Manchester City will set their soon-to-be-appointed chief executive a target of more than doubling the club's income to £400 million (Dh2.3 billion) a year. The target, one that exceeds by nearly £70m Manchester United's record revenue for an English club, underlines the ambitions of the club's Abu Dhabi ownership to establish City as one of the global game's principal powers. City reported a turnover of £153.2m for the 2010/11 season, a sum that placed 12th in Deloitte's annual ranking of football club incomes. That figure, although a 22 per cent increase on the preceding year, left City behind United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Tottenham on the list of Premier League earners. It also came in tandem with a loss of £194.9m. A significant portion of that deficit was the product of "front-loading" expenditure on a squad capable of competing for the Premier and Champions league titles. But the club's hierarchy is aware that income, particularly from commercial sources, must be multiplied to convert City into the kind of self-sustaining business required by Uefa Financial Fair Play regulations. A stadium naming-rights deal with Etihad Airways will add around £35m a year for the next decade. The club's top executives ultimately want to surpass United's annual revenue, which reached £331.4m in the year ending June 2011. The identity of Garry Cook's replacement as chief executive has been kept a tightly guarded secret, the process handled by the executive-recruitment company Odgers Berndtson and the most senior members of City's hierarchy. The new chief executive is likely to be found from outside the world of football. Also, City have stressed that they will bring in only one new executive into their management structure. Ferran Soriano, formerly the vice president of Barcelona, was briefing friends that he had been offered the job, while Soriano's sports director at Barcelona, Txiki Begiristain, was also privately confident of joining him at City. Soriano's candidacy has been complicated by the voluntary bankruptcy of Spanair; the Catalan had been the airline's chairman since leaving Barcelona. Discussion within the club has suggested that the responsibilities of the football administrator Brian Marwood could be under threat, with the incoming chief executive to be handed control of player transfers and contracts. http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/551050189?-1808
There are quite a few ways of increasing the revenue of the club. 1 is by finding more sponsors say for the track suits 2 increasing prices, however this may not go down to well with the supporters if the increase was to highsay 10%. 3 Another way would be to look into the cost of increasing the ground capacity upto 70,000 or more in stages. Whether that can be done with the present stadium I don,t know. This however would bring in a significant increase in revenue to the club. Even if you work it out at an increase of 15,000 fans per how game at a cost of £25 per fan that would bring in an extra £375,000 per game now times that by 19 League games. This would bring an extra revenue of approx £7,125,000 per season just on the addmission prices alone.
1 Sponsoring tracksuits is a no go as tracksuits are part of your kit sponsors deal. 2 Hiking up prices wont work because the City support see their owners as the fall guys for all the expense of getting/keeping City where they are. 3 City got the ground for nothing from the owners on a lease,are the council going to pay for more empty seats to go on top of the many other empty seats already there? Jack's OP is full of club propaganda and wishes. City's income and stated losses of around £40m+ per year(as of now)leaves you in a highly risky position with Uefa.
Page_Moss_Kopite we don't get many empty seats at City for league games. Every league game has sold out this season. Look at this comment I posted on Facebook to a Liverpool fan telling me City get poor attendances. Numbers are from Wikipedia and the BBC Sport website. Anfield can hold 45276 Tonight's attendance was 44461 Etihad can hold 47,805 Attendance against Fulham was 46963 You had 815 empty seats = 1.8% empty seats We had 842 empty seats = 1.76% empty seats Spurs is definitely a bigger game than Fulham. Our game was on free to watch TV, yours wasn't. I'm not sure why everyone has it in their heads City get a lot of empty seats. At league games there are very few. I hope ticket prices don't increase a lot of the games this season are over £40 for an adult and £20 for an under 16 which is enough.
This season you've only had about 800 empty seats at each league game, which is pretty good, although still a bit shy of Liverpool, Utd, Arsenal, Spurs and Chelsea who average around 400-500 per match. http://itv.stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/PR/attend.html http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/attendance/_/league/eng.1/barclays-premier-league?cc=5739 But then having a full ground doesn't help increase revenue, it's having a waiting list you can monetise, i.e. expand the stadium so people on the waiting list will buy tickets. Liverpool have a waiting list of something like 70,000 for season tickets and Spurs have around 30,000. Utd had 50,000 until the Glazers decided they would rather monetise it by raising prices instead of expanding the stadium. I think this season City only sold out their season tickets in late August, so that implies if they expanded the stadium there wouldn't be a huge number of people willing to buy all the extra tickets. I reckon you'll need to win a few more trophies before you'll be able to justify spending on expanding the stadium - you don't want a 70,000 stadium if you can only attract 55,000 odd fans cos the atmosphere will be lost a bit. Interesting that they don't say how soon the new CEO is expected to double revenue. With Utd's revenue going up by about 15% a year, we could be over £400 million within a couple of years. I'd be very impressed if City managed to get to £400 million by then, what with shirt and stadium sponsorship fixed for the next ten years.
Its nothing but bs and bravado Swarbs,United did'nt get where they are in a sustained successful sense on and off the pitch overnight. Noisy neighbour problems continuing for United is all it is.
What time frame have the club put on this reported figure? It could, for all we know, be at the culmination of the owner's original 10 year plan (in 2018).
I can see Man City easily reaching the £400M mark, I.E.just by sponsoring the paper plates with your pie on for £10m per year etc etc. If there's a will there's a way.
1. Very true. Sponsorship would have to come from various smaller deals or TV deals or a training kit deal in the mould of United. Not easy things but there is a little scope i guess for increased sponsor revenue. 2. Very generalistic view there. From what i know of season ticket prices (i live in Glasgow so i admit i may be wrong) Ours is quite low compared to the top 6 and even below some others. If that's the case i imagine either a steady rise of 2-3% a season or jumping up an Arsenal style of 6.5% may be in order. But i'd imagine the first option is a bit more plausible as you wouldn't want to cause uproar and lose punters. 3. My biggest issue personally. Being on that lease is good since we didn't have to pay for the stadium but a real revenue killer when you think that the FFP doesn't incorporate building a new stadium in their accounts and the Sheikh has more than enough to build a brand new stadium. I personally hope he tries to buy the stadium outright from the council so as we can keep full control of our profits made from it but that seems unlikely due to the stadium being built for the commonwealth games and probably having a "legacy" value attached to it in the same fashion as the Olympic Stadium. propaganda is a bit harsh but yeah 400m is miles away. Though with a better run in the CL, the new 35m sponsor deal, increased prices and a couple good wee sponsor deals i think we could break the 200m barrier next year. The FFP rules are the thing that causes me the most concern just now but what will be will be.
You could be right - might also just be the owners trying to make the right noises to convince UEFA that they plan to make enough revenue to cover their costs eventually. To be fair they can hardly turn around and say "after careful consideration we have realised that no matter how much money we spend on players we will will take at least a decade to be as big as Man Utd"
Not necessary for the owners to do that, considering that anything that the club has lost upto and including that last financial report disclosed is irrelevant when it comes to the FFP regulations. What matters in that regard is the next financial report, and the two after that, for only then will any judgement be made in regards to the implementation of the FFP and any possible consequence as a result.
I think it's inevitable that City's fanbase and marketing appeal is going to increase and a good cheif executive will obviousely get the most they can for the club. But I think realistically exeding what United earn is a long shot. United have got to where they are over decades and winning a few cups doesn't change that. Chelsea's dominance under Mourinhio didn't make them a bigger club than Liverpool (who despite having a bad few seasons are still the second biggest club in England) let alone United. If this is more than just propaganda from the owners then it's got to be a long,long term plan because anything else is just not realistic.
