Newsletter #1262

A much-needed win on Saturday saw two excellent goals from Samaras as we secured three points against West Ham. The display and spirit dismissed the tabloid rumours of dressing room fall-outs at City but seemed more appropriate for the state of the Hammers.

We have part 3 of Colin’s finance articles tonight, views on getting behind the team, book review and an offer from the Ticket Office to draw up a FAQ answering all your queries.

Next game: Everton, away, 3pm Saturday 30 September 2006


If anyone fancies a go at being guest editor for a couple of weeks from 9th to 23rd October, please contact me. Full templates, instructions and help provided!

Heidi <editor(at)>


The Stadium & Those Debts

I was originally going to do this as the last article in my series but there are so many important issues surrounding these that affect the articles on the financial statements that I decided to move it up the list.

The Stadium

We’ve undoubtedly got a stadium that is the envy of many clubs around the world. I still get a thrill when I get anywhere near it. It’s sad, I know, and the feeling has usually evaporated 90 minutes later. But how did we come by it, what happened to Maine Road, who actually owns CoMS and what does it cost us?

Our dear friends from Salford call it “the Council House” but that simply betrays their lack of sophistication in financial (and any other) matters. The truth is that the stadium is operated under something called a “finance lease”. Accounting standards define this as a lease which, to all intents and purposes, confers the risks and benefits of ownership. So when they talk about “the Council House”, refer them to SSAP 21, the accounting standard on the treatment of leases (you could also tell them that it will be a useful exercise for when Glazer sells the Swamp and leases it back, as he undoubtedly will). We account for the income and are responsible for repairs and for the fittings, although there are restrictions in the lease over what we can and can’t do. Hence we have seen all the fuss over signage and general customisation.

The lease can be looked at as Manchester City Council (the lessor) lending us (the lessee) the money to buy the stadium. They haven’t actually given us the cash in hand and we haven’t actually bought it but we pay it back with interest as though they had. Obviously this is a totally different situation to a council house, where you just pay rent. Maine Road was effectively a down-payment. We handed it over to the council in part exchange for CoMS and they “lent” us the difference. However, we still don’t actually own the stadium and, as far as I am aware, never will. We have a 250 year lease on the stadium but its useful life is much shorter than this, maybe about 50 years.

After the Commonwealth Games in 2002 and once the remaining construction work had been done to put in the extra tier and build the North Stand (which was not our responsibility I believe) it needed fitting out with all the offices, bars, turnstiles and executive boxes that make a modern stadium and we had to pay for that. It has been reported that this cost around £20 million.

So how do we pay for it? We have agreed a formula with the Council that allows us to keep all the gate receipts up to the capacity of Maine Road, that is, 34,000. After that, we pay them based on attendances over that amount. This includes non-football events as well. I don’t know what that formula is so I can’t tell you what the split is and whether it applies to the gross income or we are allowed to deduct expenses. But whatever it is the higher our crowds, we more we pay.

There are other financial implications. We have to set up an accounting entry that represents the total money we think we will be paying over the life of the lease and depends on a number of factors such as crowds, the rate of inflation and interest rates. On Page 28 of the 2005 Report is a table that illustrates this. You will see, if you read the notes above it, that we have assumed average attendance of 42,500 in making this calculation, as well as 2.5% inflation. The stadium was independently valued in May 2004 at just under £150 million in that year’s accounts.

I mentioned that the lease is like a loan and includes interest. This is shown as an expense in the Profit & Loss Account whereas the non-interest element goes to reduce our total liability over the life of the lease. Just to illustrate this, suppose we have an outstanding lease at the start of the year of £30 million. We pay 5% interest of £1.5 million during the year, which will be shown as an expense in the Profit & Loss Account and will increase the total debt to £31.5 million. We actually pay £2.5 million in total in lease charges during the year, which reduces our total liability to £29 million. Therefore we have reduced it by £1 million, which is the total payment of £2.5 million less the interest of £1.5 million.

The interesting thing to come out of all this is the overall effect on our finances. We treat the stadium as though we own it (even though we don’t) and show it at its full value in the balance sheet. This is the correct treatment according to the accepted accounting standard. Therefore we have gone from owning a stadium worth about £30 million to “owning” a stadium worth £150 million and this has improved our balance sheet enormously. However, even though our accounting treatment is strictly correct, the central question remains – what is it really worth to us if we ceased trading? If we owned the stadium then there would be an asset there to sell but we don’t. Were we right to give up a £30 million asset for one possibly worth nothing in practical terms in that way? I simply can’t answer this question but it is, I believe, the key to really understanding our true financial situation.

I’ll deal with this is the next article on the Balance Sheet but be warned; the implications may shock you.

The Debts

The one subject above all connected with the finances guaranteed to get us all into a heated debate. So what is the truth – are they as well-structured and manageable as Alistair Mackintosh would have us believe?

First of all, we talk about “our debt” but there are a few different types of debts we have. There are the people we owe money to in the normal course of business – our suppliers of goods and services. We receive an invoice from them and have a certain time to pay it. These are short term debts and as long as we have adequate income coming in then we should be able to pay these. We will also owe tax and national insurance, including VAT. Although these are debts, they are not part of what we refer to as “the debt”.

Something else that falls into that category is the debt connected with the lease. As I said above we have to show an estimate of the total payments we would have to make over the life of the lease but this is an accounting entry as we only pay what we owe the council, according to the agreed formula, every three months.

However, when you take these away, we have what most of us think of as the debt, which is the money we have borrowed. There are two main types of borrowings, secured and unsecured. The former means that, in return for the loan the lender has first call over an asset in case you cannot pay it back. The best known form of secured debt is a mortgage, in which your house is security. Unsecured loans mean that the lender has no such security. We have both secured and unsecured borrowings.

The secured loans totalled £43.3 million in the 2005 accounts and consist of two separate loans. The first was for £30.3 million and is repayable over 25 years at 7.27%. The second was originally for £13.7 million and is repayable over 15 years at a rate of 7.57%. Of this latter loan, £700,000 was repaid during the year, leaving £13 million. My best guess is that these will cost us somewhere around £5 million a year to service until the fifteen year loan is repaid, then about £3 million a year for the next ten years.

I said that these were secured loans and the next question should be – what are they secured on? Normally it would be our stadium but, as you now know, we don’t own that. The answer is that they are secured on our future ticket income. This is an increasingly common financial instrument used by companies than lack the necessary assets for more conventional security. David Bowie did something similar, pledging his future royalties against a cash sum in advance.

Now, in order to agree to this, the financial institutions involved would have to have some confidence that these future income streams can be maintained at a respectable level. This is where the famously loyal City support comes in. Crowds of 28,000, even when we were in what is now League 1 convinced them that we could continue to pull in the cash whatever. Another element of this is that our payments are fixed over the life of the loan so all things being equal and assuming that inflation, ticket prices and TV income will rise over time means that paying £5 million in ten years will not have the same impact as paying £5 million this year.

The down side of all this is that if our income were to fall significantly then we are still committed to paying, before we pay anything else. So if we continue in the Premiership and continue to pull in the crowds then there is no great problem paying out £5 million from an income of over £60 million. However, that’s not to say that we couldn’t find better things to spend £5 million a year on (such as a striker who can actually score). But if things go disastrously wrong on the field and we lose a large chunk of our income from crowds and TV then spending £5 million a year from a much lower income base gives us a potential problem.

So what were these loans spent on? The club is keen to stress that £20 million went on the fixtures and fittings for CoMS but is less keen to publicise that the rest probably went on players. The basic rule of finance is borrow long term to buy long term but never borrow long term to buy short term assets. This means that it’s OK to borrow money over the long term if you’re spending it on an asset that will provide a return over that term. However it’s not OK to borrow money long term to buy an asset that only has a short life. So, you shouldn’t get a 25 year mortgage just to pay for a holiday, for example. Yet we took a long-term loan to finance player purchases, so we will be paying for these players for 15 or 25 years yet most have them have already gone. So that’s not such good business but what’s done is done.

The final debt is the one that we really need to look at and these are the unsecured loans from Messrs Wardle and Makin. The club calls these “soft” loans (and that’s not a comment on Wardle and Makin for making them). It refers to the fact that, unlike the secured loans that we pay instalments on annually, there is no repayment plan in place for these to be repaid. However, I did discover, on examining the 2003 accounts, that we owed Wardle £5.7 million at that time and supposedly had a plan in place to pay this back over 12 quarterly instalments. Yet in 2004 this had seemingly been ditched, suggesting we couldn’t afford the £2 million a year it would take.

However, the loans are not so soft that they don’t attract interest. There’s nothing wrong with this, by the way, as the lenders are entitled to some reward for their risk. Interest is at a very reasonable 5% and some or all of it is still owed to them. There are things I could criticise Wardle over but not his generosity. We have really relied on these loans to stay in business, as you will see when I talk about Cash Flow in a later article. Furthermore, if we were to cease trading they might not see some or all of that money again.

In the 2005 Accounts you will find the details of the loans on page 31 in note 17. The loans from Wardle total £14.7 million with just under £4.5 million from Makin. You will notice that Wardle’s loan has increased from £7.7 million the year before. Therefore he has pumped a further £7 million in during the financial year (our bank balance is also just over £7 million by the way so the obvious conclusion is that it is the additional £7 million sitting in the bank and it went in close to the year end). So that’s £19.2 million we owe these two.

So add the £43.3 million to the £19.2 million and we have total ongoing debt, excluding trade creditors and the lease, of £62.5 million. We also had an outstanding amount of £2.2 million (which wasn’t repaid until July 2005) and other loans totalling £1.25 million. So, strictly speaking our unsecured lending was £22.65 million as at May 2005 (although this would have been down to £20.4 million in July, assuming no other debt had been taken on). So when I asked you what you thought our total borrowings were in the last article, you should have come up with a total of £65.95 million, as against £62.2 million the previous year.

But the club did a very effective PR job in convincing people that debt had actually been reduced over the year. In fact, if you look at the Chairman’s Report on Page 4 under Financial Performance, the last sentence of the third paragraph says “Total debt… has fallen to £57.7m”. So is our chairman telling porkies? Well, not really, but he is being very selective. The £57.7 million is “net of cash” which means that he has knocked off the near £7.5 million we’ve got in the bank. At least we had it in the bank on 31 May 2005 – if we spent it the next day our net debt on 1 June could well have been back to nearly £66 million. And you would have to be some accountant or PR person to prove that £62 million had “fallen” to £66 million.

So what was all that in the Chairman’s report about net external debt falling from £50 million to £38.5 million? When Wardle talks about external debt he means that owed to third parties i.e. not to him or Makin as shareholders. Therefore the £50 million in 2004 was made up of the £44 million secured loans, another loan of £4.4 million (which has since been repaid in two instalments) and £1.6 million we owed the bank via our overdraft.

On that basis the £38.5 million is therefore the £43.3 million of secured loans (we paid off £700,000), and the £2.2 million still outstanding on the other unspecified loan at that time. But, I hear you cry, that’s £45.5 million and you are not wrong. However, once again he has knocked off the £7 million plus in the bank on 31 May 2005. The same question applies; was it still in the bank on 1 June? We will find out shortly.

Now, what do you understand by the word “manageable”? I take it to mean that I can deal with something, it’s within my control. Alistair Mackintosh constantly assures us that this unsecured debt in “manageable”. So what does he mean by that? He means that it’s within our control because Wardle and Makin aren’t asking for it back, either all at once or in instalments. Which is just as well as we only had £7 million in the bank at the end of May 2005 and this is somewhat less than £19.2 million. It did occur to me that perhaps they don’t want it back yet because they know we can’t pay it. I will try that one with the mortgage company if ever I can’t pay; “There’s no problem – if you don’t ask me for it back it’s quite manageable”.

So if they did want it back all in one go then we would have to find the money from elsewhere. Like, by selling our most valuable player(s), for example. But I’m sure the board wouldn’t do that. It will be interesting to see what our unsecured debt is in the forthcoming accounts. So if you are one of those calling for Wardle to resign, could you replace the £14.7 million that he would take with him? Because if you couldn’t we would probably be in a really serious mess.

So are our debts well structured and manageable – Yes Or No? I’ll leave it to you to decide but hopefully you can’t now say that you are a “Don’t Know”.

In the next instalment I’ll look at the first of the actual Financial Statements, the Profit & Loss Account. We’re one of the top twenty European clubs by income but couldn’t apparently afford a couple of million for Thomert. So what do we spend it all on?

Colin Savage <colin(at)>


I just need to get this off my chest and don’t feel it necessary to justify my credentials either!

Recently I have had my moans and whinged about the state of our beautiful game and also spoke about how disillusioned I am with lots of stuff; I won’t go on about that as I have aired those views previously. I kept my season card for what it’s worth. South stand hassled for 90 minutes. No matter, that’s another issue. I spend lots of money on MCFC and am poorly paid so struggle to manage many away games. Watching a match on TV just isn’t the same.

However, I don’t understand all this doom and gloom stuff about MCFC. It’s only a few games in? Yes, it can be s***e but it’s always been s***e, well in living memory (not mine) and we should be used to the City disease. It’s nothing new. Is it a curse? Dunno, don’t care, it just happens to us and is predictable so much so that I gamble on us being beaten by rubbish yet turning big clubs over now and then.

I am sick of hearing about how we are going to be relegated (maybe we will), how crap our players are (some are) and how Pearce should go. How many managers do we want? Who is going to sell out to corporate investors? It’s bad enough as it is! Is that what we really want? Yeah I have considered dropping my season ticket but I love Manchester City F.C.

The players come and go, the staff come and go even Chairmen come and go (Wardle is a Blue and loves this club, made mistakes but don’t we all – at least he put his money in, risked his family money; if it was me I’d want it back too if I could). They are not the reason why I stay. No, I stay because of friends, long term relationships with a club that means something to me. It is a passion, a love if you will. We fall out now and then but always support them in the end. Yeah it seems all one sided at the moment, granted, but one day it may change again. I hope so but I will still be here when they’ve all gone! Still watching silly defeats, still being barracked by Rags, still wondering why but laughing at the same time. Even if we were relegated. I for one don’t care, in fact maybe part of me would prefer it. I loved Division 2, loved Division One, the Premier League stinks. Wherever we are we’ll still be there. Well, the hardcore will (mugs some of you may say), 33,000 (hopefully 40,000)?

Basically what I am saying is please can we stop being so gloomy? Get behind the club and team (well most of ’em). And can we be realistic and have expectations that reflect our financial standing? We ain’t going to win the Premier League (who else but two or three clubs will?).

Silverware? Not the way we’re playing but well it’s nothing new is it? Maybe one day we will get some glory, but I ain’t a glory hunter and if that’s what you want I reckon you support the wrong football team (controversial or realistic?).

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love some success and a trip to Wembley (is it going to be finished soon?) but I don’t worry when the likes of Chesterfield beat us as it’s just more of the same, it’s just MCFC. No idea why but it happens. I accept it now. It’s part of being a Blue; shouldn’t be but it is. I just laugh and think “knew it”!

Keep the faith. One day we will be European Champs – there’s a flying pig!

Mark Redgrave <leaguecup1976(at)>


Just what Stuart Pearce ordered, a win against West Ham; this should silence some critics.

A brace of brilliant goals from Samaras, unselfish and untiring play from Corradi; the more the two play together the better they will get.

Some critics have been quick to point out stats that City had only won three of its last thirteen games. This I have always felt unfair to several new players in the squad, and a new season, but of course it was only said by the people eager to look for the bad and not the good in the team.

How about City are unbeaten at home this season?

Stuart Pearce keep your daughter’s mascot on the sidelines for good luck.

Well done City, very good win, now for the next game, must keep those critics quiet.

Come on you Blues!

Ernie Barrow <Britcityblue(at)>


The Chesterfield result made me want to weep. But let’s face it – who among us saw “Chesterfield away” come out of the tombola and thought “Ah yes, a second round tie away to an unheralded Division 1 side – who do we fancy in Round 3.” Not many, I’ll wager.

After my rant t’other week, here’s a crumb of comfort. Look at the gap in the table between 4th and our position. It’s not that big. We’ve already played Arsenal and Chelsea once. I know it’s hard, but we all want the club to succeed, and as far as the manager’s personality goes, we’d all like that to be under Psycho. I really like the guy, and want it to work out for him. Who are the options? The best is probably Curbishley, but why did he succeed at Charlton? Because the board there gave him a long-term mandate, and stuck with him through really bad times. And in the end he delivered. Pearce can do the same. There have been a few examples in the last couple of years of clubs that looked in big trouble having “spectacular” recoveries, because this league is mediocre through it’s heart… the examples of Newcastle and Villa spring to mind. It only takes a run of 8 decent results and we’ll be talking about a positive season. As bad as we’ve been, the clubs from 4th to 17th are all of moderate quality, and it won’t take much to bridge that gap.

Let’s not do a Peter Reid all over again. I think we all agree that Pearce has gone about the job in the right way, in terms of his integrity. He’s a refreshing antidote to the club’s own corporate face. So he deserves more time than most to get results. I suggest we all band together and get behind Psycho and the team.

CTID, Jon Marshall <jon_g_marshall(at)>


Seems like two steps forward, one step back doesn’t it?

I thought when we moved forward with Wigley instead of Fazakerly 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 it’s 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 Swede’s 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 makeshift right back in Micah (he’s doing alright but is prone to ball-watching), 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. But this is a position to be strengthened.

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 Year 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 luck 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 let’s become a workmanlike Everton/Bolton team and play with fewer (slow) forwards and more competitive midfield players. Common sense isn’t it?

It’s Pearce’s tactics that worry me. He seems to want to start the same 11 in every game. Me, I’d have an away first choice and a home first choice. Home would have a 4-4-2 with Didi or Dabo alongside Barton / Reyna / Ireland in central midfield and Corradi + Vassell / Samaras / Dickov in that order. Away I’d have a 4-5-1 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 4-5-1 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.

Oh and after 4 games. This season 14th and 4 points. In 05-06 we were 4th with 10 points, finished 15th. In 04-05 we were 10th with 4 points, finished 8th. In 03-04 were 7th with 7 points, finished 16th. What does that prove – it’s early days yet to be panicking after 4 games. I reckon if you read the webpage of every Premier team their fans are moaning as well. Give it a bit of time.

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!

Peter Carlisle <Carlisle(at)>


  1. After tonight’s pathetic display/result against Chesterfield, how muchlonger will Pearce be given before he is rightly sacked? – Will that fix theproblems we are experiencing?
  2. Why has Pearce built a team with absolutely no pace? – He has had nomoney, although Trabelsi, Beasley when fit, are quick.
  3. Why has Pearce built a team with no natural wide players? – He has had nomoney.
  4. Why has Pearce bought players who have appalling injury records at theirprevious clubs? – He has had no money.
  5. Why has Pearce created a team with no natural goal scorer(s)? – He has hadno money.
  6. Why has Pearce built a team with no midfield playmaker? – He has had nomoney.
  7. Why did David James and Andy Cole want to leave so badly? Because they areparasites and were offered money that we as a club are not able to offer – aswe have no money. Are you really so deluded that you think there is stillloyalty in football?
  8. And why did Micah Richards show so much frustration at Reading? – That mydear boy, is passion, are you aware of what passion is? A happy camp? Afrustrated camp.
  9. Where has all the money gone that’s been generated by the recent sales ofAnelka and SWeeP? Back into the pockets of the Chairman, who did not want tobecome a Chairman. To help service our debt and to re-coup their own monies -which when they get booted – they’ll naturally want back.
  10. If Hearts, Chelsea, Portsmouth, Aston Villa and West Ham (probably) canfind extremely wealthy investors, why can’t we? – Because the biggest assetof a football club – other than the playing staff – is the stadium. We don’town ours.
  11. Why, when we are clearly heading for relegation, does the Board ofDirectors waste its time attracting more gays to watch the matches? For thePC brigade out there, this is not a homophobic comment. I merely make thecomment because I’d like to think the Board have better things to occupytheir minds, like attracting investment into the club? Actually I’ll answerthis one for you – Wardle and his puppets love the importance of being on theBoard. They don’t want some multi-millionnaire coming along and pushing themto the side, even if said millionnaire could inject much needed funds into ateam rebuilding exercise. – See above. Nothing to do with the board thiseither.
  12. Why is it too much effort for the club to create a singing section in thestadium so our own fans aren’t persecuted by our own stewards, which isfrankly a f*****g disgrace? – No effort required whatsoever. Bring backstanding.
  13. Why don’t we ever play pre-season friendlies in Europe so we can at leasthave a decent away trip to look forward to? I’m sick of going to Tranmere,Wrexham, Port Vale, Bradford etc.! – I don’t think you know what youwant. Do you wish to spend money on expensive trips abroad to witness defeat,by your weak squadded team? A pre season friendly serves no purposewhatsoever other than to get a team gelling. This is practically the mostpointless question any one has ever offered. Ever.
  14. Why has Stuart Pearce banned current players from attending supporters’club meetings? [That’s not Stuart, it happened as soon as Keegan arrived] –Are you seven years old?
  15. Will the club ever employ a catering team on match days who can servequality food quickly, give the correct change and actually speak andunderstand English? Even better, will the catering staff ever understand theconcept of pre-pouring pints before half time to speed up the service? – Getin the queue earlier.

Joel Perry <j.perry(at)>


A few editions ago I mentioned the league tables and predicted that City would be relegated, I also stated my reasons. Those reasons were that we did not have any real class within the team. I am a City supporter of nearly 40 years.

Reading the latest comments I sense that the supporters who think that SP is the man for the job are the same ones who think Sylvia Dustpan is a good central defender. Are we in a better position now than we were last season? Can anyone really see an improvement in the team?

We all know the cup can be difficult against teams from the lower divisions, but come on, 1 up at half time SP should have been able to get the team to shut the game down and take the 1 nil win. Or is he fully aware that the players he has brought in are all capeable of going on the sick and he needs to keep the game tally down, so we lost the game on purpose! It’s time for him to go.

P.S. thanks for helping out Stuart, but like some of the others in the past you’re not up to the job.

Sam Duxbury <member(at)>


I came to City when George was starting to ply his trade. Never seen or methinks saw himself as one of the greats, he was a highly effective centre half stopper of the old school. Jack Charlton, I am sure, would tip his cap to him.

Two favourite memories of George; firstly, seeing him score for City when we beat the toeRags 3-1 at the Place Of Darkness, in 1968 just prior to winning the Championship. Secondly, his answer, on being asked how he dealt so well at set pieces with the big, bustling centre forwards of way back then – he replied that it was simple, he just stood on their feet.

RIP George. Please can we have some more players like you?

Jeremy Poynton <jeremy(at)>


I notice in MCIVTA 1260 in the article entitled ‘OPINION: THE EXUBERANCE OF YOUTH’ there was mention of an interview that Micah Richards gave to; if anybody would be interested in reading the full thread they can do so by going to:

Lee <lee(at)>


We’re not getting many laughs so this might distract from the crap on the pitch. Get Fuzzy is a comic strip seen across America. The main protaganist, Bucky, has an unexpected visitor in the form of a long lost cousin from Manchester, England. He arrives replete in City hat and scarf and a dialogue to match.

Pure class: he shows up on Sept 21 complaining that “some bloke diddled me brolly in the queue for the khazi back in blighty”.

At least I’ve got this to look forward to.

Andy Johnson <fastandyj(at)>


Given the number of ticket requests, information on how to obtain tickets, queries and mis-information on City Cards, Access Cards, cash on the day etc., the City Ticket Office have kindly agreed to draw up a FAQ.

So, please can you send any general queries about ticketing into the regular editor address and we’ll collate these, send them into the club and get a ready easy-to-use guide drawn up for all ticketing concerns.

Heidi <editor(at)>


We’re looking at 18 October for a Points of Blue meeting – avoiding the reserves on the 17th.

Dave Miller may be unable to continue as co-ordinator for personal reasons, so we’d need to think about structure.

Issues: new traffic arrangements anyone?

Steve Parish <bloovee(at)>


Title: Maine Road favourites: Where are they now?
Author: Ian Penney with Fred Eyre
Publisher: Sutton Publishing
Price: £14.99
ISBN: 0-7509-4410-2

This book sets out to answer the often asked “whatever happened to…?” question of over 250 players from the past 50 years. Whether they could all be termed Maine Road favourites is a moot point.

There are the obvious players still around in the game in one form or other be it as manager, coach, agent or more commonly performing “match day” duties or punditry at various clubs and media stations. The tragic cases such as Deyna, Caton and Rocastle; the mysterious whereabouts of Coleman – last seen as either an HGV driver in Australia, a bar tender in Thailand or somewhere in Hull – is TC the new Elvis?!

The more bizarre tales include players who went into the pottery business, run a fish and chip shop, act as a postman, baker or milkman. As to be expected, very few go into professional occupations and can probably be counted on one hand, although there are the usual with property and brewery involvement and a fair few taxi drivers or driving instructors.

A book you can delve into time and again to check up what happened, or whether the guy you saw down the chip shop really is Paul Moulden.

Heidi <editor(at)>


24 September 2006

Newcastle United      1 - 1  Everton               50,107

23 September 2006

Liverpool             3 - 0  Tottenham Hotspur     44,330
Arsenal               3 - 0  Sheffield United      59,912
Aston Villa           2 - 0  Charlton Athletic     35,513
Fulham                0 - 2  Chelsea               24,290
Manchester City       2 - 0  West Ham United       41,073
Middlesbrough         0 - 1  Blackburn Rovers      24,959
Wigan Athletic        1 - 1  Watford               16,359
Reading               1 - 1  Manchester United     24,098

League table to 24 September 2006 inclusive

                             HOME          AWAY        OVERALL
                    P  W  D  L  F  A  W  D  L  F  A  W  D  L  F   A   GD Pts
 1 Chelsea          6  3  0  0  6  1  2  0  1  5  2  5  0  1  11   3   8  15
 2 Portsmouth       5  2  0  0  4  0  2  1  0  5  0  4  1  0   9   0   9  13
 3 Manchester Utd   6  2  0  1  6  2  2  1  0  6  2  4  1  1  12   4   8  13
 4 Everton          6  2  1  0  7  3  1  2  0  4  2  3  3  0  11   5   6  12
 5 Aston Villa      6  3  0  0  6  1  0  3  0  2  2  3  3  0   8   3   5  12
 6 Liverpool        6  3  0  0  7  1  0  1  2  1  5  3  1  2   8   6   2  10
 7 Reading          6  2  1  0  5  3  1  0  2  3  4  3  1  2   8   7   1  10
 8 Arsenal          5  1  2  0  5  2  1  0  1  1  1  2  2  1   6   3   3   8
 9 Bolton Wndrs     5  2  1  0  3  0  0  1  1  1  3  2  2  1   4   3   1   8
10 Blackburn R.     6  1  1  1  5  5  1  1  1  1  3  2  2  2   6   8  -2   8
11 Fulham           6  1  1  1  2  3  1  1  1  3  6  2  2  2   5   9  -4   8
12 Newcastle Utd    6  1  1  1  4  4  1  0  2  2  4  2  1  3   6   8  -2   7
13 Manchester City  6  2  1  0  3  0  0  0  3  2  8  2  1  3   5   8  -3   7
14 Wigan Athletic   5  1  1  0  2  1  0  1  2  3  5  1  2  2   5   6  -1   5
15 West Ham United  6  1  1  1  4  4  0  1  2  2  5  1  2  3   6   9  -3   5
16 Middlesbrough    6  1  0  2  2  6  0  2  1  3  4  1  2  3   5  10  -5   5
17 Tottenham H.     6  1  1  1  2  2  0  0  3  0  6  1  1  4   2   8  -6   4
18 Watford          6  0  2  1  2  3  0  1  2  2  4  0  3  3   4   7  -3   3
19 Charlton Ath.    6  1  0  2  2  4  0  0  3  2  7  1  0  5   4  11  -7   3
20 Sheff. United    6  0  2  1  2  3  0  0  3  0  6  0  2  4   2   9  -7   2

With thanks to Football 365

MCIVTA FAQ [v0607.01]

[1] MCIVTA Addresses

Articles (Heidi Pickup)          :
News/rumour (Don Barrie)         :
Subscriptions (Madeleine Hawkins):
Technical problems (Paul)        :
FAQ (David Warburton)            :

[2] What are MCIVTA’s publishing deadlines?

Deadlines for issues are nominally 6pm, Monday and Thursday evenings bu email. Unfortunately we cannot accept email attachments.

[3] MCIVTA Back Issues and Manchester City Supporters’ home page 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.

[4] What is the club’s official web site?

The official club web site can be found at

[5] What supporters’ clubs are there?

Manchester City FC recognises three supporters’ clubs: The “Official Supporters Club” (; the “Centenary Supporters’ Association” ( and “The International Supporters’ Club”.

[6] Where can I find out about the fans’ committee?

The Fans’ Committee operates as an interface between supporters and the club. The Fans’ Committee has been relaunched as “Points of Blue”. It has appeared on the club website as a minor entry under “Fans Zone”.

[7] What match day broadcasts are available on the web?

The Radio Manchester (née GMR) pre and post match phone-in is available on the web at

Live match commentaries and archives of games, reports and interviews can be found at

[8] Where can I find out if City are live on satellite TV? provides a listing of Premiership games being shown on UK domestic and foreign satellite channels. Useful sites for North American viewers are,, and

[9] Do we have a Usenet newsgroup?

Yes we do: is our home on usenet. If you are not familiar with usenet, a basic explanation is available here:,289893,sid9_gci213262,00.html

[10] Do any squad members have their own web pages?

There are a number available and direct links can be found at

[11] Can I buy shares in the club?

Yes you can: Shares in Manchester City PLC are traded on OFEX. The latest prices can be on found the Plus Markets Group web site or in the business section of the Manchester Evening News.

[12] Where can I find match statistics?

Statistics for the current season are available from the club site, but for a more in-depth analysis try

[13] I hear there is a TV programme specifically about City?

InsideMCFC is broadcasted by ChannelM. It is available on the SkyDigital (ch.203) and NTL (ch.26) platforms as well as being transmittedtraditionally within the Manchester area (ch.39). In addition, theprogramme is available to watch via the web. More details and schedule:

The views expressed in MCIVTA are entirely those of the subscribersand there is no intention to represent these opinions as being thoseof Manchester City Football Club, nor of any of the companies anduniversities by whom the subscribers are employed. It is not inany way whatsoever connected to the club or any other relatedorganisation and is simply a group of supporters using this mediumas a means of disseminating news and exchanging opinions.

[Valid3.2]Heidi Pickup,

Newsletter #1262