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

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Why city would publically stipulate exactly what the restrictions are is beyond me. Its good they dont why do we want to give every other club this information.

The club officlals be they legal or owners or both will know and thats all the matters.

Thr biggest issue for me is how the restrictions are now hitting us in the transfer market - rags / le arse / pool / chelski are going to be spending north of £80M nett. Next seasson is going to be fantastic but a right bun fight and yes we will get top 4 min and win something

The problem with the secrecy is that that is how the G14 operate - cutting deals behind closed doors with UEFA. How do we know that the terms PSG have been given are the same as ours?

Obviously it might favour us in this instance to keep things secret (we don't know), but in the wider scheme of things if UEFA wants to be considered as fair, it has to be much more open about how it's deciding things and what sanctions it's REALLY imposing.

Imagine if UEFA said "we'd had a little sit down with United, and we've reached a compromise about their spending... and we've agreed they can only spend 50m" - it's right that we understand HOW that figure was reached and precisely over what period it applies - so that when they do the same thing with another club, they have to apply the same rules.

You can't have a system that cuts deals behind closed doors and expect to be seen as a fair organisation (even if you ARE being fair).

And if UEFA try to shaft us again?... they can claim their interpretation of an agreement vs our interpretation. If it's out in the open, it's much more open to a common interpretation that's harder for them to wriggle out of.

If it was about private business operations, then absolutely that should remain private, but this is sanctions and the application of them, and should be as clear as day to the entire world.

Secrecy will be both sides i really do not think that clubs will want an open system its not all one way. I think it almost certain that once sanctions have been agreed and accepted that there will not be an NDA in place because the next problem for UEFA would be what if club x felt that the sanctions were too leniant then that club could take UEFA to court - unlikely but possible

And yes of course UEFA will try and shaft us again

I can see your point, but if a club wants to say 'that's too lenient' that's where transparency can help. They can clearly demonstrate that both City and PSG got the same treatment... as did Man United (I wish).

Our accounts have to be made public. Admittedly it's a summary, but essentially people know how much we make / lose and where the money is coming from and going. It's pretty transparent. We are judged on those accounts, based on a set of rules that is also public. It seems only right that any sanctions should also be public. It's what we do with other breaches.

1) Here's the rules
2) Here's what you've done
3) Here's the outcome

If we ARE breaching, then fair enough, the world can see it and they can see the punishment.
If we are not breaching, the same goes.

If we truly believe we are the ones being shafted, and if we truly believe UEFA treats certain clubs differently, you can only really show that with more transparency, not less. That's what I believe - Sky Blue spectacles to one side.

 

[Joe Hart's Dandruff]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Bit off topic folks, but I need to know how to respond to dick United mates who are slagging about our Etihad sponsorship deal. Basically they are referring to the related party transaction argument. What do I come back with???

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Bit off topic folks, but I need to know how to respond to dick United mates who are slagging about our Etihad sponsorship deal. Basically they are referring to the related party transaction argument. What do I come back with???

The Etihad deal was a combined shirt sponsorship AND stadium naming AND campus naming deal.

The campus is HUGE (by football standards) and appears on Manchester Metrolink, appears on Concert merchandise and tourbooks etc,
It's a fair bit more than a simple shirt or stadium branding deal alone.

It matches United's stadium branding revenue for the following reasons:

1) Old Trafford is a far more famous name, which works AGAINST stadium naming. So sponsorship within the stadium cannot cash in very easily on the actual stadium name, the way Emirates or Etihad can.

2) It's not about the size of club, or stature, it's about exposure, and right now City are a hot property. That's not to say they are any hotter than United, but in terms of media reports and coverage they are now on an even keel

3) As mentioned previously, it covers shirt sponsorship too. United have a separate shirt sponsorship on top of their stadium branding not inclusive of it

4) The Etihad Campus is exposed to more events than Old Trafford is - including concerts, Rugby League, athletics, and now the new training facilities (which United have a separate set of sponsorships for).
A metrolink destination is Etihad Campus. Of course there's a destination for Old Trafford, but that's not exposing a brand is it? Basically Etihad are being mentioned thousands of times per day, across areas outside of football. That's not happening with Old Trafford.

 

[Joe Hart's Dandruff]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Bit off topic folks, but I need to know how to respond to dick United mates who are slagging about our Etihad sponsorship deal. Basically they are referring to the related party transaction argument. What do I come back with???

The Etihad deal was a combined shirt sponsorship AND stadium naming AND campus naming deal.

The campus is HUGE (by football standards) and appears on Manchester Metrolink, appears on Concert merchandise and tourbooks etc,
It's a fair bit more than a simple shirt or stadium branding deal alone.

It matches United's stadium branding revenue for the following reasons:

1) Old Trafford is a far more famous name, which works AGAINST stadium naming. So sponsorship within the stadium cannot cash in very easily on the actual stadium name, the way Emirates or Etihad can.

2) It's not about the size of club, or stature, it's about exposure, and right now City are a hot property. That's not to say they are any hotter than United, but in terms of media reports and coverage they are now on an even keel

3) As mentioned previously, it covers shirt sponsorship too. United have a separate shirt sponsorship on top of their stadium branding not inclusive of it

4) The Etihad Campus is exposed to more events than Old Trafford is - including concerts, Rugby League, athletics, and now the new training facilities (which United have a separate set of sponsorships for).

Cheers for the ammunition mate, I will be better prepared next time hahaha :)

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Bit off topic folks, but I need to know how to respond to dick United mates who are slagging about our Etihad sponsorship deal. Basically they are referring to the related party transaction argument. What do I come back with???

The Etihad deal was a combined shirt sponsorship AND stadium naming AND campus naming deal.

The campus is HUGE (by football standards) and appears on Manchester Metrolink, appears on Concert merchandise and tourbooks etc,
It's a fair bit more than a simple shirt or stadium branding deal alone.

It matches United's stadium branding revenue for the following reasons:

1) Old Trafford is a far more famous name, which works AGAINST stadium naming. So sponsorship within the stadium cannot cash in very easily on the actual stadium name, the way Emirates or Etihad can.

2) It's not about the size of club, or stature, it's about exposure, and right now City are a hot property. That's not to say they are any hotter than United, but in terms of media reports and coverage they are now on an even keel

3) As mentioned previously, it covers shirt sponsorship too. United have a separate shirt sponsorship on top of their stadium branding not inclusive of it

4) The Etihad Campus is exposed to more events than Old Trafford is - including concerts, Rugby League, athletics, and now the new training facilities (which United have a separate set of sponsorships for).

Cheers for the ammunition mate, I will be better prepared next time hahaha :)

i`ve given up trying to educate these dumb fuck and just tell them they`re too thick to take it in.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Bit off topic folks, but I need to know how to respond to dick United mates who are slagging about our Etihad sponsorship deal. Basically they are referring to the related party transaction argument. What do I come back with???

WTF? Read the thread man - you only need a week!

Tell them you've been a City fan since 2008 and were a Chelsea fan before that. Then start wheeling the fish in during the ensuing uproar laugh at their sense of entitlement and do an impression of a fish on a hook...
And/Or...
Tell them that by English and European law and International Accountancy Standards (IAS) the Sheikh and his half brothers (who sit on the Etihad board) are NOT related parties. See the following document for the definition of "related party/parties" <a class="postlink" href="http://www.ifrs.org/Documents/IAS24.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ifrs.org/Documents/IAS24.pdf</a>
If Etihad was a related company to MCFC then by law the audited MCFC accounts would say so. They don't so they aren't.
Also note that FFP follows IAS standards word for word for financial and accounting terms . If they didn't they would probably be illegal.

Probably just stick to the first gambit. Most rags have little in the way of intelligence to understand the 2nd approach. The same applies to sports journalists, red tarquins, blue tarquins and scouse fans

 

[Joe Hart's Dandruff]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Hahahaha nice one folks

 

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

These United, Liverpool and Arsenal fans always assume it's about how 'big' a club his, and starting churning out the history and success lines.

That is NOT what it's about.

The Beatles are a fantastic historic band, and One Direction are young upstarts. But Pepsi don't want to sponsor the Beatles. It's the wrong image for them. They want a 'fresh' and 'young' image to be associated with. That is City. In 10 years time WE might be a bit old hat, and then we'll need a different sponsor looking for a more established image. Right now, the 'new and exciting' image works for us. It can't work for United they have to stick with 'historic and grand'

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

These United, Liverpool and Arsenal fans always assume it's about how 'big' a club his, and starting churning out the history and success lines.

That is NOT what it's about.

The Beatles are a fantastic historic band, and One Direction are young upstarts. But Pepsi don't want to sponsor the Beatles. It's the wrong image for them. They want a 'fresh' and 'young' image to be associated with. That is City. In 10 years time WE might be a bit old hat, and then we'll need a different sponsor looking for a more established image. Right now, the 'new and exciting' image works for us. It can't work for United they have to stick with 'historic and grand'

Let me get this straight, the rags are The Beatles and City are One Dire Erection?!! Well, I've seen us get more favourable comparisons, it has to be said! If it was my site, you'd be looking at a custodial

 

[yeah whatever !!]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

These United, Liverpool and Arsenal fans always assume it's about how 'big' a club his, and starting churning out the history and success lines.

That is NOT what it's about.

The Beatles are a fantastic historic band, and One Direction are young upstarts. But Pepsi don't want to sponsor the Beatles. It's the wrong image for them. They want a 'fresh' and 'young' image to be associated with. That is City. In 10 years time WE might be a bit old hat, and then we'll need a different sponsor looking for a more established image. Right now, the 'new and exciting' image works for us. It can't work for United they have to stick with 'historic and grand'

Let me get this straight, the rags are The Beatles and City are One Dire Erection?!! Well, I've seen us get more favourable comparisons, it has to be said! If it was my site, you'd be looking at a custodial

well city as a club are heading in one direction tbh and that is up ;)