Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Newman Noggs said:
The Mail discussing the PL's temporary ban on Newcastle getting sponsorship from Saudi companies.

"The Premier League have set up a working party to bring in new rules to ensure that any related-party sponsorships, such as Manchester City's naming-rights and shirt deals with Etihad Airways, must be set at a fair market value"

Apart from the obvious, covered on here many, many times, it's worded to be a bit ambiguous but it's all part of the drip, drip.
Click to expand...

Nothing ambiguous about it. The Etihad deal is simply not a related party contract, as the accounts have shown for the last 10 years. It’s just untrue.

Whether this is a deliberate falsehood, or whether the journalist in question just doesn’t understand what a related party transaction is, or is not, is a different question.
 
Chris in London said:
Nothing ambiguous about it. The Etihad deal is simply not a related party contract, as the accounts have shown for the last 10 years. It’s just untrue.

Whether this is a deliberate falsehood, or whether the journalist in question just doesn’t understand what a related party transaction is, or is not, is a different question.
Click to expand...

100% right as has been covered many times in these pages. I think it is ambiguous in the sense that, whilst we know exactly what they are really saying, they could argue (tenuously) that the "must be set at fair market value" relates back to "such as Manchester City's.... deal with Etihad". Since it isn't a related party transaction anyway it's bollocks but, being a charitable sort, I thought I'd give them some benefit of the doubt.
 
KS55 said:
Where City use CFG or others to pay coaches, for example, I believe we reimburse those costs and so it makes no diff to our ffp position. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

If they are bringing it in, it will disrupt our business plan somehow but doubtless we will outwit them.

As far as the article is concerned, It was the Mancini part I was particularly disgusted by.
 
Newman Noggs said:
If they are bringing it in, it will disrupt our business plan somehow but doubtless we will outwit them.

As far as the article is concerned, It was the Mancini part I was particularly disgusted by.
Click to expand...
Tbf, if we paid Mancini twice, it was a bit cheeky but given the attempts to stop us, legit subterfuge in response in my book.
 
When new PL rules come in, it will lay bare the lies and misunderstandings about our finances. So:
--City have no related sponsorships.
--Our Abu Dhabi connected sponsorships are, in any case, at fair market value.
-- The 30% rule for "associated" sponsorships will make no diff to us as the current total is around 15%.
I wonder how the lying press are going to account for this.
 
KS55 said:
When new PL rules come in, it will lay bare the lies and misunderstandings about our finances. So:
--City have hundreds of related sponsorships.
--Our Abu Dhabi connected sponsorships are, in any case, not at fair market value.
-- The 30% rule for "associated" sponsorships will make a significant difference to us as the current total is around 15%.
I wonder how the lying press are going to account for this.
Click to expand...
Updated to reflect the position of all media outlets.
 
KS55 said:
When new PL rules come in, it will lay bare the lies and misunderstandings about our finances. So:
--City have no related sponsorships.
--Our Abu Dhabi connected sponsorships are, in any case, at fair market value.
-- The 30% rule for "associated" sponsorships will make no diff to us as the current total is around 15%.
I wonder how the lying press are going to account for this.
Click to expand...
They’ll quote the years we would have failed the current (to be) regulations.
oddly we will be the only club subject to this historical in depth analysis. maybe Chelsea As well.

the main ‘istree clubs will be found to have the usual selective history applied and not get a mention.

media biased reporting - it’s an easy lark isn’t it.
 
JASR said:
They’ll quote the years we would have failed the current (to be) regulations.
oddly we will be the only club subject to this historical in depth analysis. maybe Chelsea As well.

the main ‘istree clubs will be found to have the usual selective history applied and not get a mention.

media biased reporting - it’s an easy lark isn’t it.
Click to expand...
Which years would they be? I doubt if associated sponsorships were ever in excess of about 20%/25% of our income.
 
LongsightM13 said:
For balance - and both the author and the conduit have taken some often well deserved stick on here - but Glenn Hoddle has written an interesting piece on the BBC today comparing the rise of the likes of Phil, Kev and Jack to how playmakers like himself were often treated with suspicion back in the day. He is shilling his new book but an interesting read nonetheless, especially when talking about Grealish


Rise of the playmaker - Glenn Hoddle on why the future is Phil Foden for England
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59247450
Click to expand...
Hoddle always had a very high opinion of himself as a player. The way he went on you'd think he was the English Maradona or Pele. Despite the BBC bigging him up he went missing in virtually every big game he played in. That's why he was regarded as a luxury player
 
KS55 said:
Where City use CFG or others to pay coaches, for example, I believe we reimburse those costs and so it makes no diff to our ffp position. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Article doesnt even get basic facts right. Mancini "signed 2 contracts the day he arrived at the Etihad in 2011" , although he joined us in 2009. Outrage about offshore accounts, wonder what their view is on organisations registered in say the Cayman Isles for example
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top