ThaiPauly Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Thanks Mr.B I think as most of the websites have said that I have read today, we deserved it, we really should have won by 2 or 3 a fantastic save from Weaver near the end. The possession at the end of the game worked out pretty even, I thought the sending off was a bit harsh, although I felt Sinclair's tackle warranted a Red Card ,so that evened it up for me. We won because we played as a unit, everyone in the side has played together a long time now, only Sol is new to the team, so I think if we can maintain our home form we could be OK, although our next two home games are United and Chelsea so I am not expecting much from these games. However you have to understand from my perspective that if we are going to survive at this level we have to beat teams like City, Boro, Bolton, Fulham, Charlton West Ham, Pompey etc at home, otherwise we will be back where we started. Part of my dream came true though...we are sitting in a UAFA cup spot right now I will enjoy the moment, I am sure SP will sort things out for you, and I wont be expecting much when we play at your place (although the last time we played there we did manage to win Thanks for being a good sport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted September 12, 2006 Author Share Posted September 12, 2006 Thanks for being a good sport Well, you win some, you lose some eh I think as most of the websites have said that I have read today, we deserved it, we really should have won by 2 or 3 a fantastic save from Weaver near the end. I think it was more even than that TP. In fact shots, possession etc, we had more chances. But you capitalised on yours and we are not finishing. Oh well From SkySports:- Last nights stats Reading Team Statistics Manchester City 1 -----------Goals-------------- 0 1 --------1st Half Goals-------- 0 6 -------Shots on Target ------8 8 -------Shots off Target ------8 2 -------Blocked Shots --------3 6 ----------Corners ------------4 8 -----------Fouls -------------18 1 ----------Offsides ------------5 0 --------Yellow Cards --------4 0 ---------Red Cards ----------1 59.6 ----Passing Success---- 74.9 26 ---------Tackles ------------34 65.4 ----Tackles Success ----70.6 40.1------ Possession --------59.9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totlanh Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 ThaiPauly again no disrespect intended but Reading were hardly ayt the races for large parts of the game and to claim you should have won by 2 or 3 nil is to be polite ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrus Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 All the best for the rest of the season to you as well Mr.B Cheers TP I'm a tad gutted this morning But well done Reading Well am i pissed off this morning!!!Once again ty pical bloody City.Following our great win against Arsenal we go and ###### it all up and get beaten by Reading for crying out loud.No disrespect meant to Reading but it was evident that City were the vastly superior team and we had huge portions of possesion in one 10 minute period according tro sky it was over 72%!!but we justr cant put the ball in the net!!!!This apart from being embarrising is becoming a serious problem.1 goal from 4 games and none from open play.Guess what?We are the only Club in the country with this unenvious statistic!!!I really do despair because as ive all ready alluded we actually played really well last night but were lacking the final ball and our ever glaring weakness on the left hand side was there for all to see!! On the positive side nicky Weaver was superb again and i really feel he is justified no 1 status and indeed will be very annoyed if Pearce(who i am beginning to question somewhat)drops him.Also Dunne was equally superb along with Distin.Sinclair ran hisa socks off again and Barton looks like he is getting back to his best.So its not ALL doom and gloom but heck we really need to sort out our strike force!!! Yep, not much to add to that. Except that, the sending off for Dabo was ridiculous, no intent, no elbow and now he will miss vital games. Yeah, don't you just hate it when that happens. I especially hate it when it happens in pre-season games that mean <deleted>*k all....! redrus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted September 13, 2006 Author Share Posted September 13, 2006 Yeah, don't you just hate it when that happens. I especially hate it when it happens in pre-season games that mean <deleted>*k all....! Agreed Red. Rooney was treated disgracefully by the FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bredbury Blue Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Thanks Mr.B I think as most of the websites have said that I have read today, we deserved it, we really should have won by 2 or 3 a fantastic save from Weaver near the end. The possession at the end of the game worked out pretty even, I thought the sending off was a bit harsh, although I felt Sinclair's tackle warranted a Red Card ,so that evened it up for me. We won because we played as a unit, everyone in the side has played together a long time now, only Sol is new to the team, so I think if we can maintain our home form we could be OK, although our next two home games are United and Chelsea so I am not expecting much from these games. Thanks for being a good sport Yep, you read but didn't watch judging by your comments. If being under the cosh for huge parts of the game and playing on the break at home is a definition of "we deserved it" well fair play to you, but i'd put it like this - we dominated the game, failed to capitilise on it and you took your chance. Sorry but disagree on the red cards point, there wasn't a challenge in the game worthy of a red but we know how refs are these days with those cards - i.e Dickov's booking at Chelsea for buzzing round the goalie. Anyway its going to be a long hard season for both of us judging by what i've seen this season. For us, if no one steps up to score goals regularly we'll end up with Barton top scorer with <10 goals. Shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bredbury Blue Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 FROM - MCIVTA NEWSLETTER http://www.uit.no/mancity/ is the unofficial Manchester City supporters' home page. Created in 1994, it is the longest running of the Manchester City related web sites. Back issues of MCIVTA are also hosted on the site. If you don’t already get the brilliant MCIVTA twice a week newsletter, you should subscribe – free. OPINION : CITY FINANCES PART I This is the first of a promised series of articles in the lead up to the publication of the annual report and general meeting. In it, I have attempted to clarify the share-holding position, the structure of the club and who does what on the board. 1. The Club's Shares, Ownership and Management Manchester City is a "publicly quoted" company. This doesn't mean that we're always in the press but that our shares are traded on a recognised stock exchange and can be easily bought and sold. The market involved is called Plus (formerly Ofex) and specialises in smaller to medium size companies. Their website can be found at www.plusmarketsgroup.com. The Manchester City page can be found at: www.plusmarketsgroup.com/details.shtml?ISIN=GB0005599336. Other sporting members of Plus are Arsenal, Glasgow Rangers and Northampton Saints Rugby Club. Anyone can buy the shares, through a stockbroker, and being a shareholder entitles you to attend the Annual General Meeting, vote on various matters and question the directors. The AGM is a statutory requirement and is usually held in December, following the publication of the annual report and accounts in October. In the past, with the various boardroom upheavals, these have been lively affairs but have been quieter recently. However, the handling of last year's meeting led to some dissatisfaction and, with increased focus on the finances following the sale of SWP, things could start warming up again! The more shares anyone has then the more they have the capacity to influence events. On the basis of "one share, one vote" then anyone who owns over 50% of the shares controls the company. In the case of our friends in Salford, the Glazer family (bless them) own virtually all the shares and have made their company "private". This means they do not have to issue accounts publicly or hold an AGM. Therefore their supporters don't have a clue. Sorry, that should read …don't have a clue about the financial affairs of the company. We know who the major Manchester City shareholders are as there is a requirement for public companies to declare any shareholding of 3% and over and these are detailed in the annual report. There are just over 54 million City shares in circulation and the current share price is quoted as 28p. This is what is known as a "mid-price" as the price for buying a share is higher than the price for selling. So currently you can buy shares at 29p each but would only get 27p each if you sold them immediately. The difference is the stockbrokers' profit margin. There is no minimum investment but many brokers will levy a flat dealing charge up to a certain level. So the fewer you buy, the greater the average cost per share. The share price is a reflection of the financial worth of a company and its perceived prospects. Multiplying the number of shares by the mid-price gives what is known as the market value of the company. Therefore, in theory, MCFC is valued at just over £15m. Compare that to Aston Villa, which has just been sold for about £64m (but there are reasons for the higher valuation). MCFC has over 5,000 shareholders but there are four who matter. The largest group of shares are held between John Wardle, the Chairman, and his former business partner in JD Sports, David Makin. Some are held in John Wardle's own name and some are held jointly between him and David Makin but the overall holding totals 29.95%. The significance of this level of holding is that anyone who owns 30% of a company's shares is obliged to make an offer to buy the shares of the other shareholders. Therefore unless they plan a full takeover of MCFC then Messrs Wardle and Makin will keep their maximum shareholding at this level. Although they don't own over 50% they clearly have a large say in events at Manchester City. The next largest shareholder is the Boler family. The late Stephen Boler built up a substantial stake in MCFC some years ago and this currently represents 18.75% of the shares. Sadly, he died in 1998 but his family's interest was represented on the board by Ashley Lewis for a number of years. He stood down last year but Stephen Boler's son, Mark, joined the board earlier this year. Stephen Boler was a friend of Peter Swales and was believed to be very upset about the way Swales was treated at the time of the Francis Lee takeover. The third largest shareholder is BSkyB, with 9.88%. Sky has held shares in a number of clubs and was blocked from a takeover of Manchester United a few years ago. It is unclear what their motive is in owning shares in football clubs although it may have something to do with being able to influence negotiations on TV rights. They bought their stake when we were running away with the First Division in 1999 and paid £7.5m for it. It is currently worth around £1.5m so they are sitting on a big loss. The last of the big four is Francis Lee, who of course endured a turbulent period as chairman after an acrimonious battle with Peter Swales. He still owns around 7% of the shares and, like the others, is probably sitting on a big loss currently. Lee is not on the board and it is unclear whether he is just hanging on to his shares until the price increases further or whether he has other plans. However, if the share price carries on towards 50p it will be interesting to see what all the four groups do. Between them, these four own around two-thirds of the total shares. This leaves one third of the shares in the hands of around 5,000, smaller shareholders. There are many people, like me, that have a few hundred shares and about 300 of us turned up to the last AGM. Many companies pay a dividend on their shares. This is expressed in pence per share and is a share of the profits given to the investors (i.e. the shareholders). It is akin to interest on your savings except that it might be nothing or could be a very good percentage in any given year. This, as well as the fact that shares can increase in value, is the reason that stocks and shares have become a popular and standard form of investment. MCFC shares have not paid a dividend for many years because the financial performance of the company has meant there is insufficient cash to fund this. Even a dividend of a penny per share would cost us over £500k and just imagine what SP could do with that! However it is interesting to note that the share price has been rising steadily and has doubled over the last 12 months. There is no obvious reason for this but it may reflect a feeling that the finances are improving, there is a potential investor waiting in the wings or simply a view in the markets that, in view of the takeovers of Manchester United and Aston Villa among others, football club shares could be a worthwhile investment again. They still have some way to go to reach their highest price over the last five years, which is just over 50p. There are a number of clubs where groups of supporters known as Supporters Trusts, own some or all of the shares in their club and there was an article on this in MCIVTA 1251. If we (the supporters) could somehow combine these small holdings into a more significant bloc (say of 10% or more) then we could wield far more clout than we do now. The club is run by a Board of Directors, who have a number of legal responsibilities (such as preparing accounts). The board at MCFC, in common with many other companies has a Chairman and a Chief Executive, plus a number of other directors. In our case there are three more directors and this is on the low side as other clubs can have seven or eight. Directors can either be "Executive" or "Non-executive". The former are full-time employees of the company and are paid a salary. Typically, there would be a chief executive and a finance director, and maybe some others (Marketing, Sales, Operations, etc.). Non-executives are not full-time employees, although they are usually paid a fee and expenses. Their role is to guide the executive directors and also act as a check and balance, to ensure that the executives act in the best interests of the shareholders. They may well be executive directors of other companies. The question is often asked "What do these people do for Manchester City?" The chairman has overall responsibility for setting the direction of the club and, as I have already detailed, our chairman is also the major shareholder. The chief executive has overall responsibility for running the business side of things and most, if not all of you will already know that our chief executive is Alistair Mackintosh. He is a chartered accountant who was originally our finance director. He is not a major shareholder (although he has a few thousand shares) but he is the only executive director. It is only relatively recently that full-time, paid directors were allowed at football clubs. Martin Edwards and Doug Ellis were among the first to take advantage of this change. The other directors are Brian Bodek, Dennis Tueart and Mark Boler. All of these, as well as John Wardle, are non-executive. Bodek is an executive director of a couple of other companies and is a qualified solicitor. Tueart needs no introduction as he was one of our finest players of the last 30 years but he has also built up a very successful sports promotion business. At the last AGM, it was stated that Brian Bodek provides valuable (and free) legal advice to the club and Tueart has responsibility for playing affairs. Neither Tueart nor Bodek are significant shareholders although, like Mackintosh, they have a few thousand shares. Mark Boler represents the interests of the Boler family. They have a near 20% stake in the company and it is usual for anyone with this level of shareholding to have a seat on the board if they want one. In that way they can keep a close eye on their investment. It is generally believed that Brian Bodek performs this role for BSkyB. Therefore not all of the directors are major shareholders. Bernard Halford, as Company Secretary, will also attend Board meetings. At the beginning I said that MCFC was a publicly quoted company. In fact MCFC consists of a number of companies. The most important of these (and the one in which the shares are publicly traded) is Manchester City PLC (standing for Public Limited Company). You might think the word "limited" refers to our footballing ability but in fact it means that the shareholders are protected against having to pay any outstanding debts of the company if it fails. So their liability, if this were to happen, is limited to the amount they have paid for their shares. Manchester City PLC actually owns three other companies that make up the group. One is Manchester City Football Club, which is self-explanatory. There are various reasons why the football club is owned by another company and one is that there were various restrictions placed on football clubs by the FA that can be got round by having a so-called holding company (not to be confused with a holding midfield player). This is a company that is set up for the purpose of owning a majority or all the shares in another associated company. Tottenham Hotspur was the first to go down this path in 1983. The two other subsidiary companies are Manchester City Investments Limited and Manchester City Property Limited. The former "owns" the long term, £44m debt issued a few years ago and the other, I believe, "owns" the lease on the stadium (more of these in a subsequent article). The establishment of these companies may well have been a requirement for these transactions. I hope this has given you some idea of the structure and ownership of MCFC. If anyone has anything to add to this or I have made any howlers then please feel free to tell me or preferably publish your views in MCIVTA. I would also be grateful for any feedback as to whether the level is right or not. In the next instalment I plan to look at the contents of the Annual Report and talk about the Annual General Meeting. Colin Savage (colin at cjsavage.co.uk) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted September 14, 2006 Author Share Posted September 14, 2006 Good post Bred, interesting reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted September 17, 2006 Author Share Posted September 17, 2006 Stuart Pearce has accepted the punishment meted out on Ousmane Dabo with good grace, but is still of the opinion that the player's dismissal against Reading was harsh. The former Lazio man was given his marching orders for catching Reading's Steve Sidwell with a stray arm during Manchester City's defeat on Monday night. Replays showed the contact to be minimal, while it also looked accidental, but an FA panel upheld the initial ruling of referee Howard Webb - meaning Dabo will have to sit out the next three games. Pearce has reacted philosophically to the news, with the ruling handing a chance to another of his midfielders, possibly Dietmar Hamann. "Sky TV said they didn't think it was a sending off, Sidwell didn't think it was a sending off but obviously the referee did," Pearce said on Sky Sports News. "We appealed and wouldn't have done so if we didn't think we had a decent case, but that appeal was turned down, we accept that and move on and someone else will play in his position." It appeared as if there was unrest in the City camp at Reading, as Micah Richards flew into a rage when substituted during the game. Pearce is looking to draw a line under the affair after revealing Richards has apologised for his reaction. "He made a beeline to see me yesterday morning and apologised for his behaviour, which is fine with me, there's no problem," added Pearce. "I knew on Monday that some good would probably come out of it and I think he will be more mature in response to it." Edit / / From SkySports http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=4...pts+Dabo+ruling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiPauly Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Bad luck at Blackburn guys, but at least you stuck 2 goals past them.. I dislike Blackburn intensely, mostly because Robbie Savage plays for them. They are a very physical team, and I think they were desperate for some points. You will bounce back..home game next week Chok Dee TP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted September 18, 2006 Author Share Posted September 18, 2006 Cheers TP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted September 18, 2006 Author Share Posted September 18, 2006 Pearce rues missed chances & defensive lapses 17/09/2006 18:08 Stuart Pearce could not hide his disappointment at the way City slipped to defeat Ewood Park, despite creating a host of good chances. City dominated the opening phase of the game but fell behind to an own goal by Trevor Sinclair at a free kick that was Rovers’ first meaningful opportunity. More defensive lapses cancelled out Barton’s strike and Ooijer’s own goal. Pearce said: “I'm very disappointed, we have conceded at two set plays that have been whipped in, they were ordinary balls. One's gone in off my player and the other's gone in directly. At a throw-in we've been caught with our trousers down, and it's disappointing for me. “We have created a wealth of chances today, not taken them and we really have to be hard-nosed about things. We have to know exactly what we are about, and do those jobs for 90 minutes. “In earlier games we did not create too many chances but defended stoutly. We went to Reading, played extremely well but came away with nothing. We started today in the same vein from Reading, if not better. We created a lot of chances, but you have got to take them. “They scored four goals and maybe had only five chances, you have got to do that in the Premiership. You have also got to make sure you don't gift goals at the other end. “We need to keep our shape a bit better over 90 minutes and keep creating the kind of chances we did today. We were on the road and still created a few opportunities, and if you get your nose in front your life is made a lot easier. We have not done that, and we keep having to try to come from behind time and time again.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bredbury Blue Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 FROM - MCIVTA NEWSLETTER http://www.uit.no/mancity/ is the unofficial Manchester City supporters' home page. Created in 1994, it is the longest running of the Manchester City related web sites. Back issues of MCIVTA are also hosted on the site. If you don’t already get the brilliant MCIVTA twice a week newsletter, you should subscribe – free. SECOND PART OPINION : CITY FINANCES PART 2 The Annual Report and the AGM Firstly, thanks to everyone who gave me feedback. It was very positive and has encouraged me to carry on in the same vein. So here's the next instalment, covering what goes into the Annual Report and what happens at the Annual General Meeting. Like any business, Manchester City plc prepares annual accounts. With them being a public company, these accounts are sent to shareholders and are made generally available to anyone else who is interested. The link for these is as follows: http://www.plusmarketsgroup.com/reports.sh...IN=GB0005599336. These follow a fairly standard pattern as required by company law and market regulation. So what's in there and what does it all mean? I'm going to concentrate on the general headings here but I will go into the 2005 figures in more detail in subsequent articles. Taking the 2005 Report as my template, the first page (2) details the directors and the various advisers - our main bankers, auditors, solicitors, etc. Nothing terribly remarkable here - all our advisers are well known and very reputable companies. Brian Bodek used to be a partner at Kuit, Steinart, Levy, one of the solicitors we use. He left in 1998 but is still listed as a consultant. The next few pages (3 - 7) contain the Chairman's Statement. This is a report on the past year written by John Wardle and sums up our financial performance, on-field performance and other items of interest. In most company reports, these tend to be pretty formulaic, with little illuminating comment. It should be noted at this point that these accounts cover the year to 31May 2005, which is our financial year-end. However, any significant changes between then and the finalisation of the report have to be reported. One such change was the sale of Shaun Wright-Phillips to Chelsea, for a guaranteed £21m, and Wardle talks of his surprise at SWP's sudden change of heart. One of the statements that is revealing concerns the uses of the proceeds from that. These include investing in the Academy, reducing outstanding borrowing and paying off all outstanding instalments on players purchased in previous seasons. Oh, and whatever's left might be spent on new players. So, in other words, goodbye to any lingering hopes we might have had that the sale represented a superb opportunity to build a strong squad that could capitalise on our eighth place finish. He makes it clear that he considers it more important to strengthen the balance sheet than the team. He also talks about reducing the debt and backs it up with some figures to show how our debt is reducing. Net external debt, he tells us, is down from £50m in 2004 to £38.5m and total debt down from the oft-quoted £62.2m in 2004 to £57.7m. So that's good isn't it? Well in the next article I'll discuss our debts but in the meantime make a note of what you think our total debt really was in 2005. The answer might surprise you. The next few pages (8 -15) are the Directors Report and associated statements. There is some detail about each director although it doesn't make it clear whether each director is executive or non-executive (as it should). I talked about the difference between the two in my last article and identified which directors fell into each camp. The Report is in a pre-defined format but there are some interesting bits worth noting. Firstly, each director has to formally retire and offer themselves for re-election every three years and in 2005 it was Brian Bodek's turn. This is usually fairly straightforward but some of you may remember that Magnier and McManus were able to put pressure on the Manchester United board by voting against the re-election of a couple of retiring directors. We can see that, just before the year-end, Ashley Lewis resigned as a director. The next section on Substantial Interests is really important. It lists any shareholdings known to consist of 3% or more of the total shares. This means we know who the major shareholders are and whether there have been any changes from the previous year. Generally speaking, any significant changes would have to be reported at the time they occurred, rather than waiting until the accounts are published. Therefore we already know that Mark Boler became a member of the Board earlier this year. The first section on Page 10 (Corporate Governance) is particularly interesting in this report. It details how the company ensures that it is managed correctly at the highest level. They should comply with something called the Combined Code, which sets out best practice in this area, and they should be able to demonstrate how this was achieved during the year in question. So they talk about regular board meetings and scrutiny of the financial results to ensure any problems are identified early. The Combined Code talks about the establishment of committees to ensure that proper financial controls and suitable accounting policies are in place (the Audit Committee) and one that covers all aspects of directors' and senior management remuneration (the Remuneration Committee). These should both be made up of at least two, non-executive directors, according to the Code. The Audit Committee should ultimately ensure that a Chief Executive and/or Finance Director are looking after the financial side of things properly but look who's one of the two members of the Audit Committee. It's none other than Alistair Mackintosh, who IS our Chief Executive (and therefore an executive director rather than the non-executive suggested by the Combined Code. So effectively he is checking his own work, particularly as he was also our Finance Director previously (and still is to all intents and purposes). Up to 2005, Ashley Lewis had been on the Audit Committee but he was no longer a Director at this point. I wrote to Alistair Mackintosh to query this after the last AGM and he replied that our external auditors were happy with this. However, he did not make it clear how they had indicated this. It could be that he meant that they had not said they were unhappy, which is not quite the same as specifically saying they accept the situation. It will be interesting to see if the position has changed in the next report. The Remuneration Committee report takes up the next few pages (12 -14) and this is another safeguard designed to ensure that the executives and senior managers don't simply award themselves inflated salary and benefit packages. There is a section on share options, which are supposedly a device to reward executives for their performance by giving them a stake in the company, potentially at an advantageous price. A share option gives an executive the chance to buy shares within a defined time period at a fixed price. Mackintosh therefore has the ability to buy up to 200,000 shares at any point up to March 2010 at 45p each, regardless of the market price at the time. If the market price were significantly in excess of 45p then this would be a very valuable benefit but it is clearly not in his interest to pay 45p for shares that anyone else can currently buy for 29p. The incentive, from his point of view, is to push the share price up via attracting external investment at a suitable price or superb financial performance. The final part of this section details the shareholding of each director and their remuneration for the year. Mackintosh received a salary of over £170,000, a bonus of £50,000 plus a £10,603 contribution to his pension fund. Page 15 is a statement of the directors' legal responsibilities. Page 16 contains the Auditors Report. The auditors are an external, properly qualified accountancy company (in our case KPMG). They are supposed to ensure that the accounts presented fairly represent the true state of affairs of the company. They will have examined the accounting records and checked that the accounting policies we use to state the figures are appropriate, prudent and take into account all foreseeable circumstances. They will ensure that transactions have been properly recorded and reflected in the accounts. So, for example, they would want to be sure that our attendance figures are recorded accurately and that all the associated revenue from those tickets had found its way into the accounts. As a former auditor myself, I had to do things like count millions of bricks in a brick-maker's yard (as the correct stock figure is critical) and stay in a casino all night until seven in the morning to ensure that the cash and chips were properly counted and balanced. So if you see someone in a suit and tie going round with a clipboard during a game counting heads, you know what they're doing! The auditors will (or should) have questioned the directors on key matters, where required and their answers will be reflected in these accounts. I'll talk about some of the accounting policies in subsequent articles but at this point will say that there can be many different ways to represent the financial situation of a transaction or asset and these can have a material impact on the figures. Therefore it is important that an appropriate policy is used. Finally the auditors express their opinion that, in this case, the accounts fairly represent our financial situation. This is not an absolute, cast-iron guarantee that things are OK however as a board determined to misrepresent their figures (eg Enron) will do so. KPMG (one of my former employers, I should add) are one of the biggest and most reputable accountancy firms in the world but even they can get things wrong. They signed off the accounts of another former employer in 2001, just weeks before this company collapsed in a big heap! This is still all subject to legal proceedings so I'd better not say any more. If they do uncover material irregularities then they should say so in the auditors report but someone adding up their expenses wrong is not usually going to affect anything to any great degree. The auditors are engaged by the directors but carry out their work on behalf of the shareholders, who have to formally re-elect them every year at the AGM. They can also be changed by the directors if they feel the situation warrants it. It is most important that the external auditors are seen to be independent of the directors. Therefore it would not be appropriate for a close relative of one of the directors to be responsible for the independent audit. It could be seen as a little surprising that the Manchester office of KPMG is the one which carries out our audit, as this could involve City fans on the auditors' staff having access to details that other fans don't, even though they have a strict duty of confidentiality. However, when I think about it, if we were to use the London office there is the danger that too many Manchester United fans could potentially be poking their noses into our books so, on the whole, it's probably safer using the local office. The rest of the report contains the real meat and bones, ie the figures. I'm going to cover each section in detail in subsequent articles but there are the accounts themselves, consisting of three financial statements, plus the associated notes. The financial statements follow a prescribed format. The first (Page 17) is the Profit and Loss Account and this shows our total income and expenses during the year under review, together with the equivalent figures for the previous year. (Page 18 is to do with property valuations and their impact on our profit or loss). The second major financial statement (Page 19) is the Balance Sheet and this shows our assets (ie the things we own or are owed) against our liabilities (the things we owe to others). The third and final statement is the Cash Flow Statement. This reveals how much cash we actually generated or consumed in total in the year. I'll discuss this in more detail later in the series but it is important to be aware that a company can report healthy profits but not actually generate any cash and, for a football club, cash is crucial as we need it to fund transfers. In some ways it is the most important and revealing of the three statements. If you have a copy of the accounts or are viewing them on-line, you will see a column called "Notes" in all three statements and figures in this column. These are references to the final section which, not surprisingly, is the Notes to the accounts (Pages 21 - 38). They say the devil is in the detail and this section is the Underworld. There are explanations of the accounting policies adopted and more detailed explanations of some of the figures in the accounts. Therefore you will find in here how our turnover is split between gate receipts, TV income and other income, plus many other items of interest, including details of our debts and how we pay for the stadium. So that is the Annual Report. When this has been issued and shareholders have had some time to digest it, it forms one of the central parts of the Annual General Meeting. This is a statutory meeting where the shareholders are invited to attend and have the chance to question the board and generally takes place in December at CoMS. Typically there will be a number of formal pieces of business: - A vote on the adoption of the accounts. This means that the shareholders get the chance to say whether they agree with the accounts as presented. Any contentious items can be queried with the board at this point. - A vote to re-appoint the auditors (or appoint different ones) - A vote on the re-election of directors. Each director has to stand down and offer himself for re-election on a regular basis and ensuring a couple of directors were not re-elected was how Magnier & McManus signalled their displeasure with the Manchester United board. With close to 50% of the shares in the hands of two directors, there would need to be a serious fall-out between Boler, Wardle & Makin to do the same thing at City. - A vote on any other resolutions presented by the board. This could be an increase in the number of shares issued or a change to the rules of the company to allow them to do something they couldn't do before. Sometimes these can be seemingly innocuous but have a sting in the tail. Some will require a simple majority (ie over 50%) in favour but some more far-reaching ones might need two-thirds or three-quarters of the votes in favour. As far as the voting is concerned, you can (if a shareholder) turn up in person and a few hundred did last year. You can request that your vote is cast a certain way or that someone else has the ability to cast a vote on your behalf as they see fit. As I said, this is the one real chance you get as a shareholder to question the board and hear what they have to say and the City AGM has been the scene of many a verbal bloodbath in the past! At the last AGM, Stuart Pearce gave a short speech about the playing side and answered some questions but no discussion of individual players and their contracts is allowed. Finally there was an open Q & A session but it only lasted half-an-hour. The questions range from the serious (the SWP transfer) to the banal. The board should come out of this session feeling they've been put through a mangle but have succeeded in justifying their actions to shareholders. They had a very easy ride in 2005 but hopefully, with all this knowledge MCIVTA readers will have, they will have to earn their money at the next AGM. In the next article I will be discussing the financial situation regarding CoMS and analysing our debts. I think I can assure you of a fascinating read! Colin Savage (colin at cjsavage.co.uk) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totlanh Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 It pains me to write this it really does as i honestly thought that Stuart Pearcewas a breath of fresh air when he started as manager of City,however sadly that same air appears to be going stale and i am getting sick of Pearces excuses about how we are not taking our chances or how much bad luck we are having etc etc.Ive heard this same crap for over 20 games now and its beginning to approach the time when City directors need to start asking questions about the validity of Pearces employment.I dont know precise figures bur i reckon we have accumulated a max of 8 points in our last 15 games!!!Instead of excuses Pearce it his job to sort out this mess and sadly i fear as manager he is failing to do this,anyone agree ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 Instead of excuses Pearce it his job to sort out this mess and sadly i fear as manager he is failing to do this,anyone agree ??? Sadly, Yes i do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bredbury Blue Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 Totally agree with you Blue! Seems like two steps forward, one step back doesn’t it. I thought when we moved forward with Wigley instead of Fazakely but has it? Some of the substitutions have been highly questionable, as has the selling of fringe players with potential (reckon we could be doing with Croft’s impact off the bench), etc. And where is the playmaker we have been crying out for since Ali B and Eyal moved on? I know its supposed to be Reyna but he doesn’t have the legs for it and is too injury prone. The only heir to the throne, Stevie Ireland, gets thrown the odd bone from time to time but he needs a run of games. Dickov playing deep-laying forward or the youthful and eye-for-space Ireland – Stevie for me. Pearce has been unlucky twice with the goalie position (James doing a last minute runner, followed by the Swedes injury) but then lucky (that Nicky Weaver has grabbed his opportunity and looks a far better player than he was 4 years ago). We’re still playing with a make shift right-back in Micah (he’s doing alright but is prone to ball-watcher), while the treatment of Mills is questionable particularly with the small squad we’ve got and Sommeil moving on. Left-back is always a problem at City (Donachie and Bobby McDonald excepted). Thatcher can go for me, while Stephen Jordan is progressing – still lacks pace which he’ll never get, but he’s a reasonable defender who in time will learn not to make rash decisions. We’re not party to the Distin politics but come on, he stayed because no one better than us came in for him and he’s waiting for the New Years sales. Looks like he’s going through the motions to me, unlike Dunne who is one of the few stalwarts we have at the club these days. Wide right we’ve lost Flood and Croft and have only Sinclair plodding down the wing – as much as I like him, his legs have gone haven’t they. If Sinclair’s injured expect to see Reyna playing there – yes we have no replacement. Wide left – well who hasn’t had a go? Maybe the new yank will plug the position but I can’t believe he’s going to be that good if we haven’t bought him but loaned him. Still to be resolved. Central midfield – in theory we have the right ingredients if we can get the mix right. Didi, Dabo, Barton, Ireland, Reyna – 5 in to 2 positions. Up front – we can’t score. Not one of those forwards is prolific and in fact I can see Barton just pipping Samaras for top scorer with a maximum 10 goals. Clearly no one expected Cole to leave last minute and Vassell to be injured so Pearce can rightly claim bad look here, but this is our main concern – we can muddle through in the wide midfield positions – but this needs sorting NOW! If we don’t look like scoring many then lets become a workman Everton / Bolton team and play with fewer (slow) forwards and more competitive midfield players. Common sense isn’t it. Its Pearce’s tactics which worry me. He seems to want to start the same 11 in every game. Me, I’d have an away first choice and an away first choice. Home would have a 442 with Didi or Dabo alongside Barton / Reyna / Ireland in central midfield and Corradi + Vassell / Samaras / Dickov in that order. Away I’d have a 451 with Didi and Dabo central with Barton / Reyna / Ireland just forward in midfield and one from Vassell / Corradi / Samaras / Dickov in that order. Personally I reckon we should play a very tight compact 451 away, be hard to break down and steal 17 points, leaving about another 21 (7 wins) to be picked up from the 16 remaining home games. Not rocket science is it; you just need to see the big picture and not just the next 2 or 3 games. It remains to be seen if Pearce can sort this out or will be given the time to do so – you can sense the knives sharpening now – but I really really hope so; I like the man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrus Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Chesterfield 2 Manchester City 1 League One Chesterfield piled the pressure on Manchester City boss Stuart Pearce by coming from behind to dump the Premiership strugglers out of the Carling Cup. After a horror run, which has now seen City lose 13 of their last 16 games, Pearce had hoped for a much-needed break at Saltergate. Instead, even more misery was lurking in the Derbyshire hills as first Caleb Folan levelled Georgios Samaras' first-half opener, then Derek Niven volleyed home a magnificent winner. Try as they might, the strongest side Pearce had available to him failed to find an equaliser, allowing Chesterfield to add their name to a long list of lower-league foes who have embarrassed the Blues in cup combat, including Oldham and Doncaster in the last two seasons alone. Having experienced a similar fate, to similar standard opposition at Belle Vue at the same stage of last season's competition, this sinking feeling is not a new one for Pearce. However, 12 months ago, the former England skipper was still basking in an extended honeymoon period. Now, the knives are being sharpened by some sections of the Blues support, whose patience is being stretched to breaking point and who know their team could fall into the drop zone if they lose at home to West Ham on Sunday. A shock hardly looked on the cards in the opening minutes as City looked to capitalise on their early superiority. Joey Barton should have provided Samaras with a more straightforward route to goal rather than force the striker wide from a routine lay-off. But Samaras was still able to cut inside and looked like scoring until Reuben Hazell slid in to block. Corradi almost capitalised on a Hazell mistake shortly afterwards but it proved to be City's last chance for a while as Chesterfield, with Folan to the fore, got on top. Pacey and direct, Pearce had picked the former Leeds trainee out as a man to watch before the game and after causing Richard Dunne no end of problems, should have put Chesterfield in front on the half hour. Breaking forward after Barton had lost possession deep inside the home half, Folan carried on his run after feeding Niven and received the midfielder's square return pass barely 10 yards out. He took aim impressively enough but the finish was awful, side-footed and high over the bar. City made their enthusiastic opponents pay on their next attack, Corradi rising highest to reach Micah Richards' right-wing cross. The Italian was unfortunate not to score himself but at least Samaras was on hand to bundle home the rebound as Corradi's header came bouncing off the post. It was Samaras' first goal of the season and the first by any City striker, enough, it seemed to ease the Blues passage into the next round. However, they reckoned without Chesterfield's stout resolve, which, aided by their own calamitous defending, saw the Spireites level within five minutes of the re-start. Nicky Weaver, booked for inexplicably handling outside his area just before the interval, made an ill-advised attempt to punch clear when former Manchester United man Phil Picken curled a free-kick into the City box. Weaver never got near it, and none of his defenders did either as Folan nodded into the bottom corner. If that was bad for City, worse was to follow as Claudio Reyna's clearing header from Allott's cross fell perfectly for Niven, who rasped a superb right-footed volley into the top corner to send Chesterfield through and leave Pearce frantically hoping the Blues board continue to stand by him. LINK. redrus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totlanh Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 I thought the days we were the laughing stock were over but are those days making a comeback??You know im beginning to get that sinking feeling everytime i see a score coming in pertaining to a City game because i realize its usually the oppossition who has scored.Enough is enough SP has given it his all and TBH i still like the guy but evidentaly he is not up to the job and rather face a long protracted relegation battle i say its time NOW to draw a line in the sand and get rid......... Dissapointed blue(nothing new then!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted September 21, 2006 Author Share Posted September 21, 2006 I thought the days we were the laughing stock were over but are those days making a comeback??You know im beginning to get that sinking feeling everytime i see a score coming in pertaining to a City game because i realize its usually the oppossition who has scored.Enough is enough SP has given it his all and TBH i still like the guy but evidentaly he is not up to the job and rather face a long protracted relegation battle i say its time NOW to draw a line in the sand and get rid.........Dissapointed blue(nothing new then!) <deleted> disaterous last night, the lot of em should be totally ashamed I agree about getting rid of SP before it's too late but who is out there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totlanh Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 I thought the days we were the laughing stock were over but are those days making a comeback??You know im beginning to get that sinking feeling everytime i see a score coming in pertaining to a City game because i realize its usually the oppossition who has scored.Enough is enough SP has given it his all and TBH i still like the guy but evidentaly he is not up to the job and rather face a long protracted relegation battle i say its time NOW to draw a line in the sand and get rid......... Dissapointed blue(nothing new then!) <deleted> disaterous last night, the lot of em should be totally ashamed I agree about getting rid of SP before it's too late but who is out there ? My granny who is 10 years dead would do a better job ,but seriously i dont know but we need a new direction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrus Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Bryan Robson, Roy Keane, David O-dreary, John Gregory, Sven, Ron Atkinson. The list is endless lads, haway....! redrus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bredbury Blue Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 As all the papers have been pointing out, Pearce probably has the next 5 (not so difficult) games to save his butt and our season. If he can't do it then he needs replacing. As i type this at work the City vs Blackburn game is on UBC - you know i have no real heart to watch it tonight. To cheer us up, and as a special thanks to our honourary red City fan, Redbus: Manc Jokes Two boys are playing football on a park in London. Suddenly a dog appears and sinks its teeth into the younger boy's chest. The elder picks up stick and drives it through the dog's heart, killing it. A reporter observes all of this and asks the boy if he can write a story on it. He takes out a notebook and puts down the title "ARSENAL FAN SAVES FRIEND'S LIFE" The boy says "I don't support Arsenal". so the reporter puts down "CHELSEA FAN SAVES FRIEND'S LIFE" The boy says "I don't support Chelsea",so the reporter asks "Who do you support?", and the boy replies "Man U". So, the reporter writes down "GLORY HUNTING IDIOT KILLS FAMILY PET" Q...What is the difference between Alex Ferguson and a Jet engine? A...A Jet engine eventually stops whining. Q...Did you hear about the Conservative MP who was found dead in a Man United strip? A...The police had to dress him up in women's underwear in order to save his family from the embarrassment. Q...What's the difference between a vibrator and a man u fan? A...A man u fan is a real dick. Q... What is the difference between a Manchester United Fan and a trampoline? A... You take off your shoes to jump on a trampoline! An anxious woman goes to her doctor. "Doctor," she asks nervously, "can you get pregnant from anal intercourse?" "Certainly," replies the doctor, "Where do you think those Man United fans come from?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjp Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 As all the papers have been pointing out, Pearce probably has the next 5 (not so difficult) games to save his butt and our season. If he can't do it then he needs replacing. As i type this at work the City vs Blackburn game is on UBC - you know i have no real heart to watch it tonight. To cheer us up, and as a special thanks to our honourary red City fan, Redbus: Manc Jokes Two boys are playing football on a park in London. Suddenly a dog appears and sinks its teeth into the younger boy's chest. The elder picks up stick and drives it through the dog's heart, killing it. A reporter observes all of this and asks the boy if he can write a story on it. He takes out a notebook and puts down the title "ARSENAL FAN SAVES FRIEND'S LIFE" The boy says "I don't support Arsenal". so the reporter puts down "CHELSEA FAN SAVES FRIEND'S LIFE" The boy says "I don't support Chelsea",so the reporter asks "Who do you support?", and the boy replies "Man U". So, the reporter writes down "GLORY HUNTING IDIOT KILLS FAMILY PET" Q...What is the difference between Alex Ferguson and a Jet engine? A...A Jet engine eventually stops whining. Q...Did you hear about the Conservative MP who was found dead in a Man United strip? A...The police had to dress him up in women's underwear in order to save his family from the embarrassment. Q...What's the difference between a vibrator and a man u fan? A...A man u fan is a real dick. Q... What is the difference between a Manchester United Fan and a trampoline? A... You take off your shoes to jump on a trampoline! An anxious woman goes to her doctor. "Doctor," she asks nervously, "can you get pregnant from anal intercourse?" "Certainly," replies the doctor, "Where do you think those Man United fans come from?" Ho ho the bitter blue bertie magoo returns. Having a go at Utd cos your team are bobbins, typical City me thinks. The 31 year bandwagon rolls on. As far as i can see Redrus hasn't really had a go Bred, has he. Just think people were calling for SP to be the next England manager By the way what's all this about Manc jokes. Bredbury is near Stockport, isn't it. I was home in the summer and saw a big sigh on the motorway for Bredbury. So this more bitters come from Manchester <deleted> is exactly that, <deleted>, esp when your the one who seems to think this is true . I told you before concentrate on your show at the council house and us reds will concentrate on our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 Ho ho the bitter blue bertie magoo returns. Having a go at Utd cos your team are bobbins, typical City me thinks. The 31 year bandwagon rolls on. As far as i can see Redrus hasn't really had a go Bred, has he. Just think people were calling for SP to be the next England manager By the way what's all this about Manc jokes. Bredbury is near Stockport, isn't it. I was home in the summer and saw a big sigh on the motorway for Bredbury. So this more bitters come from Manchester <deleted> is exactly that, <deleted>, esp when your the one who seems to think this is true . I told you before concentrate on your show at the council house and us reds will concentrate on our team. Bruddy h3ll jjp, lighten up, it's a joke. You are more than welcome to take the p1ss out of City if you like. We will take it on the chin and with the humour in which it was meant And don't start all that Bredbury is near Stockport stuff again, BredBlue explained all that away ages ago. Or have you conveniently forgot that. As for Redrus, he's a good lad and we're gonna make him an Honoury Member of our club. Nobody that nice could really be a Utd supporter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrus Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 As for Redrus, he's a good lad and we're gonna make him an Honoury Member of our club. Nobody that nice could really be a Utd supporter Cheers jjp. I can change................ redrus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jing-jo Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Bruddy h3ll jjp, lighten up, it's a joke. Y just like Man sh~ty the team that hasnt won anything of note in HOW LONG !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjp Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 Bruddy h3ll jjp, lighten up, it's a joke. You are more than welcome to take the p1ss out of City if you like. We will take it on the chin and with the humour in which it was meant And don't start all that Bredbury is near Stockport stuff again, BredBlue explained all that away ages ago. Or have you conveniently forgot that. As for Redrus, he's a good lad and we're gonna make him an Honoury Member of our club. Nobody that nice could really be a Utd supporter Point taken Mr Bo, I was on one yesterday. Take the piss out of City i find that hard at times, honest cos taking the piss out of something that is not worth taking the piss out of is, well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! leave it up to you to figure that one out. Anyhow i need to get off this City thread cos i might turn bitter and i wouldn't want to turn into Bredblue now would I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted September 23, 2006 Author Share Posted September 23, 2006 just like Man sh~ty the team that hasnt won anything of note in HOW LONG !! You know EXACTLY how long Jing Jo, you scum even have a sign up at Old Trafford, reminding everyone Anyhow i need to get off this City thread cos i might turn bitter and i wouldn't want to turn into Bredblue now would I You could never be as bitter as we are But one day it will all end and we will smile again (before i die, i hope) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jing-jo Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 just like Man sh~ty the team that hasnt won anything of note in HOW LONG ! You know EXACTLY how long Jing Jo, you scum even have a sign up at Old Trafford, reminding everyone Anyhow i need to get off this City thread cos i might turn bitter and i wouldn't want to turn into Bredblue now would I You could never be as bitter as we are But one day it will all end and we will smile again (before i die, i hope) yo mr b we too have had some dire cup results anyway your success rate in the fa cup is nearly as good as ours yours 50% ours 60 % so MCFC are not as far behind as the loyal MCFC fans make out but you just love being the underdog,but thats the british way "nesc pas" as arseh#le W#nker puts it MUFC have even been accused of not counting the F.A. cup as a real cup one year the F.A. cup should be renamed the funny auld cup due to the results that occur from time to time and the reason for the scottish version of old is that scottish teams have played in english competitions and english in scottish but thats way back in the past plus it's the right initial and sounds better when Man Utd went down in the seventies MCFC were far more entertaining to watch you even managed to get a few of our best players in the past dennis law to name one I dont think Man utd will win another trophy till they get rid of fergie but i may be wrong yes you heard right a Man Utd fan who wants fergie to go makes me very very unpopular with the other 1000's of red devils supporters here in Surrey cheers Mr B Jing-Jo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted September 24, 2006 Author Share Posted September 24, 2006 yes you heard right a Man Utd fan who wants fergie to gomakes me very very unpopular with the other 1000's of red devils supporters here in Surrey cheers Mr B Jing-Jo Nice one Jing Jo. But don't worry, you are not alone, as a red who wants Fergie out. Living in Manchester, i don't get to see too many United fans ( a joke Redrus, Nev and jjp) but there are many who feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.