Rösler von Stretfordbömber
Well-Known Member
Re: Etihad Campus, Stadium Development and Collar Site (cont
I think it would almost certainly work out something like this. Interesting work for the attorneys and accountants. City could probably argue even a higher percentage of allocation to Manchester City vis-a-vis Melbourne and NYCFC based on relative club profile and valuations.
Of course Forbes and the like do assign valuations to all major sports clubs. You could start with something like that as far as formulating the argument.
fbloke said:ManCityX said:stony said:I'd be very surprised if a sponsorship deal that includes NYFC and MFC will be allowed to pass ffp. No other clubs have these sorts of deals so they will kick up a fuss. Then they will have to sort out what percentage of the deal can be attributed to Manchester City and what for NY and Melbourne. I can see a lot of problems on the horizon for the ffp rules.
Sorry, read it as CFA since this is a thread about the campus.
It will be very interesting to see how they assign/apportion revenues from global partnerships.
If you think back to the original FFP rules about revenues being included as long as they are derived from the clubs name then there is an argument that using City, City's colours etc means ALL revenues should be allowed, although I dont think the CFG will push for that.
But of a global partner pays £100m over 5 years across the whole CFG then surely £80m could be assigned to MCFC?
If the same sponsor were to partner just MCFC would it be worth the same?
Interesting times ahead ;-)
I think it would almost certainly work out something like this. Interesting work for the attorneys and accountants. City could probably argue even a higher percentage of allocation to Manchester City vis-a-vis Melbourne and NYCFC based on relative club profile and valuations.
Of course Forbes and the like do assign valuations to all major sports clubs. You could start with something like that as far as formulating the argument.