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

tolmie's hairdoo said:
Not what was stated and shared on here at the time of tribunal? I recall us accepting Etihad as a related party for a particular reason.
Click to expand...

Stage 1 was the UEFA settlement in 2014.
PWC went after all the Abu Dhabi sponsorships, used an independent firm to assess "fair value" and said they were "related" companies. Using there own research Etihad was more or less deemed to be fair value so not a problem. It was a problem with 3 other sponsors where "fair value" wasn't met.

City told them to fuck off anyway and Etiahad and the rest have been treated as non related ever since but we had to cap the sponsorship fees on a couple whilest under the settlement regime.

Stage 2 UEFA knew they didn't have a leg to stand-on if it went to court but didn't like (or rather G14 didn't like) we had exposed a weakness in their own rules. So the rules were changed in 2015 and our sponsorship from Abu Dhabi companies has been capped at 30% of income. If exceeded they are treated as related and subject to fair value.



FFP sponsor.jpg
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
I believe that 1 club is more equal than the rest. Us.
We are light years ahead of them all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps on the way we conduct our business, yet we still felt no option but to run up the same flag pole as the rest of the Super League teams.

The fact we were invited so late to the party tells you we are a long way from being a driver, the established order will continue to attempt to thwart our progression on and off the pitch.
 
remember arthur mann said:
Morals of an alley cat, and these bastads take the high ground FFS !
Click to expand...
Perhaps Newcastle could be persuaded to use some of their wealth to employ a campaign manager, PR company, a top class lobbyist and relevant charities etc to swing the government towards banning all advertising, sponsorship and any funds that are derived from betting. Or at least demonstrate to the 18 that they would do it.
 
Just had a look on scum website, Saudi telecom not listed on their list of sponsors. Thats on their official website, strange if they are sponsoring them 10 big ones plus you’d think it’d been on there.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Stage 1 was the UEFA settlement in 2014.
PWC went after all the Abu Dhabi sponsorships, used an independent firm to assess "fair value" and said they were "related" companies. Using there own research Etihad was more or less deemed to be fair value so not a problem. It was a problem with 3 other sponsors where "fair value" wasn't met.

City told them to fuck off anyway and Etiahad and the rest have been treated as non related ever since but we had to cap the sponsorship fees on a couple whilest under the settlement regime.

Stage 2 UEFA knew they didn't have a leg to stand-on if it went to court but didn't like (or rather G14 didn't like) we had exposed a weakness in their own rules. So the rules were changed in 2015 and our sponsorship from Abu Dhabi companies has been capped at 30% of income. If exceeded they are treated as related and subject to fair value.



View attachment 28236
Click to expand...

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

Newcastle would be well within their rights to cite the 2015 change made by Uefa.
 
Holcombe bloo said:
Just had a look on scum website, Saudi telecom not listed on their list of sponsors. Thats on their official website, strange if they are sponsoring them 10 big ones plus you’d think it’d been on there.
Click to expand...

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

www.manutd.com

Reds agree Saudi Arabia partnership

United to help the GSA develop its football industry, as part of its 2030 Vision.
www.manutd.com www.manutd.com
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Perhaps on the way we conduct our business, yet we still felt no option but to run up the same flag pole as the rest of the Super League teams.

The fact we were invited so late to the party tells you we are a long way from being a driver, the established order will continue to attempt to thwart our progression on and off the pitch.
Click to expand...

Yep we were taken by surprise when Perez and all dropped the ESL bombshell.
Inconceivable that we weren't aware or party to earlier discussions about the ESL. I'd suggest we were in general agreement as well but for some future date AND with Premier League protection.

We work with the fuckers when it suits us. Remember that just before the ESL announcement weekend the "big clubs" including us were holding back from agreeing the new CL proposals. The "big clubs" were actively pushing UEFA for a bigger share of CL revenue and more control in terms of how the commercial deals are set up. Woodward and Soriano were the ECA reps and were directly pushing for this with the ECA members.
 
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
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Thanks - I recall the Etisalat one being 'pruned'?

Newcastle would be well within their rights to cite the 2015 change made by Uefa.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
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.
Click to expand...

Being discussed with the yank owners as we speak .
 
Rammy Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
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.”

www.theguardian.com

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 www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
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
 
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
 
City14 said:
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
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ they'd be up in arms. It'd be brilliant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top