La Liga want Man City investigation

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Why?

And why didn't the likes of the greedy scouters suggest this when they were using the pools' money to buy up the best players from all the other clubs.
Fucking hypocrites.

The role of the Scouts in the world of football finance is often overlooked I find. They do have a badge for it though..... ;-)

 

[dips66]

Might have said this earlier in the thread but I reckon sponsors from Abu Dhabi contribute about 15% of our total revenue, maybe a bit more. But even if Etihad wasn't our shirt sponsor then someone else would be at £40m a season. So it's really only the other 3 who give us additional revenue and how much can that be? £15m?

Wasn't the etihad deal front loaded, so that more money came in at the start when needed for FFP and then reduced yearly, so each year our UAE income reduces?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Wasn't the etihad deal front loaded, so that more money came in at the start when needed for FFP and then reduced yearly, so each year our UAE income reduces?

I don't know. It's certainly possible and therefore it's also possible we've done a new deal and it's been front-loaded to a degree again.

 

[dickie davies]

Wasn't the etihad deal front loaded, so that more money came in at the start when needed for FFP and then reduced yearly, so each year our UAE income reduces?

No it wasn't
The Etihad sponsorship was announced at £400m for ten years (40m per season)
At the start, Etihad were paying ott, as we were not competing in the CL or close to winning the Prem
The benefit was that as City progressed and became successful on the field, then Etihad would benefit
So in a way it was front loaded in the fact that they paid too much initially, but certainly are below market rate now if it's still £40m
I don't see how it could have changed as it was a ten year deal. We haven't binned Nike and have honoured the deal. Some clubs (Chelsea) bought themselves out of a shirt deal when a better offer appeared
The other thing that makes me believe that the Etihad dead hasn't increased is that Etihad will have been consulted on our sleeve sponsorship and will have agreed to share
I don't think they would have agreed if they'd were stumping up more cash on a new deal

 

[vmsuhail]

What about best way forward all clubs is only spent 150 million each year can't go over that amount cap on transfers spent

I like that and will end all these issues probably. It should be net spent though, and should also contain a possibility of spending 50 million in 1st year and 250 million in the 2nd year, to fund Neymar type deals.

 

[nmc]

No it wasn't
The Etihad sponsorship was announced at £400m for ten years (40m per season)
At the start, Etihad were paying ott, as we were not competing in the CL or close to winning the Prem
The benefit was that as City progressed and became successful on the field, then Etihad would benefit
So in a way it was front loaded in the fact that they paid too much initially, but certainly are below market rate now if it's still £40m
I don't see how it could have changed as it was a ten year deal. We haven't binned Nike and have honoured the deal. Some clubs (Chelsea) bought themselves out of a shirt deal when a better offer appeared
The other thing that makes me believe that the Etihad dead hasn't increased is that Etihad will have been consulted on our sleeve sponsorship and will have agreed to share
I don't think they would have agreed if they'd were stumping up more cash on a new deal

Chelsea bought themselves out of their Umbro deal to go to Adidas and then did the same to go to Nike! Not sure that’s good practice.

 

[squirtyflower]

The role of the Scouts in the world of football finance is often overlooked I find. They do have a badge for it though..... ;-)

I hate autocorrect on iOS devices

 

[BlueAnorak]

Does he not realize that THE EU is likely to say that FFP is contrary to EU competition rules and must be stopped. I am assuming that UEFA have not got a special exemption on this, as with TV rights sold collectively.

Nah - the corrupt EU agreed to FFP years ago. They are quite partial to monopolies and cartels so long as they are agreed up front and the right palms are crossed with silver. They only come a cropper when the EU doesn't get it's cut.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Might have said this earlier in the thread but I reckon sponsors from Abu Dhabi contribute about 15% of our total revenue, maybe a bit more. But even if Etihad wasn't our shirt sponsor then someone else would be at £40m a season. So it's really only the other 3 who give us additional revenue and how much can that be? £15m?

I'm sure we could get another satalite communications company if Etisalat stopped sponsoring us, another tourist board other than the Abu Dhabi one.... etc etc.
Once a sport business is getting a large audience watching their games then the sponsorship market really opens up.

 

[Blue Mist]

I like that and will end all these issues probably. It should be net spent though, and should also contain a possibility of spending 50 million in 1st year and 250 million in the 2nd year, to fund Neymar type deals.

Forget Neymar, if this kind of rule is brought in we are perhaps one of only two clubs where this is a positive. Only Chelsea have a similar youth policy to us, the Rags, dippers and spurs are years behind. I believe it is the same with Europe in respect of how we have set up a specialist youth division. If transfers were limited to a set spend each season our youth policy puts us miles ahead of others.