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

[WRicko]

It’s one thing when the Guardian treat our deals as related party but it’s another now that the BBC are doing it especially when you consider the wider issues

 

[Holcombe bloo]

This was 2017 - apparently been with them 12 years? Gotta love the quotes.

Reds agree Saudi Arabia partnership

United to help the GSA develop its football industry, as part of its 2030 Vision.

www.manutd.com

Yes I saw that, but not on their official list. Saudi deal like a dirty little secret!?

 

[Rammy Blue]

Etihad is not a related party, as per City, our auditors and CAS. There's absolutely no connection between our owner and Etihad, apart from
Sheikh Mansour being a member of the Abu Dhabi ruling family. That's not enough.

Prince Charles sold off his Duchy Originals brand but if they had sponsored Cheltenham Town while he owned it, would that make Cheltenham state-sponsored? Of course it wouldn't.

We even have an Etihad non-exec on our board and that's not even enough to make them a related party.

I think Tolmie’s confusion is based around the chatter that it would have been better for some reason if we’d accepted it as being a related party, I recall there were conversations in the FFP thread when the CAS shit was going on as to why it would have made it potentially easier.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Thanks - I recall the Etisalat one being 'pruned'?

Newcastle would be well within their rights to cite the 2015 change made by Uefa.

It was 2 from 3 of Etisalat, AAbar and Abu Dhabi Tourist....can't remember which 2 without looking up.

Yes and no about the 2015 change. It relates to UEFA FFP only and if it did apply by the time they get to UEFA competition there turnover would be significantly lower that, say, City (no CL money etc) and there would be no way they could get away with extreme sponsorship fees cos they get caught out on the 30% rule. But UEFA are introducing new rules so we'll have to wait and see.

The PL is a different beast of course and will be intersting to see what thay can introduce legally to slow Newcastle down.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

It was 2 from 3 of Etisalat, AAbar and Abu Dhabi Tourist....can't remember which 2 without looking up.

Yes and no about the 2015 change. It relates to UEFA FFP only and if it did apply by the time they get to UEFA competition there turnover would be significantly lower that, say, City (no CL money etc) and there would be no way they could get away with extreme sponsorship fees cos they get caught out on the 30% rule. But UEFA are introducing new rules so we'll have to wait and see.

The PL is a different beast of course and will be intersting to see what thay can introduce legally to slow Newcastle down.

Being discussed with the yank owners as we speak .

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

I think Tolmie’s confusion is based around the chatter that it would have been better for some reason if we’d accepted it as being a related party, I recall there were conversations in the FFP thread when the CAS shit was going on as to why it would have made it potentially easier.

Yep - this.

The argument was that if Etihad was a related party at outset it wouldn't have made any difference to us because the sponsorship was broadly accepted as fair value by UEFA. Additionaly there then wouldn't have been an issue with the allegation that ADUG funded Etihad before cleared at CAS.

 

[LongsightM13]

In the Guardian as well.
They incorrectly refer to the Etihad deal as a “related party”.
Useless.

“It is believed that they did so on the basis of legal advice that the process was unlawful. City, who are owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group, have had deals that are known as related party transactions. An example was the one that saw Etihad Airways, the Abu Dhabi government-owned carrier, sponsor them.”

Premier League clubs vote to block Newcastle sponsorship deals at emergency meeting

Premier League clubs voted through legislation designed to prevent the Saudi owners from striking lucrative sponsorship deals

www.theguardian.com

Submitted a complaint to their ‘Readers Editor’ but not holding my breath. Hytner knows exactly what he has written and why, he has been writing about this since 2011 so to pretend it is an innocent mistake is disingenuous in the extreme

2011: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....jul/12/arsenal-manchester-city-premier-league

2020: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ppeal-verdict-tottenham-liverpool-disgraceful

 

[remember arthur mann]

Think all concerned will do their utmost to get Newcastle relegated, this will give them time to conjure more rubbish up.

 

[City14]

I would say the Top Brass at City and Newcastle should sit down and work out a plan.

1. Aramco replace Etihad as our shirt sponsor and jack up our Shirt deal to not exceed but MATCH the biggest shirt deal currently on the Market.

2. Etihad: become the shirt sponsors of Newcastle at the rates currently City are on.

Win win and let the piss boil they can’t touch it and do any thing it just won’t be legal to pull those deals up. Not related parties….Lol

 

[feelymcfeel]

I would say the Top Brass at City and Newcastle should sit down and work out a plan.

1. Aramco replace Etihad as our shirt sponsor and jack up our Shirt deal to not exceed but MATCH the biggest shirt deal currently on the Market.

2. Etihad: become the shirt sponsors of Newcastle at the rates currently City are on.

Win win and let the piss boil they can’t touch it and do any thing it just won’t be legal to pull those deals up. Not related parties….Lol

Jesus Christ they'd be up in arms. It'd be brilliant.