PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[LeonardoDaVnci]

ETIHAD SPONSORSHIP

Another trope in the MSM is the PL are charging us with 'inflated sponsorship deals ie that are above market values"

When I first looked at these values below I felt slightly uneasy ....


But on reflection, Etihad don't just sponsor our kit they have the naming rights on the stadium, the academy, in fact the whole campus. They also have aircraft painted in MCFC livery.

The AFC shirt and stadium are sponsored by the other UAE flag carrier Emirates. So why do Ethihad pay £27.5 million more than Emirates?. Is this because City are always in the Champions League and serial PL winners.
However this could this be where the judicial panel get all "interpretive" and say they agree with the PL, ie despite all the clubs justifications we, the panel, also consider the value inflated because blah blah blah....
This is my concern, if the panel agree its judged to be eg £10M per year over market value, how do we counter argue that interpretation. Don't remember market values in the CAS ruling, that just dismissed the ridiculous accusations re the transactions...

 

[cheekybids]

Since it's all about American capitalism.. maybe we should take the American capitalism approach and buy the clubs and relegate them.

Even Apple tried to kill Google by means of lawsuits but Apple needed a license for cellular tech that Motorola had patents for, so Google just bought Motorola and threatened to terminate Apple's license for iphones.

Pharma companies do this all the time.. buy their competition so they have a monopoly and no competition from generic pills.

I do think you're right.. they won't stop unless we really have leverage and are willing to use it!

£7 billion to demolish & build a park & ride scheme in Trafford.

 

[hello]

ETIHAD SPONSORSHIP

Another trope in the MSM is the PL are charging us with 'inflated sponsorship deals ie that are above market values"

When I first looked at these values below I felt slightly uneasy ....

View attachment 81035
But on reflection, Etihad don't just sponsor our kit they have the naming rights on the stadium, the academy, in fact the whole campus. They also have aircraft painted in MCFC livery.

The AFC shirt and stadium are sponsored by the other UAE flag carrier Emirates. So why do Ethihad pay £27.5 million more than Emirates?. Is this because City are always in the Champions League and serial PL winners.
However this could this be where the judicial panel get all "interpretive" and say they agree with the PL, ie despite all the clubs justifications we, the panel, also consider the value inflated because blah blah blah....
This is my concern, if the panel agree its judged to be eg £10M per year over market value, how do we counter argue that interpretation. Don't remember market values in the CAS ruling, that just dismissed the ridiculous accusations re the transactions...

Apart from my pettiness in arguing we move away from teamviewer costing them around 800k aia are the obvious anomaly

 

[lancs blue]

Don't remember market values in the CAS ruling, that just dismissed the ridiculous accusations re the transactions...

I could be mis-remembering but I thought UEFA didn't dispute the "fair value" of Etihad's sponsorship, it was the origin of the funds?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I could be mis-remembering but I thought UEFA didn't dispute the "fair value" of Etihad's sponsorship, it was the origin of the funds?

Is the correct answer.

The 2014 settlement looked at fair values. UEFA produced an auditors report suggesting it was overvalued, IIRC, the club produced a different auditors report suggesting it wasn't and, in the end, UEFA dropped their objection.

The CAS award specifically stated that UEFA accepted the fair value of the contract.

I very much doubt the PL are trying to revalue the Etihad contract. By any metric, I would imagine they have had their money's worth.

 

[cheekybids]

Is the correct answer.

The 2014 settlement looked at fair values. UEFA produced an auditors report suggesting it was overvalued, IIRC, the club produced a different auditors report suggesting it wasn't and, in the end, UEFA dropped their objection.

The CAS award specifically stated that UEFA accepted the fair value of the contract.

I very much doubt the PL are trying to revalue the Etihad contract. By any metric, I would imagine they have had their money's worth.

Nothing would surprise me with these.

 

[Metalartin]

Is the correct answer.

The 2014 settlement looked at fair values. UEFA produced an auditors report suggesting it was overvalued, IIRC, the club produced a different auditors report suggesting it wasn't and, in the end, UEFA dropped their objection.

The CAS award specifically stated that UEFA accepted the fair value of the contract.

I very much doubt the PL are trying to revalue the Etihad contract. By any metric, I would imagine they have had their money's worth.

As I understand it, besides the chairman of Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel(Jean-Luc Dehaene) saying: "I have some questions" a month after the major Etihad deal began. UEFA have never officially tried to make the accusation that it was overvalued. No official charges ever brought forward for that to my knowledge.

UEFA have a list of approved auditors, how many I'm not sure. The problem was, for a long time, all the information we had about that, was the lowest valuation. After it was leaked on social media, I assume(how typical is that?). Until we saw this in the CAS report:



As you can see, it says these were the CFCB's own valuations. CAS were clear on how they felt about that too:

 

[Metalartin]

ETIHAD SPONSORSHIP

Another trope in the MSM is the PL are charging us with 'inflated sponsorship deals ie that are above market values"

When I first looked at these values below I felt slightly uneasy ....

View attachment 81035
But on reflection, Etihad don't just sponsor our kit they have the naming rights on the stadium, the academy, in fact the whole campus. They also have aircraft painted in MCFC livery.

The AFC shirt and stadium are sponsored by the other UAE flag carrier Emirates. So why do Ethihad pay £27.5 million more than Emirates?. Is this because City are always in the Champions League and serial PL winners.
However this could this be where the judicial panel get all "interpretive" and say they agree with the PL, ie despite all the clubs justifications we, the panel, also consider the value inflated because blah blah blah....
This is my concern, if the panel agree its judged to be eg £10M per year over market value, how do we counter argue that interpretation. Don't remember market values in the CAS ruling, that just dismissed the ridiculous accusations re the transactions...

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

 

[KS55]

ETIHAD SPONSORSHIP

Another trope in the MSM is the PL are charging us with 'inflated sponsorship deals ie that are above market values"

When I first looked at these values below I felt slightly uneasy ....

View attachment 81035
But on reflection, Etihad don't just sponsor our kit they have the naming rights on the stadium, the academy, in fact the whole campus. They also have aircraft painted in MCFC livery.

The AFC shirt and stadium are sponsored by the other UAE flag carrier Emirates. So why do Ethihad pay £27.5 million more than Emirates?. Is this because City are always in the Champions League and serial PL winners.
However this could this be where the judicial panel get all "interpretive" and say they agree with the PL, ie despite all the clubs justifications we, the panel, also consider the value inflated because blah blah blah....
This is my concern, if the panel agree its judged to be eg £10M per year over market value, how do we counter argue that interpretation. Don't remember market values in the CAS ruling, that just dismissed the ridiculous accusations re the transactions...

This is where the PL is on dodgy ground. Interfering with such a freely negotiated contract would not be sympathetically viewed by a court, especially when the party who is paying says it’s great value.

 

[waspish]

Think the PL consider it a sham to pay him under the table!

Anyone with a brain know them thinking it’s a sham won’t make it true