City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

For the avoidance of doubt, there will be three types of sponsorship under the new rules. (The nomenclature here is my own)
1. Related. The IAS 24 rules will still be in operation and related sponsorships must be identified as such on our accounts. Currently, we have none, as neither Sheik Mansour nor any of our minority owners have any control of any of our sponsors.
2. Associated. Now it depends on what definition the PL finally adopt, but are they talking about quite loose connections? Friends of friends, geographical etc. I guess Etihad would fall into this category. It would be very hard to justify this, if challenged at law. UEFA introduced such a category when they couldn't pin related sponsorships on us. UEFA limit is 30% of turnover.
3.'Free', where there is no connection at all between the sponsoring company and the club.

We currently have 15% of our turnover in category 2. If the PL adopt the 30% rule, we are well clear.

The devil is in the detail. All sponsorships must be cleared in advance with the PL and must be fair value,(whether related or associated or not?) as assessed by third party experts.
What measures of fair value are to be adopted? Will the PL influence the measures? Room for shenanigans here, as M.Leterme demonstrated in the PSG case. The idea that the PL board will have the final say fills me with foreboding.
Finally, how will they treat global sponsorships where CFG, for example, sell a package comprising 11 clubs?
 
KS55 said:
For the avoidance of doubt, there will be three types of sponsorship under the new rules. (The nomenclature here is my own)
1. Related. The IAS 24 rules will still be in operation and related sponsorships must be identified as such on our accounts. Currently, we have none, as neither Sheik Mansour nor any of our minority owners have any control of any of our sponsors.
2. Associated. Now it depends on what definition the PL finally adopt, but are they talking about quite loose connections? Friends of friends, geographical etc. I guess Etihad would fall into this category. It would be very hard to justify this, if challenged at law. UEFA introduced such a category when they couldn't pin related sponsorships on us. UEFA limit is 30% of turnover.
3.'Free', where there is no connection at all between the sponsoring company and the club.

We currently have 15% of our turnover in category 2. If the PL adopt the 30% rule, we are well clear.

The devil is in the detail. All sponsorships must be cleared in advance with the PL and must be fair value,(whether related or associated or not?) as assessed by third party experts.
What measures of fair value are to be adopted? Will the PL influence the measures? Room for shenanigans here, as M.Leterme demonstrated in the PSG case. The idea that the PL board will have the final say fills me with foreboding.
Finally, how will they treat global sponsorships where CFG, for example, sell a package comprising 11 clubs?
Click to expand...
The CFG has nothing to do with them, the amount will be split by the CFG as they see fit and will show on our books as an amount paid to City, the same as the other clubs will do.

I suppose there is an added premium that we'd charge for including multiple clubs but that would just add to the 'fair market value' figure. The PL could argue it but it's actually unprecedented(?) so I could see that escalating to CAS if they were really determined.
 
Fair market is to apply, unless the fair market gets too close to Liverpool, rags, Chelsea fair market and then it doesn't apply.

Can't have these mid/lower clubs aspiring to compete with the big boys.
 
KS55 said:
For the avoidance of doubt, there will be three types of sponsorship under the new rules. (The nomenclature here is my own)
1. Related. The IAS 24 rules will still be in operation and related sponsorships must be identified as such on our accounts. Currently, we have none, as neither Sheik Mansour nor any of our minority owners have any control of any of our sponsors.
2. Associated. Now it depends on what definition the PL finally adopt, but are they talking about quite loose connections? Friends of friends, geographical etc. I guess Etihad would fall into this category. It would be very hard to justify this, if challenged at law. UEFA introduced such a category when they couldn't pin related sponsorships on us. UEFA limit is 30% of turnover.
3.'Free', where there is no connection at all between the sponsoring company and the club.

We currently have 15% of our turnover in category 2. If the PL adopt the 30% rule, we are well clear.

The devil is in the detail. All sponsorships must be cleared in advance with the PL and must be fair value,(whether related or associated or not?) as assessed by third party experts.
What measures of fair value are to be adopted? Will the PL influence the measures? Room for shenanigans here, as M.Leterme demonstrated in the PSG case. The idea that the PL board will have the final say fills me with foreboding.
Finally, how will they treat global sponsorships where CFG, for example, sell a package comprising 11 clubs?
Click to expand...
And what is fair value anyway? It is up to a sponsor to decide how much a sponsorship is worth to the sponsor, no 3rd party can do that. This assessment shit smells to me like someone will ensure that nobody can get higher sponsorships that the red ****-clubs, as the number of fans they claim to have will define how much a sponsorship is "worth". Fuckem. This is just the same old crap of trying to cement financial dominance per law.
 
Centurions said:
The CFG has nothing to do with them, the amount will be split by the CFG as they see fit and will show on our books as an amount paid to City, the same as the other clubs will do.

I suppose there is an added premium that we'd charge for including multiple clubs but that would just add to the 'fair market value' figure. The PL could argue it but it's actually unprecedented(?) so I could see that escalating to CAS if they were really determined.
Click to expand...
Provided that the new rules allow referral to CAS. In our current dispute with the PL, ability to appeal is at issue. There is no provision to appeal outside the PL on matters of their ffp rules. City say THE PL is acting as complainant, judge, and jury.
 
Jazzman said:
And what is fair value anyway? It is up to a sponsor to decide how much a sponsorship is worth to the sponsor, no 3rd party can do that. This assessment shit smells to me like someone will ensure that nobody can get higher sponsorships that the red ****-clubs, as the number of fans they claim to have will define how much a sponsorship is "worth". Fuckem. This is just the same old crap of trying to cement financial dominance per law.
Click to expand...
Yep. Smells like it to me.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
I would politely suggest that like a lot of "other" fans of other clubs that you have no idea what makes up a "related" party in so far as sponsorship is concerned. (Not a criticism) You can look up on this very thread (see the accountants on here) the basis on which this is, in great detail. However the basics are that our owner has to have a controlling interest in those companies placing the sponsorship. As far as I am aware there is no such control of any of these other major companies that sponsor us or might sponsor us.
Click to expand...
But are the PL under any legal obligation to follow the accountancy principles in deciding what is related or can they make there own definition.
And as a retired accountant i do know the accountancy rules
 
Keep the Faith said:
But are the PL under any legal obligation to follow the accountancy principles in deciding what is related or can they make there own definition.
And as a retired accountant i do know the accountancy rules
Click to expand...
As I see it, THE PL can make any reasonable rules they like, provided those rules treat every club the same.
In the first vote on blocking Newcastle's potential sponsorship,(albeit temporary) City abstained, stating they thought it was illegal. We voted against in the second vote. Just us and the barcodes against the world.. Hmmm...
 
We must be in an extremely strong position in the sponsorship stakes. CFG now have 4 champions of their respective countries and we must be a very attractive proposition for big international companies wanting to make an international deal.
 
Fred_Quimby said:
We must be in an extremely strong position in the sponsorship stakes. CFG now have 4 champions of their respective countries and we must be a very attractive proposition for big international companies wanting to make an international deal.
Click to expand...
As well as anyone wanting to expand deals with Silver Lake or China Media Capital.
 
Fred_Quimby said:
We must be in an extremely strong position in the sponsorship stakes. CFG now have 4 champions of their respective countries and we must be a very attractive proposition for big international companies wanting to make an international deal.
Click to expand...
We’re a small club with a few fans from Stockport, don’t you read the press ffs.
 
moomba said:
Fair market is to apply, unless the fair market gets too close to Liverpool, rags, Chelsea fair market and then it doesn't apply.

Can't have these mid/lower clubs aspiring to compete with the big boys.
Click to expand...
I see what you did there. You included the rags with the big boys just for a laugh.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
In what way does it favour the yank clubs? I don't understand it yet but FFP was obviously there to protect the interests of the big boys, how are the changes going to keep that advantage?
Click to expand...
First off the Yank clubs owners don’t have other business interests that they can call on to sponsor at fair value or otherwise second

Given that we already have rules about fair value and related parties these new rules are either pointless or designed to stop legitimate deals at specific clubs ? Who gets to decide what deals are ok ?
 
This fair market value bollix is another cartel ruse, just like keeping the home gate, the premier league etc, designed to keep the established elite wher they think they have a right to belong in perpetuity - Sickening - Apologies if this has been said before
 
bigf42 said:
This fair market value bollix is another cartel ruse, just like keeping the home gate, the premier league etc, designed to keep the established elite wher they think they have a right to belong in perpetuity - Sickening - Apologies if this has been said before
Click to expand...

Possibly been paraphrased with the bottom line that the cartel clubs are all arrogant self-serving and entitled cunts who do not want to have their current status fucked over by any upstart clubs with owners richer and more powerful than their own ?
 
KS55 said:
Provided that the new rules allow referral to CAS. In our current dispute with the PL, ability to appeal is at issue. There is no provision to appeal outside the PL on matters of their ffp rules. City say THE PL is acting as complainant, judge, and jury.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t it Mark Stephens who said something along the lines of :-
You can’t purport to run a fair process when you act as judge, jury, and executioner ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top