Financial fair play is merely a way to stifle City
Perhaps UEFA could be persuaded to rule on a fair price for Manchester City defender Jerome Boateng. Those guys seem to know the value of everything these days.
They know how much a stadium naming rights deal is worth at a club that may - or may not - be on the brink of becoming one of the most significant in Europe.
They know what a kit deal should mean to a team that may - or may not - be about to win Europe's richest domestic league.
And they can put a precise price on a fledgling project involving transport infrastructure, retail and sports education in the Greater Manchester area that may - or may not - create a new and vibrant entrepreneurial hub to the east of the city.
Indeed, it is hard to imagine why we continue listening to those bozos who made such a pig's ear of judging the financial fortunes of the Mediterranean countries, when all the finest economic forecasters in Europe can be found hanging around Michel Platini's office in Nyon.
UEFA have announced they will look into Manchester City's £400million, 10-year sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, to see if financial fair play rules have been contravened.
'Our experts will make assessments of fair value using benchmarks,' said a spokesman.
What benchmarks are these?
City are all about potential right now. They could be anything, or nothing. They could usurp Barcelona or end up in the Europa League next season. And there is no precedent for City as a major European force. What would be the going rate, were City to win the modern Champions League? Who knows? They have never even been in it before.
Yet there is already pressure over the Etihad deal from the old European elite, who feel threatened. They want the arrangement investigated because of very obvious links between Etihad and Manchester City. The airline is owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, whose ruler, Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan is the half brother of City's owner Sheik Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan.
The claim is the figures have been artificially inflated to help City comply with UEFA's financial rules. And maybe they have; but so what? Business is about contacts. There are plenty of deals struck at a certain price because one side is playing a long game, hoping to do better down the line. A company might agree a significant discount to reel in a wealthy client; another might make a generous offer to establish a relationship and benefit in the future.
The microcosm is giving a busy tradesman a generous tip at first, in the hope of then being able to call on his services and time more regularly.
Clearly, these examples do not apply to Etihad and City, but they might apply to other major clubs in Europe and to a business that wanted a foot in the door at, say, Manchester United or Real Madrid.
What would UEFA do then? Ban their clubs from cutting a good deal? It will be interesting to see such restrictive measures tested in court. Bayern Munich chief executive Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, is believed to be among those protesting against the Manchester City deal behind the scenes, but he has vested interests on several fronts.
Right now, there is a significant rift between the clubs over Germany defender Boateng: Munich have offered £12m, City want nearer £20m. 'City demand a price which is not realistic,' Rummenigge says.
So now you see how it works. The big clubs want City's sponsorship by Etihad suppressed, but also wish to steal their players on the cheap. So City get gypped two ways - it is almost as if the clubs are scared of their capacity to generate money.
As chairman of the European Club Association, Rummenigge rarely misses a chance to raise an issue happily to Bayern Munich's advantage, and this is no exception. Not satisfied with Munich's immense wealth and standing in the domestic and European game - which will only be further cemented by the financial fair play rule - Rummenigge wishes to take out all interlopers, too.
City represent the greatest threat to that established order and, therefore, must be stopped.
Munich want a return to the days when the big clubs could just bully their way to a cheap deal. In Rummenigge's mind, City are impudent upstarts, their business unworthy of a £400m sponsorship, their players unworthy of a £20m bid; and UEFA are complicit in this arrogance.
From the start, financial fair play was only going to benefit the very wealthiest or the smallest clubs without ambition. Those looking to build, to grow, to succeed, were going to be stifled. So it is proving.
Munich do not want City to make money in the marketplace or in the transfer market, then they want their available funds to be fixed to income.
It is a shameful racket, but no doubt the economic gurus at UEFA will find a solution; they are so wise.
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2013243/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Financial-fair-play-merely-stifle-Manchester-City.html#ixzz1RkQk4vDy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... z1RkQk4vDy</a>
Perhaps UEFA could be persuaded to rule on a fair price for Manchester City defender Jerome Boateng. Those guys seem to know the value of everything these days.
They know how much a stadium naming rights deal is worth at a club that may - or may not - be on the brink of becoming one of the most significant in Europe.
They know what a kit deal should mean to a team that may - or may not - be about to win Europe's richest domestic league.
And they can put a precise price on a fledgling project involving transport infrastructure, retail and sports education in the Greater Manchester area that may - or may not - create a new and vibrant entrepreneurial hub to the east of the city.
Indeed, it is hard to imagine why we continue listening to those bozos who made such a pig's ear of judging the financial fortunes of the Mediterranean countries, when all the finest economic forecasters in Europe can be found hanging around Michel Platini's office in Nyon.
UEFA have announced they will look into Manchester City's £400million, 10-year sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, to see if financial fair play rules have been contravened.
'Our experts will make assessments of fair value using benchmarks,' said a spokesman.
What benchmarks are these?
City are all about potential right now. They could be anything, or nothing. They could usurp Barcelona or end up in the Europa League next season. And there is no precedent for City as a major European force. What would be the going rate, were City to win the modern Champions League? Who knows? They have never even been in it before.
Yet there is already pressure over the Etihad deal from the old European elite, who feel threatened. They want the arrangement investigated because of very obvious links between Etihad and Manchester City. The airline is owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, whose ruler, Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan is the half brother of City's owner Sheik Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan.
The claim is the figures have been artificially inflated to help City comply with UEFA's financial rules. And maybe they have; but so what? Business is about contacts. There are plenty of deals struck at a certain price because one side is playing a long game, hoping to do better down the line. A company might agree a significant discount to reel in a wealthy client; another might make a generous offer to establish a relationship and benefit in the future.
The microcosm is giving a busy tradesman a generous tip at first, in the hope of then being able to call on his services and time more regularly.
Clearly, these examples do not apply to Etihad and City, but they might apply to other major clubs in Europe and to a business that wanted a foot in the door at, say, Manchester United or Real Madrid.
What would UEFA do then? Ban their clubs from cutting a good deal? It will be interesting to see such restrictive measures tested in court. Bayern Munich chief executive Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, is believed to be among those protesting against the Manchester City deal behind the scenes, but he has vested interests on several fronts.
Right now, there is a significant rift between the clubs over Germany defender Boateng: Munich have offered £12m, City want nearer £20m. 'City demand a price which is not realistic,' Rummenigge says.
So now you see how it works. The big clubs want City's sponsorship by Etihad suppressed, but also wish to steal their players on the cheap. So City get gypped two ways - it is almost as if the clubs are scared of their capacity to generate money.
As chairman of the European Club Association, Rummenigge rarely misses a chance to raise an issue happily to Bayern Munich's advantage, and this is no exception. Not satisfied with Munich's immense wealth and standing in the domestic and European game - which will only be further cemented by the financial fair play rule - Rummenigge wishes to take out all interlopers, too.
City represent the greatest threat to that established order and, therefore, must be stopped.
Munich want a return to the days when the big clubs could just bully their way to a cheap deal. In Rummenigge's mind, City are impudent upstarts, their business unworthy of a £400m sponsorship, their players unworthy of a £20m bid; and UEFA are complicit in this arrogance.
From the start, financial fair play was only going to benefit the very wealthiest or the smallest clubs without ambition. Those looking to build, to grow, to succeed, were going to be stifled. So it is proving.
Munich do not want City to make money in the marketplace or in the transfer market, then they want their available funds to be fixed to income.
It is a shameful racket, but no doubt the economic gurus at UEFA will find a solution; they are so wise.
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2013243/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Financial-fair-play-merely-stifle-Manchester-City.html#ixzz1RkQk4vDy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... z1RkQk4vDy</a>
