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

[SilverFox2]

You are missing my point. Yes, having Etihad on City shirts did boost its brand in time but to have the name on shirts the owner didn't have to strike a deal. In essence the owner paid himself to place the name there with an eye on FFP. I don't blame them for that since what choice did they really have? Keeping an eye on FFP meant that the terms were far more beneficial to City than to Etihad is all I am saying.

Perhaps you may be missing my point.

The deal was ''FFP Legal'' and was deemed so at a time when FFP was aimed (via its skewed rules) at exactly the type of connection you claim exists between our owner and the owners of Etihad.

Secondly, MCFC are only just seeing breakeven after the massive spending phase our owners Business Plan anticipated. Etihad have had the benefit of their sponsorship money from day one via the global publicity that TV has allowed.

However, I prefer to believe that Etihad had very little risk associated with their sponsorship deal because they knew that our owner knew how to invest and they backed his shrewdness for the long term.
This is in stark contrast to UEFA who had the audacity to believe that his investment was not profit motivated.

 

[Damanino]

I still think PSG was very clever with their Qatar deal for 200m€.
Yeah it was halved on fair value check, but thats still 100m€ income every season. And that doesnt include their shirt sponsor. Hindsight of course as they didnt know how much Uefa will cut back from it for FFP calculations.
They probably felt sorry they didnt make it 300m originally as than maybe 150m would have been accepted of it.

While Etihad may not be related party deal, but its only 40m pounds and includes shirt sponsor as well.

I would be pretty cynical and come up with a UAE Tourism deal for exactly 100m€ per season.

What would Uefa do after finding its related party? Give a smaller fair value on it compared to PSG's similar deal? That wouldnt sit well for Uefa.

This is the kind of cynic answer Uefa would really deserve for their cynic "fair" play.

 

[richards30]

Surely the etihad deal will be negotiated again this summer and the shirt deal with nike fucking needs to be at least £25-30m a season higher!

 

[BlueAnorak]

Surely the etihad deal will be negotiated again this summer and the shirt deal with nike fucking needs to be at least £25-30m a season higher!

I am pretty sure we are waiting for UEFA's evaluation of our FFP position,1 year on, before announcing a whole raft of sponsorship deals. This could be dangerous however as UEFA will do everything possible to shaft us. Indeed, I fully expect that we will have to go to court this summer - it will not be a "pinch".

 

[Damanino]

Surely the etihad deal will be negotiated again this summer and the shirt deal with nike fucking needs to be at least £25-30m a season higher!

Maybe but why would it be a certain thing? Why Etihad would renegotiate this summer and not last summer or in 2016 summer?

While with Nike hopefully they do something as current 12m looks funny as its not much more than Spurs, Everton deals but way more less than our real rivals.
But if they dont have some points in the deal that they have to renegotiate it but they have it until maybe 2019 on 12m pounds in their situation I didnt really want to pay more...

And maybe if there really are some factors in the deal thats its gonna be improved it is may depending on either our shirt sales numbers or our results on the pitch particularly our CL results.

 

[PixieScott]

You are missing my point. Yes, having Etihad on City shirts did boost its brand in time but to have the name on shirts the owner didn't have to strike a deal. In essence the owner paid himself to place the name there with an eye on FFP. I don't blame them for that since what choice did they really have? Keeping an eye on FFP meant that the terms were far more beneficial to City than to Etihad is all I am saying.

Perhaps you may be missing my point.

The deal was ''FFP Legal'' and was deemed so at a time when FFP was aimed (via its skewed rules) at exactly the type of connection you claim exists between our owner and the owners of Etihad.

Secondly, MCFC are only just seeing breakeven after the massive spending phase our owners Business Plan anticipated. Etihad have had the benefit of their sponsorship money from day one via the global publicity that TV has allowed.

However, I prefer to believe that Etihad had very little risk associated with their sponsorship deal because they knew that our owner knew how to invest and they backed his shrewdness for the long term.
This is in stark contrast to UEFA who had the audacity to believe that his investment was not profit motivated.

Yes, the deal is "FFP Legal" and I didn't say it wasn't. For "Etihad have had the benefit of their sponsorship money from day one via the global publicity that TV has allowed." they could have as easily sponsored any other team for that. They didn't need to invest in City per say but they did so because they are related ( nothing wrong with that ) , for branding/pubicity ( fair enough ) AND ALSO BECAUSE cfg needed the credit to put it in a better shape for FFP AND no other company were available who would have matched the deal. I can agree its for the projected growth but to pretend its nothing to do with the fact that FFP catalysed this deal is misleading.

Damocles said: No he didn't. ALL ARABS ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON.

I agree, and I can tell the difference thank you. However let us go over some facts ( sourced from wiki )

1.Etihad Airways was established as the flag carrier of the United Arab Emirates in July 2003 by Royal (Amiri) Decree issued by Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. It started with an initial paid-up capital of AED500 million. Etihad is governed by a board of directors chaired by HH Sheikh Hamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, HH Sheikh Khaled bin Zayed Al Nahyan being the vice chairman and operates in terms of its founding legislation and the Article of Association of the Company.

2. The Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment (ADUG), is a United Arab Emirates (UAE) private equity company owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, member of the Abu Dhabi Royal Family and Minister of Presidential Affairs for the UAE. The Group was formed as the investment vehicle for the takeover of Manchester City Football Club in 2008. He is the half brother of the current president of UAE, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

You can see the family tree here : <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Nahyan_family" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Nahyan_family</a>

So yes, they aren't the same people but for the purpose of the discussion they represent the same set of owners - Abu Dhabi Government and thus you can see why saying that they paid themselves. Considering they own both, they could have put the Etihad logo for free. Taking money out of your wallet and putting it in your pocket does not make you richer or poorer unless of course the reason to do so was something else..

 

[richards30]

Hmmm.....pixie Scott has a certain whiff.......

 

[stony]

Hmmm.....pixie Scott has a certain whiff.......

stinks to high heaven.

 

[SWP's back]

Surely the etihad deal will be negotiated again this summer and the shirt deal with nike fucking needs to be at least £25-30m a season higher!

I am pretty sure we are waiting for UEFA's evaluation of our FFP position,1 year on, before announcing a whole raft of sponsorship deals. This could be dangerous however as UEFA will do everything possible to shaft us. Indeed, I fully expect that we will have to go to court this summer - it will not be a "pinch".

Why? UEFA have already classed the Etihad deal as non related.

I don't think you could be further from the truth.

 

[SWP's back]

You are missing my point. Yes, having Etihad on City shirts did boost its brand in time but to have the name on shirts the owner didn't have to strike a deal. In essence the owner paid himself to place the name there with an eye on FFP. I don't blame them for that since what choice did they really have? Keeping an eye on FFP meant that the terms were far more beneficial to City than to Etihad is all I am saying.

Perhaps you may be missing my point.

The deal was ''FFP Legal'' and was deemed so at a time when FFP was aimed (via its skewed rules) at exactly the type of connection you claim exists between our owner and the owners of Etihad.

Secondly, MCFC are only just seeing breakeven after the massive spending phase our owners Business Plan anticipated. Etihad have had the benefit of their sponsorship money from day one via the global publicity that TV has allowed.

However, I prefer to believe that Etihad had very little risk associated with their sponsorship deal because they knew that our owner knew how to invest and they backed his shrewdness for the long term.
This is in stark contrast to UEFA who had the audacity to believe that his investment was not profit motivated.

Yes, the deal is "FFP Legal" and I didn't say it wasn't. For "Etihad have had the benefit of their sponsorship money from day one via the global publicity that TV has allowed." they could have as easily sponsored any other team for that. They didn't need to invest in City per say but they did so because they are related ( nothing wrong with that ) , for branding/pubicity ( fair enough ) AND ALSO BECAUSE cfg needed the credit to put it in a better shape for FFP AND no other company were available who would have matched the deal. I can agree its for the projected growth but to pretend its nothing to do with the fact that FFP catalysed this deal is misleading.

Damocles said: No he didn't. ALL ARABS ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON.

I agree, and I can tell the difference thank you. However let us go over some facts ( sourced from wiki )

1.Etihad Airways was established as the flag carrier of the United Arab Emirates in July 2003 by Royal (Amiri) Decree issued by Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. It started with an initial paid-up capital of AED500 million. Etihad is governed by a board of directors chaired by HH Sheikh Hamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, HH Sheikh Khaled bin Zayed Al Nahyan being the vice chairman and operates in terms of its founding legislation and the Article of Association of the Company.

2. The Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment (ADUG), is a United Arab Emirates (UAE) private equity company owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, member of the Abu Dhabi Royal Family and Minister of Presidential Affairs for the UAE. The Group was formed as the investment vehicle for the takeover of Manchester City Football Club in 2008. He is the half brother of the current president of UAE, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

You can see the family tree here : <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Nahyan_family" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Nahyan_family</a>

So yes, they aren't the same people but for the purpose of the discussion they represent the same set of owners - Abu Dhabi Government and thus you can see why saying that they paid themselves. Considering they own both, they could have put the Etihad logo for free. Taking money out of your wallet and putting it in your pocket does not make you richer or poorer unless of course the reason to do so was something else..

Mansour owns City. Not the UAE government.