It does not look stupid or a sham to use money to attract clientele or customers in the image rights business after all what are you selling. I have no doubt that most sports people now know the name and that they will be able to expand to a point they can make moneyI dont doubt that City hired the top people. Or that losses are not unusual what I dont get is the extent of the loss the name change tho and the fact it seems or its being reported as this company only working for city or possibly the group which makes it look like a shell or sham. It had no need to change name we got bought after all in part thanks to the City prefix and City name carries more weight and people didnt care about its losses and this reason looks more stupid now its changed name and is loosing money
If they really want to make a success of these other companies they need to work across football sport and entertainment more generally
Arf!
Exactly. If you care about the City owners being shady and the City books being dodgy then you ought to care about the fact EVERYBODY is doing it.That's the thing right? No one questions Arsenal sponsor ship with Emirates, or the FA cups. Many of these clubs are sponsors by corrupt nations and organizations, we at Barcelona had Qatar until our beef with PSG, Roma are sponsored by them, I think Bayern are too now? US and UK government/army commit many human rights violations yet not a peep and these same people are fine living in those countries. People love traveling to Dubai for holidays etc. nothing about that. Their own legend and academy graduate Beckham was happy collecting Qatar money while promoting them.
Doesn't really matter if it was declared.as.a related party transaction (pretty sure it was).What do we make of the sale of image rights to this company making hue losses ? Why did it change its name ? Who else does it work for other than City ?
It wasn't a related party but it was a somewhat dubious attempt to increase revenue, via the sale of the rights for a lump sum, and reduce costs, by having Fordham pay the image rights rather than City. They paid £25m and I reckon about £7m a year since, on average. Maybe it met the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit.Doesn't really matter if it was declared.as.a related party transaction (pretty sure it was).
Sheikh Mansour could have rocked up in his Lamborghini with a billion in cash and it is totally within FFP rules. Then it's up to UEFA to assess a fair value if they see fit.
you luck sod , first read i had was some brain dead rant by some guy Castles in the Daily Record
It wasn't a related party but it was a somewhat dubious attempt to increase revenue, via the sale of the rights for a lump sum, and reduce costs, by having Fordham pay the image rights rather than City. They paid £25m and I reckon about £7m a year since, on average. Maybe it met the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit.
Is that the spirit of business law or the spirit of football law :-) but another string to city`s bow is they have a separate business that will suffer monetarily if a player is defamed and if unjustly can sue , without city`s owners loosing dignityIt wasn't a related party but it was a somewhat dubious attempt to increase revenue, via the sale of the rights for a lump sum, and reduce costs, by having Fordham pay the image rights rather than City. They paid £25m and I reckon about £7m a year since, on average. Maybe it met the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit.