Media Thread - 2021/22

[Newman Noggs]

Interesting the comments section beneath the article in the Mail. These increasingly crude and desperate attempts to stop investment are gradually entering the football public's consciousness for what they are.

It's not only undermining the credibility of the PL as a competition but, in the long run, diminishing any success united and liverpool may achieve in the future. They'd do better to shut up and sort their own houses out.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Interesting the comments section beneath the article in the Mail. These increasingly crude and desperate attempts to stop investment are gradually entering the football public's consciousness for what they are.

It's not only undermining the credibility of the PL as a competition but, in the long run, diminishing any success united and liverpool may achieve in the future. They'd do better to shut up and sort their own houses out.

The Premier league is becoming an attractive place to investors, the buyout of Newcastle and even more recently the Czech billionaire buying into West Ham. The top four including us cannot take our position for granted anymore, no wonder the history boys stakeholders are shitting it, their accumulation of trophies will be viewed in the future like Preston North End’s success in the early part of the 20th century is viewed now.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

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.

Hughes is historically FOS so cut out the charitable sort :)
He's had 2 articles over the last couple of days and the original appears now to have changed. It did have this extract which slbsn took down in his usual succinct manner:

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Article doesnt even get basic facts right. Mancini "signed 2 contracts the day he arrived at the Etihad" , 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

Spot on. More bad form from Matt Hughes. It is deliberate IMO.

The original DS articles highlighted the contracts and stated they were signed in 2009. All perfectly legal and HMRC will have looked at it... Also all pre-FFP.

The DS article also referred to an email in 2011 about payment and nothing to suggest it was for a new contract.

As is often the case with these tossers they like to conflate to suit their purposes.

The offending para will likely get changed. So for posterity:

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Which years would they be? I doubt if associated sponsorships were ever in excess of about 20%/25% of our income.

I posted this recently on the FFP thread:

As for historically the c15% figure was something I heard on pods 93.20 etc. For example, after 17/18 accounts were published, PB estimated Etihad to be £55mil and 3 other Abi Dhabi sponsorships to be £15 mil for a total of £70mil out of a total of £232 million commercial and £503mil turnover. £70mil is just 13% of £503mil.

However, following the Der Spiegel leaks and everything that followed, it was apparent how much we took the piss (with just cause imo :) in the early days of FFP. It came out that in 2013 our Abu Dhabi sponsorship was c £65mil Etihad and £50mil Aabar, Etisilat and ADTA. £115 mil was 42% of 12/13 turnover of £271mil or 33% of 13/14 turnover of £347 mil.

 

[KS55]

I posted this recently on the FFP thread:

As for historically the c15% figure was something I heard on pods 93.20 etc. For example, after 17/18 accounts were published, PB estimated Etihad to be £55mil and 3 other Abi Dhabi sponsorships to be £15 mil for a total of £70mil out of a total of £232 million commercial and £503mil turnover. £70mil is just 13% of £503mil.

However, following the Der Spiegel leaks and everything that followed, it was apparent how much we took the piss (with just cause imo :) in the early days of FFP. It came out that in 2013 our Abu Dhabi sponsorship was c £65mil Etihad and £50mil Aabar, Etisilat and ADTA. £115 mil was 42% of 12/13 turnover of £271mil or 33% of 13/14 turnover of £347 mil.

Thanks for that. Those early days we certainly sailed close to the wind.
Do you know where the numbers you quoted came from?

 

[KS55]

Article doesnt even get basic facts right. Mancini "signed 2 contracts the day he arrived at the Etihad" , 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

Oh, they are no problem. Red shirts special dispensation.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Interesting the comments section beneath the article in the Mail. These increasingly crude and desperate attempts to stop investment are gradually entering the football public's consciousness for what they are.

It's not only undermining the credibility of the PL as a competition but, in the long run, diminishing any success united and liverpool may achieve in the future. They'd do better to shut up and sort their own houses out.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis employ troll farms to counter the negative press by responding with supportive comments. Something we never did. I can't imagine public sentiment has changed so quickly, but it can be made to look like it has, which is half the battle.

 

[tweety]

It's quite incredible that the premier League and uefa deem owner investment a bad thing. I know money and interest in football has exploded in the last 30 years but nothing lasts forever. The continued financial protection of the so called historical clubs may at sometime kill the goose. It was only the investment at Chelsea and City that prevented the rags from turning it into a one team League.

 

[waspish]

This fair value for sponsors how do they work that out? If it’s to do with oh rags have 650m fans that is a lie because they got to that number by lying when rags paid people asked questions that would get the high number!

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Thanks for that. Those early days we certainly sailed close to the wind.
Do you know where the numbers you quoted came from?

The sums for the sponsorship figures were widely quoted following the DS leaks and re-hashed by all the international media groups who collabarated with their take on the story based on the same info. The info was further enhanced in articles in the early part of 2020 pre-CAS.

The percentages are mine based simply on our turnover for the 2 years in question.

 

[KS55]

It's quite incredible that the premier League and uefa deem owner investment a bad thing. I know money and interest in football has exploded in the last 30 years but nothing lasts forever. The continued financial protection of the so called historical clubs may at sometime kill the goose. It was only the investment at Chelsea and City that prevented the rags from turning it into a one team League.

UEFA policy is determined by the old G14. Why clubs are allowed to capture important posts on a regulatory body escapes me. Time for a separation of powers.

 

[KS55]

The sums for the sponsorship figures were widely quoted following the DS leaks and re-hashed by all the international media groups who collabarated with their take on the story based on the same info. The info was further enhanced in articles in the early part of 2020 pre-CAS.

The percentages are mine based simply on our turnover for the 2 years in question.

Thanks. Given that the original source is the leaks, I would apply a pinch of salt, especially as no-one outside Der Spiegel has seen any of them, just that mag's facsimiles. Similarly, those email figures are not necessarily what our accounts finally contained. I really think that the club should release its dossier of "incontrovertible proof" that UEFA apparently did not even read.

 

[IrishBlueSince92]

Hughes is historically FOS so cut out the charitable sort :)
He's had 2 articles over the last couple of days and the original appears now to have changed. It did have this extract which slbsn took down in his usual succinct manner:

slbsn has some good views on twitter, but fuck he’s negative regarding City
Don’t know how he gets out of bed in the mornings

 

[jaiguruKun]

Rob Harris has been peddling the "state-owned" BS again in his latest article.

I'll be sure to tell my brother and the rest of my extended family that they now part own all my assets.

 

[jaiguruKun]

slbsn has some good views on twitter, but fuck he’s negative regarding City
Don’t know how he gets out of bed in the mornings

What's negative about pointing out blatant lies about the club?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Shithouses

Premier League plan to curb Newcastle and Man City spending

The new regulations will form part of tightened restrictions on related-party sponsorship deals in a direct response to the £305million Saudi Arabian-led takeover of Newcastle.

www.dailymail.co.uk

TOP Comments in that article :
"Yet Man United are OVER 1 Billion in dept, and have outspent everyone with no FFP.... Why is that I wonder??"

"They are trying everything to stop Newcastle being successful. I hope Newcastle win everything along with City"

"If this takeover had happened at one of the already established big clubs you wouldn't be hearing any of this. There is a collective attempt to keep the route to the top table firmly closed and that's all this is about. It's got nothing to do with fairness. If Newcastle do get this right starting with winning the difficult survival battle we are in they will replace one of those clubs and that is all they are really bothered about."

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The sums for the sponsorship figures were widely quoted following the DS leaks and re-hashed by all the international media groups who collabarated with their take on the story based on the same info. The info was further enhanced in articles in the early part of 2020 pre-CAS.

The percentages are mine based simply on our turnover for the 2 years in question.

And yet 2012/13 was one of the first two years of FFP assessment, an assessment we failed miserably. So we clearly weren't taking the piss enough!

The level of the second tier sponsorships was a bit surprising but I'd still say that the notion of "value" can be looked from two different angles. You can compare the absolute amount of a sponsorship to what other, similar clubs are getting. So the going rate for a shirt sponsorship for a CL club like us or Chelsea is around £50m a year. Is that "fair" for Newcastle, Watford or Burnley though?

Or you can look at it from the point of view of the sponsor. Aabar might pay £15m a season but has anyone ever said, "I must pay a visit to Aabar this weekend"? Etisalat on the other hand are a consumer-facing organisation. £15m of their money might raise awareness and sales enough to more than cover it. Visit Abu Dhabi is another organisation that can more probably translate marketing spend into visitors, and hence awareness and revenue.

 

[jrb]

The Daily (United) Liverpool today.

 

[LongsightM13]

UEFA policy is determined by the old G14. Why clubs are allowed to capture important posts on a regulatory body escapes me. Time for a separation of powers.

This is why the redhsirts and their G14 chums want a super league. They want everyone else to be tightly regulated, but not themselves and their friendly fellow members of their establishment cartel.
They believe they are entitled to do as they please, based solely on the achievements of other people in the distant past.