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

It seems to me that the PL want to seek to limit any potential "friendly" sponsorship deals to a specific % of annual turnover. They will have missed the boat as far as City are concerned. We are no longer reliant on these types of sponsorships and our turnover I think is only second to utd. I'm looking forward to this years report as both our football and success must be growing the brand. If we could establish a new long term kit deal with a global player other than Etihad (Keeping the stadium rights) or other Emirate company for a Champions commensurate fee, we'd be laughing. The friendly sponsorships would be about 5%. We will continue aquiring worldwide partnerships in the meantime. I doubt they can stop us legally any more and we won't put up with any funny business now either.
 
KS55 said:
For the avoidance of doubt, there will be three types of sponsorship under the new rules. (The nomenclature here is my own)
1. Related. The IAS 24 rules will still be in operation and related sponsorships must be identified as such on our accounts. Currently, we have none, as neither Sheik Mansour nor any of our minority owners have any control of any of our sponsors.
2. Associated. Now it depends on what definition the PL finally adopt, but are they talking about quite loose connections? Friends of friends, geographical etc. I guess Etihad would fall into this category. It would be very hard to justify this, if challenged at law. UEFA introduced such a category when they couldn't pin related sponsorships on us. UEFA limit is 30% of turnover.
3.'Free', where there is no connection at all between the sponsoring company and the club.

We currently have 15% of our turnover in category 2. If the PL adopt the 30% rule, we are well clear.

The devil is in the detail. All sponsorships must be cleared in advance with the PL and must be fair value,(whether related or associated or not?) as assessed by third party experts.
What measures of fair value are to be adopted? Will the PL influence the measures? Room for shenanigans here, as M.Leterme demonstrated in the PSG case. The idea that the PL board will have the final say fills me with foreboding.
Finally, how will they treat global sponsorships where CFG, for example, sell a package comprising 11 clubs?
Click to expand...
imagine informing your rivals who's prepared to part with big money to sponsor you, only red shirt winners here
 
The PL is fishing in very murky waters and, to quote another phrase, it ill all end in tears if it continues. The concept of "fair market value" to be applied to sponsorship deals is a dangerous intrusion into the law of contract. The anger of those responsible for a company on being told that they are wasting that company's money by paying over the odds or that the club may incur penalties if it spends the funds paid can only be imagined. No-one would willingly sign a contract to sponsor a club if they thought they were not getting value for money and they may well seek to know where the PL's authority to exercise a power of veto over commercial contracts comes from. It is certainly not from the law and we saw that the last time one of football's governing bodies interfered in contract law UEFA lost a case and was told in no uncertain terms that the law applied to football as much as to any other activity. Deciding who can and cannot make contracts with clubs on grounds that are explicable only in terms of a cartel putting a rival or rivals at a serious commercial disadvantage is a giant step too far. The PL is in grave danger of getting ideas well above its station. It needs thoughtful, moderate but above all, honest leadership with the real interests of English club football at heart.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
The PL is fishing in very murky waters and, to quote another phrase, it ill all end in tears if it continues. The concept of "fair market value" to be applied to sponsorship deals is a dangerous intrusion into the law of contract. The anger of those responsible for a company on being told that they are wasting that company's money by paying over the odds or that the club may incur penalties if it spends the funds paid can only be imagined. No-one would willingly sign a contract to sponsor a club if they thought they were not getting value for money and they may well seek to know where the PL's authority to exercise a power of veto over commercial contracts comes from. It is certainly not from the law and we saw that the last time one of football's governing bodies interfered in contract law UEFA lost a case and was told in no uncertain terms that the law applied to football as much as to any other activity. Deciding who can and cannot make contracts with clubs on grounds that are explicable only in terms of a cartel putting a rival or rivals at a serious commercial disadvantage is a giant step too far. The PL is in grave danger of getting ideas well above its station. It needs thoughtful, moderate but above all, honest leadership with the real interests of English club football at heart.
Click to expand...
Honest you say? .... Fucked there then aren't we!
 
Dirty Harry said:
Wasn’t it Mark Stephens who said something along the lines of :-
You can’t purport to run a fair process when you act as judge, jury, and executioner ?
Click to expand...
Whoever said that was correct. Unless the PL provide for appeal outside, they will be in trouble.
 
Another fantastic article by Martin Samuel today exposing the PL and cartel cronies in their attempt to dictate what is fair in terms of sponsorship deals in relation to Newcastle ...........................................or actually City !

A lone voice in amongst the hyenas of the media doing their bidding for the rags and dippers and other lesser arsewipes who are hanging on to their coat tails.

City ruining football again .
 
HolisticJim said:
Honest you say? .... Fucked there then aren't we!
Click to expand...
I suspect it's the PL which is "fucked" in such a case. I suppose their threat is a secession of 18 clubs if their rule is outlawed but this would deprive them of their membership of UEFA with all that entails. If UEFA supported them they would face penalties for acting as a cartel.
 
I see that Mercedes have abandoned their appeal re Abu Dhabi GP, because the appeal would be to the FIA and there is no provision for recourse to law or CAS.
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
Another fantastic article by Martin Samuel today exposing the PL and cartel cronies in their attempt to dictate what is fair in terms of sponsorship deals in relation to Newcastle ...........................................or actually City !

A lone voice in amongst the hyenas of the media doing their bidding for the rags and dippers and other lesser arsewipes who are hanging on to their coat tails.

City ruining football again .
Click to expand...

www.dailymail.co.uk

MARTIN SAMUEL: Football's fixture list is a sausage factory

CHIEF SPORTS WRITER: The sausage factory mentality continues. Football learns nothing from the pandemic and continues piling fixtures into a schedule already fit to burst.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
how anybody can see why FFP was brought in to help football and its clubs and not just a tool to stop manchester city
are blind or daft. when the so called biggest club ? riches clubs ? in the world are in financial crisis and debt ridden but are never questioned. then they quote manchester city are breaking the rules spending money they don't have ?

manchester city are debt free and properly the best run football club in the world and a role model on how to run a football club. personal wealth v loans taken on club assets this is the question

uncontrolled rising debts by the so called elite teams is bad for the game and for the fans at them clubs because it will be them that are left to pick up the pieces in the end

also ask any of them so called elite teams to sell to the world richest person or persons RIGHT NOW they would bite their hand off in a instant. take the glazers at united if somebody offers them £2billion they would say where do i sign on the spot
 
Norbiton said:
Interesting that Samuel names the law firm trawling our accounts for something, anything, on behalf of the Premier League, hadn’t seen that information before.
Click to expand...
It's incredible that this fishing expedition is happening. Looking through our accounts from ten years ago after we have been cleared by an independent panel of judges at CAS. Don't forget that most of the Der Spiegel claims were comprehensively rejected after at least one email was proven to be fabricated (distorting the meaning) and others actually pre-dated the introduction of FFP rules so were totally irrelevant. What the fuck is going on at the PL?
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
The PL is fishing in very murky waters and, to quote another phrase, it ill all end in tears if it continues. The concept of "fair market value" to be applied to sponsorship deals is a dangerous intrusion into the law of contract. The anger of those responsible for a company on being told that they are wasting that company's money by paying over the odds or that the club may incur penalties if it spends the funds paid can only be imagined. No-one would willingly sign a contract to sponsor a club if they thought they were not getting value for money and they may well seek to know where the PL's authority to exercise a power of veto over commercial contracts comes from. It is certainly not from the law and we saw that the last time one of football's governing bodies interfered in contract law UEFA lost a case and was told in no uncertain terms that the law applied to football as much as to any other activity. Deciding who can and cannot make contracts with clubs on grounds that are explicable only in terms of a cartel putting a rival or rivals at a serious commercial disadvantage is a giant step too far. The PL is in grave danger of getting ideas well above its station. It needs thoughtful, moderate but above all, honest leadership with the real interests of English club football at heart.
Click to expand...
Well, if someone from the PL had asked Chevrolet if they were sure their deal with United was fair value, the deal would have fallen through.

Sponsors might perhaps have to certify that they have done some due diligence (especially if some public money is involved). That's Real Madrid stuffed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top