Financial Fair Play/Financial Report (merged)

[gooner6729]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

If FFP was ever going to be implemented seriously you are the first ones they would have pulled up over the Etihad deal. Nothing was done, despite big talk from UEFA about how they were going to ''investigate'' the deal.

PSG are doing a similar ''sponsorship'' deal with the Qatar Tourism Board (will the deserts of Qatar soon be swamped by French tourists) and Abramovich will arrange a deal through one of his connections. So will Anzhi Makhalchaka.

Speaking of those two, they reported a transfer profit in their last set of accounts. The way that was achieved was selling Zhirkov to Anzhi Makhalchaka, for what was obviously an inflated fee.

If the sponsorship deals are not sufficient to keep the sugardaddy clubs ahead of Madrid,United,Bayern then its time to sell players. What would stop Sheikh Mansour from selling one of your fringe or youth players to a club in the Middle East for 50 million? The deal would obviously be financed by him somehow, but it would register 50 million quid on City's accounts.

UEFA and FIFA have no interest in upsetting the oil barons of Russia and Arabia. If they gave a toss we wouldn't be looking forward to a World Cup in Qatar.

 

[waspish]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

If FFP was ever going to be implemented seriously you are the first ones they would have pulled up over the Etihad deal. Nothing was done, despite big talk from UEFA about how they were going to ''investigate'' the deal.

PSG are doing a similar ''sponsorship'' deal with the Qatar Tourism Board (will the deserts of Qatar soon be swamped by French tourists) and Abramovich will arrange a deal through one of his connections. So will Anzhi Makhalchaka.

Speaking of those two, they reported a transfer profit in their last set of accounts. The way that was achieved was selling Zhirkov to Anzhi Makhalchaka, for what was obviously an inflated fee.

If the sponsorship deals are not sufficient to keep the sugardaddy clubs ahead of Madrid,United,Bayern then its time to sell players. What would stop Sheikh Mansour from selling one of your fringe or youth players to a club in the Middle East for 50 million? The deal would obviously be financed by him somehow, but it would register 50 million quid on City's accounts.

UEFA and FIFA have no interest in upsetting the oil barons of Russia and Arabia. If they gave a toss we wouldn't be looking forward to a World Cup in Qatar.

Nothing what so ever up with the Etihad deal it was unique and fluid. Look at the deals that are coming along now at other clubs in Europe

 

[gooner6729]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

If FFP was ever going to be implemented seriously you are the first ones they would have pulled up over the Etihad deal. Nothing was done, despite big talk from UEFA about how they were going to ''investigate'' the deal.

PSG are doing a similar ''sponsorship'' deal with the Qatar Tourism Board (will the deserts of Qatar soon be swamped by French tourists) and Abramovich will arrange a deal through one of his connections. So will Anzhi Makhalchaka.

Speaking of those two, they reported a transfer profit in their last set of accounts. The way that was achieved was selling Zhirkov to Anzhi Makhalchaka, for what was obviously an inflated fee.

If the sponsorship deals are not sufficient to keep the sugardaddy clubs ahead of Madrid,United,Bayern then its time to sell players. What would stop Sheikh Mansour from selling one of your fringe or youth players to a club in the Middle East for 50 million? The deal would obviously be financed by him somehow, but it would register 50 million quid on City's accounts.

UEFA and FIFA have no interest in upsetting the oil barons of Russia and Arabia. If they gave a toss we wouldn't be looking forward to a World Cup in Qatar.

Nothing what so ever up with the Etihad deal it was unique and fluid. Look at the deals that are coming along now at other clubs in Europe

Give us an example please. Qatar Tourism and PSG doesn't count. No disrespect to City, but if the Etihad deal is ''normal'' business, how come clubs like Barca, Madrid,Yanited or Bayern Munich never secured anything like it. Those clubs are in a different league in terms of their brand value and popularity.

If a major company gave me the task of securing shirt deals with Man Utd, Arsenal, Man City,Wigan, Bolton and Stockport, and gave me a budget of 100 million a year I'd probably offer United 45 million, Arsenal 35 million, City 15 million, Wigan 3 million,Bolton 1.5m and Stockport .5m.

That would represent fair value for the sponsor. Obviously I just made these amounts up, but nobody can argue with the basic point that different clubs have different values from a sponsorship p.o.v.

No different to placing an ad. It will cost you more to advertise in the Times than it would in your local parish newsletter.

 

[waspish]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

If FFP was ever going to be implemented seriously you are the first ones they would have pulled up over the Etihad deal. Nothing was done, despite big talk from UEFA about how they were going to ''investigate'' the deal.

PSG are doing a similar ''sponsorship'' deal with the Qatar Tourism Board (will the deserts of Qatar soon be swamped by French tourists) and Abramovich will arrange a deal through one of his connections. So will Anzhi Makhalchaka.

Speaking of those two, they reported a transfer profit in their last set of accounts. The way that was achieved was selling Zhirkov to Anzhi Makhalchaka, for what was obviously an inflated fee.

If the sponsorship deals are not sufficient to keep the sugardaddy clubs ahead of Madrid,United,Bayern then its time to sell players. What would stop Sheikh Mansour from selling one of your fringe or youth players to a club in the Middle East for 50 million? The deal would obviously be financed by him somehow, but it would register 50 million quid on City's accounts.

UEFA and FIFA have no interest in upsetting the oil barons of Russia and Arabia. If they gave a toss we wouldn't be looking forward to a World Cup in Qatar.

Nothing what so ever up with the Etihad deal it was unique and fluid. Look at the deals that are coming along now at other clubs in Europe

Give us an example please. Qatar Tourism and PSG doesn't count.

Arsenals and the rags

 

[EricBrooksGhost]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

If FFP was ever going to be implemented seriously you are the first ones they would have pulled up over the Etihad deal. Nothing was done, despite big talk from UEFA about how they were going to ''investigate'' the deal.

PSG are doing a similar ''sponsorship'' deal with the Qatar Tourism Board (will the deserts of Qatar soon be swamped by French tourists) and Abramovich will arrange a deal through one of his connections. So will Anzhi Makhalchaka.

Speaking of those two, they reported a transfer profit in their last set of accounts. The way that was achieved was selling Zhirkov to Anzhi Makhalchaka, for what was obviously an inflated fee.

If the sponsorship deals are not sufficient to keep the sugardaddy clubs ahead of Madrid,United,Bayern then its time to sell players. What would stop Sheikh Mansour from selling one of your fringe or youth players to a club in the Middle East for 50 million? The deal would obviously be financed by him somehow, but it would register 50 million quid on City's accounts.

UEFA and FIFA have no interest in upsetting the oil barons of Russia and Arabia. If they gave a toss we wouldn't be looking forward to a World Cup in Qatar.

Nothing what so ever up with the Etihad deal it was unique and fluid. Look at the deals that are coming along now at other clubs in Europe

Give us an example please. Qatar Tourism and PSG doesn't count. No disrespect to City, but if the Etihad deal is ''normal'' business, how come clubs like Barca, Madrid,Yanited or Bayern Munich never secured anything like it. Those clubs are in a different league in terms of their brand value and popularity.

If a major company gave me the task of securing shirt deals with Man Utd, Arsenal, Man City,Wigan, Bolton and Stockport, and gave me a budget of 100 million a year I'd probably offer United 45 million, Arsenal 35 million, City 15 million, Wigan 3 million,Bolton 1.5m and Stockport .5m.

That would represent fair value for the sponsor. Obviously I just made these amounts up, but nobody can argue with the basic point that different clubs have different values from a sponsorship p.o.v.

No different to placing an ad. It will cost you more to advertise in the Times than it would in your local parish newsletter.

There is nothing to pull up over the Etihad deal as its not related party so therefore not subject to a fair value test. Why is this so hard to understand.

 

[gooner6729]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

Nothing what so ever up with the Etihad deal it was unique and fluid. Look at the deals that are coming along now at other clubs in Europe

Give us an example please. Qatar Tourism and PSG doesn't count.

Arsenals and the rags

We're getting up to 25m a year from Emirates for our new shirt deal as of next year. The Mancs are getting 40 odd million from GM (who sacked the bloke who sanctioned the deal). Both deals are pretty straight forward, and probably reflect the brand value of the clubs (am I the only one who feels uncomfortable using that kind of terminology in a football discussion?). You get more from Etihad, despite being a less valuable brand. If Everton or Newcastle had proposed a deal like that to Etihad they'd have been laughed at by the Etihad people.

 

[waspish]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

Give us an example please. Qatar Tourism and PSG doesn't count.

Arsenals and the rags

We're getting up to 25m a year from Emirates for our new shirt deal as of next year. The Mancs are getting 40 odd million from GM (who sacked the bloke who sanctioned the deal). Both deals are pretty straight forward, and probably reflect the brand value of the clubs (am I the only one who feels uncomfortable using that kind of terminology in a football discussion?). You get more from Etihad, despite being a less valuable brand. If Everton or Newcastle had proposed a deal like that to Etihad they'd have been laughed at by the Etihad people.

No club in Europe are doing what we are doing that's why I said Unique and fluid! Don't forget that is over 10 years

 

[ped]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

2012,manchester city fc,are more successful.and a higher profile then arsenal ,fact

 

[GXCity]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

Give us an example please. Qatar Tourism and PSG doesn't count.

Arsenals and the rags

We're getting up to 25m a year from Emirates for our new shirt deal as of next year. The Mancs are getting 40 odd million from GM (who sacked the bloke who sanctioned the deal). Both deals are pretty straight forward, and probably reflect the brand value of the clubs (am I the only one who feels uncomfortable using that kind of terminology in a football discussion?). You get more from Etihad, despite being a less valuable brand. If Everton or Newcastle had proposed a deal like that to Etihad they'd have been laughed at by the Etihad people.

But the Etihad sponsorship deal is for the whole Campus not just the shirt. Trust me when that is finished it will probably look like we let it go on the cheap.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

We're getting up to 25m a year from Emirates for our new shirt deal as of next year. The Mancs are getting 40 odd million from GM (who sacked the bloke who sanctioned the deal). Both deals are pretty straight forward, and probably reflect the brand value of the clubs (am I the only one who feels uncomfortable using that kind of terminology in a football discussion?). You get more from Etihad, despite being a less valuable brand. If Everton or Newcastle had proposed a deal like that to Etihad they'd have been laughed at by the Etihad people.

How do you know what we're getting from Etihad? Because I don't. Whatever, it's split three ways; some for the stadium, some for the shirts and some for the new campus that's being built which includes the new training complex.

£25m is the going rate for a top four club so good job you got that while you're still one I guess. I believe GM scaled the rags deal down on the quiet to around that sum as the guy sacked didn't have the authority to do the original deal, which is why he was sacked.

For a stadium, then £10m is what the market will stand, based on similar deals (plus we have to pay £2m of it to the council on top of the £3m a year we already pay them for the lease). So even if it's £40m a year, that's only £5m for the campus.

But the question is what's it worth to Etihad & Abu Dhabi, rather than what's it worth to City. Emirates talk about sponsorship of top-class sports as a key part of their marketing strategy, as they get most brand recognition through that channel. Qatar Airways increased brand recognition by 70% through sponsoring the weather on Sky News so what must the benefit of being seen by millions every week in the PL and Champions League be?

Etihad are a fast growing airline and, like Emirates/Dubai, see themselves & Abu Dhabi as a key hub for international travel and the PL is seen all over the world. Already, Manchester is one of Etihad's top ten destinations in terms of volumes out of nearly 100 they fly to. The difference between Emirates sponsorship of you and Etihad's of us is that for Emirates, it's just a straightforward commercial sponsorship deal and little to do with Dubai. For Etihad, it's a strategic part of Abu Dhabi's marketing of itself.