Financial Fair Play/Financial Report (merged)

[cibaman]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

The Etihad deal might have seemed generous when first signed, but Etihad received great value from it last season. 65% increase in television coverage of City games, record SKY viewing figure from a PL game, estimated 700m worldwide television for the last derby at the stadium. City should be looking to re-negotiate it!

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

It's fucked us over hasn't it. Otherwise we would have seen some proper signings in summer on the back of our title win (richest owner in world football, league champions, and we buy... Sinclair, Maicon, Rodwell, Richard Wright!?) if it wasn't for this FFP bullshit we'd surely have got De Rossi, Thiago Silva and RvP and have the title virtually in the bag already! Absolutely gutted, I wish we could either fuck it off and call Platini's bluff or get the best lawyers available to blow it away somehow. Platini has pretty much handed the rags about 5 more titles that we should be winning. The twat.

This is all too true, sadly.

FFP ended up being structured with City specifically in mind (Platini even mentioned us in his 'plea' speech to the EU to help UEFA curb spending in football). And our owners clearly don't want to be seen to be the first to be seen to publicly challenge FFP, unlike PSG's owners.

So it means we're the first to be clearly slowed down by FFP, even if it does get scrapped altogether in years to come.

Can we ban people who dont have a clue?

 

[ManCitizens.]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

Why do fools like this Arsenal fan not mention that the rags are getting 15m per season for a training shirt from DHL. Brainwashed idiots.

 

[sir baconface]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

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

City are definitely more successful than Arsenal. Not so sure about being higher profile, but Arsenal are more attractive commercially. So are Liverpool who have been shit for years. United are more attractive commercially than Arsenal and Liverpool. They probably would remain the most attractive team in the country, even if they went 8 years without a trophy or 23 years without a league title. Its just one of those things.

Commercial appeal will be governed as much by future prospects as present status. Compare these:

1) A club with a glorious history but which now sits mid-table
2) A club with a strong recent history, still top 4 or 5, but no imminent prospect of major trophies
3) A well-funded, demonstrably ambitious club that's won its first silverware for years.

Now these may (or may not) be hypothetical examples. My point is they are on different trajectories and that will affect their current/future sponsorship value dynamically. On that basis City's publicity worth gets turbo-boost relative to some of the old school.<br /><br />-- Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:32 am --<br /><br />

Why do fools like this Arsenal fan not mention that the rags are getting 15m per season for a training shirt from DHL. Brainwashed idiots.

Why is he a fool? He was actually making some constructive points.

 

[Chippy_boy]

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. 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.

Is this correct though? I am not sure it is.

The term "Related Party" covers a lot of ground. For example, Etihad are a related party if "a person" at Etihad has significant influence over the reporting party. Is there anyone at Etihad who has the Sheikh's ear? There might well be.

Also Etihad is a related party if they are part of the same group. Given that we are both owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family, this is questionable as well.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

It's fucked us over hasn't it. Otherwise we would have seen some proper signings in summer on the back of our title win (richest owner in world football, league champions, and we buy... Sinclair, Maicon, Rodwell, Richard Wright!?) if it wasn't for this FFP bullshit we'd surely have got De Rossi, Thiago Silva and RvP and have the title virtually in the bag already! Absolutely gutted, I wish we could either fuck it off and call Platini's bluff or get the best lawyers available to blow it away somehow. Platini has pretty much handed the rags about 5 more titles that we should be winning. The twat.

This is all too true, sadly.

FFP ended up being structured with City specifically in mind (Platini even mentioned us in his 'plea' speech to the EU to help UEFA curb spending in football). And our owners clearly don't want to be seen to be the first to be seen to publicly challenge FFP, unlike PSG's owners.

So it means we're the first to be clearly slowed down by FFP, even if it does get scrapped altogether in years to come.

I agree with the facts. But perhaps not with the sentiment. Yes, we would all love it if we could outspend everyone every season and sign all the best players and win every competition. (Thinking about it, I am not sure I would want that.) And yes, FFP has doubtless "cramped our style" somewhat.

But look at it on the positive side: we were the last club to be able to break through into the world's footballing elite. We were able to spend massively before FFP really kicks in. That God for that. No club outside the top echelon is going to be able to do that again for the forseeable. Think how incredibly frustrating it would be if ADUG were only buying us now and had spending massively restricted. No Robinho, no Elano, no Tevez, no Aguero etc etc. That God we god through in the nick of time.

 

[gooner6729]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

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.

Is this correct though? I am not sure it is.

The term "Related Party" covers a lot of ground. For example, Etihad are a related party if "a person" at Etihad has significant influence over the reporting party. Is there anyone at Etihad who has the Sheikh's ear? There might well be.

Also Etihad is a related party if they are part of the same group. Given that we are both owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family, this is questionable as well.

I'm sure the legal eagles have the related party bit covered, but I thought there was also a ''fair market value'' clause. In other words if Anzhi Makhalachaka ended up with a sponsorship deal worth more than Bayern Munich, then something would be wrong. An unheard of club from a remote former Soviet republic can't possibly have the same value as one of the biggest clubs in the world.

Either way, you boys are worrying about nothing. If FIFA/UEFA are happy to sell the World Cup to Qatar, they are not going to clamp down on a mega-rich sheikh brokering a sponsorship deal that earns his club a few more quid than they might be able to negotiate in the open market.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

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.

Is this correct though? I am not sure it is.

The term "Related Party" covers a lot of ground. For example, Etihad are a related party if "a person" at Etihad has significant influence over the reporting party. Is there anyone at Etihad who has the Sheikh's ear? There might well be.

Also Etihad is a related party if they are part of the same group. Given that we are both owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family, this is questionable as well.

It is correct. Companies have been obliged to report related party transactions for many years and FFP merely adds the "fair market value" requirement. Also it's about more than having the Sheikh's ear. There has to be an element of shared control, either by being in a executive position or via the holding of shares, or involve a "close family member". As Sheikh Mansour holds all the shares in us on a personal basis and is not involved in Etihad in the formal sense, there's no related party.

Therefore if Khaldoon were Chairman or CEO of Etihad, we would probably be related parties. If the same person or company owned a significant percentage of shares in both Etihad & City then we would probably be related parties. There is one director in common between us and Etihad but he's a non-executive for both and the rules are clear that this sort of scenario is excluded. Now control of both parties may well in the hands of the Al Nahyan family but legally our hands are clean.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

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.

Is this correct though? I am not sure it is.

The term "Related Party" covers a lot of ground. For example, Etihad are a related party if "a person" at Etihad has significant influence over the reporting party. Is there anyone at Etihad who has the Sheikh's ear? There might well be.

Also Etihad is a related party if they are part of the same group. Given that we are both owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family, this is questionable as well.

I'm sure the legal eagles have the related party bit covered, but I thought there was also a ''fair market value'' clause. In other words if Anzhi Makhalachaka ended up with a sponsorship deal worth more than Bayern Munich, then something would be wrong. An unheard of club from a remote former Soviet republic can't possibly have the same value as one of the biggest clubs in the world.

Either way, you boys are worrying about nothing. If FIFA/UEFA are happy to sell the World Cup to Qatar, they are not going to clamp down on a mega-rich sheikh brokering a sponsorship deal that earns his club a few more quid than they might be able to negotiate in the open market.

If Sunderland can get a £20 million a year shirt deal Im sure we can get more, check that if you like

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: Financial Fair Play will not affect us.

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.

Is this correct though? I am not sure it is.

The term "Related Party" covers a lot of ground. For example, Etihad are a related party if "a person" at Etihad has significant influence over the reporting party. Is there anyone at Etihad who has the Sheikh's ear? There might well be.

Also Etihad is a related party if they are part of the same group. Given that we are both owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family, this is questionable as well.

It is correct. Companies have been obliged to report related party transactions for many years and FFP merely adds the "fair market value" requirement. Also it's about more than having the Sheikh's ear. There has to be an element of shared control, either by being in a executive position or via the holding of shares, or involve a "close family member". As Sheikh Mansour holds all the shares in us on a personal basis and is not involved in Etihad in the formal sense, there's no related party.

Therefore if Khaldoon were Chairman or CEO of Etihad, we would probably be related parties. If the same person or company owned a significant percentage of shares in both Etihad & City then we would probably be related parties. There is one director in common between us and Etihad but he's a non-executive for both and the rules are clear that this sort of scenario is excluded. Now control of both parties may well in the hands of the Al Nahyan family but legally our hands are clean.

I was having a quick shufty at the rules again whilst you must have been typing and I can see that you are correct. There is a definition of "significant influence" which clearly is more rigorous than just having a word in a mate's ear. Specifically, it is "the power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of an entity", which clearly Etihad do not have.