jrb said:Wait a minute!
The rumour.
Etihad sponsorship deal. £400mill over 10 years. £40mill a year. Stadium, shirt, campus.
Public outcry/uproar. Everyone, especially Platini, Jean-Luc Dehaene, and UEFA want it investigated because........
This is the gem.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but........... Or is it just me?
Of course nothing will be said, apart from what another great business/sponsorship deal the Glazer's and Manchester United have pulled off.
Ric said:Petrovs left peg said:Ric said:Interesting article from Mark Ogden in The Telegraph about how City will benefit from the deal United have announced:
<a class="postlink" href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/markogden/100026329/how-manchester-city-can-be-the-big-winners-from-manchester-uniteds-180m-aon-deal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mark ... -aon-deal/</a>
"Bluemoon Forum sponsored by Etihad"
Fancy it??
They'd have to buy us out of the existing deal we have with "Botox Mom".
petrusha said:jrb said:Wait a minute!
The rumour.
Etihad sponsorship deal. £400mill over 10 years. £40mill a year. Stadium, shirt, campus.
Public outcry/uproar. Everyone, especially Platini, Jean-Luc Dehaene, and UEFA want it investigated because........
This is the gem.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but........... Or is it just me?
Of course nothing will be said, apart from what another great business/sponsorship deal the Glazer's and Manchester United have pulled off.
Yes, you're missing something.
UEFA's FFP regulations state that related party transactions are subjected to scrutiny and if they're not for a 'fair value' then such a fair value will be substituted for the actual value. In essence, a related party transaction is one where the parties have a particular relationship that allows one of them to exercise influence over the other or the same person to influence them both. (That's a bit simplistic but I hope it's understandable).
City's deal with Etihad doesn't count as a 'related party' transaction according to our auditors, who have to make this assessment under an international accounting standards. However, because City's owner is a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi and a government minister and because the sponsor is a company owned by the Abu Dhabi government, we have to accept that people will ask questions. In other words, there'll be a suspicion that we've used a state-owned Abu Dhabi company to circumvent the FFP regulations.
Now, as it happens, if our auditors are competent (and I assume they are) we should have a sound explanation as to why MCFC and Etihad aren't related parties. And I suspect that the deal has been structured with a view to justifying the price of the deal as being a commercial rate even if they were related parties.
However, I think if you take a step back and remove the blue-tinted glasses you can see why there were questions. United, on the other hand, have done a deal with a party that can no way in a million years be regarded as a related party so no one is going to call for it to be investigated as a possible breach of the rules. Whether we like it or not, they're hugely attractive in global terms to major sponsors and they've capitalised on it.
I think we're justified in being a bit pissed off with the reaction to PSG's deal, though. That seems like an absolute pisstake to me, and unless I've missed a lot of uproar, doesn't seem to have attracted the opprobrium our much more reasonable deal did.
petrusha said:jrb said:Wait a minute!
The rumour.
Etihad sponsorship deal. £400mill over 10 years. £40mill a year. Stadium, shirt, campus.
Public outcry/uproar. Everyone, especially Platini, Jean-Luc Dehaene, and UEFA want it investigated because........
This is the gem.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but........... Or is it just me?
Of course nothing will be said, apart from what another great business/sponsorship deal the Glazer's and Manchester United have pulled off.
Yes, you're missing something.
UEFA's FFP regulations state that related party transactions are subjected to scrutiny and if they're not for a 'fair value' then such a fair value will be substituted for the actual value. In essence, a related party transaction is one where the parties have a particular relationship that allows one of them to exercise influence over the other or the same person to influence them both. (That's a bit simplistic but I hope it's understandable).
City's deal with Etihad doesn't count as a 'related party' transaction according to our auditors, who have to make this assessment under an international accounting standards. However, because City's owner is a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi and a government minister and because the sponsor is a company owned by the Abu Dhabi government, we have to accept that people will ask questions. In other words, there'll be a suspicion that we've used a state-owned Abu Dhabi company to circumvent the FFP regulations.
Now, as it happens, if our auditors are competent (and I assume they are) we should have a sound explanation as to why MCFC and Etihad aren't related parties. And I suspect that the deal has been structured with a view to justifying the price of the deal as being a commercial rate even if they were related parties.
However, I think if you take a step back and remove the blue-tinted glasses you can see why there were questions. United, on the other hand, have done a deal with a party that can no way in a million years be regarded as a related party so no one is going to call for it to be investigated as a possible breach of the rules. Whether we like it or not, they're hugely attractive in global terms to major sponsors and they've capitalised on it.
I think we're justified in being a bit pissed off with the reaction to PSG's deal, though. That seems like an absolute pisstake to me, and unless I've missed a lot of uproar, doesn't seem to have attracted the opprobrium our much more reasonable deal did.