New PL Commercial rule passed (pg4) | City rumoured to be questioning the legality

If City or any club were to challenge the legality of it as suggested, who would they challenge it to?
 
cheekybids said:
How would Bayern Munich justify all of their commercial deals ?
Click to expand...

Calling @Maldeika to the thread :)

Edit: Incidentally, I did analysis of commercial income vs broadcast income a couple of years ago, on the grounds that the more successful a club and its league was, the more a sponsor would be paying for sponsorship. There were four outliers: Bayern, PSG and Shaktar (iirc) who got more commercial income than their success and "appeal" suggested they should and Liverpool who were making less. I think I will update it for the last info.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Sorry, all I read was shareholders.

I have to assume the AD / USA relationship shows that they can Co exist without mutual distrust?
Click to expand...
They are serious business partners outside the world of football. Mutual investments cement that relationship and they won't want their own part of that undermined; Silver lake will be aligned with Mansour.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Calling @Maldeika to the thread :)

Edit: Incidentally, I did analysis of commercial income vs broadcast income a couple of years ago, on the grounds that the more successful a club and its league was, the more a sponsor would be paying for sponsorship. There were four outliers: Bayern, PSG and Shaktar (iirc) who got more commercial income than their success and "appeal" suggested they should and Liverpool who were making less. I think I will update it for the last info.
Click to expand...

For the record it makes perfect sense they get far more but do they ever have to justify it like we would.
 
EricBrooksGhost said:
They are serious business partners outside the world of football. Mutual investments cement that relationship and they won't want their own part of that undermined; Silver lake will be aligned with Mansour.
Click to expand...
Correct, in fact our main owners have more business contacts in the USA outside of football than most owners.

I like to think that this exposes the red shirt teams as non typical of modern other sector businesses.
 
cheekybids said:
For the record it makes perfect sense they get far more but do they ever have to justify it like we would.
Click to expand...

I had a quick look at the Deloittes 2024 Money League, some things of interest:

City have only the fifth highest commercial income in Europe, behind Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern and PSG. For a team that just won everything, that is pretty poor. Sack Berrada! But really, it beggars belief that City's deals have to be scrutinised so much when the commercial income isn't at all unusual.

Bayern have the highest commercial income, although the top five are all within 20 million of each other. You say it makes perfect sense that they should get far more. I say they would be hard pushed to find unrelated bids to support the valuation of each of their shareholder sponsorships.

Half of the top 15 clubs have commercial income : broadcast income ratios in the range 0.9 to 1.3, including City. The outliers are: Bayern with 2.1, making twice as much commercial income as they do broadcast income (!), Barcelona with 1.9 (but what they are doing with their accounts and the various levers is a mystery to me. I remember UEFA disallowed some of their reported income?); PSG with 1.6 for obvious reasons; and United and Juventus with "minor breaches" of 1.5 and 1.4. Juventus is interesting, though, because the other Italian clubs are well below 1 (ie they make less commercial income than they do broadcast income). United is interesting because they are cunts.

Anyway, my point is that City's commercial income isn't out of line with other clubs, taking into account the success of the club and the PL. Tottenham, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal, for example, are all in the same range. If the PL spent less time analysing sponsorships uselessly, it could spend more of its time trying to maintain the league's popularity and growth to the benefit of everyone. Imho.
 
I love the desperate lunacy of the "3 bids'" idea since it's effectively an auction, not just of a single item, but of the myriad different, and moving, variables that go into such deals at both ends. So the club would have to enter into complex, commercially sensitive negotiations with 3 different major corporations all of which have different visions and expectations from the deal and 2 of which know they aren't going to succeed. Anyone who has ever been in a tendering exercise knows the cost of that to all parties.

Once the winning bid/tender has been decided, that has to be submitted, along with commercial details of the losing bids, which may or may not have included differing moving variables, for scrutiny by the Premier League"s ever-increasing panel of legal and financial "experts" who will then pronounce whether they will allow it. Obviously, given all the moving parts, that will be a quick process because a) that would be entirely possible and b) that's the way the PL operates. This for all 20 clubs.

It has all the hallmarks of the PL's ill-considered and desperate pandering to Liverpool's crass comment about wanting to see the "2nd bid". Just as the "blue card" nonsense appears to reflect Gary Neville's constant banging on about City's "tactical fouling".
 
halfcenturyup said:
I had a quick look at the Deloittes 2024 Money League, some things of interest:

City have only the fifth highest commercial income in Europe, behind Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern and PSG. For a team that just won everything, that is pretty poor. Sack Berrada! But really, it beggars belief that City's deals have to be scrutinised so much when the commercial income isn't at all unusual.

Bayern have the highest commercial income, although the top five are all within 20 million of each other. You say it makes perfect sense that they should get far more. I say they would be hard pushed to find unrelated bids to support the valuation of each of their shareholder sponsorships.

Half of the top 15 clubs have commercial income : broadcast income ratios in the range 0.9 to 1.3, including City. The outliers are: Bayern with 2.1, making twice as much commercial income as they do broadcast income (!), Barcelona with 1.9 (but what they are doing with their accounts and the various levers is a mystery to me. I remember UEFA disallowed some of their reported income?); PSG with 1.6 for obvious reasons; and United and Juventus with "minor breaches" of 1.5 and 1.4. Juventus is interesting, though, because the other Italian clubs are well below 1 (ie they make less commercial income than they do broadcast income). United is interesting because they are cunts.

Anyway, my point is that City's commercial income isn't out of line with other clubs, taking into account the success of the club and the PL. Tottenham, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal, for example, are all in the same range. If the PL spent less time analysing sponsorships uselessly, it could spend more of its time trying to maintain the league's popularity and growth to the benefit of everyone. Imho.
Click to expand...

Let me justify why I believe it makes sense.

German companies - backing a strong national brand in a world stage allows you to bid on a world stage, there is a synergy with excellence & high performance.

That’s why I think it makes perfect sense for Abu Dhabi brands to be associated with City.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.