Man $hitty report losses
- Thread starter HC
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
utter cunts
http://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article/newsitem=1530/title=manchester+city+reveals+record+losses
Manchester City Football Club have revealed record losses in its second comprehensive annual report published today.
The report for the 2010-11 financial year, reveals City made a net loss on a recurrent operations basis of £160.5m. Additional exceptional charges of £34.4m were also reported and were principally related to the revised carrying values of intangible assets bringing City’s total losses for the year to £194.9m.
However, City stressed that the results was consistent with the guidance provided in the first MCFC annual report that losses would peak in the 2010-11 financial year, as a result of the accelerated investment programme that the Club undertook between 2008 and 2011.
The report also reveals the further strengthening of the City’s capital base with the issuing of £176.7m of new equity in 2010-11 and £114.2m of equity in the post year end period - ensuring, as in the prior financial year, a balance sheet strengthened by new equity rather than debt based funding.
Speaking of the results Chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak reiterated his priorities for the Club moving forward, saying: “Now that we are witnessing progress, both on and off the pitch, it is more important than ever to redouble our efforts and to work towards achieving our ambition to establish Manchester City as a more successful, sustainable and internationally competitive football club, which remains rooted in the heart of the community it serves.”
Significantly, the Club’s commercial revenues increased in the 2010-11 financial year by 22.5 per cent - driving total revenues from £125.1m in 2009-10 to £153.2m - exceeding the £150m threshold for the first time in the Club’s history.
Notably, the report outlines how in 2010-11, all revenue streams witnessed further growth:
• Match day ticketing revenue - driven by increased average attendances, UEFA Europa League matches and FA Cup matches - increased by eight per cent (from £18.2m to £19.7m).
• Television rights income increased by 27.4 per cent on the previous year (from £54m to £68.8m), largely driven by the Club’s highest-ever finishing position in the Premier League, participation in the UEFA Europa League and the Club’s successful FA Cup campaign.
• Commercial partnership revenue increased by 49.7 per cent on the previous year (from £32.4m to £48.5m), driven by the full year impact of continued long-term partnership deals.
• Profitability from retail activities increased to £2.6m following the entering into of a long-term partnership with leading online retailer Kitbag to handle all club retail operations, including the opening of new retail stores.
But the figures will no doubt cause concern at UEFA with their Financial Fair Play Regulations (FFPR) coming into effect from next season.
Reflecting on the results Daniel Geey of Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP said, “UEFA may well be concerned today when they see Manchester City's results. Their goal however is for clubs to break-even according to their FFPR timescale.
“This means that clubs will be required to break-even based on its UEFA license submissions in the 2013-14 season. This includes detailed financial reports setting out whether a club has passed the FFPRs.
“Many who argue that a club making large losses is contrary to the FFPRs misses the point to a degree because there are caveats to many parts of the FFPRs. Such caveats allow for certain losses and expenditure exclusions. Such acceptable losses mean that Manchester City can make a €45m loss in the first 2013-14 monitoring period and take advantage of any player contracts being entered into prior to June 2010 being excluded from its cost base.
“The big plus for the club is the Etihad deal which will considerably boost the club's revenues and thus chances of fulfilling its FFPR obligations. There is reason to believe there may be more sponsorship agreements in the pipeline too. The truth is the only entity that will know whether it will comply with the FFPRs is the club itself. They will have done their detailed financial modelling and know exactly what they need to do to adhere to the regulations.”
Manchester City’s Chief Operating Officer, Graham Wallace said in the report: “Our losses, which we predicted as part of our accelerated investment strategy, will not be repeated on this scale in the future.
"Consistent with the Club’s transformation strategy, and the stated ambition of commercial sustainability, these financial results represent the bottoming out of financial losses at Manchester City before the Club is able to move towards a more sustainable position in all aspects of its operations in the years ahead."
He added, “As we undertake the Club’s commercial transformation, we are cognisant of the incoming UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations and consequently we continue to maintain positive and ongoing dialogue with all appropriate football authorities.”
UEFA could impose a ban on City competing in its European competitions if they fail to meet the necessary requirements of FFPR. But as Daniel Geey explained, “The ECA recently announced that it believed the most severe penalty for non-FFPR compliance should not be outright exclusion from UEFA competition but a withholding of participation money or a transfer ban.
“This is where UEFA will have to tread a careful line between providing the necessary tough sanctions to deter would-be rule breakers whilst placating certain clubs who may be concerned at breaching the regulations.
“The interesting time will come once the license submissions in the 2013-14 season have been made and UEFA approves or rejects those license applications based on the FFPR criteria."
Manchester City Football Club have revealed record losses in its second comprehensive annual report published today.
The report for the 2010-11 financial year, reveals City made a net loss on a recurrent operations basis of £160.5m. Additional exceptional charges of £34.4m were also reported and were principally related to the revised carrying values of intangible assets bringing City’s total losses for the year to £194.9m.
However, City stressed that the results was consistent with the guidance provided in the first MCFC annual report that losses would peak in the 2010-11 financial year, as a result of the accelerated investment programme that the Club undertook between 2008 and 2011.
The report also reveals the further strengthening of the City’s capital base with the issuing of £176.7m of new equity in 2010-11 and £114.2m of equity in the post year end period - ensuring, as in the prior financial year, a balance sheet strengthened by new equity rather than debt based funding.
Speaking of the results Chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak reiterated his priorities for the Club moving forward, saying: “Now that we are witnessing progress, both on and off the pitch, it is more important than ever to redouble our efforts and to work towards achieving our ambition to establish Manchester City as a more successful, sustainable and internationally competitive football club, which remains rooted in the heart of the community it serves.”
Significantly, the Club’s commercial revenues increased in the 2010-11 financial year by 22.5 per cent - driving total revenues from £125.1m in 2009-10 to £153.2m - exceeding the £150m threshold for the first time in the Club’s history.
Notably, the report outlines how in 2010-11, all revenue streams witnessed further growth:
• Match day ticketing revenue - driven by increased average attendances, UEFA Europa League matches and FA Cup matches - increased by eight per cent (from £18.2m to £19.7m).
• Television rights income increased by 27.4 per cent on the previous year (from £54m to £68.8m), largely driven by the Club’s highest-ever finishing position in the Premier League, participation in the UEFA Europa League and the Club’s successful FA Cup campaign.
• Commercial partnership revenue increased by 49.7 per cent on the previous year (from £32.4m to £48.5m), driven by the full year impact of continued long-term partnership deals.
• Profitability from retail activities increased to £2.6m following the entering into of a long-term partnership with leading online retailer Kitbag to handle all club retail operations, including the opening of new retail stores.
But the figures will no doubt cause concern at UEFA with their Financial Fair Play Regulations (FFPR) coming into effect from next season.
Reflecting on the results Daniel Geey of Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP said, “UEFA may well be concerned today when they see Manchester City's results. Their goal however is for clubs to break-even according to their FFPR timescale.
“This means that clubs will be required to break-even based on its UEFA license submissions in the 2013-14 season. This includes detailed financial reports setting out whether a club has passed the FFPRs.
“Many who argue that a club making large losses is contrary to the FFPRs misses the point to a degree because there are caveats to many parts of the FFPRs. Such caveats allow for certain losses and expenditure exclusions. Such acceptable losses mean that Manchester City can make a €45m loss in the first 2013-14 monitoring period and take advantage of any player contracts being entered into prior to June 2010 being excluded from its cost base.
“The big plus for the club is the Etihad deal which will considerably boost the club's revenues and thus chances of fulfilling its FFPR obligations. There is reason to believe there may be more sponsorship agreements in the pipeline too. The truth is the only entity that will know whether it will comply with the FFPRs is the club itself. They will have done their detailed financial modelling and know exactly what they need to do to adhere to the regulations.”
Manchester City’s Chief Operating Officer, Graham Wallace said in the report: “Our losses, which we predicted as part of our accelerated investment strategy, will not be repeated on this scale in the future.
"Consistent with the Club’s transformation strategy, and the stated ambition of commercial sustainability, these financial results represent the bottoming out of financial losses at Manchester City before the Club is able to move towards a more sustainable position in all aspects of its operations in the years ahead."
He added, “As we undertake the Club’s commercial transformation, we are cognisant of the incoming UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations and consequently we continue to maintain positive and ongoing dialogue with all appropriate football authorities.”
UEFA could impose a ban on City competing in its European competitions if they fail to meet the necessary requirements of FFPR. But as Daniel Geey explained, “The ECA recently announced that it believed the most severe penalty for non-FFPR compliance should not be outright exclusion from UEFA competition but a withholding of participation money or a transfer ban.
“This is where UEFA will have to tread a careful line between providing the necessary tough sanctions to deter would-be rule breakers whilst placating certain clubs who may be concerned at breaching the regulations.
“The interesting time will come once the license submissions in the 2013-14 season have been made and UEFA approves or rejects those license applications based on the FFPR criteria."
[quote author=Binny link=topic=47572.msg1428467#msg1428467 date=1321700310]
FFS. they are absolutely pathetic. i hope someone somewhere rises up to stop this shit: i've got little sympathy for the crusties at St Paul's but we could do with some similar movement against everything to do with modern football. the whole thing's fucking rancid.
[/quote]
FFS. they are absolutely pathetic. i hope someone somewhere rises up to stop this shit: i've got little sympathy for the crusties at St Paul's but we could do with some similar movement against everything to do with modern football. the whole thing's fucking rancid.
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=47572.msg1428473#msg1428473 date=1321701190]
[quote author=Binny link=topic=47572.msg1428467#msg1428467 date=1321700310]
FFS. they are absolutely pathetic. i hope someone somewhere rises up to stop this shit: i've got little sympathy for the crusties at St Paul's but we could do with some similar movement against everything to do with modern football. the whole thing's fucking rancid.
[/quote]
The sad thing is, it's really easy to do, in theory.
We all cancel our Sky subs (those who pay the fuckers), & we don't buy LFC merchandise, or go the game. We go to watch AFC liverpool instead if we must.
If 70% of the fans of every Premisership club did that, it would be mere weeks before the game changed massively.
[quote author=Binny link=topic=47572.msg1428467#msg1428467 date=1321700310]
[/quote]
FFS. they are absolutely pathetic. i hope someone somewhere rises up to stop this shit: i've got little sympathy for the crusties at St Paul's but we could do with some similar movement against everything to do with modern football. the whole thing's fucking rancid.
[/quote]
The sad thing is, it's really easy to do, in theory.
We all cancel our Sky subs (those who pay the fuckers), & we don't buy LFC merchandise, or go the game. We go to watch AFC liverpool instead if we must.
If 70% of the fans of every Premisership club did that, it would be mere weeks before the game changed massively.
[quote author=Woland link=topic=47572.msg1428474#msg1428474 date=1321701583]
Why? Who gives a fuck really? If soft twats want to blow zillions on footy clubs, what's the legal issue? Why shouldn't it be allowed? There's only so many diamond encrusted Maseratis a brutal slavemaster can have before he starts getting bored.
[/quote]
i couldn't give a fuck about people wasting their fortunes, but i do care about low-paid working class fans being shut out of the game, and the spectacle being slowly choked out of leagues across europe by the inappropriately laissez-faire model.
the owners are irrelevant; the good of football in general isn't.
Why? Who gives a fuck really? If soft twats want to blow zillions on footy clubs, what's the legal issue? Why shouldn't it be allowed? There's only so many diamond encrusted Maseratis a brutal slavemaster can have before he starts getting bored.
[/quote]
i couldn't give a fuck about people wasting their fortunes, but i do care about low-paid working class fans being shut out of the game, and the spectacle being slowly choked out of leagues across europe by the inappropriately laissez-faire model.
the owners are irrelevant; the good of football in general isn't.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47572.msg1428475#msg1428475 date=1321701647]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=47572.msg1428473#msg1428473 date=1321701190]
[quote author=Binny link=topic=47572.msg1428467#msg1428467 date=1321700310]
FFS. they are absolutely pathetic. i hope someone somewhere rises up to stop this shit: i've got little sympathy for the crusties at St Paul's but we could do with some similar movement against everything to do with modern football. the whole thing's fucking rancid.
[/quote]
The sad thing is, it's really easy to do, in theory.
We all cancel our Sky subs (those who pay the fuckers), & we don't buy LFC merchandise, or go the game. We go to watch AFC liverpool instead if we must.
If 70% of the fans of every Premisership club did that, it would be mere weeks before the game changed massively.
[/quote]
you're right mate. i actually think it could happen with a little organisation. but then i'm an eternal optimist!
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=47572.msg1428473#msg1428473 date=1321701190]
[quote author=Binny link=topic=47572.msg1428467#msg1428467 date=1321700310]
[/quote]
FFS. they are absolutely pathetic. i hope someone somewhere rises up to stop this shit: i've got little sympathy for the crusties at St Paul's but we could do with some similar movement against everything to do with modern football. the whole thing's fucking rancid.
[/quote]
The sad thing is, it's really easy to do, in theory.
We all cancel our Sky subs (those who pay the fuckers), & we don't buy LFC merchandise, or go the game. We go to watch AFC liverpool instead if we must.
If 70% of the fans of every Premisership club did that, it would be mere weeks before the game changed massively.
[/quote]
you're right mate. i actually think it could happen with a little organisation. but then i'm an eternal optimist!
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=47572.msg1428477#msg1428477 date=1321702041]
[quote author=Woland link=topic=47572.msg1428474#msg1428474 date=1321701583]
Why? Who gives a fuck really? If soft twats want to blow zillions on footy clubs, what's the legal issue? Why shouldn't it be allowed? There's only so many diamond encrusted Maseratis a brutal slavemaster can have before he starts getting bored.
[/quote]
i couldn't give a fuck about people wasting their fortunes, but i do care about low-paid working class fans being shut out of the game, and the spectacle being slowly choked out of leagues across europe by the inappropriately laissez-faire model.
the owners are irrelevant; the good of football in general isn't.
[/quote]
Totally unrelated. It's cheaper to go and watch Citeh than Liverpool. You can get season tickets there for 250 quid.
[quote author=Woland link=topic=47572.msg1428474#msg1428474 date=1321701583]
Why? Who gives a fuck really? If soft twats want to blow zillions on footy clubs, what's the legal issue? Why shouldn't it be allowed? There's only so many diamond encrusted Maseratis a brutal slavemaster can have before he starts getting bored.
[/quote]
i couldn't give a fuck about people wasting their fortunes, but i do care about low-paid working class fans being shut out of the game, and the spectacle being slowly choked out of leagues across europe by the inappropriately laissez-faire model.
the owners are irrelevant; the good of football in general isn't.
[/quote]
Totally unrelated. It's cheaper to go and watch Citeh than Liverpool. You can get season tickets there for 250 quid.
[quote author=Woland link=topic=47572.msg1428479#msg1428479 date=1321702579]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=47572.msg1428477#msg1428477 date=1321702041]
[quote author=Woland link=topic=47572.msg1428474#msg1428474 date=1321701583]
Why? Who gives a fuck really? If soft twats want to blow zillions on footy clubs, what's the legal issue? Why shouldn't it be allowed? There's only so many diamond encrusted Maseratis a brutal slavemaster can have before he starts getting bored.
[/quote]
i couldn't give a fuck about people wasting their fortunes, but i do care about low-paid working class fans being shut out of the game, and the spectacle being slowly choked out of leagues across europe by the inappropriately laissez-faire model.
the owners are irrelevant; the good of football in general isn't.
[/quote]
Totally unrelated. It's cheaper to go and watch Citeh than Liverpool. You can get season tickets there for 250 quid.
[/quote]
???? any movement against modern football i'd like to see wouldn't be against City/Chelsea per se, but the whoring of the game in general. stop trying to make a pointless argument you can never win: unfettered capitalism is not an appropriate model for a social good like football. trying to obscure that basic assertion with pedantic objections is a waste of my time, and yours.
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=47572.msg1428477#msg1428477 date=1321702041]
[quote author=Woland link=topic=47572.msg1428474#msg1428474 date=1321701583]
Why? Who gives a fuck really? If soft twats want to blow zillions on footy clubs, what's the legal issue? Why shouldn't it be allowed? There's only so many diamond encrusted Maseratis a brutal slavemaster can have before he starts getting bored.
[/quote]
i couldn't give a fuck about people wasting their fortunes, but i do care about low-paid working class fans being shut out of the game, and the spectacle being slowly choked out of leagues across europe by the inappropriately laissez-faire model.
the owners are irrelevant; the good of football in general isn't.
[/quote]
Totally unrelated. It's cheaper to go and watch Citeh than Liverpool. You can get season tickets there for 250 quid.
[/quote]
???? any movement against modern football i'd like to see wouldn't be against City/Chelsea per se, but the whoring of the game in general. stop trying to make a pointless argument you can never win: unfettered capitalism is not an appropriate model for a social good like football. trying to obscure that basic assertion with pedantic objections is a waste of my time, and yours.
right, back on track: are you happy with how football is right now? if u are, fine. if not, maybe we can have a useful debate?
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47572.msg1428475#msg1428475 date=1321701647]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=47572.msg1428473#msg1428473 date=1321701190]
[quote author=Binny link=topic=47572.msg1428467#msg1428467 date=1321700310]
FFS. they are absolutely pathetic. i hope someone somewhere rises up to stop this shit: i've got little sympathy for the crusties at St Paul's but we could do with some similar movement against everything to do with modern football. the whole thing's fucking rancid.
[/quote]
The sad thing is, it's really easy to do, in theory.
We all cancel our Sky subs (those who pay the fuckers), & we don't buy LFC merchandise, or go the game. We go to watch AFC liverpool instead if we must.
If 70% of the fans of every Premisership club did that, it would be mere weeks before the game changed massively.
[/quote]
It would take a lot longer, the merchandise would impact immediately but it's buttons anyway so wouldn't make a difference. And given that season tickets are paid for and TV and sponsorship deals are already in place for years to come it would only be when it comes to negotiation time that clubs would be starting to panic.
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=47572.msg1428473#msg1428473 date=1321701190]
[quote author=Binny link=topic=47572.msg1428467#msg1428467 date=1321700310]
[/quote]
FFS. they are absolutely pathetic. i hope someone somewhere rises up to stop this shit: i've got little sympathy for the crusties at St Paul's but we could do with some similar movement against everything to do with modern football. the whole thing's fucking rancid.
[/quote]
The sad thing is, it's really easy to do, in theory.
We all cancel our Sky subs (those who pay the fuckers), & we don't buy LFC merchandise, or go the game. We go to watch AFC liverpool instead if we must.
If 70% of the fans of every Premisership club did that, it would be mere weeks before the game changed massively.
[/quote]
It would take a lot longer, the merchandise would impact immediately but it's buttons anyway so wouldn't make a difference. And given that season tickets are paid for and TV and sponsorship deals are already in place for years to come it would only be when it comes to negotiation time that clubs would be starting to panic.
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=47572.msg1428484#msg1428484 date=1321703558]
right, back on track: are you happy with how football is right now? if u are, fine. if not, maybe we can have a useful debate?
[/quote]
I'm not happy with the way football is now and I've done quite a bit of thinking / writing about it. I generally get called a naive dickhead on here when I go on about it in isolation and I think that's because the problems of football are not the cause but the symptom of a more general populist profit driven world. You can't 'fix' it on its own.
Also, you mention this 'social good' as if it's universal. It's not, it's subjective. Go and ask around Manchester about the social value of Shake Man Sore's work, and his continuing plan to build the biggest football academy in the world / all the other shit and I'm sure you'd get a very positive response.
right, back on track: are you happy with how football is right now? if u are, fine. if not, maybe we can have a useful debate?
[/quote]
I'm not happy with the way football is now and I've done quite a bit of thinking / writing about it. I generally get called a naive dickhead on here when I go on about it in isolation and I think that's because the problems of football are not the cause but the symptom of a more general populist profit driven world. You can't 'fix' it on its own.
Also, you mention this 'social good' as if it's universal. It's not, it's subjective. Go and ask around Manchester about the social value of Shake Man Sore's work, and his continuing plan to build the biggest football academy in the world / all the other shit and I'm sure you'd get a very positive response.
so what would you like to see, ideally? and how do you think it could be made to happen?
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=47572.msg1428496#msg1428496 date=1321704637]
so what would you like to see, ideally? and how do you think it could be made to happen?
[/quote]
I'm off out for a bit but here's another post about the same shit. http://www.sixcrazyminutes.com/forums/index.php?topic=47157.msg1411396#msg1411396
The thread probably gets to the bottom of it all and fixes everything!
so what would you like to see, ideally? and how do you think it could be made to happen?
[/quote]
I'm off out for a bit but here's another post about the same shit. http://www.sixcrazyminutes.com/forums/index.php?topic=47157.msg1411396#msg1411396
The thread probably gets to the bottom of it all and fixes everything!
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47572.msg1428489#msg1428489 date=1321703929]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47572.msg1428475#msg1428475 date=1321701647]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=47572.msg1428473#msg1428473 date=1321701190]
[quote author=Binny link=topic=47572.msg1428467#msg1428467 date=1321700310]
FFS. they are absolutely pathetic. i hope someone somewhere rises up to stop this shit: i've got little sympathy for the crusties at St Paul's but we could do with some similar movement against everything to do with modern football. the whole thing's fucking rancid.
[/quote]
The sad thing is, it's really easy to do, in theory.
We all cancel our Sky subs (those who pay the fuckers), & we don't buy LFC merchandise, or go the game. We go to watch AFC liverpool instead if we must.
If 70% of the fans of every Premisership club did that, it would be mere weeks before the game changed massively.
[/quote]
It would take a lot longer, the merchandise would impact immediately but it's buttons anyway so wouldn't make a difference. And given that season tickets are paid for and TV and sponsorship deals are already in place for years to come it would only be when it comes to negotiation time that clubs would be starting to panic.
[/quote]
You don't think empty stadia being broadcast around the world would have a dramatic effect?
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47572.msg1428475#msg1428475 date=1321701647]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=47572.msg1428473#msg1428473 date=1321701190]
[quote author=Binny link=topic=47572.msg1428467#msg1428467 date=1321700310]
[/quote]
FFS. they are absolutely pathetic. i hope someone somewhere rises up to stop this shit: i've got little sympathy for the crusties at St Paul's but we could do with some similar movement against everything to do with modern football. the whole thing's fucking rancid.
[/quote]
The sad thing is, it's really easy to do, in theory.
We all cancel our Sky subs (those who pay the fuckers), & we don't buy LFC merchandise, or go the game. We go to watch AFC liverpool instead if we must.
If 70% of the fans of every Premisership club did that, it would be mere weeks before the game changed massively.
[/quote]
It would take a lot longer, the merchandise would impact immediately but it's buttons anyway so wouldn't make a difference. And given that season tickets are paid for and TV and sponsorship deals are already in place for years to come it would only be when it comes to negotiation time that clubs would be starting to panic.
[/quote]
You don't think empty stadia being broadcast around the world would have a dramatic effect?
They are putting a lot of money into the surrounding area of Gorton etc apparently to be fair.
Still, football's shit, and I hate it. But I can't stop loving it (well, Liverpool) 🙁
Still, football's shit, and I hate it. But I can't stop loving it (well, Liverpool) 🙁
i put some thought into this a while ago, when i got really angry with Sky before i cancelled it. i thought a first step might be trying to start a pact with fans to cancel tv subs and put the money saved (or a proportion of it) into a fund. the fund would basically be a co-op for paying money directly to clubs: mainly for tickets, but also for official merchandise. there'd also be a small percentage set aside for charitable causes, ideally ones involved in clubs' areas. the HFSG would be an obvious beneficiary for the LFC fund. everyone paying into the fund would only be able to draw upon what they contribute. obv, many fine details to work through.
like i say, i'm a hopeless optimist, but i do think there's a yearning for something like this: i don't think it's an impossible dream.
like i say, i'm a hopeless optimist, but i do think there's a yearning for something like this: i don't think it's an impossible dream.
Under Armour?Wasn't it supposed to be Warrior Sports?
[quote author=Binny link=topic=47572.msg1430038#msg1430038 date=1321899879]
Under Armour?Wasn't it supposed to be Warrior Sports?
[/quote]
What lazy fucking writing, The Journo could at least get our new kit deal right. Its spurs that have signed a deal with armour.
Under Armour?Wasn't it supposed to be Warrior Sports?
[/quote]
What lazy fucking writing, The Journo could at least get our new kit deal right. Its spurs that have signed a deal with armour.
I may be the only one, but I bear no bitterness towards city and their financial power. We've not been small spenders over years and dwarf our neighbor in terms financial superiority. If we were in City shoes we'd be sticking two fingers at everyone else.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked