City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

surely the rags £70m a year shirt deal is not fair market value??? real Madrid get £37m???

Perhaps I misunderstand the rules but if the deal is not used to exaggerate income side of balance sheet to enable FFP conformity (ie they are already well into profit) there is no need to question any dubious deal.

Also, they are building their income side for the future because this year they unfortunately did not qualify for CL so rules do not apply and they can do as they want anyway.

The rules are the rules so any semblance of fairness disappeared after they named it. As FanchesterCity said earlier it allows the deal to be used as a reference point in the future for those that it has been designed to affect.

 

[waspish]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think if say Adidas wanted to sponsor us for say 50m a year UEFA can't do anything about it? Is that true? Is it the related party sponsors that get looked into by UEFA only?

 

[Gray]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

How about finding a Middle East clothing company (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) to sponsor us for £150m per year.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Fair market value is in essence, self evident. If the market pays it, there's your answer right there.

Of course, with a related party, the issue becomes more complicated, and the deal has to be looked at a little closer.

Also, the devil is often in the detail. City's shirt deal with Etihad ALSO includes the stadium and the campus (if I remember correctly) but it'll often be reported as just a shirt deal. Plus, with the NEW campus in construction it's hard to find a comparable stadium / campus (in the UK) to compare with.

One company MIGHT offer to make your kit for 20 million year, and try to get 100% of the revenue from the sales. Another firm might offer you 15 million, but offer you 30% revenue share.... so you have to look beyond the headline figure to really figure out what the best deal is.

But no matter how you look at it. The Adidas deal is phenomenal.

And whilst we're on about FFP.

Adidas are a secondary (relatively minor) sponsor of UEFA, a key (major) sponsor of FIFA, and have shares in Bayern Munich. Conflict much? - not half.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

surely the rags £70m a year shirt deal is not fair market value??? real Madrid get £37m???

FFPR does not apply to teams wearing scarlet! MANUre, Bayern, Rotherham, and Bristol City can spend WTF they want without Platini coming over all sanctimonious and banging on about the financial future of the game. The general notion yesterday was that Adidas were making a bit of a gamble, not an investment like our Good Sheikh, but a gamble! But it's all good Deutschmark Euros and it's MANUre so nobody at the Uefa is gonna raise an eyebrow.

 

[Hoghead]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

surely the rags £70m a year shirt deal is not fair market value??? real Madrid get £37m???

FFPR does not apply to teams wearing scarlet! MANUre, Bayern, Rotherham, and Bristol City can spend WTF they want without Platini coming over all sanctimonious and banging on about the financial future of the game. The general notion yesterday was that Adidas were making a bit of a gamble, not an investment like our Good Sheikh, but a gamble! But it's all good Deutschmark Euros and it's MANUre so nobody at the Uefa is gonna raise an eyebrow.

A gamble!! For 10 years!! Hope they've got a break clause for non- performance or something similar. That kind of tie-in can send a company belly-up!

 

[Neville Kneville]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

It is only the so called 'related party' deals which are subject to the fair market value test. But Utd & Adidas have just blown the current 'fair market value' out of the water, so if Nike were a related party to City & decided that they wanted to pay us 75 mil p.a. we can show that a team which didn't even qualify for the Champions League, was worth that nust because of exposure. We will arguably get bigger exposure, as champs, playing in the champs league & therefore arguably a more relevant brand in the current situation.

Very difficult for UEFA to stamp on us in that regard now.

 

[willipp]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I think if say Adidas wanted to sponsor us for say 50m a year UEFA can't do anything about it? Is that true? Is it the related party sponsors that get looked into by UEFA only?

That's how I understand it as well. If Adidas are stupid enough to throw that much money at them, there is nothing Uefa can do as they are not a related party, so no fair value test applies.

If we suddenly got sponsored by an Abu Dhabi clothing manufacturer for 75 mil a year then ive no doubt Uefa would be all over it. However, if Nike offered us silly money then there would be nothing Uefa could do.

That's my interpretation anyway.

 

[BlueDejong]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Who know what exactly transfer window sanction ? till next winter or next year summer ?

- Sorry for my English.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Who know what exactly transfer window sanction ? till next winter or next year summer ?

- Sorry for my English.

The £49 million cap is for this summer only, (I thought it was for the season but I was wrong happily). We may have one for January too, which may be dependant on this transfer window but TBH there's just no clarification out there.