City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

Barcelona are looking for 120M Euros for their next sponsorship deal from Spotify, not sure if this is just the shirt or shirt/ stadium etc. RM currently get 70M Euros just for the shirt, PSG about the same. It would not be too far a stretch for the new Ethiad deal for Campus, Womens team, mens team and the stadium to be North of £100M as a starting point before the annual percentage increases that could be potentailly pegged to historical wage/ player inflation
 
Is there any reason to doubt the Dail Mail comment that it is "understood that barriers to the Etihad deal have now been removed and that City are confident that they will not be treated differently to any other top-flight club going forward."
 
Marvin. said:
Is there any reason to doubt the Dail Mail comment that it is "understood that barriers to the Etihad deal have now been removed and that City are confident that they will not be treated differently to any other top-flight club going forward."
Click to expand...

Of course not, it’s the Daily Mail/Fail/United/Liverpool/Etc.

There’s absolutely no reason not to doubt that.
 
jrb said:
Am I right?

Nobody bar the people involved in negotiating the Etihad sponsorship deal know how much the Etihad sponsorship deal is worth, so any figures banded about on here or else where are just pure speculation and nothing else.
Click to expand...
I KNOW it is the biggest sponsorship in British sport. And I KNOW the approximate annual base and I KNOW the details in the APT1 decision which is unfortunately part redacted. And I KNOW the general structure of such deals and we also know what the 2013 agreement looked like because it was leaked in full (and I paid for Nick Harris' substack to download it and read it.

So not pure speculation.
 
slbsn said:
We don't know but it can mount up quickly because of compounding - could be £200m over 10 years easily). Also it doesnt work like that. They don't compare with what they allowed 10 years ago - they look at current FMV.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I didn't word the question very well. I meant the PL turned down the new sponsorship deal because they said it wasn't fmv. They must have had a figure they would have accepted as fmv? I'm just wondering what the financial difference between that figure and what the new sponsorship will be? I mentioned 10 years because it's been said the new Etihad sponsorship would be over that length of time, I wasn't referring to the old deal. My bad for wording it poorly.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The BBC article is totally distorted.
Click to expand...

Roan has given his 'analysis':
"BBC Sport has been told that it (the Etihad deal) would still be subjected to a fair market value assessment by the Premier League board."

But I wonder who told them this, given that in the same article they said:
"Neither the Premier League nor the club will be making any further comment about the matter," a joint statement said.

There's obviously at least one quisling in the PL!
 
The Stockport Iniesta said:
Perhaps I didn't word the question very well. I meant the PL turned down the new sponsorship deal because they said it wasn't fmv. They must have had a figure they would have accepted as fmv? I'm just wondering what the financial difference between that figure and what the new sponsorship will be? I mentioned 10 years because it's been said the new Etihad sponsorship would be over that length of time, I wasn't referring to the old deal. My bad for wording it poorly.
Click to expand...
We don't know the difference. Suspect between 2 and 3% compounded annually. Which mounts up. For example could well imagine RPI would be fine, 4% probably fine, 5% maybe fine, 6% could be fine, 7% looks above FMV, 8% too high.
 
slbsn said:
City didn't say 23371 officially at least. Don't know what Chinese company you mean but City never mentioned one in the APT hearing. Etihad sponsorship exceed Emirates by a lot. The test is not domicile - it is whether they are Associated. In fairness, Infinite Athlete was an APT for Chelsea and had to have FMV approval too.

And there is no blocking. If the deal is rejected, the party is told what level would be accepted as FMV (as with First AD Bank).
Click to expand...
I think the point alluded to there was that the original Etihad stadium deal was something very similar in value to the Emirates deal, around £2 million or so difference.

I only remember because it was discussed at the time that Arsenal, or somebody related to them (can't remember the exact details), was suggesting something about our stadium deal being potentially corrupt (in relation to the 115) and it was pointed out at the time that there was very little difference between our deal and theirs, so if ours was corrupt then...
 
chiswick blue said:
Barcelona are looking for 120M Euros for their next sponsorship deal from Spotify, not sure if this is just the shirt or shirt/ stadium etc. RM currently get 70M Euros just for the shirt, PSG about the same. It would not be too far a stretch for the new Ethiad deal for Campus, Womens team, mens team and the stadium to be North of £100M as a starting point before the annual percentage increases that could be potentailly pegged to historical wage/ player inflation
Click to expand...
It is
 
coolcity said:
I think the point alluded to there was that the original Etihad stadium deal was something very similar in value to the Emirates deal, around £2 million or so difference.

I only remember because it was discussed at the time that Arsenal, or somebody related to them (can't remember the exact details), was suggesting something about our stadium deal being potentially corrupt (in relation to the 115) and it was pointed out at the time that there was very little difference between our deal and theirs, so if ours was corrupt then...
Click to expand...
Well by 2013 it was already far higher.
 
homerdog said:
Roan has given his 'analysis':
"BBC Sport has been told that it (the Etihad deal) would still be subjected to a fair market value assessment by the Premier League board."

But I wonder who told them this, given that in the same article they said:
"Neither the Premier League nor the club will be making any further comment about the matter," a joint statement said.

There's obviously at least one quisling in the PL!
Click to expand...
It's journalism, which means they're probably just making it up as they go.
 
slbsn said:
What is the suggestion here? The methodology of assessing FMV is extensively set out in the rules. So what is this suggestion?
Click to expand...
My question is How are the benchmarks selected and by whom? In our case it was a PL non exec director burning the midnight oil, which is questionable practice.
Keith Moon suggests that the FMV tool has been modified.
The PL seem to shift position all the time, see the hotel deal.
 
slbsn said:
No deals were blocked. Etihad was outstanding (obviously approved at some level for 24 and 25 and now seemingly for the rest of the 10 years), AD First Bank slightly adjusted and the hotel deal approved. And the first bit was not established by City in APT1.
Click to expand...
From APT1: "The Premier League's decision in relation to two City transactions in 2023, with First Abu Dhabi Bank and Etihad Aviation group, were "reached in a procedurally unfair manner" and must be overturned, the panel ruled." Shouldn't this mean that the FADB deal is also fine now?
 
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