Manchester City to test financial fair play with naming rights deal

[Jamie.]

Rummenigge just mocked Man City in an interview at Bayerns training camp just translated the bits I could it was regarding Jerome Boateng,

He said the deal looks unlikely because the English want 20 million euros, but that Boateng wants the move badly. He said:

A "deadline" we have not, but certainly at some point will come a time, from which one must pursue an alternative plan. "Up to a certain level, we respect the separation, but we certainly do not pay astronomical prices.
I think they are going to have 48 players under contract, according to financial fair play, it may only be 25," said Rummenigge. "Of course we must also think of an alternative, if we get no solution with Manchester City. Now we have to see if the next few days giving to Manchester City or not. "The asking price will be" never pay. "

Basically shows everyone knows Man City are in the proverbial '****' over FFP and people are holding them over a barrel to buy some squad players from them. Did not know FFP will mean the maximum size will be 25 either, weird.

 

[Jake]

Rummenigge just mocked Man City in an interview at Bayerns training camp just translated the bits I could it was regarding Jerome Boateng,

He said the deal looks unlikely because the English want 20 million euros, but that Boateng wants the move badly. He said:

Basically shows everyone knows Man City are in the proverbial '****' over FFP and people are holding them over a barrel to buy some squad players from them. Did not know FFP will mean the maximum size will be 25 either, weird.

It doesn't, but the 25 man squad rules mean any extra players over that 25 (who aren't youth/younger players exempt from the rule) are essentially pointless, you may as well throw money out the window instead of paying a 26th squad player.

 

[Madridista CR7]

Rummenigge just mocked Man City in an interview at Bayerns training camp just translated the bits I could it was regarding Jerome Boateng,

He said the deal looks unlikely because the English want 20 million euros, but that Boateng wants the move badly. He said:

Basically shows everyone knows Man City are in the proverbial '****' over FFP and people are holding them over a barrel to buy some squad players from them. Did not know FFP will mean the maximum size will be 25 either, weird.

Nah...he is just bitter because Bayern want him so badly. Because he is a german international and they are even looking at Milito as alternative...who is ****! It just confirms that Bayern are trying to stop paying inflated fees aswell.

If City want 20m...it means he still have a role to play. And Mancini doesn't want to sell him. Especially when City only paid 10m pounds for him. I would expect City to allow him to leave for 12-15m pounds atleast, if they wanted to sell.

 

[Joel`]

Adebayor's years wages = 7.8mill (150k pw) + 10mill minimum transfer fee
Santa Cruz's year wages = 5.2mill (100k pw) + 5mill transfer fee
Bridge's year wages = 3.5mill (70k pw) + 3mill transfer fee
Jo's year wages = 3.5mill (70k pw) + 5mill transfer fee
Given's year wages = 2.6mill (50k pw) + 5mill transfer fee
Carlos Tevez year wages = 10.5mill (200k pw) +30mill min transfer fee
SWP's year wages = 3.5mill (70k pw) +5mill transfer fee
Bellamy's year wages = 3.5mill (70k pw) + 3mill transfer fee

Ok the figures may be a little under or over but added together the same figure will come out and it stands at 106 million and im sure more will leave too.

Ok as Mike said on the other thread who will take them players on them wages but it all depends on the player. If they are in the game to make a difference and play football then they will take a pay cut to play football if not then they will rot in Citys team until there contract is up. Their choice.

The 106 million is for this year only, and it's assuming they spend nothing else this year, which they will. If their losses remained constant, then they'd make £6m this year including sales, but they'd still be a heavy loss making company. For the following years they'd still be making £60m losses (£100m-£40m wages.). And even then, that's when we're using generous figures and under the assumption that they're not spending anything. Whatever they release in wages they will probably add at least a quarter of that in new wages. And then all of that is still assuming that they pass FFP with the naming rights, and that they're able to shift these players in the first place.

City are in far from an easy place with these regulations.

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

Good thing for City. Not a bad name either.

And a nice airplane:

YouTube - ‪New Manchester City Plane‬‏

You're happy calling your stadium after United? And you refer to your new defender after United's star defender. You must really, really love United then?!

 

[ChrisBird]

No, it means 'Unity'. And even if it was it would be 'The United Airways Stadium', would it not?

Just seen that the name will be 'Etihad Stadium' didn't realise that the name had actually been confirmed.

---------- Post added at 02:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

You're happy calling your stadium after United? And you refer to your new defender after United's star defender. You must really, really love United then?!

They aren't.

Speaking at the Manchester City press conference, James Hogan, of Etihad Airways, said the correct translation of Etihad from Arabic was 'Union'.

Manchester City stadium: Does the Arabic word 'Etihad' really mean 'United' in English? | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk

 

[Joel`]

Just seen that the name will be 'Etihad Stadium' didn't realise that the name had actually been confirmed.

---------- Post added at 02:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------



They aren't.

Manchester City stadium: Does the Arabic word 'Etihad' really mean 'United' in English? | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk

Have to spoil all the fun, don't you?

Besides: Union | Define Union at Dictionary.com

2. the state of being united.

By definition of the word, their stadium will be United.

 

[ChrisBird]

Have to spoil all the fun, don't you?

Besides: Union | Define Union at Dictionary.com

2. the state of being united.

By definition of the word, their stadium will be United.

No, it won't, that's irrelevant. Would you call Man Utd 'Manchester Union'? No, because they aren't the same.

 

[Joel`]

No, it won't, that's irrelevant. Would you call Man Utd 'Manchester Union'? No, because they aren't the same.

That would be stupid, there's nothing in the definition of United to relate it to union! United | Define United at Dictionary.com

The union stadium, by definition, means that they are United.

 

[Jake]

Who gives a **** tbh? The stadium is called Eastlands, just like St James park is St James park and isn't 'The Sports Direct.com Arena-Bowl sponsored by Starbucks and KFC.'

 

[Madridista CR7]

The 106 million is for this year only, and it's assuming they spend nothing else this year, which they will. If their losses remained constant, then they'd make £6m this year including sales, but they'd still be a heavy loss making company. For the following years they'd still be making £60m losses (£100m-£40m wages.). And even then, that's when we're using generous figures and under the assumption that they're not spending anything. Whatever they release in wages they will probably add at least a quarter of that in new wages. And then all of that is still assuming that they pass FFP with the naming rights, and that they're able to shift these players in the first place.

City are in far from an easy place with these regulations.

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------



You're happy calling your stadium after United? And you refer to your new defender after United's star defender. You must really, really love United then?!

City have a plan to meet the rules and they are doing it fairly. They might be far but they are progressing and they are progressing fast! And thats nice....the bluemoon is rising!


And United have plenty of players i dislike...but Vidic is not one of them. And it actually means "union". I meant that "Etihad stadium" sounds good.

But the stadium will be called Eastlands...atlest to me and many City fans.

 

[sunilvk7]

andersred Andy Green

Abu Dhabi state owned airline that has never made a profit decides to chuck £30m pa at #MCFC. That'll be an arms length commercial deal.

 

[Joel`]

City have a plan to meet the rules and they are doing it fairly. They might be far but they are progressing and they are progressing fast! And thats nice....the bluemoon is rising!


And United have plenty of players i dislike...but Vidic is not one of them. And it actually means "union". I meant that "Etihad stadium" sounds good.

But the stadium will be called Eastlands...atlest to me and many City fans.

Cutting costs is only a small part of your problem, it all means nothing if you can't raise your revenue substantially. Does their plan involve questionable sponsorship deals?

Anyone have the account details for City's revenue growth in the past 3 years too?

 

[Madridista CR7]

Cutting costs is only a small part of your problem, it all means nothing if you can't raise your revenue substantially. Does their plan involve questionable sponsorship deals?

Anyone have the account details for City's revenue growth in the past 3 years too?

"problem"...there is no panic at Eastlands. But of course it's important to spend wisely and sensibly on wages and fees now...and thats what City are doing. While slowly getting those fringe players off the books. As for example..Savic and Clichy were both given 4-year contracts at first. So they have to earn their extensions. Something they should have done with Ade, Bridge..etc.

It's not like you will be banned if you make big losses....as long as you keep progressing in the right direction. Questionable sponsorship deals? Idk...i think this one is fair value...the sums doesn't sound inflated at all.

 

[ChrisBird]

Who gives a **** tbh? The stadium is called Eastlands, just like St James park is St James park and isn't 'The Sports Direct.com Arena-Bowl sponsored by Starbucks and KFC.'

They've bought the naming rights, just like Bolton, Arsenal, Wigan and Stoke. It will be called Etihad Stadium.

 

[CJACKO11]

Who gives a **** tbh? The stadium is called Eastlands, just like St James park is St James park and isn't 'The Sports Direct.com Arena-Bowl sponsored by Starbucks and KFC.'

Exacly, all fans will still call it Eastlands. I wouldnt give a **** if someone buys the naming rights to Stamford Bridge even if its something like "Durex's Stamford Bridge" or "Al Punjabi the 3rd's Stadium". Aslong as they pay the cash i couldnt care less, i will always call it Stamford Bridge as will many other people.

 

[ChrisBird]

That would be stupid, there's nothing in the definition of United to relate it to union! United | Define United at Dictionary.com

The union stadium, by definition, means that they are United.

What there's nothing relating united to union, but there is with union and united? That makes no sense.

And if it did make sense (which it doesn't) then how about calling Man Utd 'Manchester Merged'? Again, no because it is NOT their name. Eitihad is translated to union, not united or anything else for that matter.

 

[Jake]

Questionable sponsorship deals? Idk...i think this one is fair value...the sums doesn't sound inflated at all.

£100 million being paid by a company that has never made a profit seems pretty questionable to me.

 

[sunilvk7]

Manchester City's 10-year agreement with Etihad Airways worth more than £300 million, according to person with knowledge of deal

Dont know how true is this, but if this gets UEFA's approval then FFP has failed before it is even implemented..


Edit: Looks like 20Million for shirt sponsor and 10Million for naming rights.. Hm.. Not way off the mark..

 

[Joel`]

What there's nothing relating united to union, but there is with union and united? That makes no sense.

And if it did make sense (which it doesn't) then how about calling Man Utd 'Manchester Merged'? Again, no because it is NOT their name. Eitihad is translated to union, not united or anything else for that matter.

I linked you the dictionary definitions for both words. It makes perfect sense.

ANALYSIS: Why Manchester City face a struggle to avoid European ban « Sporting Intelligence

 

[Madridista CR7]

Dont know how true is this, but if this gets UEFA's approval then FFP has failed before it is even implemented..


Edit: Looks like 20Million for shirt sponsor and 10Million for naming rights.. Hm.. Not way off the mark..

Yeah....i bet everyone will just say FFPR has failed when City make it. It doesn't matter if they have done it fairly balancing the books without loopholes. People will moan anyways because they hate City.

I have never doubted City would make it and i still dont. City still has so much room for growth.