Plastic bandwagoners WILL defend this

>plastic bandwagoners WILL defend this

Other urls found in this thread:

huffingtonpost.com/entry/accounting-gimmicks-and-hard-realities-at-etihad-airways_us_5989950ae4b08a4c247f2586
youtube.com/watch?v=t9IK5MDb9zk
news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/7381794.stm
theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Citywinslol

>profit of 1.1 million
Yeah 99% of their revenue come from related party transactions.

It's like daddy giving you 100 dollars a day and you bragging about how you earning your way through life because you picked a dollar up on the footpath once.

Not really. It's like myself assembling the best team in europe for £480 million and then going to the owners to fund the club according to spending, rather than the other way round. What is wrong with that?

>not really
just kys already mohammed

I remember how much of a joke they were in the mid 00s

Ok

Comments on this in the daily mail.

>Zero debt and record turnover. Sometimes you have to acknowledge good owners and a well run club. Next time some mentions empty seats just remind them. ZERO DEBT.

>We WERE backed by a country but have been self-sustaining for a number of years and turning a profit for 3 years. Sheikh Mansour could walk away tomorrow and there wouldn't be much of a difference. They've built the club into a hugely successful business in all aspects.

Can't tell if they're retards or shills.

>Sheikh Mansour could walk away tomorrow and there wouldn't be much of a difference.
wew

Probably shills.

>Can't tell if they're retards or shills
the best of both worlds

...

>Sheikh Mansour could walk away tomorrow and there wouldn't be much of a difference.

>our relegation plastic club isn't just another arab amusement now

kek

Well they're not wrong about it being a well run club. They're going to walk the league this year and make a profit, whereas a club like Arsenal are stagnating in their own shit because their owner doesn't give a crud about football.

>well run club
>Abu Dhabi FC

kek no

>making a profit is apparently relevant in football
Is that you, Mike Ashley?

What exactly is badly run about the club other than the fact you don't like that an Arab has put the investment into the club?

>a well run club

You don't actually believe that? The moment Arabs leave, it's the end.

City doesn't make any of the revenue on it's own. It relies solely on related party transactions to fund it. If Abu Dhabi Group gets bored the club is fucked.

Wait. So you're saying it's like taking 480 million that you already have and then asking papa to give you the money back? I don't think that's how it went down. I'm pretty sure the chicken comes before the egg.

>and make a profit

The vast majority of their earnings are completely artificial. It's impossible for them not to be "well run" when they've got an owner pouring limitless money in.

Ι have a friend who unironically supports Man. City. He admits he "supports" them because they're good and only since 2011. What's annoying is that he says "I" when referring to them. I can never understand how people get so connected to teams who they never interacted with, have any special connection or never visited the city.

The same argument people said about Chelsea when Abramovich arrived and it's quite clear he isn't going anywhere.

>It's quite clear he isn't going anywhere
Except he gets bored every 2-3 years and starts selling off all the players and Chelsea are back where they belong in mid-table.

A club that's well run club implies that it's self sufficient. City would go into administration if the Sheikh left tomorrow. The "income" isn't real.

Just look up how 'Etihad Airways' is always profitable except they don't actually release any turnover figures.

huffingtonpost.com/entry/accounting-gimmicks-and-hard-realities-at-etihad-airways_us_5989950ae4b08a4c247f2586

>le cooked books FC 'profits'

probably share the same accountants as their sugar daddies.

Even in the context of Chelsea, City aren't well run. Chelsea have done very well with sales and shown a bit of financial responsibility in recent times.

Before FFP Man City would have just reported a £480mil loss. Now they wait until after the window to do the necessary rigmarol to make it apparent to UEFA that they are spending within their means.

>well run club
This is how arabs run businesses

” It was thus not especially surprising that forensic accountants recently showed that the $103 million profit that Etihad Airways claimed for its 2015 fiscal year was actually an operating loss of $2.06 billion; worse, that result was after Etihad’s government owners kicked in $1.7 billion in subsidies.

>Speaking of nice gifts, in FY 2015 Etihad also received another interest-free government loan, $270 million, with no obligation to repay the loan in the forseeable future. More unreality made possible by a generous state.

Oh wow, how well these arabs run things eh?

Interesting video on the Sheikh here:

youtube.com/watch?v=t9IK5MDb9zk

I didn't know how little was known about the guy, or about what his real intentions were for buying, other than upping his family's profile in Europe.

the Saudis are cracking down on corruption. SOme of these clubs could see hard times ahead

>saudis
UAE and Abu Dhabi is not related to the Saudis.

>ywn launder millions of pounds through a football club

>A plastic team for a plastic league with a plastic fan base

Really fries my circuits

It's not illegal, what are you bitching about?

A friend of mine is a City "fan". Been so since like 2012 or something. Probably played them on FIFA and decided to follow them.

Anyways, he's a fucking moron. IQ of 80. Likes the UFC. Wears rainbow soccer socks in our sunday league. Doesn't have a job and lives with his parents (he's 26). Oh he dyes his hair a different colour every couple of weeks. I think its even blue right now.

I assume all City fans are like this.

>American talking about plastic sports leagues

laughingwhores.jpg

>Can't tell if they're retards or shills.

>Daily Mail

What do you think?

>It's not illegal
Just misleading and deceptive.

>I assume all City fans are like this.

Not really. That's more Man United. Man United have waaaaaay more bandwagoners than City do.

Shills are known to brigade the daily mail comments. It's the biggest news site in the world.

>Just misleading and deceptive.
Are you gay?

Nah I don't support City

Are there lots of football supporters in Canada or are you two just oddballs?

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/7381794.stm

That was 3 months before they were bought over. After the takeover I remember paper stories literally every day in the lead up to January 2009 about all the players they were going to buy.

>linking huffington post
the fuck is the matter with you

Soccer is more popular than hockey in Canada.

>you now remember kaka to man city

Isn't EVERY clubs earning artificial now in the top league's? Its all from company sponsors and investors. It makes up the vast majority of a clubs money.

Other club sponsors are legitimate. They're not owned by their sponsor. Abu Dhabi are funneling money into the club through their own companies. Man City are effectively sponsoring themselves as part of a FFP loophole. All of their 'sponsorship' revenue is fake.

>Next time some mentions empty seats just remind them. ZERO DEBT.
yeah that's what it's all about i suppose

ManU, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool are all self-sufficient clubs run on their own commercial revenue. Only Shitty and Chelshit are sugar daddy status in the top 6.

So the city's owners been sponsored by friends and family is the line crossed.

But the glazers been sponsored by friends and family of US companys is fine?

Or same for Chelsea and so on..

It'd be interesting to see how Chelsea would do these days if Roman was to walk away. They've got a huge profile across the world now, have legit sponsorship deals and make a lot from sales.

Chelsea are self sufficient now, they have incredible incomes of wealth, pretty much all their sponsorship deals, merch sales etc. come only 2nd to Man Utd. They haven't went out with a blank chequebook in years.

>So the city's owners been sponsored by friends and family is the line crossed.

You don't seem to understand that it's not sponsorship. It's Sheikh Mansour putting money in his own club under the guise of sponsorship. The comparison with the Glazers makes no sense. They haven't put a penny into Man Utd. In fact they bought Man Utd with loans, which they secured against the club's assets, which incurred massive interest payments that Utd had to pay on behalf of the Glazers.

I'm sorry you are triggered, snowflake.

>"it's only ok for clubs I approve of to use money"

>spend billions
>Profit 1.1 million
Worth it

We've got to step in and shut these organizations down. It's clear they are just a way for terrorists to move money for terrorist attacks without being noticed.

city=reddit

Clubs should use their own money.

savage

easy when they sponsor themselves

Got friends which are Man U supporters and I feel the same about 'how people get so connected to teams who they never interacted with, have any special connection or never visited the city.'

I understand they're a huge club with incredible history but where's the fun in supporting someone because of that

>434 million in revenue results in only 1million of profit

Am I completely retarded and ignorant to how it works? How is this not abysmal?

theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club

Give this article a read

Owning a football club is not a profitable business. It is a good way to gain fame and public exposure though. Play your cards right and you'll be beloved by many who look up to you like a God.

Shit, it works completely different over here. I never thought it was like this everywhere else.

Running a sports team in any country isn't profitable. It's buying and selling the teams where you make money.

1 bad season, fans don't show up, and the team is in a 10's if not 100's of millions hole. only making a 0.2% return on investment is pretty shitty

I would be surprised if that was true

Why do you think your teams are called franchises and ours are called clubs?

Billionaires aren't buying football clubs to make money (except a few like Mike Ashley). Most of the time it's just like a flash sports car, essentially an expensive plaything to show off to your other billionaire mates.

Their revenue isn't real.

>Sheikh Mansour could walk away tomorrow and there wouldn't be much of a difference

Upsetting that someone out there actually believes this.

Not to change the subject, but these are unironically the types of comments you see on /r/soccer (unfortunately I'm on there occasionally for highlights). The comments there are a fucking cesspool

uhhh bro it works the exact same way here. sports teams are pet projects for billionaires to grow value, notice how few teams actually give a shit about revenue

nigga what the fuck
Spent 3 years in ON, the only person to ever talk about footy with me was this mexican dude from work

Australian in acting like a complete arsehole shocker!

go have a fosters then throw yourself on the barbie, bruce.

City's owners haven't invested any money in years

You praise Man City for making a profit and being well run but criticise Arsenal for stagnating, which comes down to them not spending more than they make i.e. making a profit and being well run.

Absolutely stupid post.

guessing you don't have many options when it comes to friends, huh?

Well it is profitable but the only owners who really take money out of their clubs

City is really just a PR exercise/a way for Qatar and UAE to have bragging rights over each other without war

...

Learning so much, keep it going guys

>They've built the club into a hugely successful business in all aspects.
is this a good thing?

He is completely correct about Arsenal being a joke though

They're a joke of a team because they are well run and spend within their means though, the exact thing for which he is praising City.

It would be if it were true but it's obviously not. To be fair to them, they have renovated their ground, facilities and youth centre. But there's nothing "successful" about their business model because they're not playing by the normal rules of business. They make Abramovic look like a modest, financially responsible owner. If the Sheikh and his partners left tomorrow, City would find themselves collapsing before long. The club would have expenses that it couldn't possibly manage without the owner's backdoor money.

answer my question bitch

I think Liverpool are next to go this route tbqh. There's talk of FSG wanting to sell up, and that blonde woman that represents the ME petrodollar groups is said to have met with them.

fucking snowflake, leave Bruce alone

Yeah, good thread. Today I learned that Shitty supporters are in league with the devil or rather, subhuman scum that calls themselves royalty, amassing insane levels of wealth through suppression of fossil fuel alternatives, pollution/poisoning of the air & sea worldwide, vast amounts of modern day slavery and surely a number of heinous crimes of the superrich (child prostitution, etc.).

>inb4 huh, its all shitskins, haha, who care, not happening to us whites...lel

Hope you fuckers thinking this bullshit realise that this is coming to your town, we are literally sliding towards modern slavery level working conditions (work all the time, still don't make enough to own home, etc. - can't afford to retire even when old) for the large majority of even the richest countries in the world, but you won't rebel because the "entertainment product" they provide you makes up for all that.

sorry I'll leave your boyfriend alone

get him some help though, please?

1.1 million is what your local macdonalds makes in profit in a year lel

calm down, queer

c'mon now sweetie I apologized there's no need to get triggered like one of those snowflakes