FFP Question

[Irwell]

Who says its above board - you me dont count UEFA do and whilst they are aware of it the aint approved it yet - With Le Arse - Munich - Murderpool and other owners making noises rest assured that UEFA will go through it with a fine tooth comb and last time i checked UEFA are not exactly best pals with the FA - they have been trying for years to get the number of qualifying EPL teams down from 4 to 3 and the PRel League is the fookin eny of all leagues in the world

And the rules were devised to prevent another Man City - they are designed to keep the top clubs noses firmly in the trough - fortunately for us we have time to plan but there is very little possability of another owner like our or Chelski doing what these guys have done

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The other clubs can moan all they want, even if UEFA decided that the deal was against the spirit of FFPR (which I'd imagine our club have already discussed at length with UEFA) do you really think they would impose financial restrictions on a company owned by a man with access to what is probably the largest legal team in the world and the money to finance endless court cases against UEFA? Even if UEFA thought they might win in court, they still wouldn't be able to afford to keep the cases running long enough to do so. If they then lost the cases they would be pretty much bankrupted by the fees they would have to pay for City's legal team. There is too much money at stake.

 

[dctid]

Paranoid much? The Etihad deal is above board and has been discussed at length with UEFA. They aren't targeting City deliberately with these rules, in fact when all the developments around our ground are complete UEFA will hold us up as the model for other clubs to follow.

Who says its above board - you me dont count UEFA do and whilst they are aware of it the aint approved it yet - With Le Arse - Munich - Murderpool and other owners making noises rest assured that UEFA will go through it with a fine tooth comb and last time i checked UEFA are not exactly best pals with the FA - they have been trying for years to get the number of qualifying EPL teams down from 4 to 3 and the PRel League is the fookin eny of all leagues in the world

And the rules were devised to prevent another Man City - they are designed to keep the top clubs noses firmly in the trough - fortunately for us we have time to plan but there is very little possability of another owner like our or Chelski doing what these guys have done

You are very very paranoid, Liverpool cant say much, if they go ahead with a new stadia then that will get a sponsors name for sure, Utd will sell the naming rights for OT within 5 years, Arsenal have already sold out.
There will be more sponsors on board through a wheels within wheels basis, not rocket science.

Of course they will get a sponsorship deal and a fookin mighty big one - that is not the issue - the issue is that Ethiad is owned by the same fookin family that owns City and therefore there is a potential conflict of interest which is where the fair market value test will come in.

Alll the other teams you refrence are with comapnies whose only connection is financial therefore the fair market value test will be easier to make.

If you really cant see that you are being naive

Yes i do think Cooky and co have been really smart because the sponsorship is linked to shirt deals - stadium is spread about.

 

[Irwell]

Of course they will get a sponsorship deal and a fookin mighty big one - that is not the issue - the issue is that Ethiad is owned by the same fookin family that owns City and therefore there is a potential conflict of interest which is where the fair market value test will come in.

Alll the other teams you refrence are with comapnies whose only connection is financial therefore the fair market value test will be easier to make.

If you really cant see that you are being naive

Yes i do think Cooky and co have been really smart because the sponsorship is linked to shirt deals - stadium is spread about.

Are UEFA really going to risk being sued for libellous statements by a member of a royal family and a publicly traded multinational?

 

[dctid]

Who says its above board - you me dont count UEFA do and whilst they are aware of it the aint approved it yet - With Le Arse - Munich - Murderpool and other owners making noises rest assured that UEFA will go through it with a fine tooth comb and last time i checked UEFA are not exactly best pals with the FA - they have been trying for years to get the number of qualifying EPL teams down from 4 to 3 and the PRel League is the fookin eny of all leagues in the world

And the rules were devised to prevent another Man City - they are designed to keep the top clubs noses firmly in the trough - fortunately for us we have time to plan but there is very little possability of another owner like our or Chelski doing what these guys have done

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The other clubs can moan all they want, even if UEFA decided that the deal was against the spirit of FFPR (which I'd imagine our club have already discussed at length with UEFA) do you really think they would impose financial restrictions on a company owned by a man with access to what is probably the largest legal team in the world and the money to finance endless court cases against UEFA? Even if UEFA thought they might win in court, they still wouldn't be able to afford to keep the cases running long enough to do so. If they then lost the cases they would be pretty much bankrupted by the fees they would have to pay for City's legal team. There is too much money at stake.

Yes they would - The power in UEFA is within the G14 - look very carefully whom is currently kicking up shit -

Endless court cases are great but how long do you think City could go without CL (UEFA grant yearly licenses and without it you cant compete) before players fook off - do you think financing endless court cases is a good thing for us?

Get a grip - UEFA is a private club and its main cash cow is the CL - without that its foookin broke and they will do all they can to preserve that<br /><br />-- Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:57 pm --<br /><br />

Of course they will get a sponsorship deal and a fookin mighty big one - that is not the issue - the issue is that Ethiad is owned by the same fookin family that owns City and therefore there is a potential conflict of interest which is where the fair market value test will come in.

Alll the other teams you refrence are with comapnies whose only connection is financial therefore the fair market value test will be easier to make.

If you really cant see that you are being naive

Yes i do think Cooky and co have been really smart because the sponsorship is linked to shirt deals - stadium is spread about.

Are UEFA really going to risk being sued for libellous statements by a member of a royal family and a publicly traded multinational?

Why would it be libellous?

All they would say is that it does not represent market value why is that libellous

The family connection is the issue not the value of the sponsorship

 

[Irwell]

Yes they would - The power in UEFA is within the G14 - look very carefully whom is currently kicking up shit -

Endless court cases are great but how long do you think City could go without CL (UEFA grant yearly licenses and without it you cant compete) before players fook off - do you think financing endless court cases is a good thing for us?

Get a grip - UEFA is a private club and its main cash cow is the CL - without that its foookin broke and they will do all they can to preserve that

You are working on the assumption that the clubs that have the power are the same clubs that had the power when the G14 was disbanded. What makes you think that City are not one of the clubs with the power and that Liverpool/Arsenal aren't complaining from the outside? Bear in mind that we bring more money into the game than either of those two clubs now and have a higher turnover than Liverpool. Our owners have more financial and political clout than the owners of all the old 14 clubs combined.<br /><br />-- Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:03 pm --<br /><br />

Why would it be libellous?

All they would say is that it does not represent market value why is that libellous

The family connection is the issue not the value of the sponsorship

Company executives are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders. Any implication that those executives agreed to pay above market value for a sponsorship also implies the executives aren't acting in their shareholders' favour. That would be a libellous statement and Etihad would act in defence of their executives. If the implication is that Sheikh Mansour handed over the cash to Etihad in order for them to in turn hand it over to City then you are accusing the Sheikh and his relatives on the Etihad board of all manner of financial irregularities. It wouldn't be worth the risk from UEFA's point of view.

 

[bluemoondays]

There seems to be so much extra potential from sponsorship. I think City should be looking hard at the Real Madrid model of taking 50% of players image rights. Not sure how many of these are used or practical but:

Car Manufacturer - free cars? + sponsoring
Motorbike - if any of the players fancy a bike?
Bicycles
Training equipment (weights etc)
Medical equipment - we could use RSC as a poster boy!!
Watch Company - free watches + sponsoring
Clothing + shoes (not including kits)
Bag Sponsorship
Energy drinks
Food and Drink in stadium - maybe not such a great idea :-O
Computer games companies - NDJ on front of new Call of Duty :-)
Football boot sponsorship
Hair Gel - tranny :p
Toiletries...
Food and drink in new campus area (plus lots more possibilities there)
Holidays & holiday destinations (Abu Dhabi?)
Jewellery - similar to watches above
Internet companies
Computer companies

On top of this you have things like the boring insurance companies etc. Loads of small (£1m - 3m) deals will all add up pretty quickly to another £30-40m probably per year.

 

[dctid]

Yes they would - The power in UEFA is within the G14 - look very carefully whom is currently kicking up shit -

Endless court cases are great but how long do you think City could go without CL (UEFA grant yearly licenses and without it you cant compete) before players fook off - do you think financing endless court cases is a good thing for us?

Get a grip - UEFA is a private club and its main cash cow is the CL - without that its foookin broke and they will do all they can to preserve that

You are working on the assumption that the clubs that have the power are the same clubs that had the power when the G14 was disbanded. What makes you think that City are not one of the clubs with the power and that Liverpool/Arsenal aren't complaining from the outside? Bear in mind that we bring more money into the game than either of those two clubs now and have a higher turnover than Liverpool. Our owners have more financial and political clout than the owners of all the old 14 clubs combined.

Fella do you understand how football works?

The reason Le Arse - Rags - Liverpool are so valueable to UEFA is because of there world wide support these team have - which means they can charge the sponsors of the CL top fookin dollar which is why the prize money is so fookin massive

The idea that we have more political power in world football that Barca - Rags - Madrid - Chelski combined is fookin ridiculas and naive in the extreme on your part

 

[waspish]

Who says its above board - you me dont count UEFA do and whilst they are aware of it the aint approved it yet - With Le Arse - Munich - Murderpool and other owners making noises rest assured that UEFA will go through it with a fine tooth comb and last time i checked UEFA are not exactly best pals with the FA - they have been trying for years to get the number of qualifying EPL teams down from 4 to 3 and the PRel League is the fookin eny of all leagues in the world

And the rules were devised to prevent another Man City - they are designed to keep the top clubs noses firmly in the trough - fortunately for us we have time to plan but there is very little possability of another owner like our or Chelski doing what these guys have done

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The other clubs can moan all they want, even if UEFA decided that the deal was against the spirit of FFPR (which I'd imagine our club have already discussed at length with UEFA) do you really think they would impose financial restrictions on a company owned by a man with access to what is probably the largest legal team in the world and the money to finance endless court cases against UEFA? Even if UEFA thought they might win in court, they still wouldn't be able to afford to keep the cases running long enough to do so. If they then lost the cases they would be pretty much bankrupted by the fees they would have to pay for City's legal team. There is too much money at stake.

Yes they would - The power in UEFA is within the G14 - look very carefully whom is currently kicking up shit -

Endless court cases are great but how long do you think City could go without CL (UEFA grant yearly licenses and without it you cant compete) before players fook off - do you think financing endless court cases is a good thing for us?

Get a grip - UEFA is a private club and its main cash cow is the CL - without that its foookin broke and they will do all they can to preserve that

-- Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:57 pm --

Of course they will get a sponsorship deal and a fookin mighty big one - that is not the issue - the issue is that Ethiad is owned by the same fookin family that owns City and therefore there is a potential conflict of interest which is where the fair market value test will come in.

Alll the other teams you refrence are with comapnies whose only connection is financial therefore the fair market value test will be easier to make.

If you really cant see that you are being naive

Yes i do think Cooky and co have been really smart because the sponsorship is linked to shirt deals - stadium is spread about.

Are UEFA really going to risk being sued for libellous statements by a member of a royal family and a publicly traded multinational?

Why would it be libellous?

All they would say is that it does not represent market value why is that libellous

The family connection is the issue not the value of the sponsorship

IT IS MARKET VALUE!

 

[dctid]

Yes they would - The power in UEFA is within the G14 - look very carefully whom is currently kicking up shit -

Endless court cases are great but how long do you think City could go without CL (UEFA grant yearly licenses and without it you cant compete) before players fook off - do you think financing endless court cases is a good thing for us?

Get a grip - UEFA is a private club and its main cash cow is the CL - without that its foookin broke and they will do all they can to preserve that

You are working on the assumption that the clubs that have the power are the same clubs that had the power when the G14 was disbanded. What makes you think that City are not one of the clubs with the power and that Liverpool/Arsenal aren't complaining from the outside? Bear in mind that we bring more money into the game than either of those two clubs now and have a higher turnover than Liverpool. Our owners have more financial and political clout than the owners of all the old 14 clubs combined.

-- Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:03 pm --

Why would it be libellous?

All they would say is that it does not represent market value why is that libellous

The family connection is the issue not the value of the sponsorship

Company executives are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders. Any implication that those executives agreed to pay above market value for a sponsorship also implies the executives aren't acting in their shareholders' favour. That would be a libellous statement and Etihad would act in defence of their executives. If the implication is that Sheikh Mansour handed over the cash to Etihad in order for them to in turn hand it over to City then you are accusing the Sheikh and his relatives on the Etihad board of all manner of financial irregularities. It wouldn't be worth the risk from UEFA's point of view.

Problem is there are no fookin shareholders -City are not a publically traded company

 

[Irwell]

Fella do you understand how football works?

The reason Le Arse - Rags - Liverpool are so valueable to UEFA is because of there world wide support these team have - which means they can charge the sponsors of the CL top fookin dollar which is why the prize money is so fookin massive

The idea that we have more political power in world football that Barca - Rags - Madrid - Chelski combined is fookin ridiculas and naive in the extreme on your part

And you somehow think that football equates to politics? We are talking about royalty who engage in multi billion pound contracts which can transform an entire city's economy almost at the flick of a switch. You think that these people couldn't inflict an awful lot of influence on UEFA, both directly and indirectly via other Governments and major companies, if they acted against them? City is currently Abu Dhabi's largest advertising billboard. They work in a whole different world to the usual businessmen who run football clubs.<br /><br />-- Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:18 pm --<br /><br />

Problem is there are no fookin shareholders -City are not a publically traded company

Please try re-reading. I said Etihad were. The fact that those shareholders are a couple of Sovereign Wealth Funds is immaterial, they are still technically publicly traded, their accounts are still released and their executives still have to act in the interests of their shareholders.