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

[halfcenturyup]

My reading is that's what they're going to use to formulate fair value. So Newcastle have five years of Mike Ashley sponsorships, how can they justify a big sponsorship now,?

We should be OK on that front, but it is bent as.

They will justify it on the basis that the comparable sponsorship is the Etihad deal, not any deal Aston Villa or Leeds have signed in the last five years.

One of the PL's own criteria to be used to determine FMV is "developments likely to affect the club's performance or fanbase in the future." Newcastle can argue this outweighs many of the other criteria based on the success of the Etihad deal.

It's going to get messy.

But not worried about City on this, other than that the PL seems to think they can dictate the terms of valid legal contracts between two parties, which may affect CFG in some way at a later date, with new rules on, for example, group-wide cost sharing. Would have been more sensible for the PL to just exclude any excess over FMV from the FFP calculations. Much less risky for them.

 

[Citizen Green]

This is why I was saying about our International group. They don’t know how to combat it.

In reality it can't be combated without clearly being a case of specifically targeting us & our owners business model. This would end up in a lengthy expensive court case that they can't win.

Regardless of that, the reality is that only us as a football club can enter into their competition and rules. The body that governs & owns our shares (ie CFG) is under no obligation to them.

 

[Keep the Faith]

Just thinking out out loud.
Seeing as some of our sponsorship deals are "global" and are therefore agreed with CFG as opposed to MCFC, and any monies into the MCFC coffers come via the CFG, could the PL be in a position to determine the %age of the global deal that they deem acceptable.
Basically should the group sign a global deal at £100 million a year would the PL be in a position to say only 15% is deemed fair and reasonable.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

I do not think City will be so naive to think that they are untouchable from this system, that can squeeze City from top to bottom, after all it was an independent investigation by UEFA that nearly got us banned over the meaning of a single word, the first time.We fight so our sponsors can decide for themselves how much or little they want to give, but also so we are never imprisoned in utds financial shadow

 

[KS55]

Just thinking out out loud.
Seeing as some of our sponsorship deals are "global" and are therefore agreed with CFG as opposed to MCFC, and any monies into the MCFC coffers come via the CFG, could the PL be in a position to determine the %age of the global deal that they deem acceptable.
Basically should the group sign a global deal at £100 million a year would the PL be in a position to say only 15% is deemed fair and reasonable.

I suspect the PL would have to consider just the amount that reaches our P&L. Question would be whether they considered CFG an associated party. Then CFG would sign a global deal as two contracts, one for us and one for the rest of the group, rather than just handing us our agreed share, i.e. the route might be important.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I suspect the PL would have to consider just the amount that reaches our P&L. Question would be whether they considered CFG an associated party. Then CFG would sign a global deal as two contracts, one for us and one for the rest of the group, rather than just handing us our agreed share, i.e. the route might be important.

That would be grossly unfair. For example at present CFG clubs are Champions in the USA and England. A joint deal might be very attractive to a sponsor which has big markets in the US and here. The whole point of City's global model is we can leverage bigger deals because we have a footprint all over the world. At the same time we can reduce our costs by sharing staffing and service costs etc etc.
This is the way all successful international corporations operate. There is nothing to stop any other football club owners from using a similar business model. It is fundamentally wrong that any of our commercial rivals should have a say in how we allocate our sponsorship revenues. This is just the latest in a long line of corrupt moves to try and undermine our football club and, as usual, it is being led by the usual suspects.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

My reading is that's what they're going to use to formulate fair value. So Newcastle have five years of Mike Ashley sponsorships, how can they justify a big sponsorship now,?

We should be OK on that front, but it is bent as.

If they go back five years then it is well within rights to question the validity of the money United accrued from the Chevrolet shirt sponsorship deal, as it emerged later that the person who signed off on it was sacked for the ridiculous inflatory nature of it.

I would like to hear United's justification for a team that hasn't won a domestic league title since 2013.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Here's a thought. Newcastle get relegated, so what's the point of all this?

Looks like the PL are working on it as we speak.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Be interesting to see how it impacts Leicester?

Shirts and stadium sponsored by their owners' company King Power.

 

[dadnlad]

Be interesting to see how it impacts Leicester?

Shirts and stadium sponsored by their owners' company King Power.

be fine as long as drop out of top four race at end of season
it's called knowing your place