This from a pretty knowledgeable Man City supporter RE the profitability of the club and how long until the owner makes his money back:
We made a small profit in the first year back in the Premier League and repaid some of the debt. In the second year we made a small loss and the debt went back up. Without looking I'm not sure by how much. Ehab said we are likely to make a loss this season as well. Allamhouse earns 4% per annum, that's over £2 million a year, on the loan, so the club doesn't have to be profitable for Allamhouse to get paid. Allamhouse has reduced its tax bill in the past by using the losses incurred by City. So on a strict money in, money out/saved basis the Allams don't need to get the full loan repaid before making any money from their investment.
We also don't own the stadium, we haven't developed infrastructure around the area, or increased commercial opportunities globally. Manchester city have, Leicester likely will as well. There are ways to boost the club's income which would help pay down the debt. It would be contingent on continued pl status but it's achievable. I would think Southampton regularly makes a profit.
There has been no development of infrastructure around the stadium in 14 years, HCC's responsibility not the clubs. Derby fans created a great pre-match atmosphere in Brickies, we should have a fan park in the park, museum, information boards pointing out our original ground etc.
Manchester City have made a profit each of the last two years. The owners will begin making a return on their investment within the next ten years. It's a long game not a short one, making football clubs self sufficient, but it's entirely possible.
So, ft you give me £1,000 and after a few years I give you £10 then £12 you would describe that as a profit for those two years? Irrelevant anyway as Man City's owners didn't go into it to make money - they could have made money easily in many other ways. They did it as a vanity project which they hoped would improve their image.
No. If a company makes a $10,000 loss one year, then a $2,000 profit the next year, I'd call that a profit for that year. Which is what I've described Manchester City's profits as. You're being facetious.
Age. Often disagreed with you on here and CI and had heated discussions but never considered you stupid.
I,would call it being $8,000 down on the two years. So, have they made a profit on their investment? You aren't an ex Chancellor Of The Exchequer are you?
Where did I say they had already made a profit on their investment? You're trying to sound clever but you're just coming off as pretty thick. I've repeatedly said the club has made a profit the last two years, with the club well on the road to being self-sustainable, with the owners making their money back within the next decade - so, quite clearly, they haven't made a profit on their investment yet.
Not sure how true it is but I'm sure I read once it had something to do with being quite pally with billy whitehurst
Sydney Tiger says someone else is coming off as thick. The irony! Trading profits and profit on investment are two different things. There is no definite grounds for saying the club will be self-sustainable in the next decade or that they will make a profit on their investment. Many football,clubs show a trading profit but are millions in debt. They operate in a way the banks would pull the plug on for any other business.
