PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

give it to gordon said:
Just seen this how are Leicester allowed to be owned and sponsored by the same company ?

View attachment 89099
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that, as long as the sponsorship is fair market value. CAS decided (which UEFA had already accepted) that our Etihad sponsorship was market value. Etihad aren't our owner I should add, but it's the principle.

Leicester have just rekindled their shirt sponsorship with King Power, after FBS were their sponsors last season. There was a report that they got more money from FBS than they did from King Power.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Nothing wrong with that, as long as the sponsorship is fair market value. CAS decided (which UEFA had already accepted) that our Etihad sponsorship was market value.

Leicester have just rekindled their shirt sponsorship with King Power, after FBS were their sponsors last season. There was a report that they got more money from FBS than they did from King Power.
Click to expand...

Who decides what fair market value is ?

In an open and free market you can pay as much as you want ?
 
give it to gordon said:
Who decides what fair market value is ?

In an open and free market you can pay as much as you want ?
Click to expand...
The market decides what market value is. You'd expect clubs like us & the other top clubs to be roughly in line, but you wouldn't expect the likes of Bournemouth and Burnley to have £50m a season shirt sponsorships.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The market decides what market value is. You'd expect clubs like us & the other top clubs to be roughly in line, but you wouldn't expect the likes of Bournemouth and Burnley to have £50m a season shirt sponsorships.
Click to expand...
For me fair value is whatever the top limit of other clubs are paying in the relative leagues. So that's £150m a year. Which is what Barcelonas contract is I think. Anything else is given Barca an unfair advantage
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Nothing wrong with that, as long as the sponsorship is fair market value. CAS decided (which UEFA had already accepted) that our Etihad sponsorship was market value. Etihad aren't our owner I should add, but it's the principle.

Leicester have just rekindled their shirt sponsorship with King Power, after FBS were their sponsors last season. There was a report that they got more money from FBS than they did from King Power.
Click to expand...

So if that is the case, which it most definitely is, why does it matter from the point of view of our accounts whether Mansour gave money to Etihad for the sponsorship or not?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The market decides what market value is. You'd expect clubs like us & the other top clubs to be roughly in line, but you wouldn't expect the likes of Bournemouth and Burnley to have £50m a season shirt sponsorships.
Click to expand...

So if I want to sponsor say Burnley and I was prepared to pay 50million that wouldnt be seen as market value by who ?

It's a free market if I want to sponsor a club for big money and both the club and me are happy, that's fair.
 
give it to gordon said:
So if I want to sponsor say Burnley and I was prepared to pay 50million that wouldnt be seen as market value by who ?

It's a free market if I want to sponsor a club for big money and both the club and me are happy, that's fair.
Click to expand...

If not related i think you can sponsor as much as you want!
 
So much I dont understand

How come the stoke Leicester etc deals dont see to get looked at ?

I don’t actually think anything is wrong here but it’s just feels we get slandered they get a pass

Started the video I know I shouldn’t but it all starts from the premise of we are small and we are run by the state.
 
halfcenturyup said:
So if that is the case, which it most definitely is, why does it matter from the point of view of our accounts whether Mansour gave money to Etihad for the sponsorship or not?
Click to expand...
That's a good question that hinges on who is an isn't a related party. In accountancy standards that's defined as someone who owns, is a major shareholder in , or has significant influence over a business, or is a close relative of such a person.

It could be argued that Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, a full brother of Sheikh Mansour, is such a person with regard to Etihad. So, could he say to Etihad's management "Fund this sponsorship"? I suspect he could, so it's possible that Sheikh Mansour could be classed as a lclose relative" and therefore potentially Etihad could be deemed a related party to City. I suspect that's unlikely though.

If Sheikh Mansour was an Executive Director of Etihad, then they'd probably be classed as a related party. In that case, as long as the sponsorship was deemed fair value, there's no issue at all. Had he done that, then as long as we declared Etihad to be a related party, then there would have been no issue.

If, on the other hand, he has no role or influence in the day-to-day business of Etihad, then they're unlikely to be classed as a related party. But if he then personally funds the sponsorship then that classed a disguised owner investment, which is against FFP rules, even if it's fair value.

Now all commercial deals in excess of £1m have to pass the PL's fair value test, plus we know from CAS (which I'd long known) that the Etihad sponsorship wasn't funded by Sheikh Mansour.
 
give it to gordon said:
So if I want to sponsor say Burnley and I was prepared to pay 50million that wouldnt be seen as market value by who ?

It's a free market if I want to sponsor a club for big money and both the club and me are happy, that's fair.
Click to expand...
Well the PL would look at it, and compare it to what other clubs supported by six-fingered, sister-shagging fans earned. So whatever Stoke get basically.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Well the PL would look at it, and compare it to what other clubs supported by six-fingered, sister-shagging fans earned. So whatever Stoke get basically.
Click to expand...

So basically your rivals decide if your sponsorship is market value.

So how does a club that is nearly a billion in debt has only won a micky mouse cup in a decade. The infrastructure is falling down. The ( I think ) last two shirt sponsors have gone bust, still get a big Adidas sponsorship ? That its market value, if it is than Citys with puma should be at least 5 times the size of Adidas
 
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