Major article in the Athletic on our sponsorships. This will gain lots of traction with the usual suspects:
Major article in the Athletic on our sponsorships. This will gain lots of traction with the usual suspects:
I don't tweet, so thanks for that. Stefan, as usual, on point. I agree that the piece is fair overall despite some inaccuracies and some of the reaction to it here is a bit overstated. I think the inaccuracies owe more to laziness than bad faith.Already been dissected by Stefan on Twitter.
- Crafton says the usual line about some key elements/allegations being out of UEFA's 6 year limitation, so couldn't be charged, with some being unproven. We know the reverse to be true, CAS stated multiple times in their release that the key allegations against the Club that no evidence had been provided by UEFA to prove them. Most of the allegations that did fall foul of UEFA's own time bar rules were allegations at a time when FFP didn't exist in any event.
- He says a PL arbitration if City have found to have broke PL rules following their investigation have no time bar limitations. Again, incorrect. The rules are governed ultimately by UK law, this is stated clearly in the Premier League's own rule book. UK law has a stature of limitations.
- Points out that through City having sponsorships with companies with links to Mubadala/Abu Dhabi, new sponsorships & entities such as Silverlake have gone on to create business ties with Mubadala through getting involved @ City, & deepen their own ties to other entities who deal with them. This to me is basic capitalism, unsure of it's relevance.
Now, my own thoughts are that the article is a fair piece overall, in line with the recent adoption of new PL sponsorship rules, which people do have a clear interest in. In contrast to the usual crap from the likes of Delaney & Evans it is at least readable so that is night & day. My issue is what I've stated above, there are clear glaring inaccuracies around City's sponsorship dealings & history with CAS etc, information that is readily available online. This makes me query his motives for not admitting them. At least he states, the key thing I might add: There is nothing legally wrong with any of these relationships. They have all been properly entered into.
Yes, but what is fair value? Ultimately our commercial rivals will decide and that is why PL will lose in a dispute.None of this fucking matters as long as everything is at fair value, other than giving the PL something to do and wasting money reviewing values when they should be developing the game.
The very first dispute on fair value will put all this PL nonsense to bed.
It wont because the bigger footballing story now is the open bias by sections of the footballing industry towards Man Utd and Liverpool. It's really obvious. Another investigation of Manchester City? Yawn. Try looking once in a while elsewhere.
Well said and I concur with that.Already been dissected by Stefan on Twitter.
- Crafton says the usual line about some key elements/allegations being out of UEFA's 6 year limitation, so couldn't be charged, with some being unproven. We know the reverse to be true, CAS stated multiple times in their release that the key allegations against the Club that no evidence had been provided by UEFA to prove them. Most of the allegations that did fall foul of UEFA's own time bar rules were allegations at a time when FFP didn't exist in any event.
- He says a PL arbitration if City have found to have broke PL rules following their investigation have no time bar limitations. Again, incorrect. The rules are governed ultimately by UK law, this is stated clearly in the Premier League's own rule book. UK law has a stature of limitations.
- Points out that through City having sponsorships with companies with links to Mubadala/Abu Dhabi, new sponsorships & entities such as Silverlake have gone on to create business ties with Mubadala through getting involved @ City, & deepen their own ties to other entities who deal with them. This to me is basic capitalism, unsure of it's relevance.
Now, my own thoughts are that the article is a fair piece overall, in line with the recent adoption of new PL sponsorship rules, which people do have a clear interest in. In contrast to the usual crap from the likes of Delaney & Evans it is at least readable so that is night & day. My issue is what I've stated above, there are clear glaring inaccuracies around City's sponsorship dealings & history with CAS etc, information that is readily available online. This makes me query his motives for not admitting them. At least he states, the key thing I might add: There is nothing legally wrong with any of these relationships. They have all been properly entered into.
Having now read it I can't see that much wrong with it. It pretty much dismisses the "sportswashing" narrative because it shows clearly that the business strategy of CFG is commercial and economic (backed up by the old quote from Garry Cook) The feature also makes it clear that City have done nothing illegal and explains the CAS case in a fairer way (ie stressing the only breach we made was "non-co-operation." It also points out that other clubs have done exactly the same thing with sponsorship deals.Full link to the article on open source archive.ph here:
The article is very detailed and very long:)
I wonder if the author has ever heard of networking?Having now read it I can't see that much wrong with it. It pretty much dismisses the "sportswashing" narrative because it shows clearly that the business strategy of CFG is commercial and economic (backed up by the old quote from Garry Cook) The feature also makes it clear that City have done nothing illegal and explains the CAS case in a fairer way (ie stressing the only breach we made was "non-co-operation." It also points out that other clubs have done exactly the same thing with sponsorship deals.
The only issue I have is why pick out City and publish this now. Anyone who has ever worked in business will know full well that the vast majority of commercial deals (probably more than 90 per cent) always heavily rely on personal contacts between people who already have established personal or business links. In fact it is the entire way business deals are done whether we like it or not. If the Athletic want to go down this route than they should start looking at the commercial sponsorhips of every club in the PL. That would be a can of worms.
I wondered about this too. If United's deal is for £15m, what's to say we can't get a deal for the same amount or even more? After all, we are far more successful than them on the pitch, and are likely to be for the foreseeable future.I was interested to learn that City's deal with Nexen had judged market value just about right because United made a deal worth 2/3 more, which they're obviously entitled to. I would like a bit of explanation though.
So much for a subscription based service not having to pander to the usual suspects!
The only issue I have is why pick out City and publish this now.
Or Bob-a-Job?I wonder if the author has ever heard of networking?
Or daft Donald on the cadge!Or Bob-a-Job?
That's a fair point. There are a few factual errors in the article (relating to the time barred stuff) but broadly it is just a background article which explains our business model. How can it be wrong for example for the Emirates Palace, the leading hotel in Abu Dhabi, to be one of our partners? The hotel has been given amazing exposure from its links with MCFC.I would assume it's just when he's finished it. The rule was passed last month and we've been announcing sponsors on a regular basis since, so it's topical.
He's previously written articles about -
Burnley's shady American ownership
Wolves & Mendes
American Billionaire owners' designs on changing the sport
Newcastle's takeover
The Glazers financial mismanagement and bad ownership of United
So it's hard to really make a case that Crafton writing an article on City's owners is biased or special treatment.
Personally I see it as a validation as much as anything. Someone has forensically gone through every single sponsor at the club and found no wrongdoing, great!