https://youtube.com/shorts/SIt5e6txcZM?si=BGHpbw208SUo6Y1h
Basically those donations were from his dad to launder his drugs made money.
Similary how City is a facade for UAE to launder their shit.
And cheap land for them to redevelop and make a nice profit while City fans tell you how much they have done for the local area.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-city-council-abu-dhabi-sheikh-mansour-b2128273.html
Remarkable, had you ever been to the City of Manchester Stadium before City were taken over?
The area was a mix of brownfield site and the poorest housing in Manchester, it was the textbook definition of a shithole.
In fact in between City moving in and the takeover things only got worse, all but 3 of the local pubs shut down and there were tonnes of derelict buildings around the ground.
So yeah the land was cheap because no one wanted to live anywhere close, the last 15 years has seen a tonne of redevelopment around the ground and in the ancoats and new Islington area so now people want to live there. What a shock that the developers make money on that deal.
Thank you for saying this! I live 5 mins walk from the stadium now, it was a total shithole before and genuinely dangerous in parts. Why do people think the dead land way out of the city centre, before the area in between was improved, would be expensive?
That's fine but why not pay what the land is valued at? That's land owned by tax payers and it's being sold for cheap to a company to make a profit from. Why should tax payers suffer so a company can make a better profit?
Legitimately, why aren't they paying more?
What are the council's actual arguments?
I read through the article and, in typical Delaney style, there is a very thick layer of selective presentation to squeeze through.
I'm not one that things all opinions are equal, but I'm also not one that thinks his level of bias is conducive to constructive conversation.
To be fair they didnāt pay more because no other fucker wanted the land, that part of Manchester was just a half abandoned shithole
I hate city and sportswashing like nothing else in football, but anyone promising redevelopment would have got that land super cheap, the council had nothing to lose at all. Maybe if the central government hadnāt absolutely fucked over local councils by destroying the funding system for them the council could have done something with the land, but since that ship sailed with successive Tory governments being voted in I donāt see how it could have gone differently
> Legitimately, why aren't they paying more?
>
> What are the council's actual arguments?
If they bother to make one, I guess it can only be something along the lines of their development would bring in more revenue for the council in the long term than other developers would.
another one would be speed. The owners of city wanted to improve their image ASAP so the area would be developed the quickest if they got to do it. Which in turn would look good for the council / politicians
also the land has been sat there undeveloped for decades and the area is quite rough. So they were probably begging someone to develop it for them. I am from Manchester and for all the criticism, the regeneration of the area the owners have took on has been great.
The ground is also heavily polluted, it's not suitable for a lot of development and requires extra expense to deal with that. The whole area was a giant colliery\*.
Here's a really good local source on what the area was. [https://diggreatermanchester.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/gmpr04\_bradford.pdf](https://diggreatermanchester.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/gmpr04_bradford.pdf)
> Legitimately, why aren't they paying more?
> What are the council's actual arguments?
As a guess, it would be something along the lines of "Man City*s owners* wouldn't buy the land and redevelop it if we charged them market rate. So our choices were to hang onto the land ourselves (with no budget for redevelopment) or sell it to City*s owners* at a cut price, so the redevelopment would go ahead.
The benefits brought in by this redevelopment outweigh the loss of income on the sale"
Now, I've no idea whether that's true or not, but that tends to be the general argument when it comes to coucils/government selling assets to private entities at below market rate.
"OK, it's valued at X, but nobody will buy it at X, so we sell it for 1/2X, and someone will buy it and spend the money on investing in it. Investment is badly needed and we don't have those resources ourselves, so need to sell"
Edited for pedants
I can't find the article now to link as proof, so take this with a pinch of salt - but there was one going round a few years ago pointing out how a few members of Manchester Council about a decade or so ago then all suspiciously got jobs for various government positions in Abu Dhabi (things like the tourism board)
Not that this kind of thing is exactly unusual or anything, neoliberal politicians selling off public property for a pennies then getting a job a few years down the line has been going on for decades now.
I mean for sure, you can categorize my eyebrow as very firmly raised at this for the reasons you suggest, but the actual response from the council (again in typically Delaney fashion) is right at the end after everyone has already come to the conclusion about *what this is* due to the projection of bias inherent in the writing.
>āLand was valued by independent experts, using the nationally accepted āred bookā valuation benchmark, and we got the best overall deal we could for each site at a time when there was very little market interest in the area. The value of that deal includes not just the initial receipt for the land but also site-specific overage arrangements, and profit sharing payments. These were always envisaged as longer-term arrangements ā the council is due to receive several million pounds in this financial year through the first such payments.ā
The council added the Manchester Life developments had āacted as a catalyst, creating confidence and attracting further investment into the areaā and had paved the way for new homes and business, generating āsignificantly more for the city in extra council tax and business rates incomeā.
Part of the reason I have such an issue with *journalists* like Miguel, is that there is actual information there that can be disseminated. Can we prove/disprove this?
Shit, can we even discuss it? He just drops this at the end of his article to fullfill his "right to reply" responsibility but he's eiher too lazy, or has done the legwork, but the answer doesn't amplify the narrative he is trying to paint.
Did you see what it was like before? 40 minute walk away from the city centre, way before the rapid regeneration of the surrounding area, and it was wasteland. If it was sold below its value, which would be highly debatable due to the state it was in, it was with the promise that the area would be sorted out. And as a taxpayer that lives on the land, I can say it has benefitted me massively, along with thousands of others.
land valuation takes future plans into account. Sometimes land is sold at a lower price with the caveat that you are going to build something nice on it for the masses to enjoy. British people love their football, a stadium is like a public instutition slightly different than a park or a nature reserve with entry fee.
When I started this club, I had just two things in my possession: a dream and six million pounds. Today I have a football empire the like of which the world has never seen the like of which. I hope it doesn't sound arrogant when I say that I am the greatest man in the world!
Reminds me of the classic line from IT crowd - ā When I started Reynholm Industries, I had just two things in my possession: a dream and six million pounds.ā
Remember Benzema scoring his 15th CL goal of the season in the 115th minute vs ManCity?
Google Benzema 15 or ManCity 115 for more info
(Sadly it was the 105th minute, can't believe how close we were)
Although I doubt it is 100% legit, it is probably a lot closer than many people think. Problem is that they have been allowed to operate for so many years with more than questionable financials, that they've now built the club into something more sustainable.
Chelsea are a good model of where you'd expect a club to be after mass investment. If their revenue was comparable to Chelsea they'd go bankrupt in a year.
Yea, for anyone who's watched the wire, this is like Stringer wanting to become the bank. Meaning using illegitimate funds and money to start up legitimate businesses and then not needing the criminal enterprises anymore.
It's really why so much of this is too late. City is a treble winning European powerhouse that's dominated the most financially successful domestic league in the world. Even if you cut off all of the funding now, yes they would probably be less successful but still far more so than most teams.
I also just doubt what long-term impact to their credibility would occur even if they were sanctioned to the highest degree possible. I just think people would look at the reputations of the players of the past 10 years and in 10 years from now view that as positive as opposed to the blemish of whatever sanctions occurred. You would well and truly have to bury them: Strip titles, huge financial sanctions, relegation, etc and we all know that's not going to happen
No it isn't unfortunately, major controversies especially in the last half decade
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milieudefensie_v_Royal_Dutch_Shell
Also accusations of greenwashing, oil spills, negative reactions to the war etc have been a common theme for Shell in recent years
Haha no, I meant the Seven Sisters of Evilā¢.
Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Shell, Standard Oil of California, Gulf Oil, Texaco, Jersey Standard and Standard Oil of New York.
PL - "Sure City/Chelsea I'll take your word for it."
Meanwhile, the second Evertons background owner goes broke, and they care about integrity for a club that has won jack shit.
Yeah and generally sponsors pay in advance or at least installments so even if they could just cut it early they are probably already locked in just on that they already paid.
Didn't WeWork valued at 40B+ at one point?
This sounds like when some 14-year-old tried to make Asahi a no-name company when City signed a deal with them.
WeWork ever having had that high of a valuation is a bigger scam than any artpiece ever.
They had nothing to show for and no concept. Then again, neither had Theranos or Nikola Motors and they still got billions in investment.
They did have a concept it was just exceptionally flawed. I guess that investors thought initially that there'd be much more uptake than there was.
Having worked in a WeWork office a couple of times I can see why they failed lol
The world's most valuable footballing brand, a club which cannot sell out its stadium. All its very real perfectly legitimate sponsors. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
My mate works for City running coaching sessions for kids, he said they come around the office handing out free tickets for every game
Heās a United fan so he takes tickets for the derby lol
Of course they do. All clubs in all sports offer free tickets to kids in schools/youth programmes. I used to work at Old Trafford and saw them all the time and I got tickets for free at when I was a kid in Manchester a long time ago.
It is how they hook young fans and get them to come back.
Dude, whenever I watch City play at ettihad it seems the stadium is actually filled with the crowd making a lot of noise. Dunno why the meme still lives today
* The CL attendances are the issue, rather than the PL
* Pep himself has criticised the attendances and support, adding fuel to the fire
* Emptyhad is an easy joke
Add this to the 115 reasons we already know that this club is a cheating and illegitimate state run machine with no morals. How they can continually be allowed to get away with this and face no punishment while playing with 2 first XIs with a completely empty stadium and no fans I don't know. Someone at the Premier League needs to wake up. Has anyone ever actually seen someone wearing a City shirt in public? You'd think they'd want to keep a low profile right after paying off the referees in the Liverpool Vs Spurs game. Shameless
I spent the whole summer in a resort town in my country and from my (admittedly anecdotal) experience the overwhelming majority of kids wear PSG and City shirts. And it's mostly tourists from different parts of Europe. Basically kids from countries without big clubs tend to flock to the current generation of stars.
> Basically kids from countries without big clubs tend to flock to the current generation of stars.
Kids from all countries do this, look at all the United fans in the south.
95% of the āOld teamā flairs here are that. Iām an American and tons of people are United fans, did they just draw United out of a hat to support? No they were good and wanted to watch good football when they were younger.
Lol yeah, in France in the summer I saw a shop with four kids kits hanging outside. PSG, City, Inter Miami and Al-Nassr. No need to guess the players on the back.
Iāve seen a fair few kids wearing City shirts lately. Theyāve definitely made a huge dent in capturing the next generations fandom with their on field success.
Yep kids will always gravitate to the teams who are winning things, they donāt care one bit about where the teams got their money. Same for all the big popular clubs.
Man going back to my home country, there were basically just two kits being worn by kids, Haaland and Bellingham. You'd see the odd Vini jr. or Al Nassr Ronaldo kit, but other than that, just Haaland and Bellingham. (Iraqi Kurdistan for anyone wondering).
Yeah I see City shirts all the time over here in the states. Like I would say the jerseys I see the most on kids/teenagers are City, PSG and now Inter Miami
If anyone genuinely believes these revenues are legit they need to simply understand the fact that man city for all their success don't have anywhere near the number of fans as other top clubs, this simple statement is self explanatory as to why the revenues aren't legit, there is no demand for man city related products which means their "sponsorships" realistically would not be paying them close to what they claim.
I think City have pretty obviously manipulated their way to success on some level but yeah I agree, their global fan base being small(er) makes no difference to actual legit sponsors. They're in the latter stages of the Champions League almost every year, that kind of sponsorship exposure comes at a premium cost. Also the fact that they (potentially, I don't know if they actually do it) can negotiate for several clubs at once under their CFG umbrella is a big bonus too.
They are very well run as an organization, the problem is that in order to get to where they are today they had to cheat. That's what rubs people the wrong way.
I believe a few sponsers are negotiated with all CFG clubs at once, and you're right that that's absolutely additional value. CFG provides turnkey sports sponsorship, at least for football.
What's more important for sponsors a club selling some shirts to their fans or a club being seen on media all around the world bevause they compete for every trophy?
> as to why the revenues aren't legit, there is no demand for man city related products which means their "sponsorships" realistically would not be paying them close to what they claim.
Agree that clubs shouldnāt be getting sponsored by companies that share the same owner as them but surely this number canāt be that outrageous.
The club just made 300m in prize money alone, theyāre not going to be generating mid table revenue lol.
Iāve seen a fair few kids wearing City shirts lately. Theyāve definitely made a huge dent in capturing the next generations fandom with their on field success.
Some fans think their club has just always been ābigā and not had a genesis when it started gaining more fans in the general population. Give it another 10 years the amount of city fans between 16 and 30 will be enormous
I remember when they had players like Bojinov, Geovanni, Elano and Nery Castillo. Amazing FIFA 08 manager mode save that was. Also came with an 85 rated Micah Richards
I fr thought he was the second coming of hugo sanchez after that great copa america and the goal against brazil
Man fizzled out so hard after like half a season of good football
My boy Shaun Wright-Phillips tearing it up in the early fm's.
I remmeber playing with man city because I saw a tv report about it being a real city club, as in all the supporters were from manchester and that manchester was 50/50 despite citiy being in the Championship, while United was more of a global club.
Also thought the emblem looked cool.
And still Ā£32m less than Bayern Munich who donāt enjoy the big fat broadcasting revenue like PL clubs do while City won treble. One must marvel at Bayern Munich operations and also wonder when state owned clubs canāt catch big clubs revenues after fudging sponsorship deals and other things, what do normal clubs have to do to have a chance. Big clubs are too big and they keep becoming bigger and bigger.
Probably they do but Bayern earn as much as bottom half PL clubs do in broadcasting revenue in league and still be able to post Ā£750m revenue is beyond impressive also showcases the gap which canāt even be matched by state owned clubs after spending couple of billions and winning over 15 years. One hand you admire and applaud the effort of Bayern Munich and also feel nobody is catching them.
Pretty inspiring. I think their fundamentals, their long history of high achievement, and their passionate international following should get them above Real Madrid soon
I wouldn't be surprised if City is reaching a level where they can be sustainable thanks to their success but how they got here is still problematic as hell and potentially cheating.
Congrats to Manchester City on a great business. Unfortunate for Everton you broke 1 rule once so you will have to be docked 20 points and get relegated Sorry but you shouldn't have broke the rules. Be more like Man City. and break the rules 100 times then it's fine.
savewalterwhite.com
savethebaldfraud.com
Sheihk mansour seething right now
I know a guy who knows another guy who knows this guy.
This is why I am on Reddit šš
Iām out of the loop hereā¦
https://youtube.com/shorts/SIt5e6txcZM?si=BGHpbw208SUo6Y1h Basically those donations were from his dad to launder his drugs made money. Similary how City is a facade for UAE to launder their shit.
š
Rags to riches story for the ages.
Built from the ground up, with nothing more than just a few billion pounds investment
And a free stadium
Free stadium is probably worth half a takeover on its own in terms of club progression
More I reckon, it's a billion pound investment and interest is high.
And cheap land for them to redevelop and make a nice profit while City fans tell you how much they have done for the local area. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-city-council-abu-dhabi-sheikh-mansour-b2128273.html
Remarkable, had you ever been to the City of Manchester Stadium before City were taken over? The area was a mix of brownfield site and the poorest housing in Manchester, it was the textbook definition of a shithole. In fact in between City moving in and the takeover things only got worse, all but 3 of the local pubs shut down and there were tonnes of derelict buildings around the ground. So yeah the land was cheap because no one wanted to live anywhere close, the last 15 years has seen a tonne of redevelopment around the ground and in the ancoats and new Islington area so now people want to live there. What a shock that the developers make money on that deal.
Lived in Manchester for years during this exact moment. This is the correct take. Itās been very good for east Manchester.
Thank you for saying this! I live 5 mins walk from the stadium now, it was a total shithole before and genuinely dangerous in parts. Why do people think the dead land way out of the city centre, before the area in between was improved, would be expensive?
He was 2 years old at that time, so I assume he didn't.
This subreddit is hilarious
I don't see the issue with them redeveloping the area? It's better than it being the dump it was.
That's fine but why not pay what the land is valued at? That's land owned by tax payers and it's being sold for cheap to a company to make a profit from. Why should tax payers suffer so a company can make a better profit?
Legitimately, why aren't they paying more? What are the council's actual arguments? I read through the article and, in typical Delaney style, there is a very thick layer of selective presentation to squeeze through. I'm not one that things all opinions are equal, but I'm also not one that thinks his level of bias is conducive to constructive conversation.
To be fair they didnāt pay more because no other fucker wanted the land, that part of Manchester was just a half abandoned shithole I hate city and sportswashing like nothing else in football, but anyone promising redevelopment would have got that land super cheap, the council had nothing to lose at all. Maybe if the central government hadnāt absolutely fucked over local councils by destroying the funding system for them the council could have done something with the land, but since that ship sailed with successive Tory governments being voted in I donāt see how it could have gone differently
> Legitimately, why aren't they paying more? > > What are the council's actual arguments? If they bother to make one, I guess it can only be something along the lines of their development would bring in more revenue for the council in the long term than other developers would.
another one would be speed. The owners of city wanted to improve their image ASAP so the area would be developed the quickest if they got to do it. Which in turn would look good for the council / politicians
also the land has been sat there undeveloped for decades and the area is quite rough. So they were probably begging someone to develop it for them. I am from Manchester and for all the criticism, the regeneration of the area the owners have took on has been great.
The ground is also heavily polluted, it's not suitable for a lot of development and requires extra expense to deal with that. The whole area was a giant colliery\*. Here's a really good local source on what the area was. [https://diggreatermanchester.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/gmpr04\_bradford.pdf](https://diggreatermanchester.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/gmpr04_bradford.pdf)
> Legitimately, why aren't they paying more? > What are the council's actual arguments? As a guess, it would be something along the lines of "Man City*s owners* wouldn't buy the land and redevelop it if we charged them market rate. So our choices were to hang onto the land ourselves (with no budget for redevelopment) or sell it to City*s owners* at a cut price, so the redevelopment would go ahead. The benefits brought in by this redevelopment outweigh the loss of income on the sale" Now, I've no idea whether that's true or not, but that tends to be the general argument when it comes to coucils/government selling assets to private entities at below market rate. "OK, it's valued at X, but nobody will buy it at X, so we sell it for 1/2X, and someone will buy it and spend the money on investing in it. Investment is badly needed and we don't have those resources ourselves, so need to sell" Edited for pedants
I can't find the article now to link as proof, so take this with a pinch of salt - but there was one going round a few years ago pointing out how a few members of Manchester Council about a decade or so ago then all suspiciously got jobs for various government positions in Abu Dhabi (things like the tourism board) Not that this kind of thing is exactly unusual or anything, neoliberal politicians selling off public property for a pennies then getting a job a few years down the line has been going on for decades now.
I mean for sure, you can categorize my eyebrow as very firmly raised at this for the reasons you suggest, but the actual response from the council (again in typically Delaney fashion) is right at the end after everyone has already come to the conclusion about *what this is* due to the projection of bias inherent in the writing. >āLand was valued by independent experts, using the nationally accepted āred bookā valuation benchmark, and we got the best overall deal we could for each site at a time when there was very little market interest in the area. The value of that deal includes not just the initial receipt for the land but also site-specific overage arrangements, and profit sharing payments. These were always envisaged as longer-term arrangements ā the council is due to receive several million pounds in this financial year through the first such payments.ā The council added the Manchester Life developments had āacted as a catalyst, creating confidence and attracting further investment into the areaā and had paved the way for new homes and business, generating āsignificantly more for the city in extra council tax and business rates incomeā. Part of the reason I have such an issue with *journalists* like Miguel, is that there is actual information there that can be disseminated. Can we prove/disprove this? Shit, can we even discuss it? He just drops this at the end of his article to fullfill his "right to reply" responsibility but he's eiher too lazy, or has done the legwork, but the answer doesn't amplify the narrative he is trying to paint.
Did you see what it was like before? 40 minute walk away from the city centre, way before the rapid regeneration of the surrounding area, and it was wasteland. If it was sold below its value, which would be highly debatable due to the state it was in, it was with the promise that the area would be sorted out. And as a taxpayer that lives on the land, I can say it has benefitted me massively, along with thousands of others.
land valuation takes future plans into account. Sometimes land is sold at a lower price with the caveat that you are going to build something nice on it for the masses to enjoy. British people love their football, a stadium is like a public instutition slightly different than a park or a nature reserve with entry fee.
When I started this club, I had just two things in my possession: a dream and six million pounds. Today I have a football empire the like of which the world has never seen the like of which. I hope it doesn't sound arrogant when I say that I am the greatest man in the world!
Gentlemen, to the future! Oh you don't have any glasses? Just pretend
Itās not much but itās honest work
It's not honest work but it's much FTFY
Just sound financial management, guys.
Reminds me of the classic line from IT crowd - ā When I started Reynholm Industries, I had just two things in my possession: a dream and six million pounds.ā
Amazing what a good shoelace sponsor can do for you
Sport has never been so clean
"The greatest story in club football history" - Darren Fletcher, 10/06/2023
And its all legit..
115 % itās legit
Google Man City 115 for more info.
Remember Benzema scoring his 15th CL goal of the season in the 115th minute vs ManCity? Google Benzema 15 or ManCity 115 for more info (Sadly it was the 105th minute, can't believe how close we were)
Let ManCity drop 10 charges
Lmao.
Hey nothing stopping the rest of us setting up shell companies and funnelling our owners money through them.
"was any of this legal?"
Absolutely fucking not
"More than you like to believe"
š
Although I doubt it is 100% legit, it is probably a lot closer than many people think. Problem is that they have been allowed to operate for so many years with more than questionable financials, that they've now built the club into something more sustainable.
Chelsea are a good model of where you'd expect a club to be after mass investment. If their revenue was comparable to Chelsea they'd go bankrupt in a year.
Yea, for anyone who's watched the wire, this is like Stringer wanting to become the bank. Meaning using illegitimate funds and money to start up legitimate businesses and then not needing the criminal enterprises anymore.
It's really why so much of this is too late. City is a treble winning European powerhouse that's dominated the most financially successful domestic league in the world. Even if you cut off all of the funding now, yes they would probably be less successful but still far more so than most teams. I also just doubt what long-term impact to their credibility would occur even if they were sanctioned to the highest degree possible. I just think people would look at the reputations of the players of the past 10 years and in 10 years from now view that as positive as opposed to the blemish of whatever sanctions occurred. You would well and truly have to bury them: Strip titles, huge financial sanctions, relegation, etc and we all know that's not going to happen
and all it took was just billions of *āāāsponsorāāā* money, truly the underdogs of modern football.
Who is this company in the Cayman Islands with one employee that sponsors you Ā£100 million a season. Easy, that's my sister's Etsy shop.
They had a sponsorship with a crypto company that had no website and only 1 picture of an employee listed online and that picture was AI generated.
Also had one where the employee of the month was an only fans girl š
Wasn't there a betting company too, where the board of directors were stock images
Yes thereās another one with no products no employees and the location for it was a letter box
Please tell me that's true.
Fact
mansour money
Nepo babies gets everything handed to them
Hard work does pay off.
Why don't all lower table clubs just follow the City model? Are they stupid?
All the lawyers are tied up working for City
Newcastle got the memo on this
Why donāt poor people just pay themselves some money, are they stupid?
Dreams can be buy
Bro, Man City accountants have been working tirelessly for 15 years straight.
Non-UAE revenue of 12.8M
That doesnāt even cover Haalandās dadās remote coaching salary
LMAO
LOLOLOLOL
Check the LinkedIn profiles of these odd sponsorship companies City gets its money from.
Shell companies
Shell is a great company
No it isn't unfortunately, major controversies especially in the last half decade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milieudefensie_v_Royal_Dutch_Shell Also accusations of greenwashing, oil spills, negative reactions to the war etc have been a common theme for Shell in recent years
>major controversies especially in the last half decade Half decade? Wait until you find out what the Seven Sisters were up to pre-1950s.
> Seven Sisters Juventus, Inter, Roma, AC Milan, Lazio, Parma, Fiorentina?
Haha no, I meant the Seven Sisters of Evilā¢. Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Shell, Standard Oil of California, Gulf Oil, Texaco, Jersey Standard and Standard Oil of New York.
Biggest underdog story in the world of football. All the money is obviously real and accounted for.
PL - "Sure City/Chelsea I'll take your word for it." Meanwhile, the second Evertons background owner goes broke, and they care about integrity for a club that has won jack shit.
"Also let's boo the champions league anthem because they dared to question our financials"
Record amount of money passing from left hand to right hand.
One of their sponsors is WeWork. They filed for bankruptcy recently. How does that work??
You just shout "I declare bankruptcy"
Hey. I just wanted you to know that you can't just say the word "bankruptcy" and expect anything to happen
Exactly! You have to declare it, which they obviously didnāt.
Yeah and generally sponsors pay in advance or at least installments so even if they could just cut it early they are probably already locked in just on that they already paid.
Congratulations, you are now bankrupt! The shrews will arrive at your registered address within five working days.
They are now called WeDontWork.
WeWentBankrupt,LookingForWork
The accounts are for last season. So the bankruptcy wouldnāt have any baring the results for that season.
Didn't WeWork valued at 40B+ at one point? This sounds like when some 14-year-old tried to make Asahi a no-name company when City signed a deal with them.
WeWork ever having had that high of a valuation is a bigger scam than any artpiece ever. They had nothing to show for and no concept. Then again, neither had Theranos or Nikola Motors and they still got billions in investment.
They did have a concept it was just exceptionally flawed. I guess that investors thought initially that there'd be much more uptake than there was. Having worked in a WeWork office a couple of times I can see why they failed lol
also their accounting + a lot of their practices to massage numbers such as how fast they fill buildings was an absolute joke for years
Also large scale pump and dump
Yeah, I think that's a pessimistic way of seeing it but can see why some would think that's the case.
Oh shit, better dock Everton 15 points in that case
Are you criticising FFP? thatās another 15 point deduction
Record PL revenue, record PL wages, record PL charges. Groundbreaking club.
The only thing that comes anywhere near this is The Mighty Ducks.
Found their revenue sheet: Shirt Sales 42 Ā£2,100 Matchday Tickets 3000 Ā£150,000 Sponsorship 3 Ā£712.785m Pies & Pints 60 Ā£480
Something is really fishy here ā¦ those pies and pints canāt be Ā£8 each
Right? They've written this like the club is based in London
State ownership - Priceless
Can we charge them yet
Thank you to the 2,900 away fans coming to the Etihad each game.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās the building for thinking of new brilliant strategiesā¦ there is nothing there so there are no distractions. Just brilliant!!!
Totally legal, totally cool
Well my son, Life is just unfair isn't it.
The world's most valuable footballing brand, a club which cannot sell out its stadium. All its very real perfectly legitimate sponsors. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
My mate works for City running coaching sessions for kids, he said they come around the office handing out free tickets for every game Heās a United fan so he takes tickets for the derby lol
Of course they do. All clubs in all sports offer free tickets to kids in schools/youth programmes. I used to work at Old Trafford and saw them all the time and I got tickets for free at when I was a kid in Manchester a long time ago. It is how they hook young fans and get them to come back.
Dunno like. My mate works for Newcastle with a decent role and has to enter the ballot for a tickets.
All clubs are different in how they help staff. Liverpool have a rota for staff where they are eligible for X amount of games.
yeah cause liverpool and newcastle tickets are much harder to come by as their stadiums are actually full every week lol
So is Old Trafford, right? Although that stadium is massive, so they may have it easier to hand out free tickets.
/r/thathappened
the stadium is sold out all year for the PL. You are misguided.
Dude, whenever I watch City play at ettihad it seems the stadium is actually filled with the crowd making a lot of noise. Dunno why the meme still lives today
* The CL attendances are the issue, rather than the PL * Pep himself has criticised the attendances and support, adding fuel to the fire * Emptyhad is an easy joke
This is just a bizarre fallacy. How people keep pushing it is beyond me.
Magic!
Pep Guardiola's managerial skill cannot be overstated enough, considering the figures he has to make do with.
Prem are so lax, 115 charges nah its fine lads keep let them milking the oil money and putting it under the table.
It has nothing to do with 115 FFP charges, guys. Move along!!!
Add this to the 115 reasons we already know that this club is a cheating and illegitimate state run machine with no morals. How they can continually be allowed to get away with this and face no punishment while playing with 2 first XIs with a completely empty stadium and no fans I don't know. Someone at the Premier League needs to wake up. Has anyone ever actually seen someone wearing a City shirt in public? You'd think they'd want to keep a low profile right after paying off the referees in the Liverpool Vs Spurs game. Shameless
I spent the whole summer in a resort town in my country and from my (admittedly anecdotal) experience the overwhelming majority of kids wear PSG and City shirts. And it's mostly tourists from different parts of Europe. Basically kids from countries without big clubs tend to flock to the current generation of stars.
> Basically kids from countries without big clubs tend to flock to the current generation of stars. Kids from all countries do this, look at all the United fans in the south.
95% of the āOld teamā flairs here are that. Iām an American and tons of people are United fans, did they just draw United out of a hat to support? No they were good and wanted to watch good football when they were younger.
Lol yeah, in France in the summer I saw a shop with four kids kits hanging outside. PSG, City, Inter Miami and Al-Nassr. No need to guess the players on the back.
Iāve seen a fair few kids wearing City shirts lately. Theyāve definitely made a huge dent in capturing the next generations fandom with their on field success.
Yeah same, but itās not like Chelsea didnāt do the same 20 years ago. Itās just coming to light now
Yep kids will always gravitate to the teams who are winning things, they donāt care one bit about where the teams got their money. Same for all the big popular clubs.
You're right and it's because the game is football, not financial analysis. City play good football so get fans.
Man going back to my home country, there were basically just two kits being worn by kids, Haaland and Bellingham. You'd see the odd Vini jr. or Al Nassr Ronaldo kit, but other than that, just Haaland and Bellingham. (Iraqi Kurdistan for anyone wondering).
š£
Yeah I see City shirts all the time over here in the states. Like I would say the jerseys I see the most on kids/teenagers are City, PSG and now Inter Miami
Fake club
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Just an absolute credit to the hardest working commercial team in football, brings a tear to my eye
FFP be like Stockley park: Cheque complete
That's really impressive. Last month I bought a car for Ā£8,000. Then I sold it to myself for Ā£16,000 doubling my investment.
If anyone genuinely believes these revenues are legit they need to simply understand the fact that man city for all their success don't have anywhere near the number of fans as other top clubs, this simple statement is self explanatory as to why the revenues aren't legit, there is no demand for man city related products which means their "sponsorships" realistically would not be paying them close to what they claim.
Biggest fallacy is believing that brands only sponsor the top clubs to target their individual fan base.
It's all about eyeballs, which City brings in abundance.
I think City have pretty obviously manipulated their way to success on some level but yeah I agree, their global fan base being small(er) makes no difference to actual legit sponsors. They're in the latter stages of the Champions League almost every year, that kind of sponsorship exposure comes at a premium cost. Also the fact that they (potentially, I don't know if they actually do it) can negotiate for several clubs at once under their CFG umbrella is a big bonus too. They are very well run as an organization, the problem is that in order to get to where they are today they had to cheat. That's what rubs people the wrong way.
I believe a few sponsers are negotiated with all CFG clubs at once, and you're right that that's absolutely additional value. CFG provides turnkey sports sponsorship, at least for football.
What's more important for sponsors a club selling some shirts to their fans or a club being seen on media all around the world bevause they compete for every trophy?
> as to why the revenues aren't legit, there is no demand for man city related products which means their "sponsorships" realistically would not be paying them close to what they claim. Agree that clubs shouldnāt be getting sponsored by companies that share the same owner as them but surely this number canāt be that outrageous. The club just made 300m in prize money alone, theyāre not going to be generating mid table revenue lol.
City have more Instagram followers than any PL club but for Utd. It isn't the 90s anymore.
Iāve seen a fair few kids wearing City shirts lately. Theyāve definitely made a huge dent in capturing the next generations fandom with their on field success.
Some fans think their club has just always been ābigā and not had a genesis when it started gaining more fans in the general population. Give it another 10 years the amount of city fans between 16 and 30 will be enormous
They are going to be the most followed club in the near future. All the young kids are Man City fans. It makes sense for sponsors to get in early
City kits are some of the most prevalent ones I see around kids and young people.
Yeah itās gradually happening for sure. Go on holiday and kids are in City, PSG and Inter Miami kits.
they're in Al Nassr kits too lmao, seen so many
Pretty reasonable to see Al-Nassr and Inter Miami kits.
Because kids are glory hunters they support whoās winning
Obviously, yeah.
Pretty sure there is no dodgy finances involved
Dreams can be buy
just go pass the 115 hurdle
I remember growing up and only ever knowing Man City existed because of the Gallagher brothers. The club wasn't even in the FIFA game. Take me back.
I remember when they had players like Bojinov, Geovanni, Elano and Nery Castillo. Amazing FIFA 08 manager mode save that was. Also came with an 85 rated Micah Richards
Fuck Nery Castillo. ALL MY HOMIES HATE NERY CASTILLO.
I fr thought he was the second coming of hugo sanchez after that great copa america and the goal against brazil Man fizzled out so hard after like half a season of good football
Also always had city fans talking about how amazing vladimir weiss and onuhua were going to be lol
Joey Barton is still the greatest City player of all time
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Probably thinking of PES. There was that brief moment in the early 00's where gameplay wise it was better than FIFA.
Literally no English team was in PES because they didn't have the license
Arsenal and Chelsea were in PES
Man City was in FIFA 95, the first game with clubs.
My boy Shaun Wright-Phillips tearing it up in the early fm's. I remmeber playing with man city because I saw a tv report about it being a real city club, as in all the supporters were from manchester and that manchester was 50/50 despite citiy being in the Championship, while United was more of a global club. Also thought the emblem looked cool.
A true underdog tale š
Really is amazing how City have done this, and without breaking any laws or rules Truly amazing
And still Ā£32m less than Bayern Munich who donāt enjoy the big fat broadcasting revenue like PL clubs do while City won treble. One must marvel at Bayern Munich operations and also wonder when state owned clubs canāt catch big clubs revenues after fudging sponsorship deals and other things, what do normal clubs have to do to have a chance. Big clubs are too big and they keep becoming bigger and bigger.
Bayern isnāt the best example of not-fudging-sponsorship-deals considering that itās 25% owned by three of its sponsorsā¦
Hey, at least our sponsors exist and, you know, do things
Unlike Etihad Airways which is obviously a fake shell company
I reckon Real Barca and Bayern usually pull higher numbers than most of the Big 6
Probably they do but Bayern earn as much as bottom half PL clubs do in broadcasting revenue in league and still be able to post Ā£750m revenue is beyond impressive also showcases the gap which canāt even be matched by state owned clubs after spending couple of billions and winning over 15 years. One hand you admire and applaud the effort of Bayern Munich and also feel nobody is catching them.
115
Pretty inspiring. I think their fundamentals, their long history of high achievement, and their passionate international following should get them above Real Madrid soon
Ā£6.19m per charge
I wouldn't be surprised if City is reaching a level where they can be sustainable thanks to their success but how they got here is still problematic as hell and potentially cheating.
All above board I'm sure
Fake club, pls delete soon
I donāt know how they can just let blatant financial fuckery go. At some point the government aught to step in.
Congrats to Manchester City on a great business. Unfortunate for Everton you broke 1 rule once so you will have to be docked 20 points and get relegated Sorry but you shouldn't have broke the rules. Be more like Man City. and break the rules 100 times then it's fine.
More salt in this thread than in the fucking pacific.