Jump to content
Greasy Lake Community

The Man City Thread: The Pep Years


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, MagicRatAFC said:

On the money Roy.

In the last generation the game of football has changed beyond all recognition from the sport we watched growing up.

Not for the better.

The days when the guys who passed of their hard-earned weekly to get in and watch games were the club's life-blood has long gone.

 

Season ticket holders are.....not even an irrelevance, they're an irritant.

Clubs would much rather have foreign tourists paying 3 figure sums for a ticket, in the seat, as well as multiples of that in the club megastore.

Now it's about "media rights" and "commercial partners" because that's where the moolah is.

 

Look at Man U.

In every sense of the word one of the biggest clubs in the world.

What they're putting out on the park currently is an absolute joke, so you'd reckon the executives and directors might be feeling the heat a wee bit from ownership.

No, because the corporate end of the club seems to be holding up, this makes the twats who own the thing happy.

There's a parallel version  going on in Scotland not with the same figures, obviously, but in terms of resources being diverted the way of effectively two teams.

In all walks of football Bosman ended "trickle-down" economics.

Then you factor in Murdoch's millions to the English games, overseas media rights, shrewd marketing and you're left with the shit-show we see now.

A couple of clubs in England, Citeh and Chelski, were recipients of the right sugar daddies at the right time, so found their way to the "top table".

 

Historically, they're clubs, in an infrastructure sense, that are no bigger than Villa, Newcastle, Wolves, certainly Everton, Sunderland........yet now they're  "elite".

The aim of the elite clubs has been, for a long time, to end football as a meritocracy and render it a closed shop in favour of their cartel.

The days of Villa, Forest, Ipswich (and by extension Aberdeen and Dundee United) tearing it up in Europe are gone.

The days of Malmo, Steau, Red Star, Brugges, even Eintracht Frankfurt, participants in the best European Cup Final ever, making a European Cup final seems like a pipe dream now.

FFP is an attempt (a King Canute-esque attempt) to assuage that to some extent, but it wont work.

I'm sure Citeh fans do feel hard done by, but they've watched it playing out, they've watched their sugar daddy showing how deep his pockets are, now they've got to have the payback.

 

I've been saying for long enough, there's a tipping point coming in English football, who knows when, but the current model is long term unsustainable.

 

When I was a lad it used to cost, roughly, the same to get into the match as it did to the cinema.

I've no idea how much a match ticket is for a top end English first division game, I'll wager way too much for a joiner from Moss-side to go weekly with his two lads.

The difficulty thereafter is, if the said joiner's two lads don't get imbibed with the love we did at a young age, and they won't being "subscribers" rather than fans, what happens generations down the line when childhood apathy tuns into adult apathy.

When the going gets tough, the tourists won't stick around through thick and thin like our generation and if there's no next generation coming through, the owners and execs will be looking a dead golden goose.

It's a shite state of affairs Tommy..........

I understand that you want to blame the owners, but AFAIK no owners are extracting great sums from running their clubs. Most/all of their economic return comes from long-term appreciation when/if they ever sell, and the psychic return from being s successful owner, IOW it's a vanity project in the short run and only economic in the long run, which generally gets over-estimated at some point and then implodes.

Spurs "made" £113mm for FY2019, but ended the year down ~£100mm in actual cash, due primarily to the stadium build. See pp. 10 & 13 here. They also paid £26mm in tax ;). The tirade about increased costs to ticket-holders, etc. is misplaced - the true beneficiaries are the players (and their agents). Professional leagues in a variety of sports have tried true caps, penalty provisions, revenue sharing, etc. and the results are roughly the same - higher live ticket prices (pricing to a sell-out is arguably NOT revenue maximizing, we know from our concert experiences that the best tickets/seats could go for much higher than list price).

Look at City's "matchday revenue" - p. 55 here compared to their total revenues, mainly from broadcast and commercial. It's not the fannies in the seats that matter to the revenue structure. Out of £535mm in total revenues they only made £10mm in profit. Their wage bill is half again larger than Spurs. [As an aside, I understand that Levy manages Spurs by giving bonuses tied to performance, while Man U and I expect City have provisions that reduce contracted wages if UCL is missed - ~25% at United IIRC.]

Or look at Real Madrid - here Just a huge revenue number (€822mm budgeted this year, p. 150), but personnel expenses of €456mm!!! Their ~€40mm annual profit depends on ~€94mm of net revenue from transfers. Think about that.

ETA: Here's the link for the NUFC financials - here See the outsized efect of the Championship season vs the EPL season, net profit/loss, cash flow, wages-to-revenue, etc. It's a crazy business to try to mange to survive, truly.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I had a day off today and, at one point, I found myself in Asda in Inverness.   Two young lads, I'd guess no older than 20ish, who worked there were chatting in one of the aisles when I pass

So they have to be punished. The whole "yeah, but others do it too" is just an admission of guilt. I understand it stings, but City agreed to the FFP rules, then went on to break them anyway. Serves t

Are you using @Daisey Jeep's spellchecker?  

Posted Images

I suspect when all is said and done, much more will be said than done.  There are a lot of big clubs who's books wouldn't stand an audit both in the EPL and the rest of Europe.  There will probably be a one year ban and what appears to be a sizable fine but no wholesale dismantling of the club.  MC was going to have to reload this summer anyways so in some respects this development was as well timed as it could be.  Guardiola insists he isn't going anywhere but who knows.  What I do know is he will leave sooner or later and given the average length of tenure of team managers it's probably sooner.  Iterations of teams come and go, it's the nature of sports.  For me watching a new iteration of City with Pochettino at the helm will be interesting to watch.  If nothing else taking a step back for a year will give Liverpool a chance to run out the string on this brilliant edition of their club.  

Meanwhile I'm suffering from the space zombie apocalypse plague or the corona virus or possibly the man flu and may not live to see any of this.  I'm crawling on to my couch under a blanket with a cup of coffee and will see how much entertainment today's matches bring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JimCT said:

10 days to appeal to CAS, reportedly City has been preparing this for a year or more so that deadline isn't an issue. CAS is prepared to fast-track the appeal to complete it before the next CL season starts.

While 2 years seems long, if the facts as alleged are proven then a year for the FFP violation and a second year for the fraud associated with the concealment seems justified. If City wins the appeal then FFP is gutted, as is UEFA.

If the 2 year ban is upheld then I expect (1) Pep leaves; (2) Sterling to Real (€150mm+); (3) KDB is 28, nearly 29, he can't lose 2-3 years of playing in the highest profile competition - no idea the value, IIRC I've seen €55-60mm; (4) Jesus?; (5) Bernardo?; LaPorte?; (6) Mahrez?; (7) Sané - to Germany for sure; (8) Mendy - to France?; (9) Walker is 29, his movement is probably guided by whether he could retain an England spot w/o a move, or even with one; (10) Gündogan?; (11) Foden - I think he stays for the rebuild; (12) Cancelo? reportedly unhappy with his playing time already.

The biggest problem is that with FFP a fire sale sucks. There is only so much cash that other clubs can splash, so trying to sell €300-500mm of players in one window is nearly impossible. City would have to go that route, as keeping the players for the season 3 years out is impossible (see KDB and Walker, for example). They would have to sell, reinvest, and rebuild as the only intelligent route. Poch would be great for them IMO, 2 years with only the league and domestic cups, the chance to build a squad in his image quickly given the amount of known shifts that would be required. If done right the pain could be assuaged by the prospect of an exciting rebuild, the opportunity actively to engage the fans in the rebuild.

Thanks Jim for staying with in reason. If a fire sale has to happen those values listed would be cut in half. For simple reason City won't sale to Man U or LFC. Which means the only clubs these player can go to are Real and Barca, Sane most likely to Bayren. So the rich gets richer. 

As for the Scottish three, I dig that the game maybe different then when you guys grew up. But baseball is different from when Jim and I grew up. I still rather see the players with the money then the owners hoarding the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF, big IF, City has to fire sale a lot of players then the summer window will be quite a chess game. Barca and Real need to sell some to balance the past books and create leeway to bring in new. One or more of the larger Italian sides may need to raise cash as well IIRC. Arsenal arguably needs a total revamp, and the only way they can afford that given their lack of the revenues from CL these past several years will be to sell Auba and Lacazette, and unload Ozil if they can (salary dump, mostly).

Who goes where, and for how much? We'll all be reading whatever tea leaves are available from the CAS proceedings. My best guess is that Chelsea, Spurs, Everton and Leicester are best placed, having natural positive cash flow and less dependence on selling. Everton probably the least of those. Leicester benefits from the likely avoidance of rumored big-money (i.e., hard to resist) bids for some of their key players - Maddison, Ndidi, Soyuncu.

ETA: Some others that might be affected - Sancho costs less, Coutinho costs less, Neymar doesn't trade at all and Mbappé may not trade, either - or at least for less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JimCT said:

I understand that you want to blame the owners, but AFAIK no owners are extracting great sums from running their clubs. Most/all of their economic return comes from long-term appreciation when/if they ever sell, and the psychic return from being s successful owner, IOW it's a vanity project in the short run and only economic in the long run, which generally gets over-estimated at some point and then implodes.

Spurs "made" £113mm for FY2019, but ended the year down ~£100mm in actual cash, due primarily to the stadium build. See pp. 10 & 13 here. They also paid £26mm in tax ;). The tirade about increased costs to ticket-holders, etc. is misplaced - the true beneficiaries are the players (and their agents). Professional leagues in a variety of sports have tried true caps, penalty provisions, revenue sharing, etc. and the results are roughly the same - higher live ticket prices (pricing to a sell-out is arguably NOT revenue maximizing, we know from our concert experiences that the best tickets/seats could go for much higher than list price).

Look at City's "matchday revenue" - p. 55 here compared to their total revenues, mainly from broadcast and commercial. It's not the fannies in the seats that matter to the revenue structure. Out of £535mm in total revenues they only made £10mm in profit. Their wage bill is half again larger than Spurs. [As an aside, I understand that Levy manages Spurs by giving bonuses tied to performance, while Man U and I expect City have provisions that reduce contracted wages if UCL is missed - ~25% at United IIRC.]

Or look at Real Madrid - here Just a huge revenue number (€822mm budgeted this year, p. 150), but personnel expenses of €456mm!!! Their ~€40mm annual profit depends on ~€94mm of net revenue from transfers. Think about that.

ETA: Here's the link for the NUFC financials - here See the outsized efect of the Championship season vs the EPL season, net profit/loss, cash flow, wages-to-revenue, etc. It's a crazy business to try to mange to survive, truly.

Jim, not sure if this post is directed at my or Roy's OP.

If directed at mine it simultaneously misses and makes my point.

It's also seen exclusively through the prism of the club's at the top end of the top division, a fraction of what football in the UK is all about.

The numbers you quote are an obscenity, obviously, and the fact they are even present and prescient in a discussion about football is laughable.

Also, the assertion the " the tirade about increased costs to ticket holders etc. is misplaced" is frankly ludicrous and could only have been written by someone who has not an earthly clue about what football in this country is all about (what it is all about, not what it has become).

The day when my fictional joiner from Moss-side who used to go watch Colin Henry, and whose Dad watched Colin Bell, cannot afford to take his two boys to watch the current version, then the gig is already fucked.

 

The game also stopped being a genuine meritocracy, certainly on a European level, many moons ago.

Roughly the time that the "Champions" (sic) League stopped letting champions in, preferring to admit multiple teams from leagues with sizeable TV markets.

 

In short..... it's fucked and I hope and pray I live long enough to see the tipping point and the fall out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TupacThePuma said:

It's no longer Man City but Qatar City, best described by 1 word - CHEATS, But this is systematic of what has happened to english football at every level, prostituted itself for a sackful of trinkets.

Technically it’s Abu Dhabi. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, MagicRatAFC said:

Jim, not sure if this post is directed at my or Roy's OP.

If directed at mine it simultaneously misses and makes my point.

It's also seen exclusively through the prism of the club's at the top end of the top division, a fraction of what football in the UK is all about.

The numbers you quote are an obscenity, obviously, and the fact they are even present and prescient in a discussion about football is laughable.

Also, the assertion the " the tirade about increased costs to ticket holders etc. is misplaced" is frankly ludicrous and could only have been written by someone who has not an earthly clue about what football in this country is all about (what it is all about, not what it has become).

The day when my fictional joiner from Moss-side who used to go watch Colin Henry, and whose Dad watched Colin Bell, cannot afford to take his two boys to watch the current version, then the gig is already fucked.

 

The game also stopped being a genuine meritocracy, certainly on a European level, many moons ago.

Roughly the time that the "Champions" (sic) League stopped letting champions in, preferring to admit multiple teams from leagues with sizeable TV markets.

 

In short..... it's fucked and I hope and pray I live long enough to see the tipping point and the fall out.

To ignore the numbers is to be irrational. They are objective and indisputable.

If you challenge the revenue side, then what expenses do you think should be reduced to preserve the at-least-breakeven nature of the enterprise? The numbers show that no owners are extracting large amounts from the enterprise. The single biggest expense is the personnel costs. Stadia, training facilities, trainers/physios/etc are also extensive these days. If you want to reduce any of that, defend the diminished product you will receive.

To say, "I liked it then, why can't it have remained that way," is silly. The players are better, and they are that way in part because they are paid to be better, to train exclusively, etc. As I understand it, at least in the UK if you still like that product then you can support lower league teams. Do so, and ignore the EPL as just no longer the product you want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, JimCT said:

To ignore the numbers is to be irrational. They are objective and indisputable.

I'm not ignoring them, I'm opining that they are obscene.

38 minutes ago, JimCT said:

If you challenge the revenue side, then what expenses do you think should be reduced to preserve the at-least-breakeven nature of the enterprise?

The fact that sentence even makes sense in a discussion about football shoes how screwed things are.

38 minutes ago, JimCT said:

 

The numbers show that no owners are extracting large amounts from the enterprise.

Ask the Glazers and Ashley about that.

38 minutes ago, JimCT said:

 

The single biggest expense is the personnel costs. Stadia, training facilities, trainers/physios/etc are also extensive these days. If you want to reduce any of that, defend the diminished product you will receive.

Define "diminished product". 

A more competitive league ?

38 minutes ago, JimCT said:

To say, "I liked it then, why can't it have remained that way," is silly.

Not what I'm saying at all. 

38 minutes ago, JimCT said:

 

38 minutes ago, JimCT said:

The players are better,

No they're not.

38 minutes ago, JimCT said:

 

and they are that way in part because they are paid to be better, to train exclusively, etc.

They're fitter certainly.

38 minutes ago, JimCT said:

 

As I understand it, at least in the UK if you still like that product then you can support lower league teams.

You can, but you don't "chose" the team you support. And when did football become "product"?

38 minutes ago, JimCT said:

 

38 minutes ago, JimCT said:

Do so, and ignore the EPL as just no longer the product you want. 

I tend to, as do many others.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LeoGetz said:

You gotta feel sorry for long-time fans when people like this take over your club.

How far back do you have to go, for Long Time fans? 

I bet long time fans love winning 4 Championship in the last 20 years. I've been around for 3 of them. But I'm a Glory Hunter!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jimmy James said:

How far back do you have to go, for Long Time fans? 

I bet long time fans love winning 4 Championship in the last 20 years. I've been around for 3 of them. But I'm a Glory Hunter!

I wouldn't want to be associated with a club run by these people. It's bad enough that former heroes of mine like Pep and Xavi have their heads up their asses. The moment Qatar started to sponsor Barça I started to back off.

Imagine being a City fan since childhood and then your club gets bought by these people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jimmy James said:

?. Please explain. 

"In 2011 Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the emir of Abu Dhabi and president of the United Arab Emirates, received a letter. It came from a group of Emirati intellectuals inspired by the recent wave of pro-democracy protests sweeping through the Middle East and north Africa, and requested a range of modest reforms, including an extension of the voting franchise which at the time encompassed just 2% of the country’s population.

No marching on the streets. No popular unrest. Certainly no disorder of any kind. Just a letter. Nonetheless, with a regime petrified to the point of paranoia by the spectre of political Islamism, the reprisals would be swift and merciless.

Within weeks the arrests had begun, rounding up most of the 160 letter’s signatories, who were designated as “terrorists” plotting to overthrow the regime. Citizenships were revoked. Hefty prison sentences were dished out. In 2014 Abu Dhabi enacted Terrorism Law No 7, reclassifying peaceful opposition as a terrorist act punishable by death, and criminalising a whole range of hazily-defined acts, from “antagonising the state” or “stirring panic among a group of people” to “carrying explosive crackers for a terrorist purpose”."

It's in the article I linked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LeoGetz said:

"In 2011 Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the emir of Abu Dhabi and president of the United Arab Emirates, received a letter. It came from a group of Emirati intellectuals inspired by the recent wave of pro-democracy protests sweeping through the Middle East and north Africa, and requested a range of modest reforms, including an extension of the voting franchise which at the time encompassed just 2% of the country’s population.

No marching on the streets. No popular unrest. Certainly no disorder of any kind. Just a letter. Nonetheless, with a regime petrified to the point of paranoia by the spectre of political Islamism, the reprisals would be swift and merciless.

Within weeks the arrests had begun, rounding up most of the 160 letter’s signatories, who were designated as “terrorists” plotting to overthrow the regime. Citizenships were revoked. Hefty prison sentences were dished out. In 2014 Abu Dhabi enacted Terrorism Law No 7, reclassifying peaceful opposition as a terrorist act punishable by death, and criminalising a whole range of hazily-defined acts, from “antagonising the state” or “stirring panic among a group of people” to “carrying explosive crackers for a terrorist purpose”."

It's in the article I linked.

So after 9 years you are now just outraged? Were you outraged last year and the year before when in different terms you called City one of the best team you have ever seen? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

7 minutes ago, Jimmy James said:

So after 9 years you are now just outraged? Were you outraged last year and the year before when in different terms you called City one of the best team you have ever seen? 

1. When did I say that?

2. Outrage?

3. It's no shame to change your mind or to admit that when it comes to certain subjects you were not properly educated. 

Where would you draw the line? Not giving a crap about human rights is obviously not enough. Exploiting people also not. A few dead bodies to his name?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JimCT said:

:wacko:

It's a guaranteed loser, JJ. City cannot win what they cannot contest ;) 

So are you saying they can't be sent down to League 2? Or they won't be sent down? You're right the FA don't have the balls to do so. When it's in the rules. 

I would like to see City sent down, so I can root for a League 2 club, and become a proper fan. I can't be at the grounds to watch so there is anyway that, so I'll never be a proper fan. Damn it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LeoGetz said:

"In 2011 Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the emir of Abu Dhabi and president of the United Arab Emirates, received a letter. It came from a group of Emirati intellectuals inspired by the recent wave of pro-democracy protests sweeping through the Middle East and north Africa, and requested a range of modest reforms, including an extension of the voting franchise which at the time encompassed just 2% of the country’s population.

No marching on the streets. No popular unrest. Certainly no disorder of any kind. Just a letter. Nonetheless, with a regime petrified to the point of paranoia by the spectre of political Islamism, the reprisals would be swift and merciless.

Within weeks the arrests had begun, rounding up most of the 160 letter’s signatories, who were designated as “terrorists” plotting to overthrow the regime. Citizenships were revoked. Hefty prison sentences were dished out. In 2014 Abu Dhabi enacted Terrorism Law No 7, reclassifying peaceful opposition as a terrorist act punishable by death, and criminalising a whole range of hazily-defined acts, from “antagonising the state” or “stirring panic among a group of people” to “carrying explosive crackers for a terrorist purpose”."

It's in the article I linked.

If I had not seen the thread title, I would have thought you had just described trumpies omerica.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LeoGetz said:

 

 

1. When did I say that?

2. Outrage?

3. It's no shame to change your mind or to admit that when it comes to certain subjects you were not properly educated. 

Where would you draw the line? Not giving a crap about human rights is obviously not enough. Exploiting people also not. A few dead bodies to his name?

So, I'll take it you won't be watching the up-coming World Cup? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...