United are in debt because the when the Glazers bought the club they transferred all the debt they accrued onto the club itself.United can generate huge amounts of cash and indeed do every year.Stop spouting nonsense which you clearly don't know the first thing about.Kermit The Dog said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
FootballSoccerFútbolFussball Thread 2010/2011 |OT2|
- Thread starter Blablurn
- Start date
- Status
Kermit The Dog
Banned
And if anyone were unsure of City's ability to manage its growth, it is recognition like this that makes me proud to be a City fan.
City wins recognition for Sponsorship and Sales
City wins recognition for Sponsorship and Sales
Jeff Albertson
Member
Kermit talking about arrogance and ignorance is hilarious. Funny coincidence that every time you pop in the thread turns to shit
anonnumber6
Banned
Having a 60,000+ stadium is now imperative for a big club, Spurs and Liverpool have recognised it. You might think having an Asda next to your stadium is a big deal but a relying on a 40,000 stadium that you don't own will mean Mansour will have to subsidise you for years to come. You can't rely on commercial revenue, only a few clubs have the global reach to do so and you need the history and prestige to do so, if you look at Liverpool they still manage to get big commercial and sponsorship deal because they built up a large network of fans through being successful. You might think the Middle East will flock to City because an Arab owns the club but the Middle East is United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Barca and Madrid territory.Kermit The Dog said:
The takeover really made little sense especially when Liverpool was available for quite a while, I could be way off the mark but it always looked as though one of the reasons Sheik Mansour and his associates bought City because he knew they could market them more easily due to their geography.
Warms my heart. Just goes to show you can be successful by spending close to a billion. Who knew?Kermit The Dog said:
I was probably proudest of Liverpool when we inexplicably won the CL against AC Milan in one of the greatest European Cup finals.
But Arab provided sponsorship is cool too.
United are in debt. They can generate income but that debt interest is hurting. Hurting a lot.
Our gates are not the biggest.
Our stadium is on a 100 year lease and is still state of the art.
Sheikh Mansour approached the city council about purchasing it out right. They refused so apparently he looked into acquiring land and building a new stadium.
But instead he didn't, he bought up the land around the stadium and had it assessed for it's suitability for building on. There are cole mines under the land, the club was told it would cost around £3m to fill. Then the club had an argument with the council over who should pay that bill. The land is the council's after all and the club stood by it's guns.
On the land they've built City Square. A great venue with 3 huge screens for streaming important games, with refreshment facilities. They are also in the process of preparing to build more complexes on the land and they are nearing completion of a Metro Link (small train) station which will stop on at the foot of the stadium.
A new City store in the City centre, a second renovation to the store at the stadium and one in Abu Dhabi. A refreshed online store, all of this assisted by Kit Bag in a joint venture.
A state of the art website which has won many plaudits and received plenty of recognition for it's refreshing design, brilliant content - behind the scenes video and pictures, match highlights, interviews, tunnel-cams & a shed load of great FA Cup stuff with the players on the train - all for free.
So don't tell anyone City do not have potential for expansion. Your ignorant view has been proven wrong.
anonnumber6 said:
Our gates are not the biggest.
Our stadium is on a 100 year lease and is still state of the art.
Sheikh Mansour approached the city council about purchasing it out right. They refused so apparently he looked into acquiring land and building a new stadium.
But instead he didn't, he bought up the land around the stadium and had it assessed for it's suitability for building on. There are cole mines under the land, the club was told it would cost around £3m to fill. Then the club had an argument with the council over who should pay that bill. The land is the council's after all and the club stood by it's guns.
On the land they've built City Square. A great venue with 3 huge screens for streaming important games, with refreshment facilities. They are also in the process of preparing to build more complexes on the land and they are nearing completion of a Metro Link (small train) station which will stop on at the foot of the stadium.
A new City store in the City centre, a second renovation to the store at the stadium and one in Abu Dhabi. A refreshed online store, all of this assisted by Kit Bag in a joint venture.
A state of the art website which has won many plaudits and received plenty of recognition for it's refreshing design, brilliant content - behind the scenes video and pictures, match highlights, interviews, tunnel-cams & a shed load of great FA Cup stuff with the players on the train - all for free.
So don't tell anyone City do not have potential for expansion. Your ignorant view has been proven wrong.
Vivalaraza
Member
Not you, Kermit, if I quoted you and not him my bad but I meant him.dc89 said:
As for Kermit, speaking of arrogance and ignorance...seriously...
Kermit The Dog
Banned
Shogun PaiN said:
I said spending power, not spending potential.
From Wikipedia:
And Mansour has previously spoken of why he bought City, which was because of its potential for expansion and the club's already strong foundations. There was money in City before Mansour. Who could forget the fucking Thaksin era.
Are you asking why Sheikh Mansour didn't buy those clubs?
Maybe because he has a genuine interest with City.
Took the day we won the FA Cup
Couple that with the fact that City had a 47K seater state of the art stadium and had the sixth highest revenue stream in the Premier League. No other club offered that kind of 'challenge'. A club that was nearly there, but kept falling short.
Maybe because he has a genuine interest with City.
Took the day we won the FA Cup
Couple that with the fact that City had a 47K seater state of the art stadium and had the sixth highest revenue stream in the Premier League. No other club offered that kind of 'challenge'. A club that was nearly there, but kept falling short.
Kermit The Dog
Banned
Yenrot said:
Did you read it? It's specifically in regards to the club's innovative fan marketing. City has done a fantastic job with its social media output, and are now reaping the rewards.
We've been through this before. My links to City were embedded before I was born. If it helps you justify your argument, you can profile me as a bandwagoner if you wish. I don't care.
Kermit The Dog said:
Which is why I provided you with the Robinho transfer. 32.5m and £160,000 a week is spending power not potential.
I get the feeling people would take you more seriously if you educated yourself a little better and added more quality to your posts. Never nice when people are reading you posts with the mind set that you talk utter shit.
Kermit The Dog
Banned
WJD said:
Exactly. They could have invested in these strong clubs, but they chose City for the potential the club offered. City's culture has always been strong, but it was rightly dwarfed by United in every sense. Now, we're spreading our wings a little, and it's been a success beyond even many Citizen's wildest dreams. I can tell you now, if you'd told me in '98 that we'd be a top 4 club 15 years later, I wouldn't have believed you.
dc89 said:Are you asking why Sheikh Mansour didn't buy those clubs?
Maybe because he has a genuine interest with City.
Took the day we won the FA Cup
Couple that with the fact that City had a 47K seater state of the art stadium and had the sixth highest revenue stream in the Premier League. No other club offered that kind of 'challenge'. A club that was nearly there, but kept falling short.
Dont want to seem like I'm purposely posting against City because I don't mind them compared to their neighbours but pictures like these mean absolutely nothing.
Kermit The Dog said:
See its this kind of talk that people find hard to take. 300+ Million in three years should at the very least see you challenging the top 6. I think City have to finish in the top 4 as well as getting far in the top competitions on a regular basis before anybody can all them a success beyond their fans wildest dreams.
If you win the champions league next year then fair enough. The FA cup? Not so much.
WJD said:
Because if you look at this picture which is quite old now:
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/stadiums/manchester-stadium-aa01453c.jpg
Lots of empty land to build stuff on! Correct me if I'm wrong, but that kind of land is very hard to come by around a 47K stadium. That's Spur's current problem. That's United's problem (should they ever want to expand).
Kermit, you can lie all you want to yourselft, but we all know that Man City spends a lot more of what they produce, and that's way they're doing no-good to football. They've raised the price of players a lot, by buying players for huge amounts of money (like Robinho example, or Dzeko, etc). Man City has a huge debt because of that, their players salaries are like 120% of what they make, in a year.
Vivalaraza
Member
The point is this. You come into the thread and say silly things and sweeping generalisations. For example, your one about English people a few weeks ago. You're calling other people ignorant and then saying United don't generate enough money to pay their own wage bill, the fact is United generate a turnover that would pay the wage bill of MUFC and MCFC combined.Kermit The Dog said:
I'm glad you don't care what I think. That's the way it should be. Just remember about 95% of the people in here don't care what you think either.
Kermit The Dog
Banned
Clegg said:
I defend City when it's called for. With the amount of United fans and jealous onlookers in this thread, it sometimes looks as though I'm at war with the entire population of the thread. I make no apologies, and regularly comment on both positive things about other clubs and negative things about City. If you choose to believe otherwise, okay.
Dude, having lived through the 90's era of City, I can tell you that even a derby win is fucking brilliant. The fact we stepped over United and took the FA Cup is something I never thought I'd see watching my team. We were in League Two less than 15 years ago, don't forget.
The expectations of City's owners and City's fans differ in some respects. I could have died after the FA Cup win. :lol
Better than solid,on the last lions tour he was the best full-back in the world.He's much better than Fitz.I saw Fitz play when he was at school and he's only decent at best as a 15.We really need a rugby thread.kharma45 said:CheersGood solid full-back who I'm pinning a lot of our hopes on come the World Cup!
Kermit The Dog
Banned
farhatraza said:
You were the one who tipped this off by questioning my authenticity as a City fan. If you'd known what I've been through as a City fan over my 20 years, you could see why I'd react to that.
In regards to the United debt, you can spin it how you like. You have your owners, we have ours. Ours haven't put a step wrong yet, so I'll take that. The United debt issues is more complex than any of us could fathom, so I can see why you're all so defensive about it.
Quite clearly. I'll always call out the hypocritical bullshit that sometimes flows through this thread though, so get used to it.
Where's that annonnumber fella? His silence is deafening.
Vivalaraza
Member
Has Mansour bought all of Sportcity then? I play tennis in the tennis centre just next to the stadium. Am I funding City!? =Odc89 said:
Kermit The Dog said:
No we're not. Not even close to being "mired" in debt. And to think you even italicised it for emphasis. We have a rolling loan facility of about £38 million, and that's it as far as debts are concerned. FSG see no problem with this, as it's often the way companies work to have a small rolling debt such as this.
How do you know you'll "fall within the fair play guidelines comfortably"? You don't. If you keep spending the way you have done, you most likely won't. Who are you going to sell to recoup costs, apart from releasing players such as Vieira to get them off the wage bill? With the ridiculous wages you're paying some players, no club is going to match them, so a lot of players may be content to stay and sit out the remainder of their contracts on mega money, even if you wanted to sell them.
Kermit The Dog
Banned
dc89 said:
Yep. And at the end of the day, if people think "YOU BOUGHT YOUR WAY TO THE TOP" is going to ever wipe the smile off my face after a win, they'll be sorely mistaken. City deserve it no less than any other club.
Vivalaraza
Member
Kermit The Dog said:
There is no spin. You said United (and Liverpool) didn't generate enough money to pay their own wage bill. United's wage bill is 46% of turnover. Liverpool's not much more. City's is 106%. I'm not defensive about the debt, spinning it or saying we have good owners. We don't. Because our wage bill is so easily coverable is the vey reason they "bought" the club. So they could use the remaining 54% to pay the interest etc.
You stated something which was just totally wrong. It's not spin or being defensive to point out a fact.
dc89 said:You fund City when you put petrol in your car to drive to play tennis though.
Unirider =)
Kermit The Dog
Banned
PaulLFC said:
I know not much more than you, yet you somehow inject more conviction into your argument. Strange, that.
City has a bloated roster and there's probably at least 50 - 100 million in guff. Adebayor, Bellamy, Santa Cruz, SWP, Veira, Boateng, Jo will probably all leave this transfer window and free up a bit of cash for our 137 million Sanchez bid, of course.
City are also closing in on a megabucks stadium namings rights, which should inject enough cash to scrape us under the guidelines. Coupled with CL footy and a growing presence in the world football realm, we'll be fine. Our owners know what they're doing, and if you were foolish to believe it hasn't already been planned out in every minute detail, you're giving a bunch of billionaires far too little credit.
Where did I say that exactly?
bonesmccoy
Banned
I'm still trying to figure out how Liverpool are mired in debt.
West Ham? Hell yes. But Liverpool? Everything I've read about their sale suggested that the debt was completely cleared.
West Ham? Hell yes. But Liverpool? Everything I've read about their sale suggested that the debt was completely cleared.
Kermit The Dog
Banned
bonesmccoy said:
Personally I figured a 40 million dollar debt to be substantial, but many in here disagree. Perhaps it just seems significant compared to City's debts. = P
Kermit The Dog
Banned
Yenrot said:
You don't consider 30 million a significant amount of money?
That Aston Villa shirt is fucking tops. Love it.
You compared £500m of debt to £30m and Liverpool have no real problems with debt now.Kermit The Dog said:
The use of "straddled" with regards to Liverpool's debt levels suggests to me that you didn't know most of our debt was cleared. I probably only got this impression because you are the most ignorant and worst poster in this thread.
Jeff Albertson
Member
Can someone let me know when this shits over.
Dull as fuck!
Dull as fuck!
Vivalaraza
Member
A £30m operating debt for a firm that turns over as much as Liverpool is not much.Kermit The Dog said:
Yenrot said:
What I was thinking. Liverpool's debt is nowhere near large enough to affect the running of the club in any way. Were it to be, then FSG would have it paid down with the revenues we generate, which are far in excess of the debt. As I said, it's commonplace for many companies to have a small debt like this, so to try and claim it's a hindrance is a stretch at best.
Kermit The Dog said:
I'm not injecting conviction, I'm just using a bit of common sense. A lot of your players are on high wages, that's well known. An assumption, albeit a pretty safe one, is that not many clubs are going to want to match these high wages for said players, should City want to sell them. Therefore the player has 2 options in this case: 1) leave but face a wage drop or 2) stay and sit out his contract at City for however many years on his high wages. I would assume many players would be content to take the money, given how important it is in many transfers these days.
As for those stadium rights, Arsenal's naming deal, the most expensive at the time 5 years ago, was £100 million spread over 15 years, or approximately £6.67 million a year. The crucial point with deals such as stadium naming rights, is that as far as the FFP rules are concerned, any such deal needs to prove it is conducted "at market value", or that another club could get a very similar price for the same deal. So even though you will get an increase on <£7 million a year, it won't be "megabucks" when spread over the years of the contract, otherwise there's a high chance it will be deemed to be above market value and will be discounted when taking the revenue into account for the FFP calculations.
Kermit The Dog
Banned
farhatraza said:
I'll remember that when we pay 40 million for Sanchez and everyone is up in arms. ; )
Kermit The Dog said:Yep. And at the end of the day, if people think "YOU BOUGHT YOUR WAY TO THE TOP" is going to ever wipe the smile off my face after a win, they'll be sorely mistaken. City deserve it no less than any other club.
You finished 3rd and won the FA cup after spending 300 Million pound on players. Your nowhere near the top. Until players actually want to join City on merit and not just for the £££££ and until you regularly challenge for both the league and the champions league its best to keep phrases like that well and truly hidden away.
The latest in the Alexis Sanchez transfer saga speaks volumes. The guy wont even board a plane to Manchester despite City offering him mega money. Then again that might of been poor journalism lol.
Jeff Albertson said:
Sounds a bit like Blackburn Rovers FC !!!!!
- Status