I do wonder about you and some of your postsMaineRoadBlue said:Folk who've never seen a £50 note
No not at all as I've said it looks like Nike have claimed the mini had and the main building is Arabic branded to me this only leaves Nike to get a better deal out of ..isn't it already known as the etihad campus ??stony said:mrtwiceaseason said:What is there to sponsor the mini had seems to be Nike branded and the main building had some Arabic logo on it and Nissan are doing the transport ? What's left only more money from Nike ?stony said:What happened to all the sponsors that the CFA was supposed to bring in?
Are you taking the piss? There is lots left to sponsor. The minihad could have its own sponsor, the first team training facility could have its own sponsor. The CFA as a whole could have a seperate sponsor. They could even flog of the separate pitches to individual sponsors. First team training today was on the Pot Noodle pitch whilst the under 21s trained on the Clearasil pitch and the same time the under 12's practised on the Farleys Rusk pitch.
All joking aside, we're not even scratching the surface.
mrtwiceaseason said:No not at all as I've said it looks like Nike have claimed the mini had and the main building is Arabic branded to me this only leaves Nike to get a better deal out of ..isn't it already known as the etihad campus ??stony said:mrtwiceaseason said:What is there to sponsor the mini had seems to be Nike branded and the main building had some Arabic logo on it and Nissan are doing the transport ? What's left only more money from Nike ?
Are you taking the piss? There is lots left to sponsor. The minihad could have its own sponsor, the first team training facility could have its own sponsor. The CFA as a whole could have a seperate sponsor. They could even flog of the separate pitches to individual sponsors. First team training today was on the Pot Noodle pitch whilst the under 21s trained on the Clearasil pitch and the same time the under 12's practised on the Farleys Rusk pitch.
All joking aside, we're not even scratching the surface.
Just checked the main building is branded with Abu dhubi and a red plectrum shape and the minihad is plastered with Nike ticks .plenty of other things to sponsor but not sure what's available at the campusstony said:mrtwiceaseason said:No not at all as I've said it looks like Nike have claimed the mini had and the main building is Arabic branded to me this only leaves Nike to get a better deal out of ..isn't it already known as the etihad campus ??stony said:Are you taking the piss? There is lots left to sponsor. The minihad could have its own sponsor, the first team training facility could have its own sponsor. The CFA as a whole could have a seperate sponsor. They could even flog of the separate pitches to individual sponsors. First team training today was on the Pot Noodle pitch whilst the under 21s trained on the Clearasil pitch and the same time the under 12's practised on the Farleys Rusk pitch.
All joking aside, we're not even scratching the surface.
I must have missed the big sign on the minihad saying 'Nike Stadium' and their branding is around the place because they are one of our sponsors.
Arabic branded? doesn't it just say CFA in Arabic?
The campus is the whole thing, The ground, city square, the CFA, and when they are built the hotel and other leisure/retail buildings along with the medical science building will all be part of the campus and all will be available for separate sponsors.
I can sort of see where tolmies hairdoo is coming from though. Cash itself is not an issue to ADUG. If they spend £1bn on various infrastructure projects that could engender £20m or more in depreciation for many years and that's £20m cash we don't have to generate from operations that can be used to our advantage within FFP.OB1 said:pardoeofftomexico said:Prestwich_Blue said:1) In theory we possibly could but in practice we've already published our accounting policies for fixed assets and the auditors would raise an eyebrow if we suddenly chose to write off the outstanding book value of those items.
2) We've already done that to a large degree by transfer charging the IP associated with setting up City Football Services & City Marketing Services, which we did last year. However we agreed to exclude intra-group transactions from FFP so there's no benefit in that regard.
3) The licensee has to be the entity that contains the football club and which is a member of a UEFA-registered association or league. So that would be MCFC Limited, as I understand it.
But as you have already explained yourself PB, there would be no point in writing off the infrastructure costs. If we wrote off, say, £100M it would mean we would have an additional loss of that amount. But the same amount would then be added back for FFP to finish up with the profit we would have had if we had not written off the infrastructure costs. Everyone should just forget about the costs of the training ground, new stand, etc.
As for anything else the club have shown themselves to be pretty innovative as it is!
Exactly. You cannot suddenly magic up extra cash to spend on players because you have the ability to add back the depreciation on new fixed assets for FFP profit calculations. The real benefit of being able to spend more on infrastructure without the cost being charged to profit for FFP purposes is that you can do things like increasing your stadium capacity and thereby increase income without having to deduct all the costs involved in generating the additional income from the incremental revenue.
So you presumably know the background, experience and jobs of everyone who posts on here?MaineRoadBlue said:This FFP thread does make me chuckle. Folk who've never seen a £50 note asking questions a team from the treasury would struggle to answer yet within the same thread we appear to have a budget surplus of supposed financial experts only too willing to provide their take on it all.
#blindleadingtheblind