Naming rights step nearer

[adrianr]

For those using Arsenal as an example (if it's not been said already), but their stadium naming is a joint deal to include shirt sponsorship too, and in reality once you've spread it out over the length of the contract it's pretty piss poor compared to even shirt only sponsorship deals for other big clubs.

There's far far more scope for financial input than what Arsenal have managed. Barcelonas new deal is worth something like £25m per year for just the shirt. Arsenals is worth 6m per year for everything. Heck we get more than that from just shirt sponsorship.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

For those using Arsenal as an example (if it's not been said already), but their stadium naming is a joint deal to include shirt sponsorship too, and in reality once you've spread it out over the length of the contract it's pretty piss poor compared to even shirt only sponsorship deals for other big clubs.

There's far far more scope for financial input than what Arsenal have managed. Barcelonas new deal is worth something like £25m per year for just the shirt. Arsenals is worth 6m per year for everything. Heck we get more than that from just shirt sponsorship.

Arsenal's current deal is outdated.

If they were to renew tomorrow, they could easily get another £100m on top.

Emirates' name is synomonous with Arsenal's stadium, now.

City with either break up the forms of sponsorship, stadium, training ground, Leisure etc.

Or a one-off, all-in fee, for a huge amount.

As for Unicef stadium, forget it. Barca had to ditch them, just so they could meet the rules and debts.

I believe our deal will be worth best part of £30m a year for next five years.

 

[Matty]

If we were still at Maine Road I'd be dead against this renaming issue. However I can't imagien anyone cares for the name The City of Manchester Stadium, nor any derivitive of this. If it brings in additional funds then they can name it whatever thye wish, Ethihad Arena is fine with me.

 

[oakiecokie]

I would absolutely LOVE it if we took the piss by getting Etihad on as a sponsor for a ridiculous amount like £1bn....fuck you Platini!!

Not possible it has to be in line with other deals eg arsenal

Why does it ??
The Arsenal one only brings in £6.6M per year, with a 15 year period = £100M.
Not a lot is it,once its broken down ?
Would like to see how UEFA could make a claim that any sort of cash coming through, is not on par with A.N.Other Clubs.
No-one has set a "par" figure.Lets see UEFA in the European Court of Law,if they wish to take on the might of Citys lawyers etc.

 

[Anonymous]

why not just keep it as eastlands

 

[MATCITY]

why not just keep it as eastlands

money

 

[Falastur]

Not possible it has to be in line with other deals eg arsenal

Why does it ??
The Arsenal one only brings in £6.6M per year, with a 15 year period = £100M.
Not a lot is it,once its broken down ?
Would like to see how UEFA could make a claim that any sort of cash coming through, is not on par with A.N.Other Clubs.
No-one has set a "par" figure.Lets see UEFA in the European Court of Law,if they wish to take on the might of Citys lawyers etc.

Not a lot to you, and admittedly yes it could be higher. I think the talk of Spurs or Chelsea or perhaps Arsenal again getting a new stadium naming deal back a month or two ago suggested a figure of £15m/season. However, that's not the issue. The point here is that for the companies related, it's a huge amount of money, and one they are only happy to make if they get more than that back in exposure. Despite what the anti-fatcats opinions of the day suggest, company directors don't just go home to a swimming pool of money and throw wads of cash in the air. It's actually really quite hard for companies to make a big profit, especially in the middle of a recession. If we were to take Virgin Atlantic as an example, as they have a similar amount of planes to Etihad and I can't get Etihad's figures, Virgin made a revenue of £2.3 billion last year but made a net loss of £132m. Companies of their size that turn profits tend to probably not exceed £100m profit for several billion revenue. If we now ask them to give us 20 or 30% of their profits in a sponsorship deal, they would not hope to see most of that back and suddenly we are killing their business. And unlike what some here think, that Mansour can just appear with a brown envelope and say "here, use mine", business doesn't work that way. They would have to declare that huge investment and it would pose questions in the business world as to why they were doing it, especially from the majority of businessmen who care nothing for football and don't think they should be taking huge payments to make huge payments. We can't just say "Mansour, please give Etihad several billion so they can give it back to us, kthxbye".

As to how UEFA evaluates the market value of our deal, it's a grey area yes, but it's not this vast sea of un-interpretable madness that we can exploit by saying "you don't understand your policy, therefore we demand you let us bend the rules!" UEFA wouldn't have put it in place if they didn't know how to interpret it. The way they will handle it is simple. They will have a bevy of market analysts who will be former businessmen and stockbrokers at the highest level, who will be able to look at a company's financial reports and their sponsorship deals with a club and will be able to make a report on just how much money that company can afford to make from their operational profits and how much money they can expect to make back from exposure. If the company is clearly spending more money on the deal than it can expect to make back then it is inflating the value of the deal and the deal will be chalked back to match the money the businessmen will suggest should have been made. I dare say a figure higher than Arsenal's will be suggested, but in general our owner's closeness to the companies which are sponsoring us is exceptional and the UEFA analysts will consider sponsorship deals made by those clubs who have no affiliation to their sponsors to be the benchmark, precisely because if those clubs have no affiliation to their sponsors it means the sponsors are evaluating their deals based solely on what is good for their company and not on them being privately funded to make the deal, or badgered into it by mutual friends, and that sole focus on company profits is how sponsorship deals "should be done". In addition, you can bet that the value of any investment Mansour might make into Etihad to get them to pay an inflated price will immediately be chalked off the "market value" of the sponsorship because pure and simple, it is "financial doping" of Etihad to give them more financial muscle than they are supposed to be able to afford.

 

[BurnCK]

UEFA's FFPR would never hold up in a European Court of Law so I don't really think it matters how much money we get on Stadium naming rights. I can guarantee that the first club to be excluded from Europe (if UEFA actually have the balls to try and enforce it) will take UEFA to court. Most big football clubs these days are businesses rather than 'clubs' and UEFA would have difficulty enforcing restrictions on free trade because of this.

 

[The Fat el Hombre]

For those using Arsenal as an example (if it's not been said already), but their stadium naming is a joint deal to include shirt sponsorship too, and in reality once you've spread it out over the length of the contract it's pretty piss poor compared to even shirt only sponsorship deals for other big clubs.

There's far far more scope for financial input than what Arsenal have managed. Barcelonas new deal is worth something like £25m per year for just the shirt. Arsenals is worth 6m per year for everything. Heck we get more than that from just shirt sponsorship.

Arsenal's current deal is outdated.

If they were to renew tomorrow, they could easily get another £100m on top.

Emirates' name is synomonous with Arsenal's stadium, now.

City with either break up the forms of sponsorship, stadium, training ground, Leisure etc.

Or a one-off, all-in fee, for a huge amount.

As for Unicef stadium, forget it. Barca had to ditch them, just so they could meet the rules and debts.

I believe our deal will be worth best part of £30m a year for next five years.

Woooohoooooooo! Only another £100 million to go every season and we might just break even

 

[Rammyblues]

It isn't about even breaking even with the FFPR but about the ability in the future to break even, this is new money that we haven't previously had whether it be five million a year or twenty it doesn't matter it is just another step up the financial ladder to breaking even. Now if it were the swamp and to go with their nickname the rags I would have thought the tampon velodrome would be good. But I am content with Eithad Arena.