Man Chity spend £930m .. the cost of glory hunting...

The figure, which is based on the club’s three most recent annual accounts, lays bare the true cash cost of taking the previously mid-ranking club to the brink of their first league triumph in 44 years.



It also exposes the scale of the task facing them as they seek to comply with Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations, which took effect at the start of this season.

The full extent of City's outlay is one of the key findings of the Telegraph’s unique survey of the financial health of the Premier League, based on clubs’ most recent accounts.

For the first time in a survey of this kind, the Telegraph can reveal exactly how much cash each club earned – and, crucially, spent – during a season.
Related Articles

The study has uncovered that in the 2010-11 season:

• Top-flight clubs spent £2.51 billion in cash, which was £285.8 million more than they earned.

• The Premier League generated £2.23 billion of income, which equates to 0.148 per cent of the entire output of the UK economy.

• Clubs spent almost £400 million on signings after player sales.

• Wages for players and staff cost clubs £1.52 billion.

• Premier League clubs’ net debt was £1.39 billion, costing them £97.2 million in debt-interest payments.

• City’s spending loomed large in the results for the league as a whole.

Between 2008, when Abu-Dhabi-based oil magnate Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al-Nahyan bought them, and the end of last season, the club’s total cash outlay was £930.4m, of which only £365.3m was generated from their own operations.

The remainder – £565.1m – had to be supplied by Mansour, the club’s billionaire benefactor.

That figure will have risen significantly over the course of the current season, although the exact final cost of winning the league will only be known when the next accounts are published in 2013.

Last summer, the club spent a further £53.6m net on new arrivals, which will be reflected in those accounts, although they also secured a sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways which was reported to be worth £400m.

When the gap between their income and expenditure peaked in the 2009-10 season, City were spending £3.04 for every £1 they earned, figures that show the battle they face to meet the “break-even requirement” of Uefa’s new rules.

Telegraph Sport's survey uses the accounts of 19 of the 20 clubs who were in the Premier League last season.

Birmingham have been omitted because they have not met their statutory requirement to file accounts, which has led to the Football League issuing them with a transfer embargo.

This analysis gives supporters a clear picture of the health of their club’s finances and exposes to what extent they rely on the support of benefactors such as Mansour or Chelsea’s Roman Abramovich.

It may make alarming reading for fans of Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Bolton Wanderers, Everton and West Ham United, whose clubs have spent significantly more than they have earned.

Over the years Villa’s owner, Randy Lerner, and Bolton’s Eddie Davies, have shown a willingness to cover these costs, but would leave their clubs with major problems should they chose to stop doing so.

Blackburn and Everton, by contrast, have no such benefactor support to rely on, meaning they must sell players to close the gap between spending and income.

As Blackburn’s relegation has shown this season, those sales can have a severe, negative effect on results on the pitch.

The analysis also highlights some fascinating trends which challenge conventional ideas – not least that spending large sums on signing players can actually have a negative impact on final league position.

Previous studies have shown that a club’s league position tends to reflect their spending on wages. Telegraph Sport’s study suggests this to be accurate, so clubs which pay their players the most tend to finish highest in the league.

But, analysing the period between 2009 and 2011, it also found that clubs who spent greater sums than direct rivals on transfers actually suffered in the league.

West Ham, for example, spent a net £20 million on transfers over the two-year period, which put them among the top 10 spenders.

But it was not enough to buy them Premier League security. In 2009-10 they finished 17th, six places lower than their wage bill ranked; the following year, they were relegated despite their signings and a wage bill which was 12th highest in the league.

Among the elite clubs last season, Chelsea and City both spent more money than Manchester United and paid higher salaries than United, but it was Sir Alex Ferguson’s team who won the league.

The study also shows how some teams manage to prosper despite being ‘selling clubs’.

Wigan Athletic (£574,000 profit), Blackburn (£2.2 million) and Arsenal (£15.9 million) all made more money in the transfer market than they spent in 2009-2010, and yet all three finished higher than teams with bigger wage bills.

Chelsea did the ‘double’ that season and yet made a profit of £18.2 million on transfers.

Last season, Newcastle United over-achieved more than anyone in this regard, making £5.4 million in the transfer market and yet finishing six places higher than their wage bill indicated they would.

The figures point to how the club have skilfully identified talent at bargain prices while attracting big fees for selling players whose departures have not prompted a slump in the team’s form.

Manchester City have been the dominant force in the transfer market since Mansour’s takeover, which came two months into the 2008-09 season (Telegraph Sport’s financial analysis includes the short period in that year’s accounts under previous ownership).

In the first three years under Mansour, they spent £266 million cash on players after sales.

Over the same period the cumulative outlay on wages was £390 million, meaning City were spending on salaries alone more than their income, of £365.3 million, although the club would point to the £61.6 million they spent on the regeneration of area of Manchester in which they are based.

Barring any slip up against Queens Park Rangers this weekend, Mansour will have a Premier League trophy to show for his investment, but it will have come at a 10-figure cost.

Figures in £m
For Rand x 12.95....


Clubs solvency list -what the clubs have left after they pay their bills and interest..

Manchester United 70.332
Tottenham 66.388
Arsenal 35.922
Chelsea 29.035
Wolves 17.888
Newcastle United 14.923
Liverpool 11.540
Blackpool 9.859
Wigan 7.028
Stoke City 6.837
Aston Villa 3.386
Sunderland 3.251
Fulham 2.996
West Ham United 2.914
Everton -2.216
West Bromwich Albion -2.944
Bolton Wanderers -3.912
Blackburn Rovers -4.577
Manchester City -22.026

Hibs , Man City last won the EPL trophy in the 1967/1968 season. It's almost 40 years now and on the brink of winning the title again.It's been a very costly adventure as you point out but to the majority of football fans in the city of Manchester, it will be an impossible dream come true, perhaps a "once in a lifetime experience" for many. They are quick to show gratitude to The Sheikh who has put so much into the game, very much like Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum and Sheikh Hamdan have done for horse-racing.

So for years now Man U have been buying players and its ok ofr them to win the league but as soon as other clubs buy sucess its wrong. Typical Man United.

FFS CnC please give these "issues" a little thought. I don't know whether to feel sorry for you because you seem to have only half a brain or to treat with you complete contempt because you talk such inane drivel, which you try (but fail miserably) to mask by referring to them as wind-ups occasionally. It is getting very tedious trying to "educate" you... and evidently from other's comments, not just for me.

The "issue" is where the money comes from, United have generated it through football and its associated sidelines. They have therefore, for want of a better term, earned the right to buy top players, it is the same the world over in all walks of life. Other clubs however have not earned that right, they simply have some guy come in and buy a football club as a plaything and throw money at it, caring little if the books balance. That is what the term "buying success" is all about, its not about the money you have and how you spend it, its about where it came from in the first place,

I appreciate that any football club would be insane to turn down an opportunity such as that which presented itself to the likes of Chelski and Sh*ty, very tough to turn away. But with that comes an image issue. Love them or hate them, United are United, its all about the history, the teams, the full house at the Theatre of Dreams, the attacking football etc etc. Those that have the wealthy benefactors have lost some of any such identity they may have had, they have sold their souls if you like. They could be any club, to an extent, they have just become Money FC. I no longer see Chelski in the same way I used to, they will always be an oil tycoon's little toy and not a lot more. Same with Sh*ty. They are, in my opinion, rightly seen as buying success because they would not have had the success without this influx of non-football money. And that is why they are labelled as they are. Do fans of Chelski and Sh*ty care, absolutely not!!

Sometimes , do some soul-searching and ask yrself whether that success is not as a result of that extra 'helping hand" that some of these " good for the game internationally clubs" get , that dubious penalty decision. extra extra added time etc.I suppose in the quest for success the fans don't give a shitty whether is fair or fowl[sorry chicken] ne?

Funny how the Manchester Chitty fans have come out of the woodwork these days....()

how much will they receive if winning the title?

PeeKay Wrote:

---

> how much will they receive if winning the title?


Not much more than the team that finishes bottom..

LOL... Do they need the money()

Once a City fan, then a City fan for life. However greg our cry was " Up the City", and United were our rivals only in this case it was Durban City and Durban United in the glory days of NFL football. Both teams shared the same stadium, New Kingsmead and Durban City's kit has much resemblance to that of QPR home kit. Paul Lafferty is an ex Durban City player however he is not remembered as one of the legends like Chalmers, Jim Scott, Wootton, Haynes, Denysschen etc.

Englander

You the one that talks crap. United generated the money from football. Give it a break. USA USA USA USA.

I wonder what drivel you will come out with when Arsenal and Man City are the two top clubs next season.

Man United 1 Man City 6

two chances in Europe and knocked out by the likes of Basle and Bilboa hehehe