Pablo ZZZ Peroni
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 May 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
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.
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.
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.