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

Cityfan1977 said:
Ok if thats true then I dont understand what we are doing. We are asking for more investigations ...
Click to expand...
How do you figure that? All I can see is a (probably) small sponsorship by a Hong Kong based company that runs a very prestigious hotel in Abu Dhabi. The land and the building itself may be owned by the government but the deal will be with the company. Do you honestly believe we are doing something wrong and shouldn't touch any deal from the Middle East just because someone may not like it?
 
Centurions said:
How do you figure that? All I can see is a (probably) small sponsorship by a Hong Kong based company that runs a very prestigious hotel in Abu Dhabi. The land and the building itself may be owned by the government but the deal will be with the company. Do you honestly believe we are doing something wrong and shouldn't touch any deal from the Middle East just because someone may not like it?
Click to expand...
No I not think we are doing any thing wrong, I just want the noise to go away I am tired of all the cheating finger pointing. But I read the CAS verdict I know we are not guilty I am just so so tired
 
I'm guessing that with this hotel partnership that the figures involved for City will not be hugely significant in terms of income. This is turn leads me to believe that it would have to be legit because logically why would City take the risk of being involved with a 'related party' over such a minor income source? Are we realistically arguing there isn't another luxury hotel or chain out there that would be interested in sponsoring us? Of course not.
 
jimbopm said:
I'm guessing that with this hotel partnership that the figures involved for City will not be hugely significant in terms of income. This is turn leads me to believe that it would have to be legit because logically why would City take the risk of being involved with a 'related party' over such a minor income source? Are we realistically arguing there isn't another luxury hotel or chain out there that would be interested in sponsoring us? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t it be legit?
 
Cityfan1977 said:
No I not think we are doing any thing wrong, I just want the noise to go away I am tired of all the cheating finger pointing. But I read the CAS verdict I know we are not guilty I am just so so tired
Click to expand...
It will never go away, so learn to switch off the noise, or stop reading the blogs, news, bluemoon. Best way to stop a finger being pointed at you is to break it. Hopefully the ICU beds will be full of FFP deniers soon...
 
jimbopm said:
I'm guessing that with this hotel partnership that the figures involved for City will not be hugely significant in terms of income. This is turn leads me to believe that it would have to be legit because logically why would City take the risk of being involved with a 'related party' over such a minor income source? Are we realistically arguing there isn't another luxury hotel or chain out there that would be interested in sponsoring us? Of course not.
Click to expand...
But it's the one that we already use and I guess plan on using again
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Because of UEFA and the PL. They decide the rules.

He's right, anything deemed related party is poison, the truth doesnt matter, except when it comes to a law court.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure our execs know what they are doing in this respect. The hateful 8, the PL, uefa have all thrown all their weight at us and found fuck all
 
JGL07 said:
Sorry to disagree about Chinny Hill. I lived in Coventry when he was in charge of the club. He ‘converted’ Highfield Road into an all seater stadium by cordoning off the Kop standing area. He also stated that to crack down on hooliganism, that fans had to buy tickets several days in advance of the match or else be charged three times the price.

He seemed to think that no football hooligan would buy advance tickets or pay over the odds? Very weird thinking.

I would agree that in his earlier spell as manager, he did come up with some progressive ideas including reintroducing the sky blue shirts. However as Chairman he had lost the plot.
Click to expand...
Cost me 12.5 grand the bastard. Mrs Bozzie used to sit there with a face like a slapped arse every Sunday morning when 'Jimmy Hill's Sunday Supplement' was on. Got to the point where we had a conservatory built so that she didn't have to watch him, next minute he's sacked and replaced by Brian Woolnough! We still call it 'The Jimmy Hill Conservatory' to this day.
 
citizen_maine said:
Related party sponsorships are perfectly legal under FFP. They're just subject to a fair value test
Click to expand...
Agree. And ours will be fine. It stops Newcastle throwing in a load in the championship as it can't be justified. As serial winners of the pl and CL finalists why should we not have the biggest sponsorships.
 
Centurions said:
How do you figure that? All I can see is a (probably) small sponsorship by a Hong Kong based company that runs a very prestigious hotel in Abu Dhabi. The land and the building itself may be owned by the government but the deal will be with the company. Do you honestly believe we are doing something wrong and shouldn't touch any deal from the Middle East just because someone may not like it?
Click to expand...
That's my understanding about the hotel and the sponsorship. I originally thought Mandarin Group owned it but it's clear that they operate the hotel on behalf of the owners.

What we don't really know is the exact commercial/legal relationship between Mandarin & EPCO, the Abu Dhabi company that appears to own the hotel. Are they just the owners of the building, receiving rental or lease income? Or are they part of a joint venture, sharing management and profits?

At the end of the day, assuming it's >£1m the PL will need to decide if it's (a) an associated party and (b) if so (which isn't a given by any means) whether it's fair value.

Even if they decide that it's associated but fair value, I doubt the usual cretins down the M62, Stretford or North London, will accept it.
 
Last edited:
citizen_maine said:
Related party sponsorships are perfectly legal under FFP. They're just subject to a fair value test
Click to expand...
Citizen M. Spot on and I would like to believe that this has been carefully thought out (unlike the last clock up with the withdrawal from the club after 48 hours). And is firstly, a fuck you to the prem and secondly a litmus test for deals under the new rules for the club.
Every club chases dollars and every club has associations that others see as dodgy. Liverpool and Tibetan water anyone.
As posters have already written our standing and attractiveness has never been higher.
 
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.
 
Jam Tomorrow said:
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.
Click to expand...
And I'd rather you weren't in charge of our finances. Fortunately your not
 
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