• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Etihad 400 million

Status
Not open for further replies.

rurikbird

Part of the Furniture
Honorary Member
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.
"

I hate those bastards. An airline owned by Dubai government and sheik Mansour gives Citeh 400 million over 10 years, supposedly for naming rights and shirt sponsorship, when Arsenal - a much bigger brand - gets only 90 for 15 years from Emirates and Chelsea - also a bigger brand worldwide than City - cannot find a suitable sponsor at all. If UEFA turns a blind eye to this, this would make a complete mockery of the UEFA's own financial fair play rules; even worse, that would set a precedent that is sure to be followed by the likes of Abramovich and other sheiks and this would mean that clubs that a run as a real business, and not owned by mega-rich arabs and russians, would have no chance to compete in the long term. Actually clubs like LFC or Arsenal have no chance already. Even the likes of Man U, Real and Barca - currently the richest clubs and biggest brands in football - will eventually lose their leading positions, unless they find a sugar daddy of their own.

Someone has to stop this madness; if UEFA doesn't do it, the fans should put pressure on every football authority to impose - and enforce - stricter financial fair play rules. The Etihad 400 million is the biggest and most important football story of the year, because it has potential to kill football. And this is not an exaggeration. Like any sport, football is based on the idea of fair competition; if the competition if fundamentally rigged and unfair, if the difference between success and failure is having a sugar daddy with unlimited money, it's not football, it's a whorefest. If UEFA decides to approve the Etihad 400 million deal, I will seriously consider boycotting the Premier League and Champions League and switching entirely to the Bundesliga and national team competitions. This would be very painful; I love LFC, but I don't want to take part in a game we have no chance of winning.
 
Yes, this is how Man City have planned top get around the fair play rules. Watch UEFA huff and puff and do nothing.
 
The fact that Etihad are owned by the Abu Dhabi government, which is led by Sheikh Mansour’s half-brother, should be enough to tell them this deal is corrupt.

This really is a massive test for FFP. If they do nothing now then its game over.
 
ah there's no point being surprised or pissed off is there , we all knew someone would get around the 'rules' like this ....Uefa will look into it and find it meets their 'watertight' rules and city will continue spending .

But it doesn't mean we give up , we just have to be smarter with our money and really go big time on high quality youth player development .
 
[quote author=themn link=topic=46055.msg1362197#msg1362197 date=1310197916]
Apparently 'Etihad' means 'United' in Arabic.
[/quote]

Isnt it Unity?


Anyhoo, this is as corrupt as it gets. If the FFP doesnt do anything here this whole financial rules debate is pointless
 
[quote author=RedZeppelin link=topic=46055.msg1362206#msg1362206 date=1310199276]
ah there's no point being surprised or pissed off is there , we all knew someone would get around the 'rules' like this ....Uefa will look into it and find it meets their 'watertight' rules and city will continue spending .

But it doesn't mean we give up , we just have to be smarter with our money and really go big time on high quality youth player development .
[/quote]

That's not gonna work either. One of the ways rich teams increase their advantage over everybody else is by casting a wide net and signing loads of talented young players, then loaning them out and bringing back those who make it. Teams with fewer resources will not be able to compete in the youth market either, not when clubs scout and sign young kids from all over the world. Not to mention that even if we get incredibly lucky and develop a superstar that has been missed by all the scouts from all the mega-rich clubs, we won't be able to hold on to that player for too long...

This is still early days and fortunately Man City has little name recognition in football worldwide. They only qualified for Champions League for the first time. Wait a few years and you will start seeing young players saying they "always dreamed of playing for Manchester City". And then we are well and truly fucked.
 
[quote author=Hansern link=topic=46055.msg1362218#msg1362218 date=1310200804]
[quote author=themn link=topic=46055.msg1362197#msg1362197 date=1310197916]
Apparently 'Etihad' means 'United' in Arabic.
[/quote]

Isnt it Unity?


Anyhoo, this is as corrupt as it gets. If the FFP doesnt do anything here this whole financial rules debate is pointless
[/quote]

United is funnier, so I know what I am choosing to believe.
 
I wonder what's going through Henry's head now. He is coming from the American sports market that takes for granted things like lottery draft for young players, team salary caps and other devices aimed at leveling the playing field. He is in for a rude awakening.
 
We've got enough money to be competitive and a plan to keep that the case. City have spent an absolute fortune and they're still not very good.
 
I like Henry's sarcasm, his Twitter responses always make me chuckle, he's a sharp guy. I'm not particularly arsed about Man City's spending it doesn't guarantee you anything until it can buy you team spirit and unity. (pardon the pun)
 
hahahaha.

Owners: 'So, what do we need to win the league?'

Players & Manager: 'We need Unity next season'

Translator 'Etihad'

Owners: *big smiles* 'Ahhh, we can DEFINITELY do something about that'
 
[quote author=DBP link=topic=46055.msg1362231#msg1362231 date=1310202397]
Henry's response on Twitter was "how much were the losing bids worth"
[/quote]

Haha 🙂

Upon re-reading the quoted article (it's from Guardian btw), I was struck that City don't even own the stadium they just sold the naming rights to for a world-record amount! So let me get this straight, 13-time champions Arsenal are on a roughly 6 million per year naming rights and shirt sponsorship deal with Emirates. 3-time champions Chelsea could not find anyone willing to pay 10-15 million per year. But the brand of Manchester City, who were playing in division 2 not long ago, was valued so much by Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the ruler of Abu Dhabi, who happens to be Manchester City's owner's half-brother (meaning their father, Zayed II, had many wives and children from different wives), that he is willing to pay 400 million pounds for the rights to put Etihad's name on the stadium they don't even fucking own! Guardian, with a pitch-perfect journalistic understatement, finds this fact "remarkable". Remarkable indeed.
 
They also said the deal is worth so much cos the name would be used in European games. Except I'm pretty sure EUFA rules are different to that of the Premiership & the actual stadia name gets used, not the sponsored name.

*awaits being corrected*
 
We will just have to see what FIFA do about it won't we. Surely the first challenge of the FFP can't see them flounder like a dead duck in the water


regards
 
I thought it was UEFA doing FFP?

Regardless, they're both corrupt shit organisations, & I suspect this is just a way to create more kickbacks.
 
Doesn't matter if they've been paid £400m. Any income from things like sponsorship will only be measured on 'fair market value". Which, let's face it, is not £400m
 
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=46055.msg1362235#msg1362235 date=1310203176]
I like Henry's sarcasm, his Twitter responses always make me chuckle, he's a sharp guy. I'm not particularly arsed about Man City's spending it doesn't guarantee you anything until it can buy you team spirit and unity. (pardon the pun)
[/quote]

Man, I hope I'm wrong, I hope they badly mismanage the money. But I kind of suspect that, given time, 400 million can buy you, among other things, team spirit and unity too.
 
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=46055.msg1362255#msg1362255 date=1310204937]
Doesn't matter if they've been paid £400m. Any income from things like sponsorship will only be measured on 'fair market value". Which, let's face it, is not £400m
[/quote]

Problem with that is you're relying on uefa to arrange the testing of fair Market value & act upon it.
 
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=46055.msg1362249#msg1362249 date=1310204426]
I thought it was UEFA doing FFP?

Regardless, they're both corrupt shit organisations, & I suspect this is just a way to create more kickbacks.
[/quote]

You are right Jon, it is UEFA.

regards
 
[quote author=rurikbird link=topic=46055.msg1362257#msg1362257 date=1310205037]
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=46055.msg1362235#msg1362235 date=1310203176]
I like Henry's sarcasm, his Twitter responses always make me chuckle, he's a sharp guy. I'm not particularly arsed about Man City's spending it doesn't guarantee you anything until it can buy you team spirit and unity. (pardon the pun)
[/quote]

Man, I hope I'm wrong, I hope they badly mismanage the money. But I kind of suspect that, given time, 400 million can buy you, among other things, team spirit and unity too.
[/quote]

Money can't buy love but it can buy a reasonable facsimile
 
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46055.msg1362264#msg1362264 date=1310205908]
[quote author=rurikbird link=topic=46055.msg1362257#msg1362257 date=1310205037]
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=46055.msg1362235#msg1362235 date=1310203176]
I like Henry's sarcasm, his Twitter responses always make me chuckle, he's a sharp guy. I'm not particularly arsed about Man City's spending it doesn't guarantee you anything until it can buy you team spirit and unity. (pardon the pun)
[/quote]

Man, I hope I'm wrong, I hope they badly mismanage the money. But I kind of suspect that, given time, 400 million can buy you, among other things, team spirit and unity too.
[/quote]

Money can't buy love but it can buy a reasonable facsimile
[/quote]

It's not about how much money you spend, but how you spend the money. We've spent money too, since January, about £80m. City spent all that money on Tevez, a season later he wants out? Value?
 
That's difficult to measure.
No one is exactly sure how much the deal was, it was suggested the fee was £47, although United and City deny it was anywhere near that, there are wages of course and I doubt if they are not going to get some sort of return for Tevez, but none the less he was very instrumental in delivering City a champions league slot and winning their first trophy in 40 odd years, as well as giving credibility to attract other players.
I would say City and their fans would say whatever happens that has been a good return.

regards
 
Europe's leading clubs will petition UEFA to block Manchester City's new £400million endorsement deal.

They want City's ground and shirt sponsorship contract with Etihad Airlines outlawed because they believe it has been artificially inflated in an attempt to balance the books.

UEFA's new Financial Fair Play rules insist clubs live within their means and City, who have incurred losses of £213.5m over the last two years, had little hope of complying before the huge deal.

The governing body also demand that clubs demonstrate they have received market value for any deal, to prevent owners from subsidising clubs through companies that are closely associated with them. UEFA's Independent Club Financial Control Panel will investigate the Etihad deal but rivals want to pressure them into action. If UEFA do outlaw the deal, boss Roberto Mancini could see his spending plans curtailed.

Opposition clubs have been emboldened by the fact the contract is a world record, outstripping even the remarkable £18m-a-year stadium naming rights deal the New Yorks Mets, a much-more established sports brand, have with Citibank.

The fact that Etihad was set up by the Emir of Abu Dhabi, Sheik Khalifa, who is the brother of City's owner, Sheik Mansour, has also fuelled their suspicions.

Etihad is the national airline carrier of Abu Dhabi and itself has never made a profit since it was formed in 2003, though it is expected to make money this year.
 
It was ineviatable that City would find some way round this. Reports suggest that they have been discussing it with UEFA every step of the way to "ensure compliance".

The only way this is ever going to be sorted is by deconstructing the entire transfer system as we know it and introducing salary caps.

Players should just simply not be allowed to move anywhere while they are under contract and no transfer fees should be payable. The result would be shorter contracts and less revenue spent on transfers.

If that's combined with a salary cap... with the salary cap the same for each team in the league regardless of their income... then you have a level playing field.
 
It will be interesting to see if the other top clubs in Europe can push UEFA on this.
 
If I were the cynical type, I'd say uefa have spoken to citeh about how to muddy the waters.

They said experts would compare deals to assess their true Market value, this deal contains loads of elements that simply don't have comparable equivalents & Sound greater than they are like the plane livery & land/buildings sponsorships. It's an ideal get out clause to claim they can't prove the value to be inflated.

But I'm not cynical so I won't say that, obv.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom