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

I see we have another one

ABU DHABI, 6th January, 2022 (WAM) -- Manchester City today announced a new global partnership with Masdar, which will see the renewable energy and sustainable development company become an Official Partner of the Club
 
I see we have another one

ABU DHABI, 6th January, 2022 (WAM) -- Manchester City today announced a new global partnership with Masdar, which will see the renewable energy and sustainable development company become an Official Partner of the Club

That’s 2 in two days I did say when they brought this in we should get 100 sponsors under 1m :))
 
Be a sad day when the Etihad sponsorship finishes.

I can’t see why it would, possibly the kit but I can’t see the value for the stadium sponsor and campus having the same value for another company.

This is no conspiracy but it is known as the Etihad, if it became the Amazon Stadium it would still be known as the Etihad.

Think of the Emirates

I'd love for it to go back to something like the city of manchester stadium again, or just something without a sponsorship attached to it.
 

Masdar,(Arabic:مصدر‎), also known as the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company, is a UAE-government owned renewable energy company based in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Masdar is a subsidiary of Mubadala Development Company and was founded by the UAE government in 2006.
 
Last edited:
There’s certain things the club don’t or won’t do to improve our image, one of them is to get rid of Etihad and all the signage, get them off our kit, off our stadium name etc etc Etihad is pure toxic, it perpetuates the myth that the others cling to. I would rather we cut a less lucrative deal and juggle our books even if that means cutting a player or two, it’s now way past a joke. The Etihad deal is a millstone, my understanding is it’s about 10% of our total income and these days hardly represents a good deal.
I'm not sure I follow the logic of this. Firstly, why should the club have to improve our image to appease a bunch of mindless bigoted cretins who are ill informed about our owner/club at best and racist at worst? Secondly, why would removing the Etihad name change anything with regard to our image? The Etihad brand isn't toxic. This "myth that others cling to" - or as I prefer to put it, the bile that they spout - is based on far wider reaching issues than the name of an airline that sponsors us. You just need to listen to the recent rant by that idiot off QI to understand that. Does the Emirates brand make Arsenal toxic? The Russian government isn't exactly a paragon of virtue but is the association that Utd has with Aeroflot toxic? The answer to both is no ....and ask yourself why that is. If you think naming the stadium or having our shirt sponsored by British Airways will solve anything and get rid of this 'myth', think again....because it won't.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.