PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Metalartin said:
The rest of the big 6 show Arsenal have just done poor negotiations on their side. They are getting the same as Chelsea and Spurs do for just their shirts. If I remember right, they tied themselves into a 15 year deal on the stadium naming rights and underestimated what they could ask for when they did it. The shirt and stadium deals have been extended since then though and they are the biggest club in London still. Maybe it was the lack of CL football and success that limited their cards in negotiations that played a part in that.

I've done a post on this before which includes information about what United were/are getting for naming rights for Carrington(who even United pundits say is shoddy and in need of a revamp). As well as comparing other clubs stadium deals, Barca, Atletico etc: https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/media-thread-2021-22.351471/post-14751010
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response and that previous post was excellent. I think this is a critical aspect of the whole saga. If the PL attempt a line of attack that somehow invalidates a revenue source its high stakes. I'd be interested to see the Profit/Loss bottom line for the all years within the scope of the charges. IIRC after the initial heavy losses pre FFP we declared very low losses in some years and eventually modest profits, but always within the FFP thresholds. The worst case scenario would be financial years being "reclassified" as FFP non compliant. My guess is this is the main line of attack by the PL lawyers.
When the likes of spit the dog writes in his opinion column "Its impossible for City to generate more revenue than LFC', its not based on his expertise in forensic accountancy its because someone inside LFC, someone very senior has blabbed to him. As we know, he has issues controlling his gob.
 
Last edited:
paulchapo said:
Yes I've no idea who he's been talking to on the terraces at away games lol.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately unless you read this forum the majority of City fans know nothing about the way the media generally are polarized.
Most City fans I talk to need this education.
City fans are City fans through and through but are surprised when I tell them about Sky and BT.

Incidentally my many Spanish mates stick only to football when talking about City.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I agree with you that the non-cooperation charge is a likely outcome. It fulfils the prime objective of labelling us as cheats, and therefore our achievements invalid. Since the layman who knows no different will simply assume that we were guilty of all charges and only got off by not cooperating. The same as getting off because things are time-barred, people just think, "Yeah but that's a technicality, obviously they are guilty really".

And whilst a correspondingly minor financial penalty (i.e. fine) from the PL might not be significant, the damage to our reputation and ability to secure more lucrative sponsorships, would be. The PL will have achieved its aims of damaging us.
Click to expand...
Unless co-operation is clearly defined in the PL rules then even that is on "load of ole bollox" territory.
 
Chippy_boy said:
As I understand it, CAS determined that Etihad is not a related party? (An easy determination to make, since there are objective tests as to whether a party is related or not.)

If that is indeed the case, then Etihad as an unrelated party pays what it likes and that is by definition is fair value, i.e. A sponsorship deal is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, and provided they are an unrelated party, whatever they are prepared to pay, is fair value. We could get a sponsorship deal from Elon Musk for £10bn a year and that would be fair value, if Musk was daft enough to pay it.

Bottom line is, provided Etihad is deemed a non-related party, they can pay us what on earth they like and there is fuck all the PL or anyone else can do about it.
Click to expand...

Related party for accounting purposes is defined carefully in accounting policies. Etihad is not related under those policies (unless you assume Mansour is just a front for the UAE as a whole, but no regulatory body has tried that yet).

But what the PL have done is introduce a new "associated party" definition so they can look at, and modify if they consider it necessary, the fair value of any sponsorship with any connection to almost anyone. Even worse, they want the club and the sponsor to amend their agreement to the value determined by the PL. This is what the club voted against as they considered it "illegal".

I think.
 
I was thinking about the “visit Rwanda” campaign & with my conscious bias convinced myself it’s a sham well it must be. You see we can be as guilty as others.

I looked at the purpose of the campaign & it was to convince tourists that Rwanda can be a destination. Let’s be honest my first thoughts when considering Rwanda is not to pack my bags. Again that’s my bias.

So has it been successful, well up to the pandemic tourist numbers has grown year on year with a high of approx $500m US. It’s grown 5 times in 10 years.

The main point I’m making is that branding & marketing which I’m no expert in but the world wide appeal of the premier league & champions league is so big. We are so busy throwing shit at each other that it would be nice to see positive articles about how partnerships have worked. We know what Etihad has done for us & how we’ve raised the profile of them & AD.

Even I can see that a German company partnering with Bayern raises confidence on the world stage of German excellence & therefore it makes sense for Saudi to partner with the Toon.
 
Chippy_boy said:
As I understand it, CAS determined that Etihad is not a related party? (An easy determination to make, since there are objective tests as to whether a party is related or not.)

If that is indeed the case, then Etihad as an unrelated party pays what it likes and that is by definition is fair value, i.e. A sponsorship deal is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, and provided they are an unrelated party, whatever they are prepared to pay, is fair value. We could get a sponsorship deal from Elon Musk for £10bn a year and that would be fair value, if Musk was daft enough to pay it.

Bottom line is, provided Etihad is deemed a non-related party, they can pay us what on earth they like and there is fuck all the PL or anyone else can do about it.
Click to expand...

halfcenturyup said:
Related party for accounting purposes is defined carefully in accounting policies. Etihad is not related under those policies (unless you assume Mansour is just a front for the UAE as a whole, but no regulatory body has tried that yet).

But what the PL have done is introduce a new "associated party" definition so they can look at, and modify if they consider it necessary, the fair value of any sponsorship with any connection to almost anyone. Even worse, they want the club and the sponsor to amend their agreement to the value determined by the PL. This is what the club voted against as they considered it "illegal".

I think.
Click to expand...

They tried in 2014 but not against since.

Good quick summary of the overall Etihad position from @projectriver below...think this was before the new PL asociated rules.

 
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.