Fair play rules

i read somewhere that the etihad deal is inflation linked which was why the actual sponsorhip price has come out like an estimate

Found this interesting, always wondered what Platinis stance would be if a French club had a "sugar daddy"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/european/8725695/Uefa-president-Michel-Platini-admits-I-fear-for-the-future-of-football.html

cityBlueOz..
you beat me to it by 4 hours........[ swine]
was it £40 million for a 5 year deal........? personally i think that is top businesss by united, and if they sell their stadium naming rights, .what will united squeeze out of Cola Cola............?


.these FFP rules just make the rich richer and the Wigans and Sunderlands [ and Fulham ] dreaming in vain of Europe and a top 6 finish..........its a disgrace IMHO........

and i hope in the future these FFP rules will be deemed contraire to free trade by the EU,
and then, at least QPR and the Fulhams owners will have the freedom to choose to put their own money into the club without being banned from future European competition...........

Regarding shirt deals:

"On these benchmarks, £20m per year for City’s shirt is defensible."

Man C have a bigger shirt deal than Man Utd and Liverpool - both clubs with a bigger following.

"Inflation in a rich market could make £20m-a-year cheap in a decade"

It surely will in 2021, but we are not living in 2021, we are living in 2011.

"There is a value in naming rights for a new stadium, that’s self-evident. The Emirates, The Ricoh, The Britannia and The KC Stadium are examples."

And what is the deal on the KC stadium naming rights? Very little, I suspect, because the club. Emirates is big because Arsenal are big. It has nothing to do with our old the venue is , but how big the club is

" You can’t benchmark something that doesn’t exist elsewhere. (AKA: City’s campus wild card.)"

This is spurious. The value of sponsoring a stadium name is the size and following of the club. Naming the training ground or a shop nearby or anything else in the 80 acres that isn't the club has little value.

How many more flights will the airline sell because the training ground is call Etihad.

The bottom line: Etihad have to make £34m extra profit each year because of this sponsorship, otherwise they are wasting the advertising.

"Man C have a bigger shirt deal than Man Utd and Liverpool - both clubs with a bigger following."

United and Liverpool both have a bigger following - no doubt there. But can you provide a link that says that City's shirt sponsorhip is a bigger deal than what United and Liverpool have? Even the link in this thread only claims that it is the same size (in terms of finance).

"It surely will in 2021, but we are not living in 2021, we are living in 2011."

A point that was made clear in the article. Arsenal signed a deal in 2003/04 worth £5.5m per year in shirt sponsorship. This, in today's market, is ridiculously underpriced. Emirates (with whom the deal was signed) have said as much themselves. The point being, City's deal today, which many have cast doubt upon because they say that it is overpriced, could end up being underpriced. Meaning that using another club as a benchmark (in order to ascertain what is and is not "market fair value" ) could actually work in City's favour rather than against them. Again, a point that was made clear in the linked article.

"And what is the deal on the KC stadium naming rights? Very little, I suspect, because the club. Emirates is big because Arsenal are big"

You seem to miss the point. Emirates deal isn't big - Emirates themselves have said that the deal has been great value to them (meaning that they paid less than what they really could have done). And, in respect to City's deal, which club better reflects the deal that Arsenal signed 7 years ago? Leicester, or Arsenal? Well, Arsenal clearly. City signed the deal as a Champions League club. Something Arsenal are, and Leicester are not.

"This is spurious. The value of sponsoring a stadium name is the size and following of the club."

Wrong. The value of any sponsorship is based on exposure that that sponsorship will give to the company who is sponsoring. City are now a club who will benefit from increased exposure because of the club's position within the game (and consequently the market) today. Size and following bears very little in this respect. To put it simply, Rochdale playing in the Champions League would have more exposure than City would if City were playing in the Championship. The following of a particular club accounts for very little. TV exposure reaches millions more than any ground in the world ever will on its own terms, be it a ground that can accomodate 100,000 people, or a ground that can only accomate 10,000.

"The bottom line: Etihad have to make £34m extra profit each year because of this sponsorship, otherwise they are wasting the advertising."

Far too simplistic. Etihad don't have to return a profit in the same time frame at all (i.e. £34m per year). They merely have to grow at an exponential rate. For example, a business in one year invests £1m in order to enable it to grow. It doesn't expect, nor need, £1m to be returned in that year (or over the term of the specific sponsorship). Just as Etihad don't have to return the full value of their sponsorship cost over the course of their sponsorship. The value of sponsoring a club (or anything else for that matter) doesn't end once the sponsorship deal itself has concluded. It has a much longer-lasting effect than that.

and then, at least QPR and the Fulhams owners will have the freedom to choose to put their own money into the club without being banned from future European competition...........
-----------------------------------
they can still put money into the club. the only things the ffp covers is things like players, wages etc. all the infrastructure is exempt.

Owners can do things like build a new stadium to increase revenue, improve/rebuild training facilities to help players reach higher levels, build academies to develop their own players etc.

what they cant do is spend 107% of their total annual income on wages alone, potentially leaving the club in financial trouble, a la pompey/leeds.

It's all about encouraging clubs to develop themselves, to build from within as opposed to just going out and blowing money the club simply doesn't have.

"as opposed to just going out and blowing money the club simply doesn't have"

Try to differentiate between an owner of a business and that business itself. Anyone trying to do that will fall flat on their face.

Owners of a business will always invest in that business, especially when they either

a) start the business

b) become involved in that business

And to deny an owner the opportunity to do that is to deny the potential of them (and the business itself) to become successful.

UEFA's FFP is good in theory, but not good in practice. It will stiffle investment into the game (and investment into any industry should never be deemed to be a bad thing (especially in a capitalist environment (which football clearly resides). It is something that has happened throughout the history of the game, and the biggest clubs today have all benefitted from it (the major clubs being able to substantiate themselves because of past investment). Put it this way, if something akin to the FFP existed 70-80 years ago, then it would be the likes of Huddersfield who resided at the top of the tree. Not in itself a bad thing (at least to them), but equally a club such as Manchester United (who early in their history were in very real danger of going to the wall) may have ceased to exist before they even had a chance to establish themselves.

And how do the FFP proposals encourage growth in the game? Answer is they don't. At all. Yet, at the same time, UEFA as an organisation positively creams itself at every chance the game overall gets when it comes to expansion. Be it tv companies fighting over rights (and thus pushing up the price of having the right to broadcast games), or be it companies who are themselves willing to invest in the game via sponsorship (a figure that itself is rising year on year). Limit that outside investment (which the FFP will invariably do (no longer can the world's richest people buy into the game and invest their own money in the hope of making a return), and the game overall will become stagnated.

"This is spurious. The value of sponsoring a stadium name is the size and following of the club."

"Wrong. The value of any sponsorship is based on exposure that that sponsorship will give to the company who is sponsoring. Size and following bears very little in this respect. To put it simply, Rochdale playing in the Champions League would have more exposure than City would if City were playing in the Championship."

True, but it was stated that the sponsorship covered all 80 acres and the training facilities.

Rochdale in CL - big
City in the championship - smaller
City training ground - very, very low.

"i assume you are digging at united there"

Actually i wasn't, i am aware that your lot has a massive income which services the debt. I was referring to just about every club in the PL and other European top leagues.

"i assume you are digging at united there"

Actually i wasn't, i am aware that your lot......................
----------------------------------------------


i'm an arsenal fan