Strange that Marca, being such a pro Real Madrid newspaper, would come out with an article like this on the eve of a match between said club and PSG.http://www.marca.com/en/football/international-football/2018/02/12/5a817e7d46163f29638b4578.html
Paris Saint-Germain and Financial Fair Play doubts
Interesting Article basically UEFA not buying into their sponsorship deals. I trust our club has this sorted out , given how bent UEFA are.
Parts of the article
This issue is the sponsorship deals which justify the incredible expenditure and in March the Committee of Financial Control for Clubs will dictate a judgement on the sponsorship deals signed by PSG.
They will determine whether they are legitimate deals, however to this point it is understood that UEFA considers them to be illegitimate and akin to a state owned team.
Strange that Marca, being such a pro Real Madrid newspaper, would come out with an article like this on the eve of a match between said club and PSG.
true , though this has been said before too about PSG and their sponsorship deals. Neymar to Madrid stories will not die down either
It's not news really, is it?
When City and PSG got done a few years back, PSG had a 'sponsorship' deal which UEFA assessed to be 2x fair value.
i think this is back in the news maybe coz they will assessed again...and need to sell in the summer to balance their books.... lucas has left for spurs
guessing di maria and draxler will leave too
If they're assessed again UEFA will have to allow more of the sponsorship deal as they're now a higher profile club.i think this is back in the news maybe coz they will assessed again...and need to sell in the summer to balance their books.... lucas has left for spurs
guessing di maria and draxler will leave too
We agreed as part of the settlement not to increase our tier two sponsorships, which would have been Aabar & Etisalat I think. The Etihad deal never came into it as Etihad was, under UEFA rules at the time, not a related party & therefore they had no say in the matter.Paris are fine.
When UEFA came after both of us, Paris got lucky.
They were ordered to revise their Qatar deal down from £200m to £100m a season.
PSG are already under the permitted limits.
We were ordered not to increase our Etihad deal by something like ten per cent?
Etihad are just under 11% so 15% max sounds a fairly safe bet.We agreed as part of the settlement not to increase our tier two sponsorships, which would have been Aabar & Etisalat I think. The Etihad deal never came into it as Etihad was, under UEFA rules at the time, not a related party & therefore they had no say in the matter.
Of course, they soon amended the regulations to say that no more than 30% of a club's total income could come from state-related entities. I doubt more than 15% of our income comes from Abu Dhabi related companies.
Do you know if the Etihad deal was ever renegotiated? This link suggested negotiations were underway, but nothing ever seems to have been confirmed. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-city-set-400million-jackpot-4377857We agreed as part of the settlement not to increase our tier two sponsorships, which would have been Aabar & Etisalat I think. The Etihad deal never came into it as Etihad was, under UEFA rules at the time, not a related party & therefore they had no say in the matter.
Of course, they soon amended the regulations to say that no more than 30% of a club's total income could come from state-related entities. I doubt more than 15% of our income comes from Abu Dhabi related companies.
It is extraordinarily generous, but PSG's argument is still perfectly valid.PSG have reportedly renewed their deal with Qatar Tourism Authority for an annual EUR 175 million and were arguing that it shouldn't be revised downwards at all for FFP purposes because they're a bigger club now than when they entered into the original deal (later benchmarked at EUR 100 million) a few years ago: http://www.espn.com/soccer/paris-sa...in-to-value-qta-contract-at-175m-euros-report
I'd suggest that a value of EUR 100 million is actually extraordinarily generous on UEFA's part.
Also do you think Man Utd's huge agent fees, and wages for their signings is a deliberate attempt to take the transfer mkt out of City's reach? They as the club with the highest revenues, have a vested interest in inflating the market under the current regulations. They could drive transfer costs for the best players so high so that we can not compete.
It is extraordinarily generous, but PSG's argument is still perfectly valid.
This is the problem with UEFA trying to set themselves up as an arbiter of fair value in a rapidly changing market, they've no business doing so and they don't have a fucking Scooby.
They also have the highest costs and flat revenue growth. We'll overtake them off the pitch soon, just as we have on it.Do you know if the Etihad deal was ever renegotiated? This link suggested negotiations were underway, but nothing ever seems to have been confirmed. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-city-set-400million-jackpot-4377857
Also do you think Man Utd's huge agent fees, and wages for their signings is a deliberate attempt to take the transfer mkt out of City's reach? They as the club with the highest revenues, have a vested interest in inflating the market under the current regulations. They could drive transfer costs for the best players so high so that we can not compete.
We have the basis of a World Class squad for the next six years. It'll only take one addition per season for us to keep it up to scratch, so the market being hugely inflated makes no difference to us
Do you know if the Etihad deal was ever renegotiated? This link suggested negotiations were underway, but nothing ever seems to have been confirmed. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-city-set-400million-jackpot-4377857
Also do you think Man Utd's huge agent fees, and wages for their signings is a deliberate attempt to take the transfer mkt out of City's reach? They as the club with the highest revenues, have a vested interest in inflating the market under the current regulations. They could drive transfer costs for the best players so high so that we can not compete.
I think it has been and that it's now £55m a year for the whole package, although there's been nothing public on that. Given that Chelsea get £40m for their shirt sponsorship alone and the rags get £53m, I'd say that it's still market value at £40m for the shirt, £10m for the stadium and £5m for the Campus.Do you know if the Etihad deal was ever renegotiated? This link suggested negotiations were underway, but nothing ever seems to have been confirmed. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-city-set-400million-jackpot-4377857
Also do you think Man Utd's huge agent fees, and wages for their signings is a deliberate attempt to take the transfer mkt out of City's reach? They as the club with the highest revenues, have a vested interest in inflating the market under the current regulations. They could drive transfer costs for the best players so high so that we can not compete.
I thought it was extraordinarily generous, given the market at the time. €60-70m would have been closer to the mark in my view.PSG have reportedly renewed their deal with Qatar Tourism Authority for an annual EUR 175 million and were arguing that it shouldn't be revised downwards at all for FFP purposes because they're a bigger club now than when they entered into the original deal (later benchmarked at EUR 100 million) a few years ago: http://www.espn.com/soccer/paris-sa...in-to-value-qta-contract-at-175m-euros-report
I'd suggest that a value of EUR 100 million is actually extraordinarily generous on UEFA's part.
No, it's been exactly the same and therein lies the issue. We've actually tried to do things by the book (their book) bar an accelerated period of investment that we were arguably forced into by FFPR being on the horizon. PSG have just given them the metaphorical finger from day 1 (not that I've an issue with that in itself). This despite PSG being in a better position to slowly invest than us due to our differing domestic league situation.I agree with you fully. I just have a bee in my bonnet about PSG because I think their treatment and ours from UEFA has been markedly different. :)
I agree with you fully. I just have a bee in my bonnet about PSG because I think their treatment and ours from UEFA has been markedly different. :)