Bad news for the "Small Club" - Manchester City post massive loss

[Browney]

I love how you can't take it when people provide you with pure facts.


Liverpool have won more than United, United will NEVER be what Liverpool was. Fact.

*MASSIVE FACEPALM*

Both have won 18 titles, United have won more FA Cups and League Cups, Liverpool have won more Champions League.

[Black_Apalachi]

This is thread is about City and City ONLY. Do us all a favor, quit trolling for once.

I won't be responding to any futher comments you make in this thread ok thankzzzzzzz bi.

I'm pretty sure you brought United into this first? :S

Who gives a ****. Pure facts don't lie. I don't care if United have/will win more than United, Liverpool will always, in my eyes, have a greater history than United, and for that reason will always be a bigger club. *REMOVED*

Edited by invincible (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't be rude to other forum members.

LOVIN THIS

Football is all about money now.

It's been all about money for ages!!!

[AlexOC]

One thought in the owner's mind - BAD INVESTMENT.

Might as well say 200+ Million - All flops above.

I think before the owners will be gone before the end of this decade. They are going to have to win trophies like the Champions League/Premier league to be able to achieve a profit, unless they sign a player like Ronaldo to boost shirt sales, attendance figures.. things like image rights ect.

Year after year, these figures will be popping up. - Should of bought United.. that's for sure.

The upcoming years will be a bleak one for the "small club"

The owner is only worth a few more Billions that Roman. - His family is worth 40 + Billion I'm assuming from reports.

He's using his own money in transfers, paying off the clubs debts and ect and he's hasn't even made a profit. 200 million spent on players - 100 mill pre-tax loss. I'm sure he's thinking about this dearly.

I don't know why he didn't buy a Club like United - United is a Club that will always be a stable one, a Club who will be successful in making money and making heaps in Revenue each year.

I suppose he thought it would be easy turning the small club into a big club like united. Anyone with a brain would of know doing this would only be achieved in dream paradise.



No matter how rich he/them are. I'm sure a big playing factor in buying city was for a profit.

If you are suggesting that they bought the club for the "fun" of it then they should of bought a Club like Docaster Rovers and paid every single one of the current team players 200k a week.

This is thread is about City and City ONLY. Do us all a favor, quit trolling for once.

I won't be responding to any futher comments you make in this thread ok thankzzzzzzz bi.

:/ ....

[alexxxxx]

my club makes a profit (derby county).

[United-Clowgon]

It's actually a very good day for the "Small Club".

Although we've made an (expected) loss of money our owner has written it off by turning the loans into equity (effectively, all the players brought are gifts from the owner himself).

The loans have been cancelled in return for shares (being worth however much someone is willing to pay for them).

So we're actually in a much better off situation compared to Chelsea where Abro isn't writing the loans off into shares, he's keeping them thus enforcing Chelsea to repay him however much he's invested.

The key word here is invested. Our owner is no muppet who enrols upon an investment without researching it. Everyone and I mean everyone with a clue would of expected this loss at first.

Oh and inheritance money? I think not, quite the insult actually.

Sheikh Mansour is a very wealthy man, like most seriously wealthy men he is very intelligent. He doesn't do the investing, he hires a team of financial investors who all research different specialist areas and investments.

A prime example of the Sheikhs intelligence is the shares he purchased in Barclays when it was adventuring on a humiliating slump, many British journalists laughed at the man for investing billions into shares which were in decline. This was the end product; CLICK HERE

The only club who are having a bad day are actually the ones from Stretford, whom you and many others laughing in this thread claim to support. It's a shame the only respectable Manchester United fan is banned here, he'd of told you today is not a day to laugh at Manchester City. Actually it's a day to feat them. Shall I explain?

OK, here we go. Bare with me, it may be a challenge for some of you to understand however I'm sure a few of you will be able to grasp it.

In the short time the Sheikh has been at Manchester City he's invested over £300,000,000 and written them off as shares, the players he purchased are gifts to the club and the people.

Now the Glazers, since they bought United in their bitterly contested takeover, have given the club not one penny to spend. Quite the opposite; their ownership has drained the club of huge sums of money. In only three years up to 30 June 2008, the closing date of their most recent published accounts, United became liable to pay a staggering £263m in interest alone. Despite that, the capital lump sum which United owe to banks and hedge funds has actually snowballed by £159m, from £540m in 2005, to £699m in 2008.

That increase is accounted for partly by the very high interest charged on the £275m the Glazers borrowed from three hedge funds to buy United. When the entire debt was refinanced only 15 months later in August 2006, the hedge fund debt had risen by £79.1m, which included £13.2m for "early redemption". The refinancing paid that off, leaving United with £525m owed to banks and £138m owed to hedge funds. An estimated £29m was paid in professional fees then, principally to bankers, lawyers and accountants. Reports that the Glazers have appointed two banks,JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank, to seek refinancing again with bank bonds should be understood in that context: huge fees will be charged, there are likely to be early repayment premiums again on the £175m hedge fund debt United now owe, and the refinancing is likely to increase the total debt owed.

The debt is accumulating interest at 14.25% (for you who are still reading, I'm expecting Clowgon will be mastering his "LOL Y DO A BIG POST I AINT GONA READ IT" response again, I'd be laughing at this huge interest rate... unless you're a United fan of course).

After United lost the Champions League final in May, Ferguson might have been expected to substantially strengthen his squad, but instead, Cristiano Ronaldo was sold to Real Madrid for £81m, and the manager signed only Antonio Valencia, for £17.5m from Wigan, Michael Owen, on a free transfer, and Gabriel Obertan, for £3m from Bordeaux. Whatever their protestations that money remains available, United's weakening through injury, occasional underperformance and Ferguson's dismissive approach to buying players means United are simply not carrying themselves as proud, cash-rich, Premier League champions with the Ronaldo money still in the bank. Time is surely running out for the argument that the debts – now, with interest, certainly more than £700m, vastly more than any other English club – are not financially constraining.

With a United squad looking suddenly threadbare, and a vintage manager due for retirement himself before too long I'd be very worried if I was a fan wearing the reds shirt.

Who could of thought it eh? Before the Glazers arrived in 2005, nobody could have foreseen this bizarre reversal in Manchester. United, then the world's richest club, are lurching into the new decade with punishing debts, while City, of all clubs, are being roundly criticised after the sacking of their manager for being too ruthless, driven and improbably rich.


Happy New Year Clowgon, may it be a very sour one for 'your' club.

Happy New Year.

I actually did read everything you said and as much as i hate it, your right.

As i stated above, this thread is about City and about City only but before the thread goes off even more, i would like to just say, i think all United fans know we are debt and yes, we are all worried about the future of the club, having said that, it will a matter of time until the Glazers run out of options in clearing off the debts. This will mean selling the Club or selling a huge stake in it to pay off the debts.

The Glazers thought that they could get a lucrative tv deal when they bought the Club. This didn't work out and now they are running out options. It'll be a matter time before they will have to sell up. I reckon in the next 2 years this will be the case.

*MASSIVE FACEPALM*

Both have won 18 titles, United have won more FA Cups and League Cups, Liverpool have won more Champions League.

Exactly, this troll hardly seems to know basic facts between the two. Now Wolves think before you post for crying out loud.

:/ ....

[AgnesIO]

*REMOVED* I think you will find if you buy a premiership club for profit, you are thinking wrong. Premiership clubs don't make profits, just like Manchester United don't - cough £600 million in debt xx

People with 40 billion do not buy a football club to make a few more million.


Edited by MattGarner (Acting Assistant General Manager): Please do not be rude towards the user & please do not insult them either.

[StefanWolves]

*MASSIVE FACEPALM*

Both have won 18 titles, United have won more FA Cups and League Cups, Liverpool have won more Champions League.

Read my other post. **MASSIVE FACEPALM**

[lBlue]

Come on lads, keep it on topic. I've just crafted a post in this thread which would stand for post of the year if this forum had such a thing and it's only January!!

[CHA!NGANG]

Owners won't care. They knew before they bought it that the first few seasons will be a big loss because of transfers and the fact that they won't win any cups really. After the first few seasons, then they'll be looking for a much more stable club and finances to be a bit tighter. As for the post above made by Damala, I don't know the exact finances, but I'm pretty sure that Arsenal make a good profit each year and it goes towards the stadium costs, but it's still a profit, and once it's payed off then it will go to the owners. Clubs like Chelsea, City, Madrid e/t/c don't tend to make profits because they spend so much, but the owners don't really look for profit in those clubs, they just look for reputation, titles and success.

I thought any idiot could work out City would have large loss this year because of transfers...

[Mexel]

All clubs are in debt anyway, who gives a **** if City are in debt, because truly they aren't. If their owners wanted to rite the debt off they could with their pocket change.

As far as i know, Blues and Wolves are the only teams in the prem that arnt. Not to sure now but that was the case a few months back.

But anyway i would rather be in "small club" Man Citys situation than 700 odd million pound in debt. Man City made a loss.. but they spent how much on players :rolleyes: they have to money to lose as much as they like, nothing will change that so hows about you stop kicking your self for supporting the wrong team in Manchester.