2021-2022 Annual report - City post club record profits and revenues

[slbsn]

I took a look at the reaction to SwissRamble's tweet and noticed there's still Liverpool fans smugly denying the Etihad sponsorship was already deemed fair market value long ago. "Nah it's inflated la, got no fans innit" kind of talk.

I've found were CAS said they agreed with it:

View attachment 60546

Does anyone know the bullet point or page number where City brought up UEFA's approved auditors concluded the Etihad sponsorship was within fair market value?

It would be useful to have the relevant line of text on hand, to shut people like that up but the only reference I could find, is from point 150. However, that seems to be saying UEFA themselves didn't agree(though that might not be referencing Etihad, since it's redacted).

View attachment 60547

This thread explains it (albeit it that I missed a key word in the second tweet - it should read "the contract *was* fair value and NOT subject to adjustment.")

 

[slbsn]

I took the opportunity to update that thread above

 

[jrb]

May have already been posted?

 

[HelloCity]

I took the opportunity to update that thread above

Thank you. Any thoughts on that PL investigation?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Jeez. Too much on sponsorship already. It isn't difficult. We are the hottest football brand in the hottest league in the world. Sponsorships have gone up. Surprise.

We aren't going to get a breakdown by sponsor, and the information isn't there to make reliable guesses. Nor does it have to be. Sponsorship income isn't out of line with broadcast income compared to other clubs. You want to worry about sponsorship? Look at PSG, Bayern and Shaktar.

Everyone relax and enjoy the football. Let fans of other PL clubs worry about how unappealing their clubs are.

 

[slbsn]

Thank you. Any thoughts on that PL investigation?

No change since I wrote this really https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...ttle-puts-Premier-League-unenviable-spot.html

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yep.
As others have said if they use "state funded" it is accurate because of the Abu Dhabi sponsorships and they are mainly state owned companies.

Oh, stop it. That isn't what they mean by state-funded, and you know it. If it was, then half the teams in the PL would be referred to as state-funded, not to mention the FA.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Oh, stop it. That isn't what they mean by state-funded, and you know it. If it was, then half the teams in the PL would be referred to as state-funded, not to mention the FA.

That’s true but the vague phrase “state funded” gives some of our haters some wriggle room. “State-owned” is just a downright lie. In fact not even Der Spiegl claimed this.

 

[halfcenturyup]

That’s true but the vague phrase “state funded” gives some of our haters some wriggle room. “State-owned” is just a downright lie. In fact not even Der Spiegl claimed this.

Well, yes. But what riles is when supposed City fans accept the epithet when they know full well it isn't used to describe other clubs or associations that receive sponsorship from state entities. Other than PSG and Newcastle, obviously.

 

[Metalartin]

I took the opportunity to update that thread above

Thanks for the heads up, I'll give it a read. Between, you, Prestwich Blue, BlueCityBrain Devils Advocate etc I'm making more sense of these things, even though I have no interest in finance normally(or the patience to read the CAS report back to front). I'm still surprised City increased the Etihad deal by £20m after just one year. I'd rather have all the facts that don't look so great, than have a dipper sideswipe me with them though. At least City and Etihad were justified in the increase(since 2012/13).