Last nights FA Cup highlights show on ITV annoyed me. City were first game up yet the highlights were brief. The game of the day had little more than 5 minutes action. ITV again showed how poorly they cover football.
I can understand their (and BT Sports) decision to pick other games for live coverage. Picking FA Cup games s notoriously difficult. The 'magic' of the cup means you're never sure where the story will be. Though the TV companies don't always help themselves by, for example, always picking Man United no matter who they play. But a highlights show should be able to react to the days events and concentrate on the days stories. This is something Match of the Day does every week, showing more of the bigger stories of the day.
But even though ITV put City's game on first they also didn't help themselves by spending almost as long after the game on interviews and so-called analysis. In total they spent 5 minutes and 9 seconds showing action from the game, and 4 minutes and 13 seconds showing people talking about it. The result is that apart from the goals I got no impression of how dominant Watford reportedly were in the first half, of how poor City were in the first nor how good they were in the second half. I only saw the goals and a couple of other chances.
Sunday, 26 January 2014
Sunday, 19 January 2014
100 up, and counting...
This season is ridiculous. I've never seen a team scoring at this rate for this many games, and it's a joy to watch your own team do it. The numbers are getting silly:
Even if you assume City only played the minimum number of games they have remaining this season (i.e. they lose in the next round of each cup competition), then City are currently on course to score around 156 goals this season. I've not found a definitive answer, but a few articles have mentioned that the current record is 147 goals set by Chelsea last season.
The above stats are incredible. City are scoring goals at a record setting pace. But, goals alone don't win trophies. Despite all the recent talk about a potential quadruple, City are still only 2nd in the Premier League and face a difficult last-16 tie with Barcelona in the Champions League. We could easily end the season winning nothing.
Despite that note of caution, reaching (and passing) 100 goals for the season is a good time to pause and acknowledge just what an astonishing display of attacking football we have been privileged to watch so far this season.
- 103 goals in 34 games, an average of 3.03 per game
- 68 in 17 at home, an average of 4 per game
- 60 in 22 in the league, 2.73 per game
- 18 in 6 Champions League games, 3 per game
- 16 in 4 in the League Cup, 4 per game
- Seven times 5 or more goals have been scored
Even if you assume City only played the minimum number of games they have remaining this season (i.e. they lose in the next round of each cup competition), then City are currently on course to score around 156 goals this season. I've not found a definitive answer, but a few articles have mentioned that the current record is 147 goals set by Chelsea last season.
The above stats are incredible. City are scoring goals at a record setting pace. But, goals alone don't win trophies. Despite all the recent talk about a potential quadruple, City are still only 2nd in the Premier League and face a difficult last-16 tie with Barcelona in the Champions League. We could easily end the season winning nothing.
Despite that note of caution, reaching (and passing) 100 goals for the season is a good time to pause and acknowledge just what an astonishing display of attacking football we have been privileged to watch so far this season.
Tuesday, 14 January 2014
Are Manchester City guilty of 'financial doping'?
Ever since the takeover by Sheikh Mansour, Manchester City have often been accused of financial doping. But are they actually guilty of it?
The first thing is to understand what it means. Most people take it to mean the club is living beyond it's means with a wealthy owner pumping money in to keep the club going. It is called doping because the extra finance, which the owner will not get back again, gives the club a perceived unfair advantage over other teams, who only have the money they generate themselves in which to pay for players. By putting additional money in, the owner allows the club to have players they wouldn't otherwise have been able to afford, improving the team by a method that is perceived to be unfair.
Currently that appears to be what is happening at Manchester City. Large sums of money have been lost by the club, paid for by the owner putting more money, in the form of equity, into the club. They certainly aren't the first club that has had an owner doing this. For example, Jack Walker and Dave Whelan put their money into Blackburn and Wigan respectively. Both got promotions and won a trophy as a result. Other owners have done the same.
There are also other cases of shareholders investing money in a club. Tony Adams has claimed the real reason for Arsenals success was money invested by Danny Fiszman. I've heard several Arsenal fans claim this isn't financial doping as the investment was in the form of loans which were eventually repaid. According to this logic, a club can temporarily live beyond it's means as long as the money is eventually repaid and it's not financial doping. This has some logic to it. It allows, for example, for investments which would lead to an increase in revenue such as a new stadium.
Which leads us to some observations on what is happening at Manchester City. After the takeover there was a statement from Sheikh Mansour which contained the following:
The first thing is to understand what it means. Most people take it to mean the club is living beyond it's means with a wealthy owner pumping money in to keep the club going. It is called doping because the extra finance, which the owner will not get back again, gives the club a perceived unfair advantage over other teams, who only have the money they generate themselves in which to pay for players. By putting additional money in, the owner allows the club to have players they wouldn't otherwise have been able to afford, improving the team by a method that is perceived to be unfair.
Currently that appears to be what is happening at Manchester City. Large sums of money have been lost by the club, paid for by the owner putting more money, in the form of equity, into the club. They certainly aren't the first club that has had an owner doing this. For example, Jack Walker and Dave Whelan put their money into Blackburn and Wigan respectively. Both got promotions and won a trophy as a result. Other owners have done the same.
There are also other cases of shareholders investing money in a club. Tony Adams has claimed the real reason for Arsenals success was money invested by Danny Fiszman. I've heard several Arsenal fans claim this isn't financial doping as the investment was in the form of loans which were eventually repaid. According to this logic, a club can temporarily live beyond it's means as long as the money is eventually repaid and it's not financial doping. This has some logic to it. It allows, for example, for investments which would lead to an increase in revenue such as a new stadium.
Which leads us to some observations on what is happening at Manchester City. After the takeover there was a statement from Sheikh Mansour which contained the following:
- "I have bought the club in a private capacity and as part of my personal business strategy to hold a wide portfolio of business investments."
- "I am.....a long-term investor"
The above imply that, in the long term, Sheikh Mansour wants to see a return on his investment. That is, Manchester City are temporarily living beyond there means and eventually the owner will get his money back. If that is correct, how is that different from the investment by Danny Fiszman in Arsenal? The scale in terms of amount invested and time to get a return are different, but the basic principle is the same.
There is an obvious question of if there will be a return. The club is about to issue new accounts, but it's unlikely there will be a profit at this stage. The ongoing investments (such as the vast Etihad Campus) will prevent that. But there has been some return already. The club is worth a lot more than when it was purchased. This is obviously not yet enough. However, I doubt Sheikh Mansour expects to get his money back yet. In Abu Dhabi, there are vast investments which are being made with a view to life after they run out of oil. They are thinking of very long term investments.
If we accept that Sheikh Mansour intends to eventually make a profit on his investment, then the answer to the question of financial doping depends on if you think there should be a time limit to how long a club can live beyond it's means. UEFA thinks there should be some limits, which is why the Financial Fair Play rules are being introduced.
So are Manchester City guilty? That depends on the answer to two questions, will Sheikh Mansour see a return on his investment and how long should he be allowed to wait for a return?
Update 29/1
Today City announced their latest financial results. While there was still a big loss, it was almost half the previous year. The trend is clearly down. There is also a huge amount of long term investment being done - the Etihad Campus, New York City, the women's team etc - none of which will see a return for years, and plans for more in the form of a stadium expansion. And there is the effect of the significant increase in the TV deals for both the Premier League and Champions League which has yet to kick in. I do think Sheik Mansour intends to see a return on his investment in the long term as discussed above, and that may start sooner rather than later.
Update 29/1
Today City announced their latest financial results. While there was still a big loss, it was almost half the previous year. The trend is clearly down. There is also a huge amount of long term investment being done - the Etihad Campus, New York City, the women's team etc - none of which will see a return for years, and plans for more in the form of a stadium expansion. And there is the effect of the significant increase in the TV deals for both the Premier League and Champions League which has yet to kick in. I do think Sheik Mansour intends to see a return on his investment in the long term as discussed above, and that may start sooner rather than later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)