Cost of City side vs Cost of Utd Side

che wrote:

Zealous wrote:

Sheik Mansoor isn't playing with his money contrary to popular belief.

To him City is a long term Investment.

i'm sorry but that's bullshit

no football club in the world, not now, not 20 years ago, not ever, can be a profitable long-term investment, only for the reason that fans expect all profit to be reinvested into the club... there is no way in hell mansour is getting his money back, just like abramovic never will... you can wiggle around all you want, fact is that city are a billionaire's plaything

True but the thing is City isn't the only Investment Mansoor (or his brothers) have in the area. You never noticed how "Etihad airways" is becoming more and more in the lime light? Not to mention other projects that will happen to the city over the next couple of years.

So while you are not wrong in saying that realistically Manchester City football club won't generate that much profit, it will serve as a tool to help Mansoor's other projects succeed.

The man is in charge of investment where he is from. A lot of what he owns personally he got from being good at what he does. I know it's fun to hate on rich people but your short sightedness isn't Mansoor's fault

I love that someone finally broke the myth that United don't spend money and City are the devil.

There are two things I want to point out though that I think get overlooked.

1) City had to build an entire squad. They needed to buy second and first team players because what the sheik bought was no where close to competing for the EPL and they had to over pay for transfer fees and salaries to get players to go there because at the time they weren't in the CL and were a mid table team.

2) The thing that's overlooked in this comparison is the fees United received for players they sold like Ronaldo (90m). I think people tend to forget they never really spent that money so it's a little misleading.

That being said of course City had to spend a ton of money there goals were to take a mid table team to win the EPL and make the CL in less then 5 years. There is no other way to achieve that goal and to there credit they did it in less then 5 years.

Man Utd spends the money they have earned, not the Glazers money. Why would anyone think so is something of a mystery (unless one has an article stating Glazers pump money into the club for player investments).

I posted every thing that was spent by United on players and that City and Real are not the only teams that spend, but people had a hard time understanding it and I got a lot of stick for it lol.

Doc wrote:Man Utd spends the money they have earned, not the Glazers money. Why would anyone think so is something of a mystery (unless one has an article stating Glazers pump money into the club for player investments).

Because they are in massive debt. So yes the glazers don't spend there own money, they spend the banks money. To be fair most teams in Europe do this to an extent but don't kid yourself and think United just spend what they earn.

Also may I add that tickets for City games are so much cheaper than United games.

United are milking every penny out of the fan base they have coming over for the weekend. A basically the club is run as a tourist attraction.

Totally different feeling in the blue side of Manchester. I actually like it's a football club.

Zealous wrote:

True but the thing is City isn't the only Investment Mansoor (or his brothers) have in the area. You never noticed how "Etihad airways" is becoming more and more in the lime light? Not to mention other projects that will happen to the city over the next couple of years.

So while you are not wrong in saying that realistically Manchester City football club won't generate that much profit, it will serve as a tool to help Mansoor's other projects succeed.

The man is in charge of investment where he is from. A lot of what he owns personally he got from being good at what he does. I know it's fun to hate on rich people but your short sightedness isn't Mansoor's fault

i'm fully aware that the club isn't the entire investment... but are you seriously trying to convince me that buying a football club, running it for a few years with massive losses, and then starting development projects around it was done because it's such a fantastic investment opportunity for someone who is worth several billion dollars? surely there were other, WAY more profitable projects for someone with pretty much infinite capital no?

of course they're bound to make some money from the greater part of the investment eventually... just like every sane person would make sure to do if they were buying a football club and pumping hundreds of millions into it for the lulz

no shit city tickets cost less than man utd, glazers are in it for taking the money OUT of the club not INTO the club...

dnmac4 wrote:

Doc wrote:Man Utd spends the money they have earned, not the Glazers money. Why would anyone think so is something of a mystery (unless one has an article stating Glazers pump money into the club for player investments).

Because they are in massive debt. So yes the glazers don't spend there own money, they spend the banks money. To be fair most teams in Europe do this to an extent but don't kid yourself and think United just spend what they earn.

Soz but you're wrong.

United (or more accurately the Glazers) took those big loans on the club when they bought it. That was in 2005. Since then the debt has been greatly reduced all the while United have been investing in players. So the Glazers have not borrowed more money to buy players, the players have been bought with cash generated by the club.

What is the difference between Manchester United generating their own cash and an investor putting up money for City?

Only a club which has more fans are allowed to get better players or win trophies? There is just too much hypocrisy regarding City in here...

Lol-tastic

kick mars wrote:Kompany-£6m.
Lescott-£24m.

The point of this thread was to clear the myth that United dont spend

City have had to build an entire squad, however the point about United here is being essentially missed.

This is what United spends in order to stay on top, to replace the players who have served them well and retain their winning legacy. Now that City have an established core, the analysis will become intriguing as we see how they spend their money to improve from here. Will their spending match United's? Financial Fair Play will be bypassed, however City won't require exorbitant expenditure as they experiment with new toys such as Robinho, Santa Cruz and Adebayor.

To sustain yourself, you inevitably need to spend. You have to be smart and you have to be attractive, because deals such as for Ozil and Sahin must be concluded, but even then, that's 30 million euros. Worth it? Absolutely. It's still a lot of money however, particularly compared to the costs of Ozil and Sahin as youngsters.

You pay the cost of development, even when you buy a youngster such as Smalling or Jones. In that case, you're purchasing the right to polish and refine. however you still pay through the nose.

That's the end game of elite football.

I'd argue that City's wages must be significantly higher though, so it's not an exact comparison.

Why is everyone replying with debate to my troll thread? :matrix:

It's not really a troll thread when there's actual logic behind it :study:

This makes no sense, first we earned that money through trophies, winning, and popularity so we have the right to spend what we earn, dont we?

Second we did all this over a span of 4-7 years, so its been a small build up, not a quick one season transition.

I have nothing against city spending, but dont compare the two, united worked for its glory, city is just buying it.

This makes no sense, first we earned that money through trophies, winning, and popularity so we have the right to spend what we earn, dont we?

Second we did all this over a span of 4-7 years, so its been a small build up, not a quick one season transition.

I have nothing against city spending, but dont compare the two, united worked for its glory, city is just buying it.