No, if you do it legit, then congratulations. But taking a £100m sponsorship deal from a non-profit making company that just happens to be closely linked to your owner is taking the ****.
Manchester City to test financial fair play with naming rights deal
- Thread starter Mike.
- Start date
- Replies 148
- Views 23K
No, if you do it legit, then congratulations. But taking a £100m sponsorship deal from a non-profit making company that just happens to be closely linked to your owner is taking the ****.
Still you have lot of work to do. This alone is not enough.
Well its a dodgy deal. No doubt about it. The company that is paying has never made profits says it all..
I linked you the dictionary definitions for both words. It makes perfect sense.
If union and united are related, then so are united and union, even if it isn't in the definition.
And what about my second point which you completely ignored because by your logic this would make sense.
Chaz Sexington
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Dodgy deal my ****. It's perfectly obvious what's going on and it's perfectly legal. Fifa made the rules and Man City did as they should. What are people going to do; ban people from sponsoring?
Madridista CR7
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 1,453
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I have no doubt Sheikhs connections have something to do with this. But thats why he will make City break-even....with his connections. But in a legal way.
An arab takes over ManCity and suddenly all the sponsors are arabs?...
Im not stupid.If the company is related to the owner of the football club then the value of the sponsorship deal is supposed to represent market value. £100m from a company that has never made a profit is market value? The Emirates stadium deal was worth £100m over 15 years plus an 8 year shirt sponsorship deal.
Chaz Sexington
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
However it's Etihad's money that's being spent - and they decide exactly how they want to spend it.
Sadly UEFA wont think in that way.. Shame really..
It's not an unaffiliated company though. Clearly the Sheikh has organised this, so it's only fair that Etihad are forced to pay what any other non-affiliated company would, i.e fair market value.
The rule's there for a reason. By your logic, Etihad should be able to sponsor for billions because it's their money and they spend it how they like. Kind of defeats the purpose of the whole FFP regulations though, no?
Madridista CR7
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 1,453
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Care to explain?....
Do you think 20m shirt sponsor and 10m stadium is too much?.....there are many clubs with much bigger sponsors.
If UEFA investigate im pretty sure City are already ready for it and there is nothing UEFA can do if they even have time to investigate or if they even care about the deal.
Last edited:
Any sponsorship deal by a firm affiliated with the owner has to be "fair value". It's what the whole thread has been about.
Madridista CR7
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 1,453
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
20m shirt sponsor and 10m stadium naming rights + naming rights in other areas around eastlands/a year sounds like fair value.
Chaz Sexington
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Aye, I'm saying it's obvious too. And by my logic they are free to spend their (i. e. not yours) money as they see fit. It's not Man City losing money here, which is FFPR's main role, I believe.
The Emirates deal is worth £100m to Arsenal, and that's over a longer time period and includes the 8 year shirt sponsorship in that deal.
The Emirates shirt deal is worth £6m per year over 8 years. So, £100m - (6*£8m) = £52m stadium rights. £52m/15 = ~£3.5m per year for stadium naming rights.
Your deal is worth £10m per year stadium rights, it almost triples the closest comparison, and you consider that fair market value?
---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------
It's what UEFA have said, which is why people are calling it a dodgy deal in relation to the guidelines of the UEFA rules.
Chaz Sexington
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
But Arsenal haven't won anything for a while... (A)
The rules were imposed to prevent clubs going bankrupt and ending up like Portsmouth, not to prevent them from getting the best sponsorship deals available.
They were imposed for fair play. You're supposed to spend by what your revenue allows, not what your owners allow. Club benefactors are supposed to play a minimal role in what the club can do. No one would care if some random, independent firm came up with this deal. But they didn't, because no firm is stupid enough to offer a deal of this magnitude. The Sheikh is just pumping money into the club indirectly, it's still going against the aims of UEFA. If these rules were aimed to solely prevent clubs going like Portsmouth, they'd be more serious sanctions than just European, because they only affect the minority.
---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------
And the deal with Arsenal was done when Arsenal had won a few things.
Madridista CR7
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 1,453
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
But Arsenals deal was done a many years ago and tbh...i think Arsenal got a poor deal there. Not just my opinion but many others. It's not like you have to compare all the naming rights to Arsenals.
Chaz Sexington
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
If you remember, I was sceptical to the FFPR at the start as I said they wouldn't work, BUT
It's obvious that it's the Sheik, however it has been done in a proper manner, which is why I'm not complaining. You might not say it's fair, but I don't agree with "morality" laws to begin with.