You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,943
Nothing wrong with that, as long as the sponsorship is fair market value. CAS decided (which UEFA had already accepted) that our Etihad sponsorship was market value. Etihad aren't our owner I should add, but it's the principle.
Leicester have just rekindled their shirt sponsorship with King Power, after FBS were their sponsors last season. There was a report that they got more money from FBS than they did from King Power.
So if that is the case, which it most definitely is, why does it matter from the point of view of our accounts whether Mansour gave money to Etihad for the sponsorship or not?
give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 17,455
- Team supported
- Manchester City
The market decides what market value is. You'd expect clubs like us & the other top clubs to be roughly in line, but you wouldn't expect the likes of Bournemouth and Burnley to have £50m a season shirt sponsorships.
So if I want to sponsor say Burnley and I was prepared to pay 50million that wouldnt be seen as market value by who ?
It's a free market if I want to sponsor a club for big money and both the club and me are happy, that's fair.
So if I want to sponsor say Burnley and I was prepared to pay 50million that wouldnt be seen as market value by who ?
It's a free market if I want to sponsor a club for big money and both the club and me are happy, that's fair.
If not related i think you can sponsor as much as you want!
So much I dont understand
How come the stoke Leicester etc deals dont see to get looked at ?
I don’t actually think anything is wrong here but it’s just feels we get slandered they get a pass
Started the video I know I shouldn’t but it all starts from the premise of we are small and we are run by the state.
How come the stoke Leicester etc deals dont see to get looked at ?
I don’t actually think anything is wrong here but it’s just feels we get slandered they get a pass
Started the video I know I shouldn’t but it all starts from the premise of we are small and we are run by the state.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
That's a good question that hinges on who is an isn't a related party. In accountancy standards that's defined as someone who owns, is a major shareholder in , or has significant influence over a business, or is a close relative of such a person.So if that is the case, which it most definitely is, why does it matter from the point of view of our accounts whether Mansour gave money to Etihad for the sponsorship or not?
It could be argued that Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, a full brother of Sheikh Mansour, is such a person with regard to Etihad. So, could he say to Etihad's management "Fund this sponsorship"? I suspect he could, so it's possible that Sheikh Mansour could be classed as a lclose relative" and therefore potentially Etihad could be deemed a related party to City. I suspect that's unlikely though.
If Sheikh Mansour was an Executive Director of Etihad, then they'd probably be classed as a related party. In that case, as long as the sponsorship was deemed fair value, there's no issue at all. Had he done that, then as long as we declared Etihad to be a related party, then there would have been no issue.
If, on the other hand, he has no role or influence in the day-to-day business of Etihad, then they're unlikely to be classed as a related party. But if he then personally funds the sponsorship then that classed a disguised owner investment, which is against FFP rules, even if it's fair value.
Now all commercial deals in excess of £1m have to pass the PL's fair value test, plus we know from CAS (which I'd long known) that the Etihad sponsorship wasn't funded by Sheikh Mansour.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Well the PL would look at it, and compare it to what other clubs supported by six-fingered, sister-shagging fans earned. So whatever Stoke get basically.So if I want to sponsor say Burnley and I was prepared to pay 50million that wouldnt be seen as market value by who ?
It's a free market if I want to sponsor a club for big money and both the club and me are happy, that's fair.
give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 17,455
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Well the PL would look at it, and compare it to what other clubs supported by six-fingered, sister-shagging fans earned. So whatever Stoke get basically.
So basically your rivals decide if your sponsorship is market value.
So how does a club that is nearly a billion in debt has only won a micky mouse cup in a decade. The infrastructure is falling down. The ( I think ) last two shirt sponsors have gone bust, still get a big Adidas sponsorship ? That its market value, if it is than Citys with puma should be at least 5 times the size of Adidas
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Who decides what fair market value is ?
In an open and free market you can pay as much as you want ?
Don’t be letting @Coatigan see this.
He’ll die of a butter overdose.
;)
Because they don't challenge the cartel clubsJust seen this how are Leicester allowed to be owned and sponsored by the same company ?
View attachment 89099