Etihad deal undervalued - good article

[Paladin]

I've just had my attention drawn to this article http://www.sportingintelligence.com...n-be-an-undervaluation-of-their-worth-220802/ via Newsnow. It basically shows how the Etihad deal can be seen as good value and should stop the bleating of jealous rivals such as Arsenal and Liverpool.

 

[cibaman]

Anyone else think that United's £40m training kit sponsorship might also help our case?

 

[Blue Haze]

Anyone else think that United's £40m training kit sponsorship might also help our case?

As soon as I heard that, I thought we should have a £40m training kit from Ferrostaal.

Thanks to ManU we can get closer to FFP.

 

[spacecadet]

agree - thought the vermin did us a big favour too

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Just shows what the FFP regs are all about - a Johnny Foreigner effort to maintain the status quo of the last ten years with the collusion of those who have been in receipt of CL millions. Has anyone a shred of evidence that would show that MANUre, CFC, The Arse or The Dippers ever showed an ounce of concern about the possible financial melt-down of English football the whole while they were laughing all the way to Barclays?

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

I'm hoping for a renegotiation if/when we win the PL/CL

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

I didn't hear anyone at the bin dippers,Bayern or Arsenal complaining at the rags latest deal. Come on City,can't wait for Mr Platini (or his cronies) to question our fair market value..Cheers rags-helping us along the way..

MMMMM-Wonder where we can get our next bit of sponsorship from.

One rule for one etc etc.........!

 

[nmc]

Anyone else think that United's £40m training kit sponsorship might also help our case?

I noticed how the producer at last nights Sky game following his instructions to the letter - spent a significant amount of time focussing on the Rags bench - with all the coaches decked out in sweatshirts with DHL logo's on them. Ordinarily there is no value in sponsoring training kit - simply because it has no profile - but given the media attention the Rags command - never a day goes by without a Rag related story (however trivial) - they could probably get their training kit on national TV on a daily basis if they choose. There is no other team in the UK who can replicte this.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The fact that DHL sponsored their training kit for £10m a year has no bearing on any other deal as it isn't a related party transaction and therefore won't need to be declared in the accounts they submit to the Licensing Panel.

The argument is about whether the Etihad deal is a related-party transaction and, if City and their advisors say it isn't (which it doesn't appear to be), then Etihad can pay us what they want and UEFA have no comeback.

 

[Project]

Even if it was a related party, then we can quite easily add another £10m a year by also sponsoring our training gear... perhaps by Aarbar or Ferrostaal. The market value is now set. We appear in as many live games as United do these days.

 

[cibaman]

The fact that DHL sponsored their training kit for £10m a year has no bearing on any other deal as it isn't a related party transaction and therefore won't need to be declared in the accounts they submit to the Licensing Panel.

The argument is about whether the Etihad deal is a related-party transaction and, if City and their advisors say it isn't (which it doesn't appear to be), then Etihad can pay us what they want and UEFA have no comeback.

Yes, but if they decide that the Etihad deal is a related party transaction, dont they then have to decide what a non related party would pay for such a deal? For the true market value is. And they would do that at least in part by looking at other deals clubs have done. So any other deals that raise the benchmark are good for City?

 

[Skashion]

The true purpose of Balotelli's training ground antics is now revealed. Our open training ground inevitably means all our tussles end up in the papers which means we can push up the value of our training ground gear with regards to sponsorship. I think Winmau would be an excellent sponsor.

 

[Breadsnapper]

The fact that DHL sponsored their training kit for £10m a year has no bearing on any other deal as it isn't a related party transaction and therefore won't need to be declared in the accounts they submit to the Licensing Panel.

The argument is about whether the Etihad deal is a related-party transaction and, if City and their advisors say it isn't (which it doesn't appear to be), then Etihad can pay us what they want and UEFA have no comeback.

So is our related deal because it's a UAE firm sponsoring a UAE owned club? Or because the National airline which is independent is sponsoring a concern that is owned by a reletively minor member of that nations royal family? Either way it stinks. If is was say me who owned the club and my brother said I will sponsor your teams shoe laces for 15 million a year then I could undestand. Again smacks of one rule for one one rule for another.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The fact that DHL sponsored their training kit for £10m a year has no bearing on any other deal as it isn't a related party transaction and therefore won't need to be declared in the accounts they submit to the Licensing Panel.

The argument is about whether the Etihad deal is a related-party transaction and, if City and their advisors say it isn't (which it doesn't appear to be), then Etihad can pay us what they want and UEFA have no comeback.

So is our related deal because it's a UAE firm sponsoring a UAE owned club? Or because the National airline which is independent is sponsoring a concern that is owned by a reletively minor member of that nations royal family? Either way it stinks. If is was say me who owned the club and my brother said I will sponsor your teams shoe laces for 15 million a year then I could undestand. Again smacks of one rule for one one rule for another.

The rules on related party transactions are nothing to do with FFP but have been around for a while for all companies. If you are a director of a company and another company owned by you or a close relative does business with you, then your accounts have to declare this, however much or little it is worth. It's a standard accounting/reporting requirement.

The bit that FFP adds is that if you do a related party transaction, for FFP purposes you will only be allowed to use the revenue that matches UEFA's benchmark for deals of that type.

In fact I've just realised that Etihad started sponsoring our shirt in 2009/10 so I've checked the accounts for that year and there is no mention of a related-party transaction. Therefore there is no problem eith FFPR.

 

[southwalesjesus]

Excellent article, although it kind of makes me wish we'd got more :)