Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Those companies were Etisalat & Aabar. Mubadala has never directly sponsored City. Also we disputed UEFA's view but voluntarily agreed not to increase those sponsorships.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Etihad Campus, Stadium and Collar Site Development Thread
- Thread starter Danamy
- Start date
Maybe some investment will come to Manchester but it has nothing to do with City.
I know that. Apart from Sheikh Mansour owning City. And Khaldoon being City’s CEO. And both being on the board of Directors of Mubadala. Hence why I posted it.
Either way, every link to Manchester City, no matter how tenuous, cements Abu Dhabi’s link with the club and Manchester. Hopefully some of that investment will come to Manchester?
Last edited:
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
"Commercial partners" is the phrase and all three are, with Etihad being our "major"Those companies were Etisalat & Aabar. Mubadala has never directly sponsored City. Also we disputed UEFA's view but voluntarily agreed not to increase those sponsorships.
If Mubadala did become our major partner they can sponsor for whatever they want, but UEFA may disallow some for "fair market value" Didn't they do that with the PSG Qatar tourism deal?
Looking at the rags latest announcement £50M a year is the new starting point, however, I think the club would be looking for non Abu Dhabi partner to replace Etihad
You will be able to stand while watching Messi walk around the pitch, happy days Marvin!Providing they reduce ticket prices otherwise no change. They already stand there.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
I welcome any inward investment which creates jobs, especially if it comes to the North West. A large chunk of Manchester wouldn't exist without overseas investment. It's nothing to do with being advocates for the super-wealthy but if we are talking about the super-rich I prefer the ones who invest in sustainable business to the ones who just stash all their money in the Cayman Islands to avoid tax.Only if you tie Mubadala into MCFC and ultimately the wealth of Abu Dhabi largely does relate to natural resources. This is recycling wealth.
UK used to be known as King Coal and exploited North Sea oil to the max plus plundered most of the Middle-East oilfields for themselves so they should keep quiet on this subject.
I don't see why manchester football fans should become cheer leaders for middle-east investment funds. Stick to supporting City rather than cheerleading royals.
If you read through the last few comments any outside observer would be completely convinced that Manchester City fans are being sportswashed because they have become advocates for the superwealthy in a really slavish manner.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
Yes it was Aabar doh!Those companies were Etisalat & Aabar. Mubadala has never directly sponsored City. Also we disputed UEFA's view but voluntarily agreed not to increase those sponsorships.
I'm guessing that UEFA would look at Munadala as a related party with HH and KAM being on the board
blueloon
Well-Known Member
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-Play-rules-allow-clubs-control-finances.html ?
The next main sponsor is important or our club. The owners will surely prefer to continue to have an Abu Dhabi brand on the Manchester City shirt. Remember there investment in the club was partly about promoting there state to the wider world. I guess it's a case of seeing where we are in the summer, but it should be reasonably close to what United and Liverpool are getting from there main sponsors.
The next main sponsor is important or our club. The owners will surely prefer to continue to have an Abu Dhabi brand on the Manchester City shirt. Remember there investment in the club was partly about promoting there state to the wider world. I guess it's a case of seeing where we are in the summer, but it should be reasonably close to what United and Liverpool are getting from there main sponsors.
Last edited:
JGL07
Well-Known Member
I don’t see any price reduction for safe standing over seating. The capacity will not be affected unless there is a change in regulations.Providing they reduce ticket prices otherwise no change. They already stand there.
Why would the club spend millions to provide rail seating to accommodate the same number if this was going to lead to a reduction in revenue?
Centurions
Well-Known Member
There'd have to be a change in regulations to enable safe standing in the first place, there's no reason that the 3 in 2 seats limit couldn't be applied as well. I found it interesting that City say they're 'bespoke' rail seats, makes me wonder what exactly they entail.I don’t see any price reduction for safe standing over seating. The capacity will not be affected unless there is a change in regulations.
Why would the club spend millions to provide rail seating to accommodate the same number if this was going to lead to a reduction in revenue?
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
I'd charge them more, awkward beggars.I don’t see any price reduction for safe standing over seating. The capacity will not be affected unless there is a change in regulations.
Why would the club spend millions to provide rail seating to accommodate the same number if this was going to lead to a reduction in revenue?