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

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Isn't it funny, we get bought by a guy willing to put insane money into the club and then FFp comes along.

I'm sure he would have spent another 500m if it wasn't for this stupid rule

I doubt it. He bought City to MAKE money in the medium to long term.
He will get bitten by the bug as will his children and other family members but he will still make money and will be taking £200m a year out of City within 10 years, I don't care though because City will still be able to compete.

You obviously know nothing about the motivations he had in buying the club

To make us MASSIVE ?

 

[squirtyflower]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I doubt it. He bought City to MAKE money in the medium to long term.
He will get bitten by the bug as will his children and other family members but he will still make money and will be taking £200m a year out of City within 10 years, I don't care though because City will still be able to compete.

You obviously know nothing about the motivations he had in buying the club

To make us MASSIVE ?

We are already MASSIVE

 

[Ducado]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I doubt it. He bought City to MAKE money in the medium to long term.
He will get bitten by the bug as will his children and other family members but he will still make money and will be taking £200m a year out of City within 10 years, I don't care though because City will still be able to compete.

You obviously know nothing about the motivations he had in buying the club

To make us MASSIVE ?

Don't say that word it sets the alarm off in the Mod room

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Isn't it funny, we get bought by a guy willing to put insane money into the club and then FFp comes along.

I'm sure he would have spent another 500m if it wasn't for this stupid rule

I doubt it. He bought City to MAKE money in the medium to long term.
He will get bitten by the bug as will his children and other family members but he will still make money and will be taking £200m a year out of City within 10 years, I don't care though because City will still be able to compete.

Sheikh Mansour is worth 19 billion or so personally and has yearly income worth a lot more than 200m, why would it be in his interests to damage his flagship operation (the one that's run for prestige performances only) just to withdraw money he doesn't really need?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

You obviously know nothing about the motivations he had in buying the club

To make us MASSIVE ?

We are already MASSIVE

We always were :-)

 

[Anonymous]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

City argue that the Etihad deal represents fair value

Well IF that is true, and it is a big fat IF, it means they are challenging the international accounting standards definition of what constitutes a related-party, which considering they have basically copy and pasted the same definition in their rules, puts them up shit creek from a legal standpoint.

I'm not sure that's quite right mate. Reading the previous posts I think it is that they are challenging the value of the deal rather than whether or not it is a related party.

Either way UEFA are on dodgy ground. Shirt front sponsorship, stadium naming rights and campus naming rights at an alleged £40m p.a. represents a significant undervalue in my opinion when you consider:

* Arsenal get £30m p.a. for shirt and stadium and no training facilities.
* Rags get c £35m p.a. for shirt and training facilities
* Rags to get £51m p.a from new Chevrolet shirt deal alone
* Rags get £23.5m p.a. from Nike for kit supply
* Liverpool get £50m p.a from Warrior for kit supply (£25m p.a in year one expected to double due to Adidas imposed restrictions in year one)
* Liverpool get £20m p.a. for shirt sponsorship
* Chelsea get £18m per season for shirt sponsorship
* Chelsea get £30m p.a from Adidas for kit supply

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

City argue that the Etihad deal represents fair value

Well IF that is true, and it is a big fat IF, it means they are challenging the international accounting standards definition of what constitutes a related-party, which considering they have basically copy and pasted the same definition in their rules, puts them up shit creek from a legal standpoint.

I'm not sure that's quite right mate. Reading the previous posts I think it is that they are challenging the value of the deal rather than whether or not it is a related party.

Either way UEFA are on dodgy ground. Shirt front sponsorship, stadium naming rights and campus naming rights at an alleged £40m p.a. represents a significant undervalue in my opinion when you consider:

* Arsenal get £30m p.a. for shirt and stadium and no training facilities.
* Rags get c £35m p.a. for shirt and training facilities
* Rags to get £51m p.a from new Chevrolet shirt deal alone
* s get £23.5m p.a. from Nike for kit supply
* pool get £50m p.a from Warrior for kit supply25m p.a in year one expected to double due to Adidas imposed restrictions in year one)
* Liverpool get £20m p.a. for shirt sponsorship
* Chelsea get £18m per season for shirt sponsorship
* Chelsea get £30m p.a from Adidas for kit supply

These aren't relevant to any discussion about the Etihad deal as they're about Jersey Sales and not Media Exposure.

 

[gh_mcfc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

City argue that the Etihad deal represents fair value

Well IF that is true, and it is a big fat IF, it means they are challenging the international accounting standards definition of what constitutes a related-party, which considering they have basically copy and pasted the same definition in their rules, puts them up shit creek from a legal standpoint.

I'm not sure that's quite right mate. Reading the previous posts I think it is that they are challenging the value of the deal rather than whether or not it is a related party.

Either way UEFA are on dodgy ground. Shirt front sponsorship, stadium naming rights and campus naming rights at an alleged £40m p.a. represents a significant undervalue in my opinion when you consider:

* Arsenal get £30m p.a. for shirt and stadium and no training facilities.
* Rags get c £35m p.a. for shirt and training facilities
* Rags to get £51m p.a from new Chevrolet shirt deal alone
* Rags get £23.5m p.a. from Nike for kit supply
* Liverpool get £50m p.a from Warrior for kit supply (£25m p.a in year one expected to double due to Adidas imposed restrictions in year one)
* Liverpool get £20m p.a. for shirt sponsorship
* Chelsea get £18m per season for shirt sponsorship
* Chelsea get £30m p.a from Adidas for kit supply

They can only challenge the value if they deem it related party.

 

[supercity88]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

He will make money from us because our global appeal will increase and with it will the companies associated with us. Etihad, Abu Dhabi and any other companies that choose or should I say are chosen, by him to work in partnership with us.

 

[SWP's back]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Well IF that is true, and it is a big fat IF, it means they are challenging the international accounting standards definition of what constitutes a related-party, which considering they have basically copy and pasted the same definition in their rules, puts them up shit creek from a legal standpoint.

I'm not sure that's quite right mate. Reading the previous posts I think it is that they are challenging the value of the deal rather than whether or not it is a related party.

Either way UEFA are on dodgy ground. Shirt front sponsorship, stadium naming rights and campus naming rights at an alleged £40m p.a. represents a significant undervalue in my opinion when you consider:

* Arsenal get £30m p.a. for shirt and stadium and no training facilities.
* Rags get c £35m p.a. for shirt and training facilities
* Rags to get £51m p.a from new Chevrolet shirt deal alone
* Rags get £23.5m p.a. from Nike for kit supply
* Liverpool get £50m p.a from Warrior for kit supply (£25m p.a in year one expected to double due to Adidas imposed restrictions in year one)
* Liverpool get £20m p.a. for shirt sponsorship
* Chelsea get £18m per season for shirt sponsorship
* Chelsea get £30m p.a from Adidas for kit supply

They can only challenge the value if they deem it related party.

This