely not in the same league as I see it now. Point being, being attached to City has made their name more prominent to me as a result I’ve found out more about them and know they’re a top company who I’d happily fly with. That wasn’t always my impression. A sponsorship that can actually change people’s opinions is worth a fortune, surely. I wonder how much that Dickov goal was worth against Gillingham in 99? A billion?
To Liverpool fans.
I’m so embarrassed reading these comments. There’s nothing worse than someone making such strong statements without even taking the time to understand what it is they’re making the point on. Would anyone not take the City model? A cash injection to level the playing field then a sustainable business model to take it forward and one which the whole community benefits from. I like the ‘us and them’ mentality but sometimes you’ve got to be gracious towards the opposition or it discredits anything you say and makes you look stupid.
FSG
I really feel for FSG. They bought the club because of FFP. Obviously, it was zero risk and didn’t need any investment after the initial £50m but they thought they could increase the revenue from match days and commercially using sound business models. With the tv money it was a no brainer. To get this far down the line of FFP and suddenly back track is absolutely shocking. I’m disgusted in Uefa. The FSG model was gonna take longer than fans wanted anyway but without FFP it’s completely the wrong model for Liverpool.
I thought they’d succeed with FFP. I’m now thinking it won’t go ahead and so FSG aren’t the right owners for Liverpool. It’s not their fault but we need some owners like Cities. If rich oil Sheikh’s are interest in City then there has to be one interested in Liverpool.
Why do you think FFP is being watered down, Platini is in the pocket of Qatari owned PSG and theres clandestine activity going on all over the place, UEFA aint much better than FIFA and the FA ain’t much better than them.
I don’t love any of the owners, though I do feel the way FSG is trying is slightly more organic and would not want Liverpool to go the Ogliarch Sheik route.
I’ve no idea why UEFA have back tracked except that it comes down to money. I’m still livid we’ve been taken for a ride though.
I also felt it would feel ‘wholesome’ if FSG brought us success. They can only do that if FFP is enforced. They didn’t buy the team to make great as a show piece by investing their money. They bought it to manage well. It’s completely different. If there’s no FFP and we want to be at the level of the others in the top 4 then we need outside investment. FSG’s current model would keep us battling with Spurs for 5th.
I used to say I wouldn’t want Abramovic with his past but it’s said through envy. When Chelsea win the CL and their fans are dancing in the streets they’re not thinking about missing people in Siberia. Truth is, life’s too short for Liverpool to not be winning the league and the worlds too corrupt to have morals over things that are going to have a severely detrimental effect on your own life. Sheikh Mansour seems a decent bloke. His money is no less moral than hedge funds.
Look, I feel like I’ve known my mates for ever. I know every minute detail about them and everyone of us is a red bar my best mate – city (be he’s a closet red I reckon). We’ve all done everything together (within reason) but we’ve never celebrated winning the league together. That troubles me far more than having an owner that’s rich. My lad’s 12 and he only really remembers the league cup. That troubles me even more. Don’t be down on City because they’re living the dream.
Some people really need to get a sense of perspective. You should honestly be ashamed.
“Sheikh Mansour seems a decent bloke. His money is no less moral than hedge funds.”
https://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/united-arab-emirates
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jul/30/manchester-city-human-rights-accusations
Plenty of people often say they wouldn’t want Liverpool to be successful through a sugar daddy. They thrown it at Chelsea and City fans. Others disagree on that principle, fine. I like to think I wouldn’t want it, but who knows, perhaps I’d shrug and see it as another accommodation with Modern Football.
But thinking it’s more important than people being tortured, repressed and abused on an industrial scale or pretending there’s some equivalence with FSG because hedge funds aren’t ideal? Pretty disgusting to be honest.
If Liverpool had owners on that scale, I think that would be the end of top level football for me and I certainly wouldn’t put a penny into the club (not that they’d need it, lol).
Well, I think there’s a distinction to be made between where his money comes from and how he runs his country but even with that I’d advise caution. There is an argument for oppressive regimes. You and yours told us Iraq and Libya were oppressive and look at the mess those are in thanks to our help in removing them. Both were far safer under Saddam and Gaddafi. Syria would have gone the same way had we got our way. It’s a bit more complicated than applying Western values.
I don’t condemn it but as a British citizen I feel I’ve got no right to tell people what is right or wrong. We’re no better. I’ll say it again. I’ve no issues with his money. I’ve no issues with the way he runs City and I think it’s brilliant what he’s doing in East Manchester. And yeah, I do think he’s a decent enough bloke. Oh, and I don’t feel ashamed of thinking that. I’ve read every John Pilger book mate. I’m pretty up on how the world works. Believe me sheikh Mansour is not that bad a man by comparison. It’s all hypocrisy. Also I’d sell me mum to IS in return for a few league titles so you’re probably trying to shame the wrong person.
I’m not here to kick off an argument but I think a bit of self-awareness would help here. While I accept that you can’t really compare hedge funds with alleged human rights abuses in Abu Dhabi, a more accurate comparison would be with Liverpool’s second biggest sponsor which happens to be Garruda, the national airline of Indonesia. Indonesia’s human rights record is no better than Abu Dhabi’s and arguably it’s worse so you’re not really in a position to take a moral stance on this, unless of course you were unaware of it and I’ll be expecting you to renounce your support for Liverpool immediately ;) Joking aside, the same can be said of Arsenal and United regarding their tie-ups with Emirates and Aeroflot respectively. In United’s case, they were also previously sponsored by Turkish Airlines who have a none too clever human rights record either.
Great article. It is really interesting to see an intelligent and well-articulated outside perspective on FSG. I think it would be great to hear/read more of this kind of outside perspective on TAW regarding other FSG/LFC topics in general. Good work, and thanks for sharing!
Interesting article and if city are financially stable now and don’t need an owners open wallet that’s great. But it still doesn’t change the fact that their new found success is only due to an open pockets approach from.their owner. Its built on the whim of a rich Playboy and not on history and the teams success. The ffp now actually suits man city and chelski because no other team can do what they done now and have a billionaire owner pump in unlimited cash to get them to the stage where they are glamorous and can earn money in a global football mad world. Now I have no information on city’s background finances but when you look at chelski saying they are earning their way now its laughable considering Roman set up a seperate company that now owns chelski lock stock and players and this company is in debt to him by over 700 million, 25 million of which he gave to the company to fund player transfers last summer.
Now as I’ve said I don’t know if city have a similar setup but wouldn’t be surprised if they had. Its just a bit rich when fans start proclaiming financial self sustainability when its built on, well endless riches.
Abramovich was an ally of Platini regarding setting up FFP, Platini often referenced Abramovich when speaking to the press.
Some City fans coming on here with a serious chip on their shoulder, although I imagine it must be tiring having to continually argue your point and try to convince people your club is a sustainable business. Judging by what I’ve read above, City is a sustainable business it’s just a shame the author neglected to mention the massive initial investment made pre FFP, that kind of moved the goalposts somewhat ( legitimately I might add). I don’t see how the City model works without that initial huge investment in players, an investment that under FFP cannot be made, unless of course someone will explain otherwise..
Sorry to bore on, but I can’t reply to Robin upthread and there’s one thing I can’t let go:
“You and yours told us Iraq and Libya were oppressive and look at the mess those are in thanks to our help in removing them.”
How does being concerned about abuses commited by an owner indicate support for the Iraq invasion? I’m not calling for Richard Scudamore to launch regime change.
I didn’t say you supported it. I’d hazard a guess you didn’t. My point was you’re in no position to say what’s right and wrong for UAE or Abu Dhabi. You claim it’s an oppressive regime but you don’t understand the fabric of the country. We’ve seen in the past how applying our views on the region has been wrong.
These are not bad owners. I’ve been a member of Amnesty for over 15 years. Sheikh Mansour is not a bad person. Look at the UK Human Rights watch page. It’s as bad as the UAE.
You need to drop this line of thought in relation to City. Tenuous links from Google searches can show anything in a bad light. I’d be happy with Mansour owning Liverpool. You’re making too much of this. Getting back to football, they’re good owners for City.
“My point was you’re in no position to say what’s right and wrong for UAE or Abu Dhabi.”
I’ll condemn torture and repression wherever it is. The idea that human rights are a western construct that shouldn’t be expected of other cultures with their diffferent “fabrics” is fairly nauseating.
I literally posted a link to the Human Rights Watch page for the UAE upthread and you referred to it as “random Googling”. You said the page for the UK was just as bad. It really, really isn’t.
For people making reference to abuses by the US government, the UK etc I would like to make two distinctions: Man City are literally owned by the sovereign investment fund ie the government. Most clubs are obviously owned by individuals or groups seperate from the government. Secondly, I am not calling for state ownership of football clubs (although that would be amazing tbh, but it’s unlikely that David Cameron envisions the same level of state involvement in the sector as I might).
Other people have referred to sponsorship of Liverpool with ties to the Indonesian government and other significant sponsorship deals in football with other agencies, like the massive Qatari deal with Barcelona. Again, this is regrettable and I wish it was more of a issue for fans and the media but it’s clearly distinct from the club literally being owned by a regime with the purpose of either international prestige or long term investment diversification.
FFP gets dismissed I see – and yet would City have worried about being self sustaining if FFP did not exist?
A thought on City’s sustainability – does this mean sustainable at the kinds of levels that will allow them continue to compete at the highest level or will they always need the kinds of money the owners can invest or get invested by related parties?
And if City really have a sustainable plan and fans are happy with that, why (fans) take a case to over turn FFP?
FFP – and its demise – this has been puzzling me for a bit. Inside football has a couple of interesting articles on it,the following being one;
http://www.insideworldfootball.com/matt-scott/17326-matt-scott-why-ffp-is-right-and-proper-whatever-city-fans-might-say
The comment on the case before the belgium court – I think UEFA have effectively ignored it as the court isnt high enough – not a legal bod so cant be sure on that.
Not as convinced as some that FFP is bad or dead as yet – Hopefully someone can educate me on this.
I don’t know either mate, all I do know is there are many who’ve said from day one that FFP wouldn’t be enforced rigorously.
For example, could you foresee a scenario where Barca are kicked out the CL for a season.
All the ruling last week has actually done is increase people’s scepticism about it being enforced. The first stage of a backing down if you like.
As far as I’m aware that’s where we stand. I’ll be honest, I thought it would be enforced but now I don’t which completely fucks us with FSG.
The ruling last week just saw the issue passed on to the EU Court. However, UEFA are satisfied that having worked closely with the EU Commission that FFP will stand.
In relation to Barca, altho not FFP related, they have suffered swinging transfer embargoes in recent times over other misdemeanours. So I believe FFP would be enforced on them also. No question
Cheers Robin, just seen both of the replies.
I think its the optimist in my nature hoping that FFP does work – even if it acts to cut down the wildest aspects of petro/ruble et al growth.
As they say, time will tell.