Wow! That's certainly some clarification, many thanks.Sorry. I wasn't quite clear enough before.
Owners are allowed to inject money into clubs via sponsorships from what are deemed to be 'related parties' (companies they're connected to) but those sponsorships have to be what UEFA regard as market value. That is what they consider an unconnected party would pay. Any excess over market value isn't allowed to be declared as revenue for FFP purposes. We can keep the money but have to knock it off our declared revenue when we submit our FFP calculations.
So if Etihad give us £65m a year for the shirt, stadium and campus naming rights that's probably market value when compared to similar deals at equivalent clubs. If they gave us £150m a year, that probably wouldn't be However we have denied that Etihad is a related party, which I believe UEFA accepted. Therefore they could give us £150m and we could use the full amount under FFP. The problem is that the owner can't inject undeclared funds through a unrelated party.
The question is whether ADUG did themselves provide the additional funding to Etihad, to enable them to meet their commitment and, if so, whether UEFA could prove that. If ADUG were stupid enough to send a separate payment direct to City then they'd be bang to rights but I doubt that would have happened. If ADUG were providing the funds then they would have given them to Etihad first. But the other question is whether ADUG did provide the funds or arrange for someone else to do so. My understanding is that the Abu Dhabi Executive Council themselves provided the Etihad sponsorship money. They admitted this a few years ago as part of a submission when they were fighting an 'Open Skies' complaint from the US over state support for airlines in the Gulf.
Sheikh Mansour doesn't sit on the ADEC but Khaldoon does so there's a link and a possible reason to declare that the ADEC is a related party. But then we're still in the clear as long as the sponsorship is considered to be market value. For me, the easiest way out of this is to accept that Etihad is a related party. Then UEFA have nothing on us.
I quite like the idea of a change of sponsor on the shirt... could someone mock up the fruit salad kit with “FUCK UEFA” in big Chinese characters?Sometimes I think we'd be better off letting the Etihad contract run down and get a big Chinese sponsor in that nobody can question. I suppose that's more about proving how full of shit the people complaining are, it's not about where the money comes from and never has been. It's the fact that City have money now and they don't like it.
In fairness this sponsorship was and is part of the flagship plan to extend our owners and for that mattter AD's business investment interests.Manchester City have been fantastic for Abu Dhabi & they have often said are the highest profile of all the sponsorships & partnerships they do. Why would they give that up when they’ve been the visionaries behind it all just because shit house journalists & corrupt officials question the legitimacy of it all.
They could easily get more from someone else but they deserve the reduced sponsorship for making it happen.
Makes far more sense than Chevrolet, who don't sell cars in Europe anymore, sponsoring United.In fairness this sponsorship was and is part of the flagship plan to extend our owners and for that mattter AD's business investment interests.
Surely up to AD to decide if its ailing airline can be helped long term with its business plan which includes high cost advertising with City.
Don't have an account?Register now!