CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

I seem to remember rumours going around a year or so back that we may (repeat for the hard of hearing, MAY) be looking to replace Etihad as our main sponsor. But that seems to have disappeared without trace.

Yep, it was put out in the sponsorship agency world sometime before covid in either 2018 or 2019 and was for the shirt sponsorship only.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

It's a good deal which City are well worth but if you break the deal down across shirt, stadium and training complex rights and compare to any top 6 club bar Arsenal, it looks about the going rate if anything. As the most successful club of the last decade, we could probably ask for more and justify it(if it weren't for the economic impact of COVID and Ukraine). Look at what Barca have signed recently, without the training complex component if I remember right and it makes it an easy argument to make.

Also, we haven't been on 67.5m for 10 years, it started out at 45m per season. They've nothing to fume about at all. We renegotiated a few years back, it's probably more like 3-5 years we've been on that deal. I'm not quite sure which year it happened, there are some ITKs who might be able to clear that up on here.

Based on the CAS document the Etihad deal was renogotiated 4 times between 2013 and 2016. Back in 2014 the terms were expressed as £67.5 million.

It seem implausible it has not been increased since but as far as I'm aware there's nothing come out about it - we just don't know how much it is now.

 

[jimharri]

Yep, it was put out in the sponsorship agency world sometime before covid in either 2018 or 2019 and was for the shirt sponsorship only.

My mistake. I should have clarified it was the shirt (rather than the stadium naming rights) that I'd heard back then.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Not sure where to put this and it might have been posted elsewhere but the new crypto sponsorship is for £17mil per year.

 

[train man]

This is an anniversary well worth commemorating -
Just as the swingeing and disproportionate FA punishments in 1906 ensured that a vibrant City wouldn't then seriously compete at the top of the game until well after the end of World War One, so this would also have seriously crippled us over an extended period. I hope the full story is revealed one day, because I'm convinced it will show just what a set of odious, venal cunts we've been up against.

I didn't know about 1906 but found this after your post petrusha - others (here, the grauniad) made sure they found it and drew a parallel: "after the latest scandal it's as if some ribbon of DNA runs through the club"

The forgotten story of ... Manchester City flouting finance rules in 1906

A punch thrown in 1905 culminated in 17 City players and four directors being banned over the club’s illegal overspending

www.theguardian.com

 

[petrusha]

@Gary James is the essential reading for anyone interested in reading about the bribery and illegal payments scandal of 1906. It's covered in great detail in his peerless history of the club and also, IIRC, in the excellent Manchester - A Football History.

It's an involved and complicated story, but my memory is that at the heart of it was a desire on the part of the football establishment to punish a club regarded as an upstart. The authorities trawled remorselessly to find grounds for punishment and hammered us beyond any degree of fairness for offences that were known to be standard practice throughout the game yet were ignored in other cases.

Unfortunately, back in the early 20th century there was no legal recourse for a club in our position. Thankfully, that had changed by the time UEFA banned us in 2020.

 

[halfcenturyup]

@Gary James is the essential reading for anyone interested in reading about the bribery and illegal payments scandal of 1906. It's covered in great detail in his peerless history of the club and also, IIRC, in the excellent Manchester - A Football History.

It's an involved and complicated story, but my memory is that at the heart of it was a desire on the part of the football establishment to punish a club regarded as an upstart. The authorities trawled remorselessly to find grounds for punishment and hammered us beyond any degree of fairness for offences that were known to be standard practice throughout the game yet were ignored in other cases.

Unfortunately, back in the early 20th century there was no legal recourse for a club in our position. Thankfully, that had changed by the time UEFA banned us in 2020.

Plus ça change ....

 

[halfcenturyup]

Phil should register his face

Naah. That image has already been copyrighted by Quasimodo.

 

[KS55]

I seem to remember rumours going around a year or so back that we may (repeat for the hard of hearing, MAY) be looking to replace Etihad as our main sponsor. But that seems to have disappeared without trace.

I expect we are still looking to do this, but companies are not flush post covid and in a low growth period.

 

[old blue]

Apologies if not the right place to discuss this and probably buried some where in the many pages, just curious about our current Etihad sponsorship deal of 67.5m a year which I've just googled now as I had no idea we received this, seems like a good deal, that's equivalent to 675m over 10 years.

Was hoping we would announce another 10 year deal, the shit would really hit the fan if we announced a new 10 year deal for 675m or more, would be pleasure to sit back and watch the fallout from this.

Well said Wystan!