New PL Commercial rule passed (pg4) | City rumoured to be questioning the legality

[Coatigan]

If City or any club were to challenge the legality of it as suggested, who would they challenge it to?

 

[SilverFox2]

Are Silverlake majority stake holders in our club? :)

Sorry, all I read was shareholders.

I have to assume the AD / USA relationship shows that they can Co exist without mutual distrust?

 

[cheekybids]

How would Bayern Munich justify all of their commercial deals ?

 

[halfcenturyup]

How would Bayern Munich justify all of their commercial deals ?

Calling @Maldeika to the thread :)

Edit: Incidentally, I did analysis of commercial income vs broadcast income a couple of years ago, on the grounds that the more successful a club and its league was, the more a sponsor would be paying for sponsorship. There were four outliers: Bayern, PSG and Shaktar (iirc) who got more commercial income than their success and "appeal" suggested they should and Liverpool who were making less. I think I will update it for the last info.

 

[EricBrooksGhost]

Sorry, all I read was shareholders.

I have to assume the AD / USA relationship shows that they can Co exist without mutual distrust?

They are serious business partners outside the world of football. Mutual investments cement that relationship and they won't want their own part of that undermined; Silver lake will be aligned with Mansour.

 

[cheekybids]

Calling @Maldeika to the thread :)

Edit: Incidentally, I did analysis of commercial income vs broadcast income a couple of years ago, on the grounds that the more successful a club and its league was, the more a sponsor would be paying for sponsorship. There were four outliers: Bayern, PSG and Shaktar (iirc) who got more commercial income than their success and "appeal" suggested they should and Liverpool who were making less. I think I will update it for the last info.

For the record it makes perfect sense they get far more but do they ever have to justify it like we would.

 

[SilverFox2]

They are serious business partners outside the world of football. Mutual investments cement that relationship and they won't want their own part of that undermined; Silver lake will be aligned with Mansour.

Correct, in fact our main owners have more business contacts in the USA outside of football than most owners.

I like to think that this exposes the red shirt teams as non typical of modern other sector businesses.

 

[halfcenturyup]

For the record it makes perfect sense they get far more but do they ever have to justify it like we would.

I had a quick look at the Deloittes 2024 Money League, some things of interest:

City have only the fifth highest commercial income in Europe, behind Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern and PSG. For a team that just won everything, that is pretty poor. Sack Berrada! But really, it beggars belief that City's deals have to be scrutinised so much when the commercial income isn't at all unusual.

Bayern have the highest commercial income, although the top five are all within 20 million of each other. You say it makes perfect sense that they should get far more. I say they would be hard pushed to find unrelated bids to support the valuation of each of their shareholder sponsorships.

Half of the top 15 clubs have commercial income : broadcast income ratios in the range 0.9 to 1.3, including City. The outliers are: Bayern with 2.1, making twice as much commercial income as they do broadcast income (!), Barcelona with 1.9 (but what they are doing with their accounts and the various levers is a mystery to me. I remember UEFA disallowed some of their reported income?); PSG with 1.6 for obvious reasons; and United and Juventus with "minor breaches" of 1.5 and 1.4. Juventus is interesting, though, because the other Italian clubs are well below 1 (ie they make less commercial income than they do broadcast income). United is interesting because they are cunts.

Anyway, my point is that City's commercial income isn't out of line with other clubs, taking into account the success of the club and the PL. Tottenham, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal, for example, are all in the same range. If the PL spent less time analysing sponsorships uselessly, it could spend more of its time trying to maintain the league's popularity and growth to the benefit of everyone. Imho.

 

[Newman Noggs]

I love the desperate lunacy of the "3 bids'" idea since it's effectively an auction, not just of a single item, but of the myriad different, and moving, variables that go into such deals at both ends. So the club would have to enter into complex, commercially sensitive negotiations with 3 different major corporations all of which have different visions and expectations from the deal and 2 of which know they aren't going to succeed. Anyone who has ever been in a tendering exercise knows the cost of that to all parties.

Once the winning bid/tender has been decided, that has to be submitted, along with commercial details of the losing bids, which may or may not have included differing moving variables, for scrutiny by the Premier League"s ever-increasing panel of legal and financial "experts" who will then pronounce whether they will allow it. Obviously, given all the moving parts, that will be a quick process because a) that would be entirely possible and b) that's the way the PL operates. This for all 20 clubs.

It has all the hallmarks of the PL's ill-considered and desperate pandering to Liverpool's crass comment about wanting to see the "2nd bid". Just as the "blue card" nonsense appears to reflect Gary Neville's constant banging on about City's "tactical fouling".

 

[cheekybids]

I had a quick look at the Deloittes 2024 Money League, some things of interest:

City have only the fifth highest commercial income in Europe, behind Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern and PSG. For a team that just won everything, that is pretty poor. Sack Berrada! But really, it beggars belief that City's deals have to be scrutinised so much when the commercial income isn't at all unusual.

Bayern have the highest commercial income, although the top five are all within 20 million of each other. You say it makes perfect sense that they should get far more. I say they would be hard pushed to find unrelated bids to support the valuation of each of their shareholder sponsorships.

Half of the top 15 clubs have commercial income : broadcast income ratios in the range 0.9 to 1.3, including City. The outliers are: Bayern with 2.1, making twice as much commercial income as they do broadcast income (!), Barcelona with 1.9 (but what they are doing with their accounts and the various levers is a mystery to me. I remember UEFA disallowed some of their reported income?); PSG with 1.6 for obvious reasons; and United and Juventus with "minor breaches" of 1.5 and 1.4. Juventus is interesting, though, because the other Italian clubs are well below 1 (ie they make less commercial income than they do broadcast income). United is interesting because they are cunts.

Anyway, my point is that City's commercial income isn't out of line with other clubs, taking into account the success of the club and the PL. Tottenham, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal, for example, are all in the same range. If the PL spent less time analysing sponsorships uselessly, it could spend more of its time trying to maintain the league's popularity and growth to the benefit of everyone. Imho.

Let me justify why I believe it makes sense.

German companies - backing a strong national brand in a world stage allows you to bid on a world stage, there is a synergy with excellence & high performance.

That’s why I think it makes perfect sense for Abu Dhabi brands to be associated with City.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Are they trying to stop all”related” sponsorship or just trying to make the valuation stricter than it is currently? Also, will they be backdating it or in will it only affect future sponsors

They aren't trying to stop them (at least not yet) but seem to be trying to ensure that all deals (including player movements) are done at fair market value.

Now, on the surface, it seems a sensible move in many ways but there's obviously something there that we don't particularly like. I suspect the requirement to get a number of "quotes" will be one of them. That definitely seems suspect.

 

[SilverFox2]

I love the desperate lunacy of the "3 bids'" idea since it's effectively an auction, not just of a single item, but of the myriad different, and moving, variables that go into such deals at both ends. So the club would have to enter into complex, commercially sensitive negotiations with 3 different major corporations all of which have different visions and expectations from the deal and 2 of which know they aren't going to succeed. Anyone who has ever been in a tendering exercise knows the cost of that to all parties.

Once the winning bid/tender has been decided, that has to be submitted, along with commercial details of the losing bids, which may or may not have included differing moving variables, for scrutiny by the Premier League"s ever-increasing panel of legal and financial "experts" who will then pronounce whether they will allow it. Obviously, given all the moving parts, that will be a quick process because a) that would be entirely possible and b) that's the way the PL operates. This for all 20 clubs.

It has all the hallmarks of the PL's ill-considered and desperate pandering to Liverpool's crass comment about wanting to see the "2nd bid". Just as the "blue card" nonsense appears to reflect Gary Neville's constant banging on about City's "tactical fouling".

Unfortunately many undesirable checks are probable when Investment is constrained.


Surely if an ability to service debt is allowed and even encouraged then the ability to service an investment should be applauded not punished.

 

[waspish]

They aren't trying to stop them (at least not yet) but seem to be trying to ensure that all deals (including player movements) are done at fair market value.

Now, on the surface, it seems a sensible move in many ways but there's obviously something there that we don't particularly like. I suspect the requirement to get a number of "quotes" will be one of them. That definitely seems suspect.

So get three offers from proposed sponsors show the premier league for confirmation!? We get the nod, we take one of those companies sponsors! They then let the rad shirts know those 2 other companies want to sponsor a team in the premier! We have done all the work getting those three companies interested in sponsoring us and then the likes of the rags scousers whoever can just give them a ring and say you can sponsor us if you like?! A cost of one phone call no work!

Think it's planet cuckoo land asking clubs like us and Newcastle to bring 2/3 sponsors to the premier for confirmation!

 

[waspish]

Unfortunately many undesirable checks are probable when Investment is constrained.


Surely if an ability to service debt is allowed and even encouraged then the ability to service an investment should be applauded not punished.

Hedge funds should be banned from being used for premier league clubs! Because no one knows who those investors are!

 

[CC1]

But the scum only have one vote to 19 others, I don't understand why the other smaller to middle-of-the-road clubs back them unless its power the scum have on the smaller clubs, As I said back in 1992 the scum lied when they promised live games for everybody every week, What they didn't say it had to be the 2 united games you play every season,

Now there is a new sheriff in town and Sorry to burst the scum's bubble but Manchester City are top dogs and the way forward, Even after all the shit the scum has thrown at Manchester City even rule changes we just keep going on and on, So maybe the smaller clubs should wake up and free themselves from the filth and the scum and listen to somebody else for once.

The scum certainly do only have one vote but they are in cahoots with the other US owned clubs. Those clubs that don’t have real business owners are persuaded by the scum to vote their way.
Thought for the day - do these so called lower clubs get some sort of underhand payment for their vote :) :)

 

[CC1]

They aren't trying to stop them (at least not yet) but seem to be trying to ensure that all deals (including player movements) are done at fair market value.

Now, on the surface, it seems a sensible move in many ways but there's obviously something there that we don't particularly like. I suspect the requirement to get a number of "quotes" will be one of them. That definitely seems suspect.

Thanks PB. Definitely seems suspicious. But in that case, I’m looking forward to seeing the other quotes that competed with Team Viewer’s bid :)

 

[paulchapo]

They aren't trying to stop them (at least not yet) but seem to be trying to ensure that all deals (including player movements) are done at fair market value.

Now, on the surface, it seems a sensible move in many ways but there's obviously something there that we don't particularly like. I suspect the requirement to get a number of "quotes" will be one of them. That definitely seems suspect.

They might just shoot themselves in the foot with this one. How long is it before a player decides Bosman like to challenge the fact they are sold for a fee at all? That like any other occupation they can give notice to quit a job, which Is after all what football is and leave. Of course that works both ways and that's why no player will probably do so. It only takes one to put morals before money though and it could bring the whole stack of cards crashing down. A human being being bought and sold for money in 2024, the woke brigade would be right behind any challenge.

 

[paulchapo]

But the scum only have one vote to 19 others, I don't understand why the other smaller to middle-of-the-road clubs back them unless its power the scum have on the smaller clubs, As I said back in 1992 the scum lied when they promised live games for everybody every week, What they didn't say it had to be the 2 united games you play every season,

Now there is a new sheriff in town and Sorry to burst the scum's bubble but Manchester City are top dogs and the way forward, Even after all the shit the scum has thrown at Manchester City even rule changes we just keep going on and on, So maybe the smaller clubs should wake up and free themselves from the filth and the scum and listen to somebody else for once.

They won't mate because they know where they stand in the pecking order. It's a great get out of jail card for their owners not to spend money as well but to say the rules won't let us.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

The scum certainly do only have one vote but they are in cahoots with the other US owned clubs. Those clubs that don’t have real business owners are persuaded by the scum to vote their way.
Thought for the day - do these so called lower clubs get some sort of underhand payment for their vote :) :)

It’s all self protection. Teams like Brighton would rather have a situation where they are comfortable as a top 10 team without having to worry about an ambitious team coming up and challenging so they and other teams in similar positions are happy to protect themselves, even if it gives the teams above them a huge advantage.

 

[give it to gordon]

The more crazy things the pl come out with the more out of their depth they are. They are amateurs trying to run the pl all the time being bullied by the American red tops and spuds. The success of the American red tops and spuds doesn't warrant their hold.

Without the red tops and spuds success on the pitch I dont know why they have such a hold over the pl.

Football is our game I dont like the American influence on our game. What next the game split into quarters with half an hour ad breaks. We have time outs. We have two teams each defensive and offensive. Players wear body armour. We have pop stars leading the crowd. The pl is renamed the pl world series. Clubs just bring a player on to take penalties ( Kane will play till he is 60 ). Why dont the American owners plus spuds just take their clubs and fuck of to America with them. They wont be missed.

I am really getting sick and tired of the American plus spuds interference and racist style of sport and the world. Fuck me the two people running for President are an old twat with memory lost and another old twat who's orange with a dodge hair and up in court . What a fucking country.

And what have the American and spuds actually brought to the pl and their local communities ? Sod all. Two wanted to use furlough to pay staff. One made played staff off. One wants to use our taxes to build another old trafford, just fuck off.

Its embarrassing the way the pl is run and hopefully more clubs and fans are beginning to see it.

Sunday rant over !