Garry.Cook said:
Don't know how true this is but my mate (a final year economics student) rekcons the City legal and financial teams are so on-the-ball with these regulations that they have plans a, b, c, d, e, f.....
Basically he suggested that even if breaking even looked nigh on impossible, our Sheikh could (in an overly dramatised world) stroll into the Walmart HQ, purchase the Walmart/ASDA empire under the City holding company name and all the profits would sit nicely in the City books.
Obviously we wouldn't go to this extreme but is he right? Could we just buy an already succesful outlet and count the profits towards breaking even?
nope, has to be 'football related' income, to count. that means, related to the ground, the players, the club, the brand.
Even if we renamed Walmart 'Citymart', it would be us sponsoring them, their business doesn't have anything to do with our club.
This is why we're wondering about them developing Sportcity, because it would be true that any income gained from developments around the ground would count, within reason.
"<UAE team> today smashed the world transfer record with the capture of Paraguyan international Roque Santa Cruz from Manchester City. The fee is undisclosed but believed to be in the region of £250m rising to £270m based on performance-related clauses."
nope, rules exist to prevent assets from being sold for more than their 'fair value'.. same applies to sponsorship.
The comment that sparked this article is just a clarification of how UEFA want the results to be presented. Their first goal will be transparency, they don't want clubs to try and hide their losses through the flick of a pen. Everything else depends on how hard a line they want to take.
Clubs will be negotiating furiously with UEFA to find a middle ground, so they at least know where they stand before the first round of assessments takes place.
Large numbers of clubs will turn in losses, but refusing entry to scores of clubs would be the most extraordinary thing.
My guess is the middle ground will be; you show us absolutely everything, make every last effort to comply, come up with a genuine strategy for the future, and you will probably get the benefit of the doubt, for now.
UEFA run club football, but they also benefit hugely from it. If they ban Chelsea, Inter, City, Zenit (let alone Barca, Utd, Real), they are throwing away huge amounts of commercial income, and risking those clubs, and others, launching a breakaway competition.
Sure, UEFA would challenge it, ban the players involved from International Football.... but it would be a hell of a fight under European Law.
UEFA are in a privileged situation, granted all sorts of special exemptions and powers under European law. Acting 'unreasonably', opening all that up to serious, sustained legal challenge, is not in their interest.
Neither is devaluing the Champs League by refusing entry to the best teams.
The commercial income from the CL trickles down to every part of the organisation, and the people who benefit are the ones who vote in the executives and the president. That income is derived from the clubs. UEFA must maintain a consensus with them.
UEFA will push it so far, but they want to make a difference and retain order, not start a war. The onus is on
everyone to be reasonable. Clubs must manage their finances reasonably, UEFA must regulate reasonably, or it's armageddon. It's not unusual for upcoming commercial enterprises to post losses, whilst still growing in value and solidity.
