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
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.

Another comparison - Bayern Munich get £4m per year for the Allianz Arena. Bayern and Arsenal are clubs that are more famous and steeped in far more history than City, yet you're arguing that City can eclipse both of those deals fairly? Come off it. Time is largely irrelevant, nothing significant has altered the market in that time, inflation has been steady the whole time and hasn't deteriorated the value of money by nearly enough for what you're saying. These are long term, lucrative deals, clubs would arrange shorter, recurring contracts with sponsors if they believed that the value of the deal would change by as much as you're suggesting.
 
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.

there is a lot UEFA can do, http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume9/number1/geey/geey.pdf you should really read that first

---------- Post added at 06:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------

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.

It still has to pass the fair value test

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
In Annex X(E) of the FFPRs reference is made to ‘ related party transactions and fair value of related party transactions.’ The specific provisions of this rule are to ensure that owners of clubs are not able to artificially inflate a club’s revenues in order to bolster the chances of passing the FFPRs by providing the club with a massive sponsorship deal from one of the owners other companies. In many instances it could be particularly difficult to measure concepts of fair value for an asset or a discharged liability but UEFA is keen to ensure that few loopholes are available. Annex X(E.7) states:
A related party transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value…An arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no related party relationship.
49
Therefore UEFA will need to assess the counter-factual position should question marks be raised over a particular transaction. The devil is obviously in the detail but issues over how revenue can be correctly valued may become a particularly thorny issue. In order to investigate a shirt sponsorship deal to assess fair value it would be necessary for UEFA to use comparators to identify whether a particular deal is extraordinary in any particular way. In using a rather blunt example, should an entity with a relationship to Premier League club X who has Champions League aspirations enter into £50m per season in shirt sponsorship deal with Club X, UEFA would almost certainly study the top shirt deals in the Premier League and see that the largest deal is around £20m per season. FFPRs alarm bells would start ringing rather loudly. UEFA would then have to assess the true value of the contract for the purposes of the FFPRs calculations.
 
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.
Some of the figures are way off! Adebayor was signed for £25m, not £10m, Santa Cruz for £18m, Bridge for £12m, Jo for £18m and Bellamy for £14m. Some of these are fringe or overpaid players and need to be moved on, I think, along with some others (stated later).

"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.
How are Manchester City spending sensibly? Gael Clichy was signed for £5m (a reasonable price) but he is on a 4 year, and I bet, massive contract when they don't even need him anyway (Kolarov, Zabaleta, even Bridge).

4 year contracts are long term, and they can collect their wage packet for a whole 4 years! I would imagine Clichy would be on something like £80k a week, and if he is there for 4 years (even if he doesn't play) he would get £320k.

No club would really want to buy him for his wage (and probably price) and inconsistency and he wouldn't want to take a wage cut so City would be stuck with him.

What people are forgetting is that the rules only apply when a team wants to get into Europe, and if City took 2 years away from Europe (not participate), made some profits and got some financial stability, they would probably be set for 20-30 years with their team/money.

Anyway, people I think City should sell [and their prices]:

Shay Given (not needed, getting old and on ~£60k p/w) - [£5m]

Stuart Taylor (absolute rubbish, getting old and not needed) - [£0m]

Gunnar Nielsen (not needed, no longer a youngster) - [£0m]

David Gonzalez (not needed, waste of wages) - [£2m]

Wayne Bridge (not needed, on ~£80k p/w) - [£4m]

Gareth Barry (not good enough to play, on too much wages ~£80k p/w to be backup) - [£7m]

Michael Johnson (not needed, on ~£25 p/w and no longer a youngster) - [£5m]

Shaun Wright-Phillips (not needed, on ~£80k p/w) - [£4m]

Roque Santa Cruz (not needed, on ~£100k p/w) - [£6m]

Jo (not needed, on ~£70k p/w) - [£8m]

Emmanuel Adebayor (not needed, fallen out with management, on ~£150k p/w) - [£15m]

Carlos Tevez (wants to leave, disrupts team [selfish and doesn't like being sub], on ~£250k p/w) - [£40m]

And some other youngsters (total wage probably ~£20k p/w, sell value ~£1m)

If they sell all of the players they will save/earn approximately (absolute guess, didn't use calculator, etc.) £200m.

That should be enough to get them through the rules and maybe buy some new, cheap, young and talented players. It would also give them financial stability. The best thing for them to do now is invest in their academy/investments, sell fringe/flop players and sign some new cheap and talented players.

Realistically, though, this seems impossible with their owners looking for instant success, cheap and talented players hard to find and their fringe players are on too high wages to be bought by another club. I guess they will probably save £40m in real life, which is disappointing, but that is the harsh reality.
 
Some of the figures are way off! Adebayor was signed for £25m, not £10m, Santa Cruz for £18m, Bridge for £12m, Jo for £18m and Bellamy for £14m. Some of these are fringe or overpaid players and need to be moved on, I think, along with some others (stated later).

i think he means that's how much it'll take for them to be off loaded, not how much they were signed for.
 
Isn't CoMS rented and not owned by Manchester City.? How can they sell naming rights of the stadium that is not their? Can someone please explain this..
 
They bought it when the Abu Dhabi group came in, one of the first things they did and are also putting in 1 billion into a project around the stadium/community.
 
They bought it when the Abu Dhabi group came in, one of the first things they did and are also putting in 1 billion into a project around the stadium/community.

If I'm not wrong they didn't buy stadium..
 

They're making a £130m annual loss though. You can't just add £200m to that and say they'll be okay, because they'll just carry on making that loss afterwards. You can only subtract the costs that they're permanently culling, i.e wages. The problem is, they're still making an £80m loss after losing all of their deadwood. But those calculations are still assuming that they can firstly sell all of those players, and that they have zero extra expenditure. There's a huge fiscal hole in their accounts, and assuming it even goes through, the sponsorship deal doesn't even begin to cover it.
 
If I'm not wrong they didn't buy stadium..
Yeah your 100 pct right they just renegotiated the lease so they could renovate seating/facilities, surprised they haven't bought it. Apparently MCC will get a 10-15 pct of any naming rights deal as it stands, seems weird that they're pumping 1 billion into the area but haven't bought the stadium outright yet.

---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

Yeah the figures reported have been updated... This deal is actually 300 million in a 10 year deal. Just saw the exclusive by a turkish/german journalist who's source is close to the deal. 30 mill a year to name a stadium...WOW.
 
Yeah your 100 pct right they just renegotiated the lease so they could renovate seating/facilities, surprised they haven't bought it. Apparently MCC will get a 10-15 pct of any naming rights deal as it stands, seems weird that they're pumping 1 billion into the area but haven't bought the stadium outright yet.

---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

Yeah the figures reported have been updated... This deal is actually 300 million in a 10 year deal. Just saw the exclusive by a turkish/german journalist who's source is close to the deal. 30 mill a year to name a stadium...WOW.

Hence why its like to get pulled, the techincal article shws that clubs have plenty of recourse to pressure UEFA if they feel they are not enforcing the rules. Arsenal have already said they will ask UEFA to carefully study it
 
15 mill a year they could possibly justify but 30 is just blatant. I'm presuming City knew this would cause a stir, probably testing the waters and UEFA's willingness to enforce FFP. **** if united ever did a 30 mill a year for OT it would look a little shady.
 
15 mill a year they could possibly justify but 30 is just blatant. I'm presuming City knew this would cause a stir, probably testing the waters and UEFA's willingness to enforce FFP. **** if united ever did a 30 mill a year for OT it would look a little shady.

Exactly, interesting gamble, puts UEFA between a rock and a hard place, but the clubs can effective force UEFA to act, and you can bet they will exercise that ability
 
15 mill a year they could possibly justify but 30 is just blatant. I'm presuming City knew this would cause a stir, probably testing the waters and UEFA's willingness to enforce FFP. **** if united ever did a 30 mill a year for OT it would look a little shady.

Frankly when I thought it was 10 mill a year it was taking the ****. Arsenal and Bayern get 3.5m and 4m a year respectively, and I consider both of those much more marketable brands than City.
 
15 mill a year they could possibly justify but 30 is just blatant. I'm presuming City knew this would cause a stir, probably testing the waters and UEFA's willingness to enforce FFP. **** if united ever did a 30 mill a year for OT it would look a little shady.

30 Million per only is only for Naming rights or it includes Shirt sponsors and other sponsors?
 
30 Million per only is only for Naming rights or it includes Shirt sponsors and other sponsors?

They already have the shirt sponsorship deal so I'd assume it's naming rights, unless Jimmer collated all the numbers together.
 
They already have the shirt sponsorship deal so I'd assume it's naming rights, unless Jimmer collated all the numbers together.

From what I heard it was 20 Million for Shirt and 10 for stadium. Needs confirmation. Atleast yesterday this was published..
 
The deal is reported to be worth around 400m pounds....reported today. I guess it includes the shirt sponsorship aswell.

The Sheikh has been very smart. It's not only stadium naming rights...the deal also includes many other areas around the stadium. That the Sheikh has bought and invested in to build something. This is called "Etihad campus".

There has never been such a thing in the world of football before and thats why UEFA cannot say that it's not "fair value".

I know many would like to believe otherwise...but im almoste 100% sure this deal is fair. City isn't "testing" anything here...they are just sealing a sponsorship.
 
The deal is reported to be worth around 400m pounds....reported today. I guess it includes the shirt sponsorship aswell.

The Sheikh has been very smart. It's not only stadium naming rights...the deal also includes many other areas around the stadium. That the Sheikh has bought and invested in to build something. This is called "Etihad campus".

There has never been such a thing in the world of football before and thats why UEFA cannot say that it's not "fair value".

I know many would like to believe otherwise...but im almoste 100% sure this deal is fair. City isn't "testing" anything here...they are just sealing a sponsorship.

Of course they can. By your logic you could have bought a shed, stuck it outside Eastlands, named it the Etihad shed and sponsored it for £1bn. Because hey, no one ever thought to sponsor a shed!

All they have to do is ask other non-biased firms "would you pay this to sponsor this?" and when all of them reply no, it's safe to conclude you've inflated the sponsorship deal. Why do you think Chelsea have been searching for years for a deal even half as good as this one, and failed? Because no firm is stupid enough to independently invest that amount. Your deal eclipses any other for far more marketable brands than City. If you think this is a fair deal you're either horribly deluded, ignorant or don't have any comprehension of the value of money. Or all 3.
 
The deal is reported to be worth around 400m pounds....reported today. I guess it includes the shirt sponsorship aswell.

The Sheikh has been very smart. It's not only stadium naming rights...the deal also includes many other areas around the stadium. That the Sheikh has bought and invested in to build something. This is called "Etihad campus".

There has never been such a thing in the world of football before and thats why UEFA cannot say that it's not "fair value".

I know many would like to believe otherwise...but im almoste 100% sure this deal is fair. City isn't "testing" anything here...they are just sealing a sponsorship.

actually its not, and the idea of "fair" is actually in the rules. If the deal is deemed to way abve market value (which it is) they will just deduct if from the break even results.

The Etihad Campus is something completely different that is allowed to have money poured into, a commercial and retail area that can bring in revenue. Nt a case of being very smart but a case of catching up on what other clubs are doing
 
actually its not, and the idea of "fair" is actually in the rules. If the deal is deemed to way abve market value (which it is) they will just deduct if from the break even results.

The Etihad Campus is something completely different that is allowed to have money poured into, a commercial and retail area that can bring in revenue. Nt a case of being very smart but a case of catching up on what other clubs are doing

Sorry...i didn't understand a word of that.

And btw...are you so smart that you know it's not fair value already? I think the club knows better. It's very irritating that you...1 United fan amongst the other 300million United fans comment on your rivals business like you know everything of it.

Just saying.
 
Back
Top