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

[bennyboy]

Is there any sponsorship that we currently have that will be affected by this nonsense.

 

[Seedy Ron]

All this pretty much sums up the mindset of the 'red' teams mentality ever since we came on the scene. Absolutely obsessed with stopping us and any other teams progressing to their level of earning power, status, social media bullshit, etc whilst not revamping their own obviously outdated business model.

The whole thing stinks of the inherent entitlement and arrogance of these clubs which is pretty much based on the glories of well over a decade ago. Since our first trophy after the takeover we have won 12 major honours (not including C Shield and shitty 'Super cups'), whereas The Rags have won 4, Liverpool 3 and Arsenal 4. All much lower than previous decades with the big loser being the rags who won 6 Premier League titles in the 10 years before this.

So what have they done to their own business model in that time? Pretty much fuck all apart from obssess about what others might do to their status and earnings.

Long may it continue because whatever the media might tell you these clubs are not or never were the grandfathers of football. Geriatric lords of crumbling manors whinging about noisy neighbours is much closer to the truth.

 

[Roy Munson]

A decent manager will come in shortly and by the May they’ll be mid table. In summer they’ll recruit Elano / Petrov equivalents and they’ll be in the running for top 6/7 and so on and so forth - by the end of this decade they’ll be regulars in the top 4. Of course they’ll pay massively over the odds for these players - so what ?

As for the relative merits of the two cities. Transport - blinged out super cars travel just as well on the A1 as the M56. High end houses are the same everywhere. Employment - who for ? Weather - to your average Latino 12°and pissin down in Mcr is just the same as 10° and pissin down in Newcastle

They only get a 3 year FFP 'grace' period, remember. If they're not bringing in significant commercial income after that, they'll be stuck. Just like Villa and Everton. You can guarantee that UEFA's next set of FFP regulations will be specifically designed to hinder them now 'oil money' clubs are a known quantity. They also have Premier League FFP to contend with. Huge investment in players is much more difficult now than 2008 - 2011.

As others have said, we sneaked in. Newcastle will find it much more difficult.

 

[chaddblue]

Is there any sponsorship that we currently have that will be affected by this nonsense.

Even if we have, doubt they can do anything about existing deals

If they can then Leicester had better think up a new name for their stadium pretty quickly

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

It's why I said they should only be sweating. However, depending on how far the Premier League want to cut the likes of Newcastle and City now off at the knees, there are significant alliances and commercial leverages to fight back with.

Disagree. They’re maybe a year behind where we were when the great Thaksin sold up. Assuming they stay up they’ll be pushing for the top 4 by 24/25 at the latest. I don’t buy the London theory, Manchester’s pretty similar to Newcastle,the same northern city it always was just with a few more twats living in town now. A Louis Vuitton doesn’t really change things much yet we’ve attracted the world’s best players and kept them here.

Top players want $$$ and a working environment conducive to success, if Newcastle provide that then money, as it always has in the past, will talk and they’ll be successful

The PL was established so that football could be "monetised" but also so that the lion's share of the cash would go to a few deserving (!) clubs. What happened was that the financial success of PL was so spectacular that it attracted the attention of the genuinely super rich but in the case first of Abramovitch and then of Sheikh Mansour both of whom alarmed the rest of the PL by showing that, for them, football was about glory not making money. And now the fear is that the Saudis share this heretical belief. So a body founded on the greed of the merely very rich wishes to neuter the desire of the super rich, who wish simply to play the game! As for the off field game City don't need to do anything about sponsorship deals but if they did I'm sure some Saudi companies might be prepared to change horses in Manchester while UAE companies sponsor Newcastle. Or we could leave it to Saudi firms to drag the PL and/or UEFA through the courts for anti-competitive practices in trying to dictate their policies on sponsorship.

As far as players not being prepared to go to Newcastle one of City's old boys - involved in recruitment after the takeover - said he never came across a single player who expressed the slightest reservation about coming to Manchester and he could see no reason why it would be different for Newcastle. After all, he said, Newcastle has an international airport if the want to get away for a few days.

 

[Bald fraud]

Toy’s chucked out the pram again

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'm not sure why related parties are an issue. They already are assessed for fair value, and scaled as appropriate (PSG had a huge sponsorship from Qatar tourism downgraded this way).

It's unrelated parties that are surely more of a problem. Company X may fancy getting some brownie points by sponsoring Newcastle at 100M/season - way in excess of market value, but as an unrelated party, it's down to what they want to pay.

I'd have thought the aim is to stop the second type.

Just going off the BBC article: "Block sponsorship linked to owners". Then again, the writing is vague. Up to DR usual standard.

But you are right. Source of sponsorship isn't really relevant. The value of it is. Which is why the whole idea is doomed to failure.

 

[domalino]

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

The first thing the 2 who voted against this should do is leak to a friendly journalist how much money Saudi Arabia have paid United over the last 16 years, and how much Arsenal have pocketed from Emirates - I believe that will be £450m by the end of 2023/24

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

Up in arms, you say? That's a great idea, I wonder if this could work?

BAE has made circa £80 Billion from selling arms to the Saudi's IIRC, I'm sure that much custom is worth a sponsorship or two?

 

[jrb]

Chelsea and Roman have quietly snook out the dodgy billionaire backdoor.

I think 2 CL wins gives them some credit with the Red Shirts, amongst other things like lineage.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Near the end of that BBC article, it states that ffp was brought in to stop clubs ‘spending beyond their means’. What I have never understood, and why we’ve never properly challenged it, is this:

If a club has a super rich owner, willing to pump hundreds of millions into their club, surely that means the club does have the means? So why is that falling foul of ffp?

Surely if a club is only sponsored by local companies and has about 500k a year income, then obviously they can’t spend millions on players. But if your owner is putting in £800 million a year, say, why can’t the club spend £800m a year on players if it chooses?

Genuine question, I just don’t get it.

What I’m assuming is you can only spend that much if it’s been coming from selling Cantona duvets and official noodle sponsors in the Far East, but not if your owner is worth £20bn?

You've obviously forgotten that FFP was introduced in the fans' interests. UEFA explained that it had hit City with a world record sporting fine (as distinct from the record fine for money laundering) in 2014 to protect the club from the consequences of Sheikh Mansour "walking away. We had fallen for the old ploy of explaining your plans in an open letter, expanding the stadium, building state of the art training facilities and campus and bringing some of the world's best players to the club and we didn't see that these were steps on the road to pulling out so the club would not have the resources to continue. Fortunately UEFA stopped short of really rubbing it in by showing us the way it should be done, in nearby Trafford: massive debt, holes in the roof of a crumbling stadium, no plan for the future and a declining squad so that the owners can't walk away. But basically it all boils down to commercial self-interest.