PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

paulchapo said:
Yes I've no idea who he's been talking to on the terraces at away games lol.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately unless you read this forum the majority of City fans know nothing about the way the media generally are polarized.
Most City fans I talk to need this education.
City fans are City fans through and through but are surprised when I tell them about Sky and BT.

Incidentally my many Spanish mates stick only to football when talking about City.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I agree with you that the non-cooperation charge is a likely outcome. It fulfils the prime objective of labelling us as cheats, and therefore our achievements invalid. Since the layman who knows no different will simply assume that we were guilty of all charges and only got off by not cooperating. The same as getting off because things are time-barred, people just think, "Yeah but that's a technicality, obviously they are guilty really".

And whilst a correspondingly minor financial penalty (i.e. fine) from the PL might not be significant, the damage to our reputation and ability to secure more lucrative sponsorships, would be. The PL will have achieved its aims of damaging us.
Click to expand...
Unless co-operation is clearly defined in the PL rules then even that is on "load of ole bollox" territory.
 
Chippy_boy said:
As I understand it, CAS determined that Etihad is not a related party? (An easy determination to make, since there are objective tests as to whether a party is related or not.)

If that is indeed the case, then Etihad as an unrelated party pays what it likes and that is by definition is fair value, i.e. A sponsorship deal is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, and provided they are an unrelated party, whatever they are prepared to pay, is fair value. We could get a sponsorship deal from Elon Musk for £10bn a year and that would be fair value, if Musk was daft enough to pay it.

Bottom line is, provided Etihad is deemed a non-related party, they can pay us what on earth they like and there is fuck all the PL or anyone else can do about it.
Click to expand...

Related party for accounting purposes is defined carefully in accounting policies. Etihad is not related under those policies (unless you assume Mansour is just a front for the UAE as a whole, but no regulatory body has tried that yet).

But what the PL have done is introduce a new "associated party" definition so they can look at, and modify if they consider it necessary, the fair value of any sponsorship with any connection to almost anyone. Even worse, they want the club and the sponsor to amend their agreement to the value determined by the PL. This is what the club voted against as they considered it "illegal".

I think.
 
I was thinking about the “visit Rwanda” campaign & with my conscious bias convinced myself it’s a sham well it must be. You see we can be as guilty as others.

I looked at the purpose of the campaign & it was to convince tourists that Rwanda can be a destination. Let’s be honest my first thoughts when considering Rwanda is not to pack my bags. Again that’s my bias.

So has it been successful, well up to the pandemic tourist numbers has grown year on year with a high of approx $500m US. It’s grown 5 times in 10 years.

The main point I’m making is that branding & marketing which I’m no expert in but the world wide appeal of the premier league & champions league is so big. We are so busy throwing shit at each other that it would be nice to see positive articles about how partnerships have worked. We know what Etihad has done for us & how we’ve raised the profile of them & AD.

Even I can see that a German company partnering with Bayern raises confidence on the world stage of German excellence & therefore it makes sense for Saudi to partner with the Toon.
 
Chippy_boy said:
As I understand it, CAS determined that Etihad is not a related party? (An easy determination to make, since there are objective tests as to whether a party is related or not.)

If that is indeed the case, then Etihad as an unrelated party pays what it likes and that is by definition is fair value, i.e. A sponsorship deal is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, and provided they are an unrelated party, whatever they are prepared to pay, is fair value. We could get a sponsorship deal from Elon Musk for £10bn a year and that would be fair value, if Musk was daft enough to pay it.

Bottom line is, provided Etihad is deemed a non-related party, they can pay us what on earth they like and there is fuck all the PL or anyone else can do about it.
Click to expand...

halfcenturyup said:
Related party for accounting purposes is defined carefully in accounting policies. Etihad is not related under those policies (unless you assume Mansour is just a front for the UAE as a whole, but no regulatory body has tried that yet).

But what the PL have done is introduce a new "associated party" definition so they can look at, and modify if they consider it necessary, the fair value of any sponsorship with any connection to almost anyone. Even worse, they want the club and the sponsor to amend their agreement to the value determined by the PL. This is what the club voted against as they considered it "illegal".

I think.
Click to expand...

They tried in 2014 but not against since.

Good quick summary of the overall Etihad position from @projectriver below...think this was before the new PL asociated rules.

 
Chippy_boy said:
As I understand it, CAS determined that Etihad is not a related party? (An easy determination to make, since there are objective tests as to whether a party is related or not.)

If that is indeed the case, then Etihad as an unrelated party pays what it likes and that is by definition is fair value, i.e. A sponsorship deal is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, and provided they are an unrelated party, whatever they are prepared to pay, is fair value. We could get a sponsorship deal from Elon Musk for £10bn a year and that would be fair value, if Musk was daft enough to pay it.

Bottom line is, provided Etihad is deemed a non-related party, they can pay us what on earth they like and there is fuck all the PL or anyone else can do about it.
Click to expand...
Under the new PL rules, the PL could decide Etihad is “associated” which is their new term coined to get at us. IAS24 does not need to be applicable. PL has not defined what “associated” means. They will decide on a case by case basis. Ha!
 
paulchapo said:
Something is worth what somebody values it at. On our last game at Maine Road I paid £150 for a ticket. Shit game and pretty average end of match entertainment but I had to be there because it had been a huge part of my life and I'd never be there or see it again. Some people said I was mad paying so much but for me it was worth every penny.

Whoever has sponsored us has had terrific value for money given our success. They were given a vision, saw the potential and thought, "I'm having some of that." They are clutching at straws.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We have the best players, best manager, best facilities, best lawyers etc. Is it such a stretch to believe that we don’t have the best salesmen selling our sponsorship?
 
KS55 said:
Under the new PL rules, the PL could decide Etihad is “associated” which is their new term coined to get at us. IAS24 does not need to be applicable. PL has not defined what “associated” means. They will decide on a case by case basis. Ha!
Click to expand...
You can see the future legal disputes for years and years ahead, it will become the norm, boring, tedious and only dragged up on slow news days. The partners of Mockton Chambers and Bird & Bird are probably using their day off to spend the vast amounts of money thrown at them by MCFC and the PL (soon to be followed by NUFC)…

Ive got some business to attend to in Istanbul and need to start packing my suitcase, Good Luck Blues…
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Objection ;)
Click to expand...
4ty8.gif
 
Surely now though we are successful enough to not need etihad and can find other huge sponsors? Silver lake must know huge and wealthy companies who would want to be associated with us?! We also have Chinese investors and a bloody Chinese club ownership don’t we do we must have contacts?
 
richards30 said:
Surely now though we are successful enough to not need etihad and can find other huge sponsors? Silver lake must know huge and wealthy companies who would want to be associated with us?! We also have Chinese investors and a bloody Chinese club ownership don’t we do we must have contacts?
Click to expand...
Of course we are. Why should we have to though?
 
richards30 said:
Surely now though we are successful enough to not need etihad and can find other huge sponsors? Silver lake must know huge and wealthy companies who would want to be associated with us?! We also have Chinese investors and a bloody Chinese club ownership don’t we do we must have contacts?
Click to expand...

Agree we will have massive companies queuing up to have there name on the front of our shirts! But why should a company who wants to advertise there brand because it has been so good for them, can’t they sponsor us for as much as they want too..?
 
richards30 said:
Surely now though we are successful enough to not need etihad and can find other huge sponsors? Silver lake must know huge and wealthy companies who would want to be associated with us?! We also have Chinese investors and a bloody Chinese club ownership don’t we do we must have contacts?
Click to expand...
We started to look for a replacement for Etihad but covid got in the way. We planned to split Stadium naming from Shirt front.
We no longer have Chinese shareholders (apart from a vestigial holding) as the Chinese gov told companies to reduce involvement with PL clubs. Silver lake effectively bought their shares.
Mansour 77%, Silver lake 23%.
 
richards30 said:
Surely now though we are successful enough to not need etihad and can find other huge sponsors? Silver lake must know huge and wealthy companies who would want to be associated with us?! We also have Chinese investors and a bloody Chinese club ownership don’t we do we must have contacts?
Click to expand...
Don’t you know, we’re a state owned club, we have to be sponsored by Abu Dhabi sponsors
 
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