Manchester City - 115 Charges (8 Viewers)

[Lamps]

it's 233m so over a quarter of a billion basic before any bonus payments are taken

Manchester City's Staggering Salaries Revealed Amid Financial Scandal

Manchester City remain under scrutiny as the staggering salaries of Erling Haaland and the club's biggest stars come back into focus.

www.beinsports.com

Thanks for that. £232m is within the budget as I said. Nowhere near the Grendel guesstimate of half a billion.

That's why I say they will be OK in the Championship.

 

[ovduk78]

Thanks for that. £232m is within the budget as I said. Nowhere near the Grendel guesstimate of half a billion.

That's why I say they will be OK in the Championship.

They could easily raise £300m by selling a couple of players which would also reduce their wage bill. Man City will still have the best squad & biggest turnover whichever league they end up in. The only thing that could hamper them is any punishment apart from relegation being spread out over a number of years which some PL clubs are in favour of.

 

[Grendel]

Thanks for that. £232m is within the budget as I said. Nowhere near the Grendel guesstimate of half a billion.

That's why I say they will be OK in the Championship.

Its £408 million - its in the accounts Page 28

Wages and salries - £355 m
Social security costs - £51m
Pension costs £1.4m
Share base payments £0.5m

Capology once produced estimated wages that said MVE earned less than Fabio Tavares

These are the signed off accounts - its £408 million

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Thanks for that. £232m is within the budget as I said. Nowhere near the Grendel guesstimate of half a billion.

That's why I say they will be OK in the Championship.

Do you bother looking at the accounts? Their total club wage bill inclusive of both back-office and playing staff was £408M.

I would say comfortably 80% at least of that would be dedicated to the players alone factoring in bonuses.

 

[Grendel]

Do you bother looking at the accounts? Their total club wage bill inclusive of both back-office and playing staff was £408M.

I would say comfortably 80% at least of that would be dedicated to the players alone factoring in bonuses.

Someone trying to cling on to Capology as a valid data source is the definition of a drowning man clinging to a deflated life belt to try and stay afloat

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Someone trying to cling on to Capology as a valid data source is the definition of a drowning man clinging to a deflated life belt to try and stay afloat

He had a go at me earlier in the thread claiming I was attacking his views which had all come from verified sources: "You state things as what WILL happen if their appeal fails. I reply to this with a more accurate version which has come from those who specialise in this area. You reply with they might win the appeal so it doesn't count."

Said verified sources / experts:
- Talk Sport
- Capology
- Manchester Evening News
- TikTok

 

[Lamps]

Commercial revenue: £340M. This is where it becomes pretty intangible, but it's a safe bet that a fair chunk of legitimate sponsors such as Puma and Asahi, would look to try to engineer themselves out of commercial partnerships anyway to mitigate reputational damages or at best terms would be massively renegotiated - baring in mind if they were relegated as that would essentially breach the terms of their initial contract as they're not getting the visibility from CL / PL. Big question marks also over what new sponsors would come in.

Then there's the relationship with Etihad which quite obviously just can't continue.

So why can't it obviously continue? Suits what you're pushing though. And you think Puma will pull out? Do you even know if there's a clause in the contract so they could pull out if they wanted to? It is a £1B agreement that runs until 2033.

I'm sure that Etihad and Puma will be there next season whatever happens and am happy to put my money where my mouth is. Your money would go to the supporters season ticket fund.

 

[Lamps]

They could easily raise £300m by selling a couple of players which would also reduce their wage bill. Man City will still have the best squad & biggest turnover whichever league they end up in. The only thing that could hamper them is any punishment apart from relegation being spread out over a number of years which some PL clubs are in favour of.

Which is what I said. They just spent £450m on new players. They have players like Mfuni they could use.

I would guess there will be players that would like to leave if it happens. They won't be missed in the Championship as their bench warmers are more than good enough to coast to the Championship title.

I'm not sure if it's a lot of point scoring going on or some people can't grasp reality.

 

[Lamps]

The total gross wage bill is £404 million and I assume that’s without these purchases

It's nowhere near that. And what kind of bonuses do you think they would be on in the Championship?

 

[Lamps]

They might well be in breach of any commercial agreements they have already, those deals could be terminated pretty rapidly and who knows whether there are any repayments required in such an event.

Etihad and Puma is a combined £180m a year. Just keeping there two would be enough.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Thanks for that. £232m is within the budget as I said. Nowhere near the Grendel guesstimate of half a billion.

That's why I say they will be OK in the Championship.

Their wage bill at of 30/6/25 was £408m

 

[Lamps]

He had a go at me earlier in the thread claiming I was attacking his views which had all come from verified sources: "You state things as what WILL happen if their appeal fails. I reply to this with a more accurate version which has come from those who specialise in this area. You reply with they might win the appeal so it doesn't count."

Said verified sources / experts:
- Talk Sport
- Capology
- Manchester Evening News
- TikTok

You are good comedy value. I give you that

 

[Lamps]

Their wage bill at of 30/6/25 was £408m

View attachment 55349

So where was that from?

Just had another look. All between 232m and 238m

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

So why can't it obviously continue? Suits what you're pushing though. And you think Puma will pull out? Do you even know if there's a clause in the contract so they could pull out if they wanted to? It is a £1B agreement that runs until 2033.

I'm sure that Etihad and Puma will be there next season whatever happens and am happy to put my money where my mouth is. Your money would go to the supporters season ticket fund.

Well, in theory it can continue, but from a reputational point of view I physically don't see how it can in practice.

In regards to Puma - most contracts of this nature will have a protective clauses built into them. It would be nuts for any deal of that magnitude not to.

So at best you're probably talking about a massive reduction on payouts per season. They aren't paying £100M to City if they're in the Championship if the value and exposure of the deal are materially reduced.

At worst, depending on the wording of the agreement, there could well be grounds for Puma to terminate the deal altogether.

 

[Robinshio]

Talksport suggesting a 60 points penalty is what’s being discussed. Sounds a bit tame

 

[Lamps]

Talksport suggesting a 60 points penalty is what’s being discussed. Sounds a bit tame

Think they're worried about being dragged through the courts for large damages. They deserve much more but can't see anything lower than the Championship.

 

[thezunigadream]

Effectively relegating them, if we still went down we’d then see our chances of coming straight back significantly impacted.

 

[Lamps]

Well, in theory it can continue, but from a reputational point of view I physically don't see how it can in practice.

In regards to Puma - most contracts of this nature will have a protective clauses built into them. It would be nuts for any deal of that magnitude not to.

So at best you're probably talking about a massive reduction on payouts per season. They aren't paying £100M to City if they're in the Championship if the value and exposure of the deal are materially reduced.

At worst, depending on the wording of the agreement, there could well be grounds for Puma to terminate the deal altogether.

So in theory and not a dead cert.

Puma knew what was coming. They only signed the contract 2 years ago. It won't harm them continuing with the contract.

I agree that Etihad shouldn't continue with the sponsorship and they should get new owners, but the Prem would be hammered with court for massive damages if they tried to do anything and they know it.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

So in theory and not a dead cert.

Puma knew what was coming. They only signed the contract 2 years ago. It won't harm them continuing with the contract.

I agree that Etihad shouldn't continue with the sponsorship and they should get new owners, but the Prem would be hammered with court for massive damages if they tried to do anything and they know it.

Where have I said it's a 'dead cert'? I've quite literally just outlined two plausible scenarios of what might happen. Irrespective though, it's inconceivable to suggest the terms of the original arrangement wouldn't change in the event City are potentially relegated when to put it simply Puma wouldn't be getting what they paid for.

It's genuinely the equivalent of a company paying eight figures for the naming rights to a stadium, only to find out they've actually just got a single advertising board behind the goal.

Even if Puma did have their suspicions that the consistent claims of innocence from Khaldoon and Soriano were utter rubbish they would've almost put conditions in place to safeguard themselves surely?

Once again, none of what you're saying makes an iota of sense.

 

[Grendel]

It's nowhere near that. And what kind of bonuses do you think they would be on in the Championship?

It’s the wages as stated in their accounts

 

[Lamps]

Once again, none of what you're saying makes an iota of sense.

Did Puma sign the contract just 2 years ago knowing there was a very good chance that Manchester City would be found guilty during the 10 year contract? Do we know of any clause where they can walk away?

Would Etihad stop their sponsorship? Could they be forced to stop their sponsorship in any way?

What part don't you understand?

The points you make come with a could and might. Yes they coul yes they might. Then you try and cause an argument with it.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Which is what I said. They just spent £450m on new players. They have players like Mfuni they could use.

I would guess there will be players that would like to leave if it happens. They won't be missed in the Championship as their bench warmers are more than good enough to coast to the Championship title.

I'm not sure if it's a lot of point scoring going on or some people can't grasp reality.

I honestly find it baffling that you don't seem to at all understand the bigger picture of why a club - which is geared up operationally to be one of the biggest in the world, never mind the UK - losing all of its best players and getting relegated to the Championship isn't crippling long-term.

 

[Grendel]

Capology actually had Jack Borroughs earning more than Van Ewyick and just £500 a week less than Bobby Thomas

 

[Grendel]

So where was that from?

Just had another look. All between 232m and 238m

it’s come from the accounts!

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Did Puma sign the contract just 2 years ago knowing there was a very good chance that Manchester City would be found guilty during the 10 year contract? Do we know of any clause where they can walk away?

Would Etihad stop their sponsorship? Could they be forced to stop their sponsorship in any way?

What part don't you understand?

The points you make come with a could and might. Yes they coul yes they might. Then you try and cause an argument with it.

How am I causing an argument? You've been pushing factually incorrect points in every single one of your posts. If you don't like being challenged, take time to actually educate yourself otherwise you'll just make yourself look very silly.

I've already answered you point about Puma. If you disagree, fine, but that's how these deals work. I've never once said the outcomes I've outlined are a certainty but instead used them to show you that your points, which ranged from 'Man City earn basically no commercial revenue outside its Etihad relationship' to 'ah they'll be fine Man City have a contract with Puma running to 2033', are completely wrong.

There's actually very, very recent precedent for clauses such as this existing and being activated. I'd recommend reading this.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2026/09/22/tottenham-lose-another-sponsor-sidiz-aia-de-zerbi-kumho/

Once again for the 10th time, all you've proven is you're parroting information online without actually understanding any of the context.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Capology actually had Jack Borroughs earning more than Van Ewyick and just £500 a week less than Bobby Thomas

I'm sure they had Luis Binks as the highest paid player at the club at £30k pw.

 

[David O'Day]

Thanks for that. £232m is within the budget as I said. Nowhere near the Grendel guesstimate of half a billion.

That's why I say they will be OK in the Championship.

no, you aren't getting it

that is basic and the full total is much more

as has been said it's in their accounts

 

[Paul Anthony]

Talksport suggesting a 60 points penalty is what’s being discussed. Sounds a bit tame

60 points seems incredibly lenient. There's entirely a chance they could be deducted that many points and not even be relegated.

What a punishment that would be.....

 

[SonofErnie]

60 points seems incredibly lenient. There's entirely a chance they could be deducted that many points and not even be relegated.

What a punishment that would be.....

Yes, Man City would have avoided relegation in 2023-24 and based on their start they could easily hit the 90+ pts to make it a possibility.

 

[long way home]

I cant see the PL looking at just 1 year punishment for these.. It has to be a multi year pts deduction and multi year transfer ban. The fine has to be massive and the dirty owners need to know no matter what and who they pay off outside of football our game is bigger and better without them.

Anyone in politics or governance who is proved to of taken or benefited by the owners for favours need to explain themselves. Because we have heard that banging of the drum about others for a few years now.

 

[fernandopartridge]

So where was that from?

Just had another look. All between 232m and 238m

it is from their audited accounts published on Companies House, are they wrong?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Did Puma sign the contract just 2 years ago knowing there was a very good chance that Manchester City would be found guilty during the 10 year contract? Do we know of any clause where they can walk away?

Would Etihad stop their sponsorship? Could they be forced to stop their sponsorship in any way?

What part don't you understand?

The points you make come with a could and might. Yes they coul yes they might. Then you try and cause an argument with it.

Puma will sign a contract in the knowledge of the disciplinary action, but that's precisely why termination rights are drafted into contracts.

 

[Ccfcisparks]

Capology actually had Jack Borroughs earning more than Van Ewyick and just £500 a week less than Bobby Thomas

Its Van Ewijk!

 

[Lamps]

Puma will sign a contract in the knowledge of the disciplinary action, but that's precisely why termination rights are drafted into contracts.

Which is what I have mentioned several times. We don't know if they have a clause in the contract. We don't know if Manchester City would have allowed one in a contract. All we can do is guess.

That's why I said my guess is they will continue with the Add this to the Etihad sponsorship. And that's the reason for saying I think they will be financially OK with a season in the Championship. Sell a couple of players that want to leave. It soon adds up.

 

[MusicDating]

it is from their audited accounts published on Companies House, are they wrong?

Would be the only accurate ones for 18 years or so...