PSG seal 150 Million a year sponsorship!

[bluemonkey71]

Well done PSG, IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they have done. They are offering a service to a business who are paying them for it.

This deal is blantantly out of bounds. The "retroactive" component should be the first clue.

It should be easy to establish the market value of sponsorship, within a certain range. We have many years of sponsorship data for all the different leagues and the types of businesses that advertise, including travel/tourism markets.

Fair market value will take into account:

-what does this company pay its other sponsees (travel mags, websites)
-what would similar companies bid for such a deal
-domestic exposure and what other clubs get for similar advertising
-international exposure and what clubs get for comparable deals on average
-television presence around the world

There is not even close to value for money here, PSG have minimal international following, and French football as a whole even less. Qatar Tourism Authority are paying 100 quid for a packet of crisps. And another hundred for a retroactive bag that they didn't even eat.

Not related parties by european accounting definition so fair or market value doesn't come into it. Check the rules fella.

SWP/PB I know it's probably been done to death but can you explain what the European related parties accounting definition is?

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

Well done PSG, IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they have done. They are offering a service to a business who are paying them for it.

This deal is blantantly out of bounds. The "retroactive" component should be the first clue.

It should be easy to establish the market value of sponsorship, within a certain range. We have many years of sponsorship data for all the different leagues and the types of businesses that advertise, including travel/tourism markets.

Fair market value will take into account:

-what does this company pay its other sponsees (travel mags, websites)
-what would similar companies bid for such a deal
-domestic exposure and what other clubs get for similar advertising
-international exposure and what clubs get for comparable deals on average
-television presence around the world

There is not even close to value for money here, PSG have minimal international following, and French football as a whole even less. Qatar Tourism Authority are paying 100 quid for a packet of crisps. And another hundred for a retroactive bag that they didn't even eat.

 

[MCC]

This deal is blantantly out of bounds. The "retroactive" component should be the first clue.

It should be easy to establish the market value of sponsorship, within a certain range. We have many years of sponsorship data for all the different leagues and the types of businesses that advertise, including travel/tourism markets.

Fair market value will take into account:

-what does this company pay its other sponsees (travel mags, websites)
-what would similar companies bid for such a deal
-domestic exposure and what other clubs get for similar advertising
-international exposure and what clubs get for comparable deals on average
-television presence around the world

There is not even close to value for money here, PSG have minimal international following, and French football as a whole even less. Qatar Tourism Authority are paying 100 quid for a packet of crisps. And another hundred for a retroactive bag that they didn't even eat.

Not related parties by european accounting definition so fair or market value doesn't come into it. Check the rules fella.

SWP/PB I know it's probably been done to death but can you explain what the European related parties accounting definition is?

Rule number one: UEFA is a fucking cartel. We do not like anyone upsetting our cosy, you scratch mine, I'll suck yours philosophy. If you attempt to we will invent new rules to try and stop such free world ideologies.

 

[jrb]

Rag Cafe in meltdown mode.

Their world ended today. The rest of us will follow tomorrow. ;-)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/f7/psg-laughing-ffp-363722/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/f7/psg-laughing-ffp-363722/</a>

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

This deal is blantantly out of bounds. The "retroactive" component should be the first clue.

It should be easy to establish the market value of sponsorship, within a certain range. We have many years of sponsorship data for all the different leagues and the types of businesses that advertise, including travel/tourism markets.

Fair market value will take into account:

-what does this company pay its other sponsees (travel mags, websites)
-what would similar companies bid for such a deal
-domestic exposure and what other clubs get for similar advertising
-international exposure and what clubs get for comparable deals on average
-television presence around the world

There is not even close to value for money here, PSG have minimal international following, and French football as a whole even less. Qatar Tourism Authority are paying 100 quid for a packet of crisps. And another hundred for a retroactive bag that they didn't even eat.

Not related parties by european accounting definition so fair or market value doesn't come into it. Check the rules fella.

SWP/PB I know it's probably been done to death but can you explain what the European related parties accounting definition is?

You asked and I'll answer.

A related party is a person or entity that is related to the entity that is preparing its financial statements (in this
Standard referred to as the ‘reporting entity’).
(a) A person or a close member of that person’s family is related to a reporting entity if that person:
(i) has control or joint control over the reporting entity;
(ii) has significant influence over the reporting entity; or
(iii) is a member of the key management personnel of the reporting entity or of a parent of the reporting
entity.
(b) An entity is related to a reporting entity if any of the following conditions applies:
(i) The entity and the reporting entity are members of the same group (which means that each parent,
subsidiary and fellow subsidiary is related to the others).
(ii) One entity is an associate or joint venture of the other entity (or an associate or joint venture of a
member of a group of which the other entity is a member).
(iii) Both entities are joint ventures of the same third party.
(iv) One entity is a joint venture of a third entity and the other entity is an associate of the third entity.
(v) The entity is a post-employment benefit plan for the benefit of employees of either the reporting entity
or an entity related to the reporting entity. If the reporting entity is itself such a plan, the sponsoring
employers are also related to the reporting entity.
(vi) The entity is controlled or jointly controlled by a person identified in (a).
(vii) A person identified in (a)(i) has significant influence over the entity or is a member of the key
management personnel of the entity (or of a parent of the entity).

Close members of the family of a person are those family members who may be expected to influence, or be influenced by, that person in their dealings with the entity and include:
(a) that person’s children and spouse or domestic partner;
(b) children of that person’s spouse or domestic partner; and
(c) dependants of that person or that person’s spouse or domestic partner.

"Control" in this case generally means 20% or more of the shareholding. Therefore if Sheikh Mansour held 25% of the shares of Etihad as well as 100% of the shares of Manchester City, Etihad & City would be related parties.

 

[bluemonkey71]

Ta. From what I understand Mansours half brother is the chairman of the board of Etihad. From what I understand Mansour isn't on the board of Etihad airways nor does ADUG have any shares/control of the company.

 

[andyhinch]

Rag Cafe in meltdown mode.

Their world ended today. The rest of us will follow tomorrow. ;-)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/f7/psg-laughing-ffp-363722/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/f7/psg-laughing-ffp-363722/</a>

That's as funny as fuck, how do you register?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Ta. From what I understand Mansours half brother is the chairman of the board of Etihad. From what I understand Mansour isn't on the board of Etihad airways nor does ADUG have any shares/control of the company.

That's right Rob. So ADUG and Etihad are not related parties.

 

[lafitz2008]

Posts: 4,136
But aren't these sugar daddy backed clubs distorting the market faster than it would otherwise move? If a handful of them start offering more money to buy players and then pay them it leads to other clubs having to match them as best they can to remain competitive, and then the same for the clubs below them etc.
 
I like this one,obviously United have never done such a thing.

 

[waspish]

Posts: 4,136
But aren't these sugar daddy backed clubs distorting the market faster than it would otherwise move? If a handful of them start offering more money to buy players and then pay them it leads to other clubs having to match them as best they can to remain competitive, and then the same for the clubs below them etc.

I like this one,obviously United have never done such a thing.

Yeah I noticed that post on "scumcafe" the scum have been distorting the market for 25 years! Selling a player for 80m is the biggest one that means good players are going for 25m and average ones 10 to 15m