Welcome!

FM Base has been serving the Football Manager community for nearly two decades and we're keen to ensure that we are here for two decades more.

Become a part of our community today, and you'll quickly realise that the Football Manager community is the best community.

Register

930 Million Spent by Manchester City to win the Premier League!!!

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Manchester City's £930 million spending spree to turn club into Premier League title contenders.

Exclusive: Manchester City have spent £930.4 million turning themselves into Premier League title contenders, a special Telegraph Sport survey of English football’s finances has revealed.

By Matt Scott
09 May 2012

The figure, which is based on the club’s three most recent annual accounts, lays bare the true cash cost of taking the previously mid-ranking club to the brink of their first league triumph in 44 years.

It also exposes the scale of the task facing them as they seek to comply with Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations, which took effect at the start of this season.

The full extent of City's outlay is one of the key findings of the Telegraph’s unique survey of the financial health of the Premier League, based on clubs’ most recent accounts.

For the first time in a survey of this kind, the Telegraph can reveal exactly how much cash each club earned – and, crucially, spent – during a season.

The study has uncovered that in the 2010-11 season:

*Top-flight clubs spent £2.51 billion in cash, which was £285.8 million more than they earned.

*The Premier League generated £2.23 billion of income, which equates to 0.148 per cent of the entire output of the UK economy.

*Clubs spent almost £400 million on signings after player sales.

*Wages for players and staff cost clubs £1.52 billion.

*Premier League clubs’ net debt was £1.39 billion, costing them £97.2 million in debt-interest payments.

*City’s spending loomed large in the results for the league as a whole.

Between 2008, when Abu-Dhabi-based oil magnate Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al-Nahyan bought them, and the end of last season, the club’s total cash outlay was £930.4m, of which only £365.3m was generated from their own operations.

The remainder – £565.1m – had to be supplied by Mansour, the club’s billionaire benefactor.

That figure will have risen significantly over the course of the current season, although the exact final cost of winning the league will only be known when the next accounts are published in 2013.

Last summer, the club spent a further £53.6m net on new arrivals, which will be reflected in those accounts, although they also secured a sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways which was reported to be worth £400m.

When the gap between their income and expenditure peaked in the 2009-10 season, City were spending £3.04 for every £1 they earned, figures that show the battle they face to meet the “break-even requirement” of Uefa’s new rules.

Telegraph Sport's survey uses the accounts of 19 of the 20 clubs who were in the Premier League last season.

Birmingham have been omitted because they have not met their statutory requirement to file accounts, which has led to the Football League issuing them with a transfer embargo.

This analysis gives supporters a clear picture of the health of their club’s finances and exposes to what extent they rely on the support of benefactors such as Mansour or Chelsea’s Roman Abramovich.

It may make alarming reading for fans of Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Bolton Wanderers, Everton and West Ham United, whose clubs have spent significantly more than they have earned.

Over the years Villa’s owner, Randy Lerner, and Bolton’s Eddie Davies, have shown a willingness to cover these costs, but would leave their clubs with major problems should they chose to stop doing so.

Blackburn and Everton, by contrast, have no such benefactor support to rely on, meaning they must sell players to close the gap between spending and income.

As Blackburn’s relegation has shown this season, those sales can have a severe, negative effect on results on the pitch.

The analysis also highlights some fascinating trends which challenge conventional ideas – not least that spending large sums on signing players can actually have a negative impact on final league position.

Previous studies have shown that a club’s league position tends to reflect their spending on wages. Telegraph Sport’s study suggests this to be accurate, so clubs which pay their players the most tend to finish highest in the league.

But, analysing the period between 2009 and 2011, it also found that clubs who spent greater sums than direct rivals on transfers actually suffered in the league.

West Ham, for example, spent a net £20 million on transfers over the two-year period, which put them among the top 10 spenders.

But it was not enough to buy them Premier League security. In 2009-10 they finished 17th, six places lower than their wage bill ranked; the following year, they were relegated despite their signings and a wage bill which was 12th highest in the league.

Among the elite clubs last season, Chelsea and City both spent more money than Manchester United and paid higher salaries than United, but it was Sir Alex Ferguson’s team who won the league.

The study also shows how some teams manage to prosper despite being ‘selling clubs’.

Wigan Athletic (£574,000 profit), Blackburn (£2.2 million) and Arsenal (£15.9 million) all made more money in the transfer market than they spent in 2009-2010, and yet all three finished higher than teams with bigger wage bills.

Chelsea did the ‘double’ that season and yet made a profit of £18.2 million on transfers.

Last season, Newcastle United over-achieved more than anyone in this regard, making £5.4 million in the transfer market and yet finishing six places higher than their wage bill indicated they would.

The figures point to how the club have skilfully identified talent at bargain prices while attracting big fees for selling players whose departures have not prompted a slump in the team’s form.

Manchester City have been the dominant force in the transfer market since Mansour’s takeover, which came two months into the 2008-09 season (Telegraph Sport’s financial analysis includes the short period in that year’s accounts under previous ownership).

In the first three years under Mansour, they spent £266 million cash on players after sales.

Over the same period the cumulative outlay on wages was £390 million, meaning City were spending on salaries alone more than their income, of £365.3 million, although the club would point to the £61.6 million they spent on the regeneration of area of Manchester in which they are based.

Barring any slip up against Queens Park Rangers this weekend, Mansour will have a Premier League trophy to show for his investment, but it will have come at a 10-figure cost.
 

Lee

Administrator
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
0
Points
36
So... a team spent a lot of money so that they could win the league. Nothing new here.
 
Mod-ern Day Legend
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
13,615
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I refuse to lend any credence to an article that claims Blackburn are 'prospering'.
 
Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
8,186
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Since the Premiership started Manchester United, Blackburn and Chelsea have all spent obscene amounts of money in order to win the league. Only Arsenal have managed to do it on a reasonable budget id say.

I had to laugh at Fergie the other day blasting Man City and their "kamikaze spending" as he put it. From day one at Man Utd he has spent absolutely shed loads of money on players. A very hypocritical statement but not the first time from Mr Ferguson.

Personally i think good luck to Man city. Any team that stops Man Utd and the London teams being successful is alright by me.
 
Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
2,913
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TBH I found this much more interesting: Revealed: the financial health of the Premier League laid bare - Telegraph

Personally I'd love to see even shares for TV money, capped rate on kit deals and stadium sponsorship etc but let's be honest, it's not going to happen. Without gettting all student anarchist, we live in a free market economy where money is everything. Those that have the power benefit the most from the status quo so they're unlikely to want to change things. If anything, it's going to get worse before it gets better. Honestly though, as long as these things stay off the pitch (no 3 30 min thirds for example) then I can live with it. :-/
 
Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm not saying the situation isn't bad - it is. But the figures are heavily waited to make things seem disastrous. Little mention of stadium ticket prices, season ticket subscriptions, increased TV rights - all these things which help balance out the balance sheet in the article.
 
Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
12,736
Reaction score
466
Points
83
I am a United fan and I am happy with City spending that much and we are only losing the league on goal difference with probably one of our worst teams in in the last decade.

If we improve in the summer in key areas and with Vidic back there will be more success for us to come.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
3,388
Reaction score
0
Points
36
TBH I found this much more interesting: Revealed: the financial health of the Premier League laid bare - Telegraph

Personally I'd love to see even shares for TV money, capped rate on kit deals and stadium sponsorship etc but let's be honest, it's not going to happen. Without gettting all student anarchist, we live in a free market economy where money is everything. Those that have the power benefit the most from the status quo so they're unlikely to want to change things. If anything, it's going to get worse before it gets better. Honestly though, as long as these things stay off the pitch (no 3 30 min thirds for example) then I can live with it. :-/
Contradiction much?

Anyway, City are just catching up with the spending. Sheiky is free to spend his money as he sees fit.
 
Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Points
0
United have spent money which was their own not some Arab Sheikh's money! I am not denying United haven't spent money but to compare spending of City with United is ridiculous! I agree that lots of United fans give excuses but tell me honestly doesn't anybody think that City are not deliberately inflating the market? If anybody doesn't think that then I pity them!
 
Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
31,888
Reaction score
31
Points
48
City spend as they see fit. FFPR aside, everyone else needs to get on with it.
 
Mod-ern Day Legend
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
13,615
Reaction score
0
Points
0
United have spent money which was their own not some Arab Sheikh's money! I am not denying United haven't spent money but to compare spending of City with United is ridiculous! I agree that lots of United fans give excuses but tell me honestly doesn't anybody think that City are not deliberately inflating the market? If anybody doesn't think that then I pity them!
You pity me, then, because City don't 'deliberately' inflate the market. Why would they want to pay more for players? The inflation in the market is just a byproduct of their spending.
 
Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
2,913
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You pity me, then, because City don't 'deliberately' inflate the market. Why would they want to pay more for players? The inflation in the market is just a byproduct of their spending.
Because then no one can compete with them. If City bid 50m for Hazard for example, that's pretty much game over for everyone but Chelsea and Madrid. They don't mind paying more because their money is practically infinite.
 
Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
8,186
Reaction score
1
Points
0
United have spent money which was their own not some Arab Sheikh's money! I am not denying United haven't spent money but to compare spending of City with United is ridiculous! I agree that lots of United fans give excuses but tell me honestly doesn't anybody think that City are not deliberately inflating the market? If anybody doesn't think that then I pity them!
Did Man Utd not inflate the market buying Berbatov for 31m, Ferdinand for 29m, Veron 28m, Rooney 27m, Van Nistelrooy 20m, Anderson 20m, De Gea 19m, Carrick 18.9 m, Nani 17.3m, Hargreaves 17m, i could go on. And the money isn't United's either really, its mostly borrowed from banks by foreign American owners. You sound like a bitter United fan to me.
 
Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
4,901
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Because then no one can compete with them. If City bid 50m for Hazard for example, that's pretty much game over for everyone but Chelsea and Madrid. They don't mind paying more because their money is practically infinite.
Surely there's no point paying that extra money to the selling club. Bit easier to just match other clubs offer and pay more on wages and signing fees?
 
Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
2,913
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Surely there's no point paying that extra money to the selling club. Bit easier to just match other clubs offer and pay more on wages and signing fees?
Ah but if you can create a climate in which the top players are overpriced by their clubs from the start, you can hinder your rivals from getting players.
 
Y.N.W.A.
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
5
Points
38
United fans dont call Gunner and Liverpool fans plastic. Mainly because we have a rich history and not come from new money. You being a Chelsea fan makes that point invalid. The same could be said of Spurs/ Newcastle etc. Hone of them have been bankrolled and still do a good job competing at the top
 
Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
4,901
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ah but if you can create a climate in which the top players are overpriced by their clubs from the start, you can hinder your rivals from getting players.
But that is not only City's doing. It's been going on for long time.
 
Super Duper Moderator
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
7,740
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Typical United fan, can't accept defeat gracefully.

TBH I found this much more interesting: Revealed: the financial health of the Premier League laid bare - Telegraph

Personally I'd love to see even shares for TV money, capped rate on kit deals and stadium sponsorship etc but let's be honest, it's not going to happen. Without gettting all student anarchist, we live in a free market economy where money is everything. Those that have the power benefit the most from the status quo so they're unlikely to want to change things. If anything, it's going to get worse before it gets better. Honestly though, as long as these things stay off the pitch (no 3 30 min thirds for example) then I can live with it. :-/
TV money is shared evenly. Prize money isn't, obviously. You also receive a fee each time you are on TV, which is fair.

Also, I would love to see a salary cap in football, not because I think it should be paid on nurses, blah, blah, but because it would make the game much more exciting. Although, if they did do it (which they won't) the cap will be so high it won't make a difference anyway, like in NFL.
 
Top