Manchester City make £121m loss with wage bill bigger than turnover

true to their history, grass roots etc

[SIZE="5"]Manchester City make £121m loss with wage bill bigger than turnover
• Financial loss is second highest in Premier League history
• City have less than four seasons to meet fair-play criterion


Manchester City made a financial loss of £121m in the 12 months to 31 May 2010, the first full year of ownership by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the club will announce today. Their income of £125m was entirely eclipsed by the wage bill which, for all staff, rose to £133m, up from £83m. That meant the club spent £8m more than their entire turnover on wages alone.

The result of Mansour's investment, now up to £500m in all of City's operations – most spectacularly by signing a squad of international players, several on wages of more than £100,000 a week – is the second biggest financial loss in the Premier League's history. The highest was that of Chelsea, who lost £141m in 2004-05, the end of the first full year following the takeover by the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich.

City's investment from Abu Dhabi and improved performance – fifth place in the Premier League – led to earnings increasing by 45%, from £87m in 2008–09 to £125m. Season‑ticket sales were up too – this season all 35,000 have sold and "partnership income", largely sponsorship, has increased by almost 400% to £32.4m.

In the annual report, the club proudly highlight their all-round investment, with 106 further non-playing staff recruited, £255 spent per fan on improving the stadium experience, enhanced community programmes and other infrastructure.

Mansour says in an accompanying letter that his aim is to develop City into "one of the most successful clubs on and off the pitch, but to do so without losing any of the characteristics that make it so special".

The annual report reveals that since May the signings of David Silva, Yaya Touré, Jérôme Boateng, Aleksandar Kolarov, Mario Balotelli and James Milner, balanced by sales including Robinho and Stephen Ireland, cost a net £96.6m and significantly increased the wage bill.

City's strategy is similar to Chelsea's in the early days: invest heavily in players to gain success on the pitch, which brings higher earnings from television, tickets and commercial revenue. The aim is to bring young players through to replace the senior earners, and thereby bring income and expenditure more into line.

Their challenge, though, is to meet Uefa's financial fair-play edict, which requires clubs to break even beginning next year. Clubs are permitted to lose only €45m (£39m) to 2014 or they may face sanctions, including, most severely, exclusion from European competitions.

The chief executive, Garry Cook, said City are aiming to meet the requirements. "The last thing we want is not getting a licence to play in the greatest league."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...port-huge-loss



as dunk correctly says, city, like chelsea before them are killing football.

Well, at least their fans are refusing to become hypocrites and refusing to go and watch them.

City are comedy gold. It's all going to end in tears. We all know that.

As for them killing football, they're not. Football was killed when Blackburn paid £3.3M for Shearer. It died again when we bought Keane for £3.75M and it's been killed every time a club gets money. It's an easy thing to say but you can't suddenly say it's a new thing. New for City maybe but not new for English football. We've had loads of people throw money at teams. Yes Abromovic did it and won some trophies but Jack Walker bought the league once, John Hall didn't manage it at all.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

City are comedy gold. It's all going to end in tears. We all know that.

As for them killing football, they're not. Football was killed when Blackburn paid £3.3M for Shearer. It died again when we bought Keane for £3.75M and it's been killed every time a club gets money. It's an easy thing to say but you can't suddenly say it's a new thing. New for City maybe but not new for English football. We've had loads of people throw money at teams. Yes Abromovic did it and won some trophies but Jack Walker bought the league once, John Hall didn't manage it at all.

the boundaries have gradually been pushed back - but Ambrovich was a major shift, a nobody club all of a sudden could buy anyone, pay anything, a big shift from Walker bankrolling blackburn to success for a season in my book.

Originally Posted by thatsfuctit

the boundaries have gradually been pushed back - but Ambrovich was a major shift, a nobody club all of a sudden could buy anyone, pay anything, a big shift from Walker bankrolling blackburn to success for a season in my book.

It has but it's got progressively worse. It's not been 1 big leap.

Jack Walker invested about £30M
John Hall about £60M
Matthew Harding was well on his way to beat it until they played Bolton and his helicopter crashed.
Abromovic has spent about £300M I think and City will beat that no doubt.

Who's next? As long as it's not Liverpool I'm not that arsed. It doesn't always work and when the rich guy £#%&!s off, Blackburn and Newcastle have both been relegated and that will probably be the rule rather than the exception.

Do those figures not mean that they would be barred from European competition next season?

Originally Posted by Spiffy

Who's next? As long as it's not Liverpool I'm not that arsed. It doesn't always work and when the rich guy £#%&!s off, Blackburn and Newcastle have both been relegated and that will probably be the rule rather than the exception.

This is the key for me. Chelsea of course have had what would for anyone else would be deemed great success since Abramovich came along, but still, in 2006 no-one would have given United a prayer of responding by winning three titles on the bounce. Some level of success is ensured for citeh, but a constant stream of trophies isn't, which is why the giddy liddle bitters are so silly to be mouthing off as if they're already guaranteed everything they want.

And you never know, those Arabs might show less patience than the Russian.

Originally Posted by dunk

Do those figures not mean that they would be barred from European competition next season?

Their challenge, though, is to meet Uefa's financial fair-play edict, which requires clubs to break even beginning next year. Clubs are permitted to lose only €45m (£39m) to 2014 or they may face sanctions, including, most severely, exclusion from European competitions.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

It has but it's got progressively worse. It's not been 1 big leap.

Jack Walker invested about £30M
John Hall about £60M
Matthew Harding was well on his way to beat it until they played Bolton and his helicopter crashed.
Abromovic has spent about £300M I think and City will beat that no doubt.

Who's next? As long as it's not Liverpool I'm not that arsed. It doesn't always work and when the rich guy £#%&!s off, Blackburn and Newcastle have both been relegated and that will probably be the rule rather than the exception.

none of those you mention pre-abramovich have had an effect on the whole market. the problem is the size of the spending in conjunction with the globalisation of the game, which means chelsea's and city's spending has £#%&!ed up the leagues in spain, italy and france as they put together teams with few or no local players and comprised entirely of mercenaries. it's the arsenal effect - a team of no english/british/uk players whose back four speak french to each other unless they have to say something to the keeper - added to essentially unlimited wealth, creating teams with no local roots whatsoever. chelsea are essentially a franchise these days: you could pick them up and dump them in saint petersburg and they'd happily fill their stadium and feel perfectly at home. they'd probably get more fans tbh.

all arguments about transfer spending aside, it's one of the great - perhaps the greatest - achievement of fergie that he has shown for two decades and more that success at the very highest level can be achieved with a side which remains committed to its traditions.

i thought united killed football by not entering the FA Cup in 2000?

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

Their challenge, though, is to meet Uefa's financial fair-play edict, which requires clubs to break even beginning next year. Clubs are permitted to lose only €45m (£39m) to 2014 or they may face sanctions, including, most severely, exclusion from European competitions.

Yeah, I read that.

But when do they submit their figures, and what figures do they submit, ahead of next season?

If they release their accounts on October 1st, on what is their license to play in Europe next season judged? These figures? interim figures?

Originally Posted by dunk

Yeah, I read that.

But when do they submit their figures, and what figures do they submit, ahead of next season?

If they release their accounts on October 1st, on what is their license to play in Europe next season judged? These figures? interim figures?

it doesn't start 'til next season is the point i think.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

it doesn't start 'til next season is the point i think.

Shit, I thought 'next season' was this season, and figures would be looked at from next summer.

Originally Posted by dunk

Shit, I thought 'next season' was this season, and figures would be looked at from next summer.

Nah, was going from the "beginning next year" bit.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

Nah, was going from the "beginning next year" bit.

Well, in that case, financial year? Calendar year? Football year (season)?

Not really very clear is it?

Anyway, can't see them sorting out a wage ball that is greater than turnover while they can't fill their stadium tbh.

If you gave like Doncaster Rovers hundreds of millions to spend, and they reached the top of the pile, they'd still only have gates of 10k or so, The club is where it is, in terms of achievements and success for a reason. City are the same, even with all that money they won't ever generate enough to be considered one of the big clubs. IMO.

It adds that 408 plush heated seats were installed for boardroom and chairman's guests and improvements to catering at the stadium include 30 per cent bigger pies.

Originally Posted by dunk

City are the same, even with all that money they won't ever generate enough to be considered one of the big clubs. IMO.

Ah yes but they've got big posters, massive posters in fact.

Originally Posted by Zorg

Ah yes but they've got big posters, massive posters in fact.

Fair point.

I'm not quite sure where their viral marketing campaign sits when measured amongst the pantheon of truly 'Big' clubs, but I'm sure it is considered massive throughout Europe.

So the wage bill was £8m more than turnover before signing £200k a week Toure and another 5 players on £500k a week between them. I think that comes to over £35m a season in wages alone. There is absolutley no way they can break even in the next 5 years.

Ah but they don't have to. The income they've generated by painting the footpaths around the council house blue will cover all their costs.