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

[Kazzydeyna]

Funny how our £400m 10 year Etihad deal (for shirt sponsorship, stadium and campus naming rights) was the subject of such scorn and accusations of financial doping, whereas Bayern's €900m 10-year deal with Adidas (for kit alone) barely raises an eyebrow. And it's a related party transaction (Adidas own 8.33% of Bayern).

Because nobody was REALLY sat there running market projections, people kicked off because Etihad are from the UAE and our owner is from the UAE and all Arabs are the same person therefore our owner must have paid for it. It was the only explanation to these simpletons.

Never really saw how much anti-Arab sentiment is out there until we got taken over

...is the correct answer.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

The footballing elite have proved they don't like anyone crashing their party and until there's a Bosman like court case stopping them from punishing other clubs there's not a lot anyone can do.The drawbridge has been pulled up and we got in just at the last minute but it's very unlikely that the ones on the outside will ever get in under the rules we have now.

I don't think they have finished with us yet.

David Gill gone to FIFA, so watch out for the spotlight being trained on individuals owning clubs in different parts of the world.

Also, the proposed England home grown rule changes. Under them, a player has to have been at a club 3 years before his 18th birthday, thereby ruling out the registration of foreign kids as FIFA say they cannot cross borders to join clubs if they're under 16 (unless their parents move country for non footballing reasons). And no doubt the rule will be retrospective, so our promising foreign lads we have now, will no longer be classed as home grown.

If they implement them rules like you've mentioned, shit would hit the fan. We all know the twat has stopped us in our tracks, although other club fans laugh at the thought of us thinking that. He cannot possibly implement more rules which would blatantly affect us again.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Ric wrote:
Funny how our £400m 10 year Etihad deal (for shirt sponsorship, stadium and campus naming rights) was the subject of such scorn and accusations of financial doping, whereas Bayern's €900m 10-year deal with Adidas (for kit alone) barely raises an eyebrow. And it's a related party transaction (Adidas own 8.33% of Bayern).

I think the issue isn't the amount but the valuation at the time the deal was struck. Bayern is a top 3 football powerhouse, whereas City wasn't a picture in the global football landscape. How can anyone argue that the deal at that point was not to ensure a sufficient credit line? PSG did the same but at a much grander scale and paid the price for it as well.

Contrary to what many presume here, commercial growth isn't exponential. One can take Real,Barcelona,Mufc and Bayern as benchmarks and realise that some of these teams have had success spanning 20-30 years and clubs that have had success for 5-10 years have practically matched 50-75% of their valued commercial income. It suggests that the crawl to commercial income parity if organic is slow. Unless Etihad/<or any Roman's company> come forward to invest a sizeable deal then while that would prop up the token value not necessarily actually make the club worth as much. A simple litmus test is that whether a non-related company would pay as much at that point in time as the related company is offering to. I think you'll agree there wasn't any bidding war for the sponsorship deal then.

The discernible benefit that Etihad have derived from the arrangement renders your précis of the motivation behind the deal to be hopelessly simplistic. For the same reasons that Sheikh Mansour bought City in 2008, Etihad will have recognised the benefit of being closely associated with a leading English football club in terms of global reach and exposure. The way that TV deals have developed in the last seven years suggests that vision was a supremely prescient one. Etihad's growth in the same period has been equally stellar. No coincidence.

In short, if you believe you're going to get significant benefit out of an arrangement, you are much less likely to scrutinise and take issue with the price. Etihad paid the price, because they knew it was a price worth paying to them; more especially if their money helped ensure a level of success that would further enhance their levels of reflected glory. A virtuous circle as far as they were concerned, no doubt.

That is what observers of this arrangement frequently and conspicuously fail to appreciate: Etihad were as much beneficiaries from this deal as City.

The term 'financial doping' in relation to the Etihad deal is uttered by those who are intellectually dishonest or commercially myopic. In Wenger's case it is doubtless the former, for most others I suspect it's the latter.

Nice words GDM.

I'd like to pick up on the original posters comment It suggests that the crawl to commercial income parity if organic is slow." Perhaps he should appreciate our model is different. In the words of Khaldoon from the annual report:


The establishment of the City Football Group, now with professional clubs in the UK, US, Australia and Japan, has created commercial opportunities on an entirely different scale. Today, the City Football Group is attracting global sponsors and creating what we believe is a genuinely new model for a successful sports and commercial enterprise.

Commercial success has never been an afterthought for Manchester City. It has always been an integral part of the strategy implemented under Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s direction since 2008. Now that we have moved beyond the period of heavy investment that was required to make the Club competitive again, it is commercial growth of the kind we are seeing today that will underpin and support our operations in the future. Importantly, Manchester City is entering the next phase of its development with zero financial debt.

 

[Newman Noggs]

I'm rather enjoying the too deliberate failure to mention that the dominant club in English football over the last three years has had to operate under unprecedented restrictions on investment, wages, transfers, squad size and sponsorship deals. It's the elephant in the room that all the media and pundits studiously skirt around and hope that, if it isn't mentioned, the Premier League competition won't, in any way, be diminished as a sporting competition.

Unfortunately for all concerned, and especially Chelsea who, if not spectacular, haven't been bad at all, everybody knows that this season's competition is tarnished and the Premier League will remain so until FFP is abolished.

 

[SilverFox2]

Ric wrote:
Funny how our £400m 10 year Etihad deal (for shirt sponsorship, stadium and campus naming rights) was the subject of such scorn and accusations of financial doping, whereas Bayern's €900m 10-year deal with Adidas (for kit alone) barely raises an eyebrow. And it's a related party transaction (Adidas own 8.33% of Bayern).

I think the issue isn't the amount but the valuation at the time the deal was struck. Bayern is a top 3 football powerhouse, whereas City wasn't a picture in the global football landscape. How can anyone argue that the deal at that point was not to ensure a sufficient credit line? PSG did the same but at a much grander scale and paid the price for it as well.

Contrary to what many presume here, commercial growth isn't exponential. One can take Real,Barcelona,Mufc and Bayern as benchmarks and realise that some of these teams have had success spanning 20-30 years and clubs that have had success for 5-10 years have practically matched 50-75% of their valued commercial income. It suggests that the crawl to commercial income parity if organic is slow. Unless Etihad/<or any Roman's company> come forward to invest a sizeable deal then while that would prop up the token value not necessarily actually make the club worth as much. A simple litmus test is that whether a non-related company would pay as much at that point in time as the related company is offering to. I think you'll agree there wasn't any bidding war for the sponsorship deal then.

The discernible benefit that Etihad have derived from the arrangement renders your précis of the motivation behind the deal to be hopelessly simplistic. For the same reasons that Sheikh Mansour bought City in 2008, Etihad will have recognised the benefit of being closely associated with a leading English football club in terms of global reach and exposure. The way that TV deals have developed in the last seven years suggests that vision was a supremely prescient one. Etihad's growth in the same period has been equally stellar. No coincidence.

In short, if you believe you're going to get significant benefit out of an arrangement, you are much less likely to scrutinise and take issue with the price. Etihad paid the price, because they knew it was a price worth paying to them; more especially if their money helped ensure a level of success that would further enhance their levels of reflected glory. A virtuous circle as far as they were concerned, no doubt.

That is what observers of this arrangement frequently and conspicuously fail to appreciate: Etihad were as much beneficiaries from this deal as City.

The term 'financial doping' in relation to the Etihad deal is uttered by those who are intellectually dishonest or commercially myopic. In Wenger's case it is doubtless the former, for most others I suspect it's the latter.

Very important point Gorden, thanks for making it.

At the time of investment by Etihad it was seen as excessive mainly because it was being judged by the typical slow organic growth model that football teams traditionally followed.
Our owner via his ADUG business plan has demonstrated that he was not just throwing money at City in the way that a rich sugar daddy would do he was investing by treating football in exactly the same way as he would invest in other sectors. His ADUG team even accelerated the business plan to almost break even in a timescale never seen before in football.

From a purely commercial point of view these are exciting times and I am sure that many companies are wishing that they had had the courage to back our owners massive investment and receive its global exposure Etihad style.
The future with CFG is likely to hold similar benefits for those who want to be involved with a man with a plan.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think the issue isn't the amount but the valuation at the time the deal was struck. Bayern is a top 3 football powerhouse, whereas City wasn't a picture in the global football landscape. How can anyone argue that the deal at that point was not to ensure a sufficient credit line? PSG did the same but at a much grander scale and paid the price for it as well.

Contrary to what many presume here, commercial growth isn't exponential. One can take Real,Barcelona,Mufc and Bayern as benchmarks and realise that some of these teams have had success spanning 20-30 years and clubs that have had success for 5-10 years have practically matched 50-75% of their valued commercial income. It suggests that the crawl to commercial income parity if organic is slow. Unless Etihad/<or any Roman's company> come forward to invest a sizeable deal then while that would prop up the token value not necessarily actually make the club worth as much. A simple litmus test is that whether a non-related company would pay as much at that point in time as the related company is offering to. I think you'll agree there wasn't any bidding war for the sponsorship deal then.

The discernible benefit that Etihad have derived from the arrangement renders your précis of the motivation behind the deal to be hopelessly simplistic. For the same reasons that Sheikh Mansour bought City in 2008, Etihad will have recognised the benefit of being closely associated with a leading English football club in terms of global reach and exposure. The way that TV deals have developed in the last seven years suggests that vision was a supremely prescient one. Etihad's growth in the same period has been equally stellar. No coincidence.

In short, if you believe you're going to get significant benefit out of an arrangement, you are much less likely to scrutinise and take issue with the price. Etihad paid the price, because they knew it was a price worth paying to them; more especially if their money helped ensure a level of success that would further enhance their levels of reflected glory. A virtuous circle as far as they were concerned, no doubt.

That is what observers of this arrangement frequently and conspicuously fail to appreciate: Etihad were as much beneficiaries from this deal as City.

The term 'financial doping' in relation to the Etihad deal is uttered by those who are intellectually dishonest or commercially myopic. In Wenger's case it is doubtless the former, for most others I suspect it's the latter.

Nice words GDM.

I'd like to pick up on the original posters comment It suggests that the crawl to commercial income parity if organic is slow." Perhaps he should appreciate our model is different. In the words of Khaldoon from the annual report:


The establishment of the City Football Group, now with professional clubs in the UK, US, Australia and Japan, has created commercial opportunities on an entirely different scale. Today, the City Football Group is attracting global sponsors and creating what we believe is a genuinely new model for a successful sports and commercial enterprise.

Commercial success has never been an afterthought for Manchester City. It has always been an integral part of the strategy implemented under Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s direction since 2008. Now that we have moved beyond the period of heavy investment that was required to make the Club competitive again, it is commercial growth of the kind we are seeing today that will underpin and support our operations in the future. Importantly, Manchester City is entering the next phase of its development with zero financial debt.

In many, many ways we really hit the jackpot on 1st September 2008. Not just in terms of the size of the bounty, but also in the way it would be put to effective use.

 

[SilverFox2]

Because nobody was REALLY sat there running market projections, people kicked off because Etihad are from the UAE and our owner is from the UAE and all Arabs are the same person therefore our owner must have paid for it. It was the only explanation to these simpletons.

Never really saw how much anti-Arab sentiment is out there until we got taken over

And Adidas are German, so surely their deal should have had been met with the same scrutinisation as ours.

Nope. You see Germany are a Western European nation so two different companies can come that that place without having to be in a form of collusion. In fact, one company can actually own 10% of the other company and still are not in collusion.

However as Aabar are from the Abu Dhabi and our owner is the third most important man in Abu Dhabi then this means that they are absolutely definitely in collusion. Because all those Arabs are the same unlike the Western European master race.

Not sure that is a race thing even though PL clubs with USA owners appear to be able to get USA sponsorship without adverse scrutiny or suspicion.

Perhaps the link is where particularly Arab money comes from ?

To some this is almost unearned income with the geographical accident of oil reserves funding excessive wealth for some in what are typically Arab countries. Virtually all European countries generate their wealth in a way that the purchase of oil is a major cost so perhaps that is where resentment lies.

The owners of PL clubs also see themselves as needing to raise money to allow investment of part of their portfolio in football then sit back and reap the rewards whereas this unearned oil cash is surely unfair in their eyes.
What they should be upset about is that our owner is treating football as not only a cash cow for part of his portfolio he is investing in a global business model that they are unable or unwilling to follow.

 

[Centurions]

Not the best time to be renegotiating deals :)

A further 'unforseen' consequence of FFPR. Periods without success make it harder to bring in the big sponsorship deals thus further protecting the elite

The big companies that will be looking to sponsor City will have a slightly longer term view of things than the average fan on BlueMoon.

 

[BLUE THUNDER]

PSG fans join the fight..bring it on !!

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.espnfc.com/paris-saint-germain/story/2425932/paris-saint-germain-fans-bring-case-against-uefa-over-ffp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.espnfc.com/paris-saint-germa ... a-over-ffp</a>

Paris Saint-Germain supporters bring case against UEFA over FFP - report


Paris Saint-Germain midfielder Javier Pastore believes his team will be able to secure the Ligue 1 title with four matches remaining.
A group of Paris Saint-Germain supporters have taken UEFA to court claiming financial fair play should be scrapped, according to Le Parisien.

Along with Manchester City, PSG were one of the clubs hit hardest when UEFA handed down its first slate of FFP punishments last summer. The French champions were fined €60 million, had their transfer activity limited to a maximum spend of €55 million, while their Champions League squad was reduced by four players to 21.

Some 100 PSG fans and the Association of Angry Fans against Financial Fair Play have brought a case against UEFA before Paris' High Court, arguing that certain FFP rules prevent investment and go against free competition, thereby maintaining the established elite.

"As an expert in competition law, I have always been concerned by this rule that prevents the emergence of new clubs," Francois Brunet -- a lawyer with Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, who helped build the case -- told Le Parisien.

"It's not only the future of PSG that concerns me. It's the future of the whole of French and European football. We can't let the Champions League become a sort of private club in which only four or five clubs can reach the semifinals."

PSG stadium generic outside Parc des Princes
Paris Saint-Germain were hit with FFP sanctions by UEFA last summer.
The sanctions imposed on PSG were due in large part to UEFA's ruling that a €200 million contract signed with the Qatar Tourism Authority had been over-valued.

They only included half of the sum in their calculations, leaving PSG outside FFP boundaries. Consequently, the club have had to seek other sources of revenue, with fans among those to be hit.

After a near 100 percent increase in ticket prices since Qatar Sports Investments took over PSG in 2011, the club have already announced a five percent hike for next season.

"The restrictive measures of FFP have had a direct impact on supporters' wallets," the group's case states. "Following UEFA's punishments, PSG have had no choice other than to increase its sole source of revenue over which it still had control: tickets."

While their fans plan to take on UEFA, which is poised to announce the sanctions imposed on the clubs that have fallen foul of FFP this season, PSG reportedly want no part in the fight.

"Yes, but they refused to help us," Brunet said when asked whether the club had been contacted. "We would have preferred the club to be behind us, but I understand their attitude because UEFA provokes fear, except in us and in our supporters, who are behind us."

 

[dasblues]

There is an interesting snippet in the article below that states the current Etihad sponsorship deal was paid for by the Abu Dhabi government rather than the airline itself....

Etihad’s $640 million sponsorship of Manchester City, an English Premier League soccer club, was also paid by the government on behalf of the airline.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/business/etihad-airways-rapid-growth-frustrates-rivals.html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/busin ... .html?_r=0</a>