Financial Fair play

[Boca]

tariqpanjatariq panja EXCLUSIVE: Manchester City has agreed a naming rights deal for the City of Manchester Stadium with Etihad airline, two sources say.4 minutes agoFavoriteRetweetReply

 

 

Ah s**** posted this twice sorry. Mods delete please.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Boca

[Falconhoof]

They have been planning to announce a stadium sponsor for some time. In itself its legit but it will be interesting to hear the figures involved.

[épieur]

if the figures are at competitive market value, it is fine.

 

The very fact that they are doing this shows they are badly in need of finding legit income sources.

[Sion]

Nutters on Bluemoon reckon FFP won't matter until 2018 and are cursing the press and other clubs' fans for peddling hopeful gossip.

 

Have they got a point or are they being nutters?

 

Their spending so far this summer would suggest they're reigning in.

[drdooom]

Isn't that stadium owned by the city? How can the club sell the naming rights?

[Rimbeux]

Isn't that stadium owned by the city? How can the club sell the naming rights?

 

 

I think they had to 'buy' a new lease agreement with the council, did it last year I think.

 

The figures should be interesting, the shirt deal is market rate, read somewhere that all the sponsorship they get for various stuff amounts to around £30m a year before this, most of it from AD firms.

[Rimbeux]

£10m-£12m a year seems to be the crack. Clearly higher than the £3m Arsenal got five years ago, still behind the ball when it comes to some US stadia, but not the £100m a year huge they need to cover the bases, it covers Ya Ya's pay.

[muleskinner]

10 mill for the ground and another 3 for the shirt every season.

[Hassony]

FWIW, Etihad means United in arabic

[Tommy Cockles]

FWIW, Etihad means United in arabic

 

 

Ha ha. C***ts.

[AE]

FWIW, Etihad means United in arabic

 

How long will it take for everyone to realise. That'll give the City fans some ****

[carrafan]

FWIW, Etihad means United in arabic

 

Qwality!

[domlfc]

Can't believe Citeh have been allowed to do this, that prick Cook was practically gloating all over sky sports. Anyone know the figures yet, no doubt they will just get away with what really amounts to cheating.

Edited July 8, 2011 by domlfc

[AE]

Can't believe Citeh have been allowed to do this, that prick Cook was practically gloating all over sky sports. Anyone know the figures yet, no doubt they will just get away with what really amounts to cheating.

 

It will be the first of many.

[Cam]

Most reports say £150m over 10 years.

 

Not massively over the market price - to stop it being too suspicious - but it's CIty, FFS. Not an iconic club, not successful (yet), not a legendary stadium (and neither was Maine Road) and no worldwide fanbase so for them to be setting the pace when it comes to this is clearly a manipulation of FFP.

[kenny7]

Most reports say £150m over 10 years.

 

Not massively over the market price - to stop it being too suspicious - but it's CIty, FFS. Not an iconic club, not successful (yet), not a legendary stadium (and neither was Maine Road) and no worldwide fanbase so for them to be setting the pace when it comes to this is clearly a manipulation of FFP.

 

Some reports suggesting £400m over 10 years which is very suspicious if not unexpected.

[alias75]

Some reports suggesting £400m over 10 years which is very suspicious if not unexpected.

 

If its that much then it clearly comes under the bracket of being over market value. As someone else said this is Man City we're talking about not a really big club,

 

If we're also looking at naming rights then UEFA will have another example to compare their deal with and see what the true market value is.

 

If its around £100 million over 10 years thats probably close enough but that alone won't stop them breaking the rules, their wage bill compared to their income is massively out of whack.

[Farmer's Tan]

there was a thread a bit back where one of the people who were running this ffp were discussing certain things about how it was going to work and one term that stuck with me was the "we will use a common sense approach" in dealing with how they view clubs and their plans to get within the rules. I believe they mentioned something like," if a team can show they have a longer term plan that will lead to being within the rules they would take this into consideration when the time comes for dealing with clubs who are spending too much. When i heard this i automatically thought it was total b@llsh!t and just another way of saying there will be wiggle room for the super rich and while this stunt city are pulling doesn't exactly justify my point in does make it a little more credible. I think we will find there will be a few clubs circumventing the rules while the rest of us are stranded hence putting those who are within the rules at a disadvantage.

[John am Rhein]

if the figures are at competitive market value, it is fine.

 

we'll get the competitive market value assessment committee to judge that

[Zoob]

Isn't this deal by some distance the largest in football history? seems utterly absurd to me, but I'm sure they'll get away with it.

[Gunga Din]

even if it is 40mil a season, using the top end estimates, it wont make any difference to City. They're losing almost treble that in a trading year. Long term, like Chelsea, they're f***ed. if you think what happened Leeds was funny, these 2 going pop could end up outside the league

[domlfc]

even if it is 40mil a season, using the top end estimates, it wont make any difference to City. They're losing almost treble that in a trading year. Long term, like Chelsea, they're f***ed. if you think what happened Leeds was funny, these 2 going pop could end up outside the league

I hope you are right but, I doubt it. They will get away with anything they want, would love to see that t*** Cook f***ed up though.

[Rimbeux]

I hope you are right but, I doubt it. They will get away with anything they want, would love to see that t*** Cook f***ed up though.

 

 

I dont think they'll go bust, but Wayne is right about this deal being a drop in the ocean. They need for or five of these size deals just to balance what they are about, or they have to cut spending.

 

Looking slightly closer at this deal, effectively, they are building a leisure village around the stadium and selling the naming rights. As with Chelsea Village, it's not just a case of build it and they will come though and it could easily be a money hole.

[domlfc]

I dont think they'll go bust, but Wayne is right about this deal being a drop in the ocean. They need for or five of these size deals just to balance what they are about, or they have to cut spending.

 

Looking slightly closer at this deal, effectively, they are building a leisure village around the stadium and selling the naming rights. As with Chelsea Village, it's not just a case of build it and they will come though and it could easily be a money hole.

Surely someone is advising them what the FFP rules are though? Just makes me angry that they can go on television and effectively boast about cheating, yet neither our own FA or UEFA come out and question such a deal.

[épieur]

even if it is 40mil a season, using the top end estimates, it wont make any difference to City. They're losing almost treble that in a trading year. Long term, like Chelsea, they're f***ed. if you think what happened Leeds was funny, these 2 going pop could end up outside the league

 

They can still opt to just break the FFP rules. They will be barred from Europe, but they will still be competitive in the league.