Stadium Naming Rights / Press Conference [Merged]

[Citizen Green]

@MOgdenTelegraph
Mark Ogden

Man City deal seems huge, but it's for stadium, shirt and Academy. That's why it'll pass FFP. Barca get £25m a year just for their shirt.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/8626593/Manchester-City-insist-Etihad-sponsorship-bonanza-will-not-fall-foul-of-Uefas-Financial-Fair-Play-rules.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... rules.html</a>?

 

[MCC]

What has ticket tout sir bobby had to say about this ?

2 in the home end for 50 quid.

Just watching the press conference now on the OS. What does he say at at about 6:35? Is it the club car parks? Hard to make out.

 

[jrb]

Arsenal's Supporters Trust To Challange Our Proposals. Lol!

Manchester City bank record £400m sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways

• Uefa poised to assess fairness of the 10-year arrangement
• City consulted with Uefa to ensure deal breaks no rules

Manchester City's ground will be known as the Etihad Stadium as part of the record £400m sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways. Photograph: Ed Sykes/Action Images


Manchester City will bank up to £400m under their new sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, making it the largest deal of its kind in sport and reinforcing City's position as a football club with unprecedented financial power.

The 10-year agreement, which means City's ground is renamed the Etihad Stadium, will be worth more than twice the previous record, JP Morgan Chase's $300m (£187m) for the new Madison Square Garden, while simultaneously demonstrating the growing disparity between the top clubs in English football.

To put it into context, the deal Arsenal struck with Emirates in 2004 was valued at £90m over 15 years. Around £48m of that came via shirt sponsorship, with the naming rights worth only £2.8m a year. Chelsea and Tottenham have both scoured the market for a deal in the region of £10-15m a year but found no serious interest. Newcastle have also been unable to find a sponsor since the club's owner, Mike Ashley, tested the waters with a short-term arrangement in the 2009-10 season that resulted in their ground taking the name of his sportswear business as the sportsdirect.com@St James' Park Stadium.

Etihad's deal includes a 10-year extension to their shirt sponsorship at City, as well as financial backing for what will be known as the Etihad Campus, a vast area of land around the stadium that already includes the City Square fans' village, and has other major development planned, including a new training ground and sports science centre.

Garry Cook, the City chief executive, described it as "one of the most important arrangements in the history of world football", made even more remarkable because City do not own the stadium. Manchester city council allowed City to negotiate the naming rights as part of an improved rental agreement, agreed this year, which means the club will pay £20m over the next five years to an authority in the grip of financial cuts.

City must now convince Uefa that the amounts involved do not contravene the incoming financial fair play regulations and, specifically, the condition that stipulates sponsors with close links to club owners pay a fair price.

Etihad are owned by the Abu Dhabi government and the airline's association with the City owner, Sheikh Mansour, a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family, will almost certainly prompt Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel, under the chairmanship of the former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, to investigate.

A Uefa spokesman said: "We are aware of the situation and our experts will make assessments of fair value of any sponsorship deals using benchmarks."

Under the terms of financial fair play, clubs have to show they can break even in the medium term if they are to take part in European competitions and, for City, that represents a significant issue given that their last financial figures reported a £121m loss and the next accounts, to be published in September, are expected to be worse.

The club have, however, made extensive inquiries of their own, consulting with Uefa in the process, to ensure the Etihad deal fits in with the rules and cannot be construed, in essence, as a different twist to 'mates' rates'.'

A significant part of the deal will go towards developing the Etihad Campus and, crucially, Uefa does not count money spent on improving infrastructure, regenerating surrounding areas and youth development when it comes to totting up losses. Although the club have not been willing to provide the media with the precise breakdown of where the money will be spread, they will present the figures to Uefa if necessary.

Nonetheless, City face the possibility of other clubs raising the matter with Uefa. Arsenal's Supporters' Trust has already signalled its intention to ask the London club to request that Uefa look into it as a priority and deliver an early verdict.

Tim Payton, the Trust spokesman, said: "The deal at Manchester City stretches credulity to the limit. The numbers just don't stack up."

 

[Anonymous]

Just as a precursor in response to the rags, already driven to excitement by a misinformed (or possibly mischievous Metro?)
Etihad means unity in Arabic, in portuguese it's unidade, it's writen it in Arabic as إتِّحاد . . it does not mean united doh!

 

[ultimateharold]

Like the ITV guy getting shot down by Leese.<br /><br />-- Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:15 am --<br /><br />

Just as a precursor in response to the rags, already driven to excitement by a misinformed (or possibly mischievous Metro?)
Etihad means unity in Arabic, in portuguese it's unidade, it's writen it in Arabic as إتِّحاد . . it does not mean united doh!

Didn't know that.

 

[LoveCity]

City campus project buys club breathing space
Sponsorship opportunities created by 80-acre east Manchester development can wipe out huge losses

By Ian Herbert, Northern Football Correspondent
Saturday, 9 July 2011

The denizens of Old Trafford have had some fun with Etihad's sponsorship of Manchester City.

They'll tell you that the Abu Dhabi airline's name translates as "United" – even though it is actually Arabic for "Unity". After the wisecracks, though, comes the sobering reality, from a United perspective, of what a deal worth a little more than £300m, rising to £400m over ten years, might actually mean to the balance of power in British football.

After the stadium naming-rights deal provided the headlines yesterday morning, the general view from within the boardrooms of the Premier League's elite clubs was that having a Champions League venue named after your business is a privilege worth £10m a year and that the £40m-a-year figure City have procured from Etihad is higher than expected. For their part City say the stadium rights are just a part of the deal.

It is the other part which is the really smart bit. The new 80-acre "Etihad Campus" which City intend to create, if public consultation and the planning process go well, will enable them to create a lucrative new array of facilities. More sponsors may arrive with them and because the costs of creating them will not be factored into Uefa's assessment of a club's profit or loss, City can effectively build them for nothing. The only limit on it is the scope of Abu Dhabi imagination – and the Yas Marina Formula One track has given us an insight into that. Whether other clubs like it or not, City's owners have found a way to make their wealth continue working for them.

A picture of how the area prosaically known before as Openshaw West will look may take shape with an announcement as early as next month. Remediation work was started on the brownfield sight several months ago and it is likely to be where City's training ground is relocated. The future of the current Carrington base, across the fields from United's training ground, has looked in doubt since City embarked on a study of the world's best sports training facilities, 18 months ago. The Platt Lane academy could also be relocated, finally severing City's link with Moss Side, as well as Etihad's new call centre, to be located in Manchester from early 2012.

The steady stream of Etihad sponsorship opportunities this presents will justify to Uefa yesterday's £400m deal and perhaps offer scope for the sum to grow even bigger, if City need the money. Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel, under the chairmanship of the former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, is in place to ensure "fair value" in sponsorship deals – but it is hard to see this being judged unfair, as nothing like it has been done before.

City cannot keep building forever. But Openshaw gives them the breathing space and the building space. The potential unlocked by the 80-acre area eases the pressures created by the astronomical player wages that City's chief Garry Cook has taken on during the club's pursuit of a Champions League place.

With a squad for European football still being assembled, the Financial Fair Play regulations have perhaps come five years too soon for a club which in October will post a rise in their £121m 2009-10 losses, as they account for the £96.6m net expenditure plus wages of Jerome Boateng, David Silva, Yaya Touré, Aleksandar Kolarov, Mario Balotelli and James Milner, who arrived too late to go into last year's published results.

Privately, City have always been comfortable with their ability to fall in line with FFP, which will oblige clubs to post no more than £45m losses over the next three years, and the commercial opportunity from the broad acres around their ground has always been the reason why.

How comfortable other clubs will be with their strategy is less certain. The suspicion that City's balance sheet is bein artificially inflated by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan makes full accounting transparency for the Etihad deal vita. The Abu Dhabi royal family owns the seven -year-old airline and has absorbed its losses. It was unclear last night whether Etihad – which, though in private ownership, does publish its annual accounts – would begin itemising sponsorship spend, including the new City deal.

Rival clubs such as Bayern Munich are annoyed after finding it far harder than they imagined to get hold of players City want to retain – Boateng in the Germans' case. "They are going to have 48 players under contract," Bayern chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge said only yesterday. "But you can only name 25 and last year they lost £123m. Under the new rules, with these numbers you wouldn't get a licence, that's for sure. Maybe they know a trick I do not."

The £400m deal is likely to see City through the Uefa challenge, though. The mood from Uefa is that clubs will be helped, not punished; that expulsion from Europe is a last resort – and by no means likely if a club fail to meet the loss target, but are cooperating and financially are moving in the right direction.

The consolation for United supporters is that City may not be able to boast they secured the most lucrative sponsorship deal for too long. United believe they can secure a world-record kit deal of £450m before their agreement with Nike expires in 2015. But Cook and the Abu Dhabis have redefined the term "sponsorship deal" and proved what a commercial power they are. Unity is a commodity that will remain in short supply across the two footballing halves of Manchester.

 

[berger10]

I'm worried UEFA are going to find a problem with this.

I'm not. This is NOT just a stadium/shirt deal.

No, and for people saying the council would get more money if a deal was in place for such lucrative figures, if it wasn't for our brand, for Manchester City FC and the land we DO own, the stadium wouldn't have attracted such an opportunity.

The council know City will be doing enough for the city over the coming years on a number of levels.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Irrelevant. The deal is with the Emirates not ADUG. The Emirates are not related to MCFC

The deal is with Etihad, an Abu Dhabi airline, who have two half-brothers of Sheikh Mansour on the board. It probably will be considered a related party transaction and therefore assessed for fair value. The quotes I have seen suggest they're going to argue it represents fair value because it amounts to the sponsorship of a considerable area of Manchester, a city very much on the up.

Here's how related parties are defined by UEFA:

E. Related party, related party transactions and fair value of related party transactions
1. A related party is a person or entity that is related to the entity that is preparing its financial statements (the ‘reporting entity’).

2. A person or a close member of that person’s family is related to a reporting entity if that person:
a) has control or joint control over the reporting entity;
b) has significant influence over the reporting entity; or
c) is a member of the key management personnel of the reporting entity or of a parent of the reporting entity.

3. An entity is related to a reporting entity if any of the following conditions apply:
a) 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);
b) 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);
c) Both entities are joint ventures of the same third party;
d) One entity is a joint venture of a third entity and the other entity is an
associate of the third entity;
e) 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;
f) The entity is controlled or jointly controlled by a person identified in
paragraph 2; or
g) A person identified in paragraph 2(a) 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).

4. With reference to paragraphs 1 to 3 above, the following definitions apply:
a) Close members of the family of a person are those family members who may be expected to influence, or be influenced by, that individual in their dealings with the entity. They may include that person’s children and spouse or domestic partner, children of that person’s spouse or domestic partner, and dependants of that person or that person’s spouse or domestic partner.
b) Control is the power to govern the financial and operating policies of an entity so as to obtain benefits from its activities.
c) A joint venture is a contractual arrangement whereby two or more parties
undertake an economic activity that is subject to joint control.
d) Joint control is the contractually agreed sharing of control over an economic activity, and exists only when the strategic financial and operating decisions relating to the activity require the unanimous consent of the parties sharing control (the venturers).
e) Key management personnel are those persons having authority and
responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the entity,
directly or indirectly, including any director (whether executive or otherwise)
of that entity.
f) Significant influence is the power to participate in the financial and operating
policy decisions of an entity, but is not control over those policies. Significant
influence may be gained by share ownership, statute or agreement.
g) An associate is an entity, including an unincorporated entity such as a
partnership, over which the investor has significant influence and that is
neither a subsidiary nor an interest in a joint venture. In the definition of a
related party, an associate includes subsidiaries of the associate and a joint
venture includes subsidiaries of the joint venture. Therefore, for example, an
associate's subsidiary and the investor that has significant influence over the
associate are related to each other.

5. In considering each possible related party relationship, attention is directed to the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form. The following are not related parties:
a) Two entities simply because they have a director or other member of key
management personnel in common or because a member of key
management personnel of one entity has significant influence over the other
entity.
b) Two venturers simply because they share joint control over a joint venture.
c) Providers of finance, trade unions, public utilities, and departments and
agencies of a government that does not control, jointly control or significantly
influence the reporting entity, simply by virtue of their normal dealings with an entity (even though they may affect the freedom of action of an entity or
participate in its decision-making process).
d) A customer, supplier, franchisor, distributor or general agent with whom an entity transacts a significant volume of business, simply by virtue of the
resulting economic dependence.

6. A related party transaction is a transfer of resources, services or obligations between related parties, regardless of whether a price has been charged (disclosure requirements in respect of related parties and related party transactions are set out in Annex VI).

7. A related party transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no related party relationship.

I don't believe half-brothers will be classed as "close family members" under 4(a), particularly as it's been made clear that Sheikh Mansour bought us in a personal capacity. Plus the fact that Etihad have a director who is a non-executive director at City is excluded under 5(a).

There is no case to answer so the media and Arsenal Supporters Trust can whistle Dixie till the cows come home.

 

[Ticket For Schalke]

If there was ever a post that shows how they've had their own way for years this is it.

It'd be impossible to implement, but the whole idea of having a club owner "sponsor" it in everything it does is a joke. They don't need a group of people to seek sponsorship deals from companies because every entity within the Emirati Sovereign Wealth Fund is a sponsor of City. It makes a mockery of the entire idea of financial fair play.

United and other major clubs spend a lot of money to attract and secure top-notch sponsors. While the rest of the Premier League makes peanuts on its in-stadium advertising, United makes several times the others by a combination of football and financial work. Now, because United built up that list of sponsors over the years, Mansour could just pay the same amount of money we earn in "sponsorship" and have Etihad ads posted everywhere in the stadium despite the fact that no non-related entity would put up that amount of money to sponsor a club. By UEFA rules, it would be ok since United make that much money through in-stadium adverts. Even if they diversify their advertising between a few of the different SWF companies, it's still the same thing. Mansour can just match whatever United, Barca, Madrid, and the German teams(who make tons in advertising).

Reading comments its almost like they were banking on us to get fucked over, whereas all year we've said we'll be fine, litte snide cunts who kfa bar reading newsnow have said we're doomed, let this be a little lesson to you.

 

[LoveCity]

This opening paragraph from the Daily Star gives me goosebumps.

THE DEBATE is over. ­Manchester City’s stunning new sponsorship deal has confirmed them as one of the biggest clubs in the world.