aguero93:20 said:Villa definitely did, as has been pointed out several times on here, so did QPR, not sure about Southampton but they might have since owner investment got them back to the pl.Ric said:Blue Mooner said:The ironic thing is Everton, villa and Southampton all voted in favour of similar FFP regs being brought into the premier league!
Don't think that's true mate; pretty sure Villa and Southampton were two of the six clubs who voted against it.
mannion18 said:I have just posted this on another thread but i think this might be the correct place for it.
Does anyone know of we get paid to take part in these competitions when we tour?
Could there be a competition held by the CFG in abu dhabi, new york, yokohama or melbourne where all involve gets paid a huge amount and there are added bonuses in each game? Could this then be then included in our income column?
NMB said:Re: City & FFP (continued)
Postby mannion18 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:30 am
I have just posted this on another thread but i think this might be the correct place for it.
Does anyone know of we get paid to take part in these competitions when we tour?
Could there be a competition held by the CFG in abu dhabi, new york, yokohama or melbourne where all involve gets paid a huge amount and there are added bonuses in each game? Could this then be then included in our income column?
This is something I've thought about. The Etihad Cup, live on TV all over the Arab world and anywhere else that cares to buy it, with a prize to the winner of £100million. Entry by invitation only. What's to stop us?
jrb said:Nottingham Forest set to rename stadium for £500m in mega sponsorship deal
Nottingham Forest set to rename stadium for £500m in mega sponsorship deal
By Nick ⋅ July 28, 2014 ⋅ Post a comment
Filed Under Kuwait, Nottingham Forest
Nottingham Forest are set to receive one of the biggest sponsorship deals in football history this week, according to journalists from Kuwait.
Chairman & owner Fawaz Al-Hasawi has been in Kuwait having talks with the Kuwait government, with Nottingham Forest’s new shirt sponsor and stadium sponsor set to be the Kuwaiti government.
The renaming of the stadium to “The KCG Stadium” short for “The Kuwait City Ground Stadium”, is set to bag Forest hundreds of millions in a sponsorship deal larger than Real Madrid’s, Barcelona’s and many other clubs.
It will be the largest stadium sponsorship deal of all time.
Comparing it to other deals, Fly Emirates paid Arsenal £150m for a five year deal for naming rights of their stadium and in the same division, Derby County had a 10-year deal of around £7m. Forest’s meanwhile bags in a huge £500m over 10 years with backing from the Kuwait government.
A huge half a billion (£500m) sponsorship deal spread over 10 years is set to be announced in the next ten days
<a class="postlink" href="http://footballleagueworld.co.uk/nottingham-forest-set-to-rename-stadium-for-500m-in-mega-sponsorship-deal/#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://footballleagueworld.co.uk/nottin ... hip-deal/#</a>
BluessinceHydeRoad said:I think we had better stop bothering about "other small clubs" getting away with things that we were allowed to "get away with", such a non-related party sponsorship deals in our case, and look at what is actually going on in this window.
UEFA were brutally clear on why they were imposing this (unlawful) break even rule: it was to put an end to the inflation of wages and transfer fees in the game and to encourage clubs to rely on youth schemes and academies rather than transfers to build teams. The courts will, I think, have a few questions about the competence of UEFA to pronounce on these matters, but are the new rules showing any sign of fulfilling these aims at all. Clearly the answer is no, and the rules are obviously not fit for purpose, even if the purpose is desirable.
Already we have seen Suarez pack his bags and decamp to Barcelona - for £75 million give or take a few add ons. This is more than Barcelona have ever forked out before, and £20 million more than they paid for Neymar. They didn't really pay anything for Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and so on, relying in those days on their academy, which was the academy of all academies. Those were the days! Then we saw another £70+ million deal to take James to Real. They have form for this, what with Ronaldo and Bale, but they don't seem to be taking to the inflation busting role Michel has cast them in. Indeed three of the clubs involved in these deals, Real, Barca and Liverpool (at least until UEFA get round to looking at Liverpool's accounts) are supposed to be clubs who "do things the right way". The fourth is one of those upstart clubs that FFPR intends to clobber?
Then we have all looked on as Southampton have been picked clean, though the discussion as to whether what's left should be devoured, and who should devour that, goes on. Southampton, those objects of praise for doing it so much "the right way" that they were stupid. Picked clean by those pillars of "doing it the right way". Manchester United, who exist only to develop young, English talent, indulging their Dutch manager by splashing £30 million (more that Fellaini is worth!) on an 18 year old full back, who, it seems, isn't fit! No inflation there then! And what are his wages? Then we have the arch-apostle of hypocrisy, St Arsene Wenger, drooling at the mouth now that he can spend the money brought in by bleeding the Arsenal public through the ground he and Stan bled them to build. And finally, Liverpool, safe in the hands of the Americans who admit they would never have bought the club had they not been promised regulations that meant they'd never have to spend any of their own money. Still, they'll pay for everything with the money the club generates, just like United and Arsenal, because they too have promised the Liverpool public that the redeveloped Anfield is to make the Henrys money, not to make it cheaper for the Liverpool public to watch the team.
Rules working well, Michel? You may think so, the courts......will almost certainly comment.
NorthEastScotlandMCFC said:BluessinceHydeRoad said:I think we had better stop bothering about "other small clubs" getting away with things that we were allowed to "get away with", such a non-related party sponsorship deals in our case, and look at what is actually going on in this window.
UEFA were brutally clear on why they were imposing this (unlawful) break even rule: it was to put an end to the inflation of wages and transfer fees in the game and to encourage clubs to rely on youth schemes and academies rather than transfers to build teams. The courts will, I think, have a few questions about the competence of UEFA to pronounce on these matters, but are the new rules showing any sign of fulfilling these aims at all. Clearly the answer is no, and the rules are obviously not fit for purpose, even if the purpose is desirable.
Already we have seen Suarez pack his bags and decamp to Barcelona - for £75 million give or take a few add ons. This is more than Barcelona have ever forked out before, and £20 million more than they paid for Neymar. They didn't really pay anything for Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and so on, relying in those days on their academy, which was the academy of all academies. Those were the days! Then we saw another £70+ million deal to take James to Real. They have form for this, what with Ronaldo and Bale, but they don't seem to be taking to the inflation busting role Michel has cast them in. Indeed three of the clubs involved in these deals, Real, Barca and Liverpool (at least until UEFA get round to looking at Liverpool's accounts) are supposed to be clubs who "do things the right way". The fourth is one of those upstart clubs that FFPR intends to clobber?
Then we have all looked on as Southampton have been picked clean, though the discussion as to whether what's left should be devoured, and who should devour that, goes on. Southampton, those objects of praise for doing it so much "the right way" that they were stupid. Picked clean by those pillars of "doing it the right way". Manchester United, who exist only to develop young, English talent, indulging their Dutch manager by splashing £30 million (more that Fellaini is worth!) on an 18 year old full back, who, it seems, isn't fit! No inflation there then! And what are his wages? Then we have the arch-apostle of hypocrisy, St Arsene Wenger, drooling at the mouth now that he can spend the money brought in by bleeding the Arsenal public through the ground he and Stan bled them to build. And finally, Liverpool, safe in the hands of the Americans who admit they would never have bought the club had they not been promised regulations that meant they'd never have to spend any of their own money. Still, they'll pay for everything with the money the club generates, just like United and Arsenal, because they too have promised the Liverpool public that the redeveloped Anfield is to make the Henrys money, not to make it cheaper for the Liverpool public to watch the team.
Rules working well, Michel? You may think so, the courts......will almost certainly comment.
Good post, just shows hoe corrupt Financial Fuax Pas is
Well they're certainly selling their assets off! But what I'm asking is what MAY happen to these sale revenues. Is it legally possible for the owning family to pocket the money for themselves and then to sell the club off dirt cheap, or has this revenue to be recorded in the company's balance sheet, thus increasing it's book value? It may be the latter, in which case, if the owners put the club up for sale, they may ask a higher sale price but at the same time face a long wait for a buyer to appear as at Everton, or the owners may, if it is the former, opt for taking the guaranteed transfer revenue for themselves and then go for a quick but cheap sale. We will only know when Southampton goes up for sale, if it does, but it is well accepted by Saint's fans that the present owners are not committed to the club.Blue Mooner said:I'm no cynic said:Just thinking about the goings on at Southampton, there we have an owner who has no interest in football but has inherited the club and is now selling off all assets. Can anyone tell me if the owner can pocket all the cash from sales, or does it have to go onto the club's Balance Sheet instead? If it is the former, then having asset stripped the club, the owner may attempt to sell it off as dirt cheap, leaving any new owner the problem of going on a massive spending spree which will break the EPL FFP plan many times over. It could make Southampton unsellable and, who knows, send them into terminal decline.
There is no evidence that Southampton are selling to strip the club of assets. The top 4 teams (metaphorically speaking) have simply raped and pillaged their best players. The power of FFP in action. I'm sure that Southampton fans are really grateful to UEFA for bringing in the new 'fair' regulations.