Etihad

Clubber

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 Jan 2009
Messages
3,675
Location
Under your bed, playing Monopoly with the Bogeyman
People have talked about the new sponsorship deal being a massive bonus to us, which it undoubtedly is, but Etihad must be rubbing their hands together aswell.

Just the discussions of the deal must have given Etihad exactly what they want. Every paper in GB and possibly in the world will have news of this landmark deal, pushing the name of Etihad to a wider audience. Before the deal was finished and announced, papers were running stories of the potential impact this deal would have. All this advertising is what Etihad were after.

So let's not see this as a one way thing, as we both seem to be big winners already out of this.

It's not just city fans either, I have numerous text off rags telling me the supposed translation of Etihad, so even they are interested in the deal and are even more familiar with the name on everyone's lips (After city of course) Etihad.
 
Its a great point and one thing people miss about FFPR. They will say that we aren't a bigger club than the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal, Munich etc so can't justify sponsorship deals on their level. And in terms of support, that's true. But brands don't sponsor for support, they sponsor for the audience. And there is no doubt that we are now one of the most high profile clubs in the world right now. Am I really supposed to believe that anyone other than United and maybe Barcelona get more press coverage than us right now? Certainly none of the Italian and german clubs do.
 
ETIHAD is no charity..neither is ADUG a charity really.

Both know what they want of course and spend money to get it.
That both entities are controlled by the Al-Nahyan family doesn´t mean much really, anyone that have been witness to discussions within a family run business conglomerate know what I mean.
 
Clubber said:
People have talked about the new sponsorship deal being a massive bonus to us, which it undoubtedly is, but Etihad must be rubbing their hands together aswell.

Just the discussions of the deal must have given Etihad exactly what they want. Every paper in GB and possibly in the world will have news of this landmark deal, pushing the name of Etihad to a wider audience. Before the deal was finished and announced, papers were running stories of the potential impact this deal would have. All this advertising is what Etihad were after.

So let's not see this as a one way thing, as we both seem to be big winners already out of this.

It's not just city fans either, I have numerous text off rags telling me the supposed translation of Etihad, so even they are interested in the deal and are even more familiar with the name on everyone's lips (After city of course) Etihad.

The rags translation is incorrect as Etihad(اتـحـاد) means Union which while in the same language 'ball park' is actually different. Are our trade unions actually trade uniteds? No they ain't and is that team in catholic diocese of salford (with pretensions of being mancunian) called manchester union fc? Nope, wrong again.
Please note that the press are well aware that the rag attempted translation is wrong and are simply posting accounts that say 'it is reported on twitter' rather than lend their names to the mistake.
Why are rags so dumb? Must be a condition of membership or something because they really are embarrassingly (and amusingly) stupid.
 
hisroyalblueness said:
Clubber said:
People have talked about the new sponsorship deal being a massive bonus to us, which it undoubtedly is, but Etihad must be rubbing their hands together aswell.

Just the discussions of the deal must have given Etihad exactly what they want. Every paper in GB and possibly in the world will have news of this landmark deal, pushing the name of Etihad to a wider audience. Before the deal was finished and announced, papers were running stories of the potential impact this deal would have. All this advertising is what Etihad were after.

So let's not see this as a one way thing, as we both seem to be big winners already out of this.

It's not just city fans either, I have numerous text off rags telling me the supposed translation of Etihad, so even they are interested in the deal and are even more familiar with the name on everyone's lips (After city of course) Etihad.


The rags translation is incorrect as Etihad(اتـحـاد) means Union which while in the same language 'ball park' is actually different. Are our trade unions actually trade uniteds? No they ain't and is that team in catholic diocese of salford (with pretensions of being mancunian) called manchester union fc? Nope, wrong again.
Please note that the press are well aware that the rag attempted translation is wrong and are simply posting accounts that say 'it is reported on twitter' rather than lend their names to the mistake.
Why are rags so dumb? Must be a condition of membership or something because they really are embarrassingly (and amusingly) stupid.

You go on about mis-conceptions and then bring Salford into it? Never have I wanted to be called Mancunian. Congratulations dickhead.
 
Decent piece in the Independent (Ollie take note)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/citys-campus-project-buys-club-breathing-space-2309397.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 09397.html</a>

By Ian Herbert, Northern Football Correspondent


Saturday, 9 July 2011




The denizens of Old Trafford have had some fun with Etihad's sponsorship of Manchester City.

They'll tell you that the Abu Dhabi airline's name translates as "United" – even though it is actually Arabic for "Unity". After the wisecracks, though, comes the sobering reality, from a United perspective, of what a deal worth a little more than £300m, rising to £400m over ten years, might actually mean to the balance of power in British football.

After the stadium naming-rights deal provided the headlines yesterday morning, the general view from within the boardrooms of the Premier League's elite clubs was that having a Champions League venue named after your business is a privilege worth £10m a year and that the £40m-a-year figure City have procured from Etihad is higher than expected. For their part City say the stadium rights are just a part of the deal.

It is the other part which is the really smart bit. The new 80-acre "Etihad Campus" which City intend to create, if public consultation and the planning process go well, will enable them to create a lucrative new array of facilities. More sponsors may arrive with them and because the costs of creating them will not be factored into Uefa's assessment of a club's profit or loss, City can effectively build them for nothing. The only limit on it is the scope of Abu Dhabi imagination – and the Yas Marina Formula One track has given us an insight into that. Whether other clubs like it or not, City's owners have found a way to make their wealth continue working for them.

A picture of how the area prosaically known before as Openshaw West will look may take shape with an announcement as early as next month. Remediation work was started on the brownfield sight several months ago and it is likely to be where City's training ground is relocated. The future of the current Carrington base, across the fields from United's training ground, has looked in doubt since City embarked on a study of the world's best sports training facilities, 18 months ago. The Platt Lane academy could also be relocated, finally severing City's link with Moss Side, as well as Etihad's new call centre, to be located in Manchester from early 2012.

The steady stream of Etihad sponsorship opportunities this presents will justify to Uefa yesterday's £400m deal and perhaps offer scope for the sum to grow even bigger, if City need the money. Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel, under the chairmanship of the former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, is in place to ensure "fair value" in sponsorship deals – but it is hard to see this being judged unfair, as nothing like it has been done before.

City cannot keep building forever. But Openshaw gives them the breathing space and the building space. The potential unlocked by the 80-acre area eases the pressures created by the astronomical player wages that City's chief Garry Cook has taken on during the club's pursuit of a Champions League place.

With a squad for European football still being assembled, the Financial Fair Play regulations have perhaps come five years too soon for a club which in October will post a rise in their £121m 2009-10 losses, as they account for the £96.6m net expenditure plus wages of Jerome Boateng, David Silva, Yaya Touré, Aleksandar Kolarov, Mario Balotelli and James Milner, who arrived too late to go into last year's published results.

Privately, City have always been comfortable with their ability to fall in line with FFP, which will oblige clubs to post no more than £45m losses over the next three years, and the commercial opportunity from the broad acres around their ground has always been the reason why.

How comfortable other clubs will be with their strategy is less certain. The suspicion that City's balance sheet is bein artificially inflated by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan makes full accounting transparency for the Etihad deal vita. The Abu Dhabi royal family owns the seven -year-old airline and has absorbed its losses. It was unclear last night whether Etihad – which, though in private ownership, does publish its annual accounts – would begin itemising sponsorship spend, including the new City deal.

Rival clubs such as Bayern Munich are annoyed after finding it far harder than they imagined to get hold of players City want to retain – Boateng in the Germans' case. "They are going to have 48 players under contract," Bayern chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge said only yesterday. "But you can only name 25 and last year they lost £123m. Under the new rules, with these numbers you wouldn't get a licence, that's for sure. Maybe they know a trick I do not."

The £400m deal is likely to see City through the Uefa challenge, though. The mood from Uefa is that clubs will be helped, not punished; that expulsion from Europe is a last resort – and by no means likely if a club fail to meet the loss target, but are cooperating and financially are moving in the right direction.

The consolation for United supporters is that City may not be able to boast they secured the most lucrative sponsorship deal for too long. United believe they can secure a world-record kit deal of £450m before their agreement with Nike expires in 2015. But Cook and the Abu Dhabis have redefined the term "sponsorship deal" and proved what a commercial power they are. Unity is a commodity that will remain in short supply across the two footballing halves of Manchester.
 
hisroyalblueness said:
The rags translation is incorrect as Etihad(اتـحـاد) means Union which while in the same language 'ball park' is actually different. Are our trade unions actually trade uniteds? No they ain't and is that team in catholic diocese of salford (with pretensions of being mancunian) called manchester union fc? Nope, wrong again.
Please note that the press are well aware that the rag attempted translation is wrong and are simply posting accounts that say 'it is reported on twitter' rather than lend their names to the mistake.
Why are rags so dumb? Must be a condition of membership or something because they really are embarrassingly (and amusingly) stupid.

You are correct sir, but the irony is, the more Etihad is posted on twitter, the more they are give the oxygen of publicity.

So in fact, united (Union) fans are actually benfiting our club by constantly 'promoting' our sponsors name. This is why Etihad have paid such a large fee. As Project rightly says, who in the sports media is given more headlines or column inches than us (Probably Barca, and we must be very close to united, who's last few stories have been detrimental ie Giggs and Ferdinand affairs).

United fans obsession with city (No matter how much they want to pretend they don't have one) is benefitting us and Etihad.
 
hisroyalblueness said:
Clubber said:
People have talked about the new sponsorship deal being a massive bonus to us, which it undoubtedly is, but Etihad must be rubbing their hands together aswell.

Just the discussions of the deal must have given Etihad exactly what they want. Every paper in GB and possibly in the world will have news of this landmark deal, pushing the name of Etihad to a wider audience. Before the deal was finished and announced, papers were running stories of the potential impact this deal would have. All this advertising is what Etihad were after.

So let's not see this as a one way thing, as we both seem to be big winners already out of this.

It's not just city fans either, I have numerous text off rags telling me the supposed translation of Etihad, so even they are interested in the deal and are even more familiar with the name on everyone's lips (After city of course) Etihad.

The rags translation is incorrect as Etihad(اتـحـاد) means Union which while in the same language 'ball park' is actually different. Are our trade unions actually trade uniteds? No they ain't and is that team in catholic diocese of salford (with pretensions of being mancunian) called manchester union fc? Nope, wrong again.
Please note that the press are well aware that the rag attempted translation is wrong and are simply posting accounts that say 'it is reported on twitter' rather than lend their names to the mistake.
Why are rags so dumb? Must be a condition of membership or something because they really are embarrassingly (and amusingly) stupid.
Salford? What are you on about?
 
The rags translation is incorrect as Etihad(اتـحـاد) means Union

Actually, a more accurate English translation would be "Unity".

It is derived from the "United" in United Arab Emirates (الإمارات العربية المتحدة Al-'Imārāt al-`Arabiyyah al-Muttaḥidah).

Not a million mile away from United, is it?
 
hisroyalblueness said:
Clubber said:
People have talked about the new sponsorship deal being a massive bonus to us, which it undoubtedly is, but Etihad must be rubbing their hands together aswell.

Just the discussions of the deal must have given Etihad exactly what they want. Every paper in GB and possibly in the world will have news of this landmark deal, pushing the name of Etihad to a wider audience. Before the deal was finished and announced, papers were running stories of the potential impact this deal would have. All this advertising is what Etihad were after.

So let's not see this as a one way thing, as we both seem to be big winners already out of this.

It's not just city fans either, I have numerous text off rags telling me the supposed translation of Etihad, so even they are interested in the deal and are even more familiar with the name on everyone's lips (After city of course) Etihad.

The rags translation is incorrect as Etihad(اتـحـاد) means Union which while in the same language 'ball park' is actually different. Are our trade unions actually trade uniteds? No they ain't and is that team in catholic diocese of salford (with pretensions of being mancunian) called manchester union fc? Nope, wrong again.
Please note that the press are well aware that the rag attempted translation is wrong and are simply posting accounts that say 'it is reported on twitter' rather than lend their names to the mistake.
Why are rags so dumb? Must be a condition of membership or something because they really are embarrassingly (and amusingly) stupid.

A bit naughty and invalidates your argument, Salford isn't Trafford.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.