Jump to content

Bruno Guimarães


wykikitoon
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

under psr rules spending was linked to revenue. now that city have broken revenue records they're linking spend to something we can't affect. same old cartel, always cheating.


I was looking at that the other day. City £800+ mill  in commercial revenue last year. Where are they getting it from and how does it pass the fair market value thing?… 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

didn't etihad give them £500m for a stadium naming rights or something? which was more than five times what arsenal got from emirates - if i remember correctly wenger kicked up a fuss at the time because he could see where things were going - arsenal can't compete with that. 

 

we are being denied the same opportunity. aramco could sponsor st james for 3bn tomorrow but there is no way the greedy six are going to let another chelsea or man city join the club. 

 

it'll be interesting to see whether man city are able to negotiate another massive namig rights deal under new FMV rules, as the first deal with etihad clearly blew FMW under water.

 

it's probably why they haven't done a naing rights deal on st james' yet. they're waiting for this shite to blow over before trying to get the most they can without the greedy shites stopping us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:


I was looking at that the other day. City £800+ mill  in commercial revenue last year. Where are they getting it from and how does it pass the fair market value thing?… 

 

i think it's £712 million rather than 800. the question i would ask, is how does it fail ?

 

all our annual reports going back 10 years are on the city website here https://www.mancity.com/club/annual-reports

 

but you probably want to see page 33 of this pdf https://www.mancity.com/annualreport2023/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/manchester-city_financial-report_2022-23.pdf

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

didn't etihad give them £500m for a stadium naming rights or something? which was more than five times what arsenal got from emirates - if i remember correctly wenger kicked up a fuss at the time because he could see where things were going - arsenal can't compete with that. 

 

we are being denied the same opportunity. aramco could sponsor st james for 3bn tomorrow but there is no way the greedy six are going to let another chelsea or man city join the club. 

 

it'll be interesting to see whether man city are able to negotiate another massive namig rights deal under new FMV rules, as the first deal with etihad clearly blew FMW under water.

 

it's probably why they haven't done a naing rights deal on st james' yet. they're waiting for this shite to blow over before trying to get the most they can without the greedy shites stopping us. 

 

if you take etihad out of the equation, our revenue is still greater than Man U.  let that sink in a moment 🙂

 

etihad stadium naming rights is significant but at £15m a year it hardly explains the £712m.  Etihad also sponsor our shirt and other stuff. . source

 

guess the answer for city is to keep extending the existing naming rights deal.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

if you take etihad out of the equation, our revenue is still greater than Man U.  let that sink in a moment 🙂

 

etihad stadium naming rights is significant but at £15m a year it hardly explains the £712m.  Etihad also sponsor our shirt and other stuff. . source

 

guess the answer for city is to keep extending the existing naming rights deal.

 

 

 

you tell me - i'm no expert on man city. if it isn't the etihad deal, which other abu dabhi-affiliated companies have paid over "fair market value" because lets face it - that's how you increased your revenue isn't it? you can't just pump the sheikh's money in so it's funnelled in via "commercial revenue". it's not like man city are suddenly selling more replica shirts than man u is it? i'm sure PIF would like to do the same via affiliated saudi companies but we are not being allowed to repeat the man city model

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

you tell me - i'm no expert on man city. if it isn't the etihad deal, which other abu dabhi-affiliated companies have paid over "fair market value" because lets face it - that's how you increased your revenue isn't it? you can't just pump the sheikh's money in so it's funnelled in via "commercial revenue". it's not like man city are suddenly selling more replica shirts than man u is it? i'm sure PIF would like to do the same via affiliated saudi companies but we are not being allowed to repeat the man city model

 

https://theathletic.com/3120837/2022/02/17/special-report-manchester-citys-sponsors-the-links-to-abu-dhabi-and-what-it-means-for-newcastle-united/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ewerk said:

 

right, so pretty much as i suspected. 

 

so the question must be, will they be allowed to keep their commercial revenue artificially inflated in a world of "FMV" and if so, will the saudis be allowed to join the party? 

 

i suspect the reason we haven't done a big stadium sponsorship or training ground deal yet (low-hanging fruit) is they're waiting to see how this plays out before trying to do a deal that will maximise revenue for us while not falling foul of the bullshit rules designed to stop us. 

Edited by Dr Gloom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Abu Dhabi linked businesses want to be associated with us. Our chairman Khaldoon has grown Mubadala massively since he's been running it. He is THE MAN, a true world stage player.

 

This is my favourite of his interviews ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7rb1j_dRKQ  .. but there are many.

 

There is a flip side though. Etihad airways have been growing faster than Man City, so who's to say that we couldn't be asking for more? maybe its not fair on city :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would add that i don't really care about where the money is coming from.

 

the rules were brought in to screw us over so if we've found a way around them then tough titties.

 

presumably we have long term deals in place and you'd expect existing deals to be okay.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

 

Erm excuse me Mr Robin, but I don't shit on people. 

 

I let people shit on me.

Not what I said, but each to his own :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do these people manage to keep going for more than a single window? Its so blatantly all made up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Andrew said:

How do these people manage to keep going for more than a single window? Its so blatantly all made up

Casey is another Big Frank type IMO. Only he accidentally guessed something right once, got stuck on SSN and a bunch of podcasts and is now in way too deep. He's the Donnie Brasco of parody accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

Is at it again

 

 

 

If he stays no doubt it will be 'aye well things changed and arsenal pulled out' 

 

His fatha should have.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wykikitoon said:

Is at it again

 

 

 

If he stays no doubt it will be 'aye well things changed and arsenal pulled out' 

Tbh if they want to spunk £100m on a player they don’t need then fuck em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.