(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post
|
Basically, no matter how wealthy your owners are, the amount you can spend on transfers is tied to the revenue you generate in a year. City were guilty of grossly over-exaggerating their revenues over a sustained period. To the point where their annual revenue figures were equalling or surpassing the likes of Barcelon and Real Madrid. Ludicrous stuff really. They also had "dual contracts" in place. So on the books for example, manager Roberto Mancini's contract might have said he was on "only" £2m a year. But he was also being paid a separate salary, off the City books, as an "ambassador" or a "consultant" for Abu Dhabi worth maybe £8m a year. All designed to keep the costs in the club books low, and ultimately boosting their bottom line revenue figure. I would say most clubs are guilty of similar clever accounting. But City really took the biscuit over a sustained period. They also used every legal trick and obfuscated as much as they could for years. Meanwhile, lesser resourced clubs such as Everton and Forest were wrapped on the knuckles, received fines and points deductions for lot less. City have to be hammered for this, otherwise the integrity of the all-powerful Premier League is in the bin. The whole edifice could crumble. But, there is a politival context to it all too. The Emiratis have pumpsed an awful lot of money into the UK over the years, and they are already hinting that the gravy train will grind to a halt should they not get their way re: City. Lockjaw (Donegal) - Posts: 10494 - 06/10/2026 10:25:11 2696364 Link 1 |
|
Good post well explained,I dont really know how premier league clubs operate financially. In the case of UTD,,is there a specific reason why they're owners are being allowed to operate this way,without any threat of points deductions etc,,while Citys owners are being investigated? As Lockjaw said in the next post at least citys owners seems to have pumped money into the local area for whatever thats worth. Seniorleague (Galway) - Posts: 362 - 06/10/2026 11:29:58 2696377 Link 1 |
|
I'm no Man Utd fan, but fully agree regarding the Glazers takeover and how they left Utd. They took over what was then the richest club in the world (Real Madrid required debt write-offs at the time to staff in the rich list), and the Glazers who were said to be in heavy debt with their other franchises, including Miami Dolphins, borrowed to buy Utd and then basically saddled Utd with servicing all of their debts elsewhere. How that was allowed is shocking.
Commodore (Donegal) - Posts: 1974 - 06/10/2026 12:38:41 2696393 Link 0 |
|
To be honest there's a part of me that hopes this causes the Premier League to eat itself. Lockjaw (Donegal) - Posts: 10494 - 06/10/2026 13:57:51 2696407 Link 0 |
|
I dont mind smaller clubs being given the chance to financially outmuscle bigger ones. If you look at their histories many of Europes top traditional clubs were probably originally created by financially powerful businessmen to begin with,, handing them an unfair advantage over local rivals I think liverpool was originally created by a textile tycoon or something ,whereas Man City or Bournemouth may have had more organic beginnings. Seniorleague (Galway) - Posts: 362 - 06/10/2026 14:23:08 2696410 Link 0 |