Manchester City to test financial fair play with naming rights deal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike.
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 148
  • Views Views 9K

Mike.

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
31,888
Reaction score
31
Points
48
Manchester City to test financial fair play with naming rights deal
• Etihad Airways to buy naming rights for Eastlands
• City stand to earn more than £100m from deal


Manchester City to test financial fair play with naming rights deal | Football | The Guardian

Manchester City are close to announcing a record sponsorship deal to allow Etihad Airways, the airline owned by the Abu Dhabi government, to take naming rights for the stadium in an agreement that will be a significant boost to the club's attempts to fall in line with Uefa's financial fair-play rules (FFP).

The deal will be confirmed at a news conference at Eastlands on Friday, with the club potentially in line to bank well in excess of £100m over the course of a long‑term arrangement.

The details have not been disclosed but City's new position within the game, backed by the enormous wealth and ambition of the Abu Dhabi United Group and their involvement in the Champions League for the first time, means they could bank an estimated £10-£15m a year from the airline and possibly even more.

The naming rights could provide an early test, however, for Uefa's FFP panel, which requires any sponsorship deal with a party related to the club's owners to pass a "fair value" test.

City have been trying to increase their revenue to meet Uefa's new criteria but Etihad's close links with the club's owners will almost certainly mean Uefa seek to ascertain that the airline has not paid an inflated price.

The new rules apply from next season, although Uefa will not begin assessing club accounts until the 2013-14 season. At that stage the licensing unit will assess club accounts from the previous two seasons, requiring clubs to break even subject to an "acceptable deviation" of €45m (£40m) over that period. City's last financial figures showed a loss of £121m and that figure could be even higher when the next statement is published in October.

Etihad already pay £2.3m a year as the club's shirt sponsor and, if everything is approved with the naming rights, the deal should go a long way to smoothing the club's thinking in terms of the new financial rules.

To the frustration of the manager Roberto Mancini, City's owners have placed new spending constraints on him this summer, acutely aware that if they ignore FFP they could actually be removed from the Champions League. While Manchester United have already spent £50m this summer, so far City have only signed Gaël Clichy from Arsenal for £7m and the Montenegro defender Stefan Savic for a similar amount.

The governing body have said they will use benchmarking exercises and specialists in the field to determine whether sponsorship and naming-rights deals are above their true market value. If it is deemed that they are, the excess must be deducted from break-even calculations.
 
Don't get too happy, City fans. It's a step in the right direction, but not a step far enough I think.

If we take an even higher valuation of £20 million a year added from the new deal, then say that the losses are £100 mil (£21 mil less than they actually are) and assume it'll go to a mere £110 mil in the next statement (likely to be far, far more) City still have a £80-90 mil shortfall, even when I'm being incredibly kind to City with the figures. And that's assuming this passes FFP regulations.
 
Don't get too happy, City fans. It's a step in the right direction, but not a step far enough I think.

If we take an even higher valuation of £20 million a year added from the new deal, then say that the losses are £100 mil (£21 mil less than they actually are) and assume it'll go to a mere £110 mil in the next statement (likely to be far, far more) City still have a £80-90 mil shortfall, even when I'm being incredibly kind to City with the figures. And that's assuming this passes FFP regulations.

First thing they need to do is shred their wage bill
 
First thing they need to do is shred their wage bill

And with a lower wage bill, they lose much of their attraction to newcomers, not to mention having to remove some of their star players. I feel a bit sorry for them in a way: had they got this money half a decade earlier, they could've done a Chelsea and established themselves as a big, competitive club that could conceivably get their affairs in order (I say conceivably, since they'll need to do some work to fix it, but they can still wean themselves off Abramovich's money in time) before these regulations came into effect. As it is, I fail to see how they're going to manage to do it.
 
Meh, after what Mike told me yesterday it appears we have a lot of people earning too much, i think the first step should be to get rid of at least 10 players who i consider dead wood.
Bridge
Given (Great keeper but too good for the bench and i imagine his salary is high)
Santa Cruz
Jo
Adebayor
Barry (Wont Happen but i honestly believe hes **** and a waste of space, would rather try and bring a youngster through)
Bellamy
Boateng

Not 10 players there but there are more i think should go, i just dont think we need them at all.

I actually think a lot of this is down to Mark Hughes, he paid so many players ridiculous salaries so they would join and i think it was seriously un necessary, most of the poor signings we made have come from him, but then again a lot of our good ones have such as Zab, Tevez, De Jong and Kompany.
 
And with a lower wage bill, they lose much of their attraction to newcomers, not to mention having to remove some of their star players. I feel a bit sorry for them in a way: had they got this money half a decade earlier, they could've done a Chelsea and established themselves as a big, competitive club that could conceivably get their affairs in order (I say conceivably, since they'll need to do some work to fix it, but they can still wean themselves off Abramovich's money in time) before these regulations came into effect. As it is, I fail to see how they're going to manage to do it.

Mmm I feel less so. Had they taken less of a shotgun approach to transfers and put half that money into find ways to expand revenue (there are plenty of areas that allow for unlimited investment under the FFPR). And they have Garry Cook doing things, enough said
 
dont even get me started on that garry cook mongoloid, he makes us look so bad and hes one of the only things i can say i have ever hated about city. Only other things i can think of are the home form under stuart pearce and gareth barry :/
 
Meh, after what Mike told me yesterday it appears we have a lot of people earning too much, i think the first step should be to get rid of at least 10 players who i consider dead wood.
Bridge
Given (Great keeper but too good for the bench and i imagine his salary is high)
Santa Cruz
Jo
Adebayor
Barry (Wont Happen but i honestly believe hes **** and a waste of space, would rather try and bring a youngster through)
Bellamy
Boateng

Not 10 players there but there are more i think should go, i just dont think we need them at all.

I actually think a lot of this is down to Mark Hughes, he paid so many players ridiculous salaries so they would join and i think it was seriously un necessary, most of the poor signings we made have come from him, but then again a lot of our good ones have such as Zab, Tevez, De Jong and Kompany.

The problem is Cook, Hughes would have had little control over wages. Cook wanted to be the big man, in some silly attempt to stick it to United, and he may have ultimately ****** your club in doing so. The type of man who shouldnt be at a football club
 
Meh, after what Mike told me yesterday it appears we have a lot of people earning too much, i think the first step should be to get rid of at least 10 players who i consider dead wood.
Bridge
Given (Great keeper but too good for the bench and i imagine his salary is high)
Santa Cruz
Jo
Adebayor
Barry (Wont Happen but i honestly believe hes **** and a waste of space, would rather try and bring a youngster through)
Bellamy
Boateng

Not 10 players there but there are more i think should go, i just dont think we need them at all.

I actually think a lot of this is down to Mark Hughes, he paid so many players ridiculous salaries so they would join and i think it was seriously un necessary, most of the poor signings we made have come from him, but then again a lot of our good ones have such as Zab, Tevez, De Jong and Kompany.

That'd be another step. A rough estimate (in order, 40k, 60, 60, 70, 80, 50, 50, 50) gives us around £450-500k that could be cut from those alone.

Garry Cook is more or less universally hated. That's quite an achievement in football.
 
Still think owners will find ways around this, like I said whatever UEFA paid lawyers to close loopholes owners will pay alot more to open them. The City owners could set up a sports shop company in Qatar and buy 10 million pounds worth of merchandise and just ship/hand them out for free what they cant sell across Asia making it hard to trace.
 
That'd be another step. A rough estimate (in order, 40k, 60, 60, 70, 80, 50, 50, 50) gives us around £450-500k that could be cut from those alone.

heres the scary thing, you need to add 2/3rd on each of those values, and you start to get close to what their wages are....
 
heres the scary thing, you need to add 2/3rd on each of those values, and you start to get close to what their wages are....

Well, exactly. I was taking pretty **** low estimates again, which just shows how much City could conceivably cut in just dead wood. Still, not enough.
 
Still think owners will find ways around this, like I said whatever UEFA paid lawyers to close loopholes owners will pay alot more to open them. The City owners could set up a sports shop company in Qatar and buy 10 million pouns worth of merchandise and just ship/and them out for free what they cant sell across Asia making it hard to trace.

the money has to be accounted for in the books, and the minute it starts being difficult to follow the holding companies need to create something like that, UEFA's radar will go off. If we can think of it, then so can the lawyers, but i definitely expect clubs t try and test the waters although its risky because if a club breaks the rules the other clubs can effectively easily go to court and make sure UEFA applies the ruling, I will find the article shortly
 
Wayne Bridge is reportedly on 110k a week and hes absolute *****.
 
A lot of those players'll be very hard to flog off, unless you want to release them, losing further money.
 
Exactly, hard to sell someone who is earning double what they would at the next club.
 
Still think owners will find ways around this, like I said whatever UEFA paid lawyers to close loopholes owners will pay alot more to open them. The City owners could set up a sports shop company in Qatar and buy 10 million pounds worth of merchandise and just ship/hand them out for free what they cant sell across Asia making it hard to trace.

I get your point, but you can almost guarantee if we can just pull out these random ideas to break the loopholes, UEFA have thought of it. I think it's very naive to assume, "oh well, we'll just pay lots of money to lawyers to find a way out of it". If that was possible then our whole legal system would just collapse.

---------- Post added at 02:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 AM ----------


Great article, has been the simplest breakdown of it all that I've seen.
 
its a pdf, so i'm not sure how to get it as an article on here, but its a must read for anyone interested in the FFPR
 
Back
Top