comment by Thor (U22388)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Thor (U22388)
posted 3 hours, 5 minutes ago
We operate in a free market environment. If an investor thinks City is worth that amount in sponsorship, then they'll pay it.
-----
Not according to FFP mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UEFA has already approved all our deals as they are in loine with market value. That's not what the current case is about.
Do keep up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is this relevant to what I replied to? Learn to read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your statement implies that our deals are not consistent with free market pricing.

comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
comment by Thor (U22388)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Thor (U22388)
posted 3 hours, 5 minutes ago
We operate in a free market environment. If an investor thinks City is worth that amount in sponsorship, then they'll pay it.
-----
Not according to FFP mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UEFA has already approved all our deals as they are in loine with market value. That's not what the current case is about.
Do keep up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is this relevant to what I replied to? Learn to read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your statement implies that our deals are not consistent with free market pricing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, my statement implies that investors just can't invest because they want to because FFP controls that.

comment by Thor (U22388)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
comment by Thor (U22388)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Thor (U22388)
posted 3 hours, 5 minutes ago
We operate in a free market environment. If an investor thinks City is worth that amount in sponsorship, then they'll pay it.
-----
Not according to FFP mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UEFA has already approved all our deals as they are in loine with market value. That's not what the current case is about.
Do keep up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is this relevant to what I replied to? Learn to read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
your statement implies that our deals are not consistent with free market pricing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, my statement implies that investors just can't invest because they want to because FFP controls that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, correct. Personally I’ve never overly minded the principle of it, it just had to look at debt as well for it to work properly though.

That and far greater redistribution of prize money was needed. Otherwise it’s just having your cake and eating it.

I thought it was more that an investor can invest however much they want, but ffp will assess whether it meets their criteria for fair market value. If it doesn’t, then they will discount the investment for ffp purposes, but the investor would have still invested and the club would have still received that investment.

It depends what the investment is on, they’ve also relaxed some of the rules since implementation (due to some of the previous g14 clubs realising they wanted to invest more themselves...)

From a sponsorship perspective, then it has to assess whether it’s fair market value if it’s a related party transaction. If it isn’t, then there’s nothing UEFA can do about it.

Our deal with Puma blows Etihad out of the water in monetary terms.

Does Sheikh Mansour own them as well?

The Etihad deal, that was overvalued to begin with but then undervalued for a few seasons too. Given UEFA did look at that deal (and deemed it fair value despite us saying it wasn’t a related party anyway) I’m not sure why the value of it is even being discussed.

Thanks Melton. Understand why related party investment has to come under more scrutiny.

That brings me back to my earlier point made to Fields. If Etihad are a related party to Mansour, then why would Mansour (as the allegation makes) subsidise the Etihad deal through ADUG, and not through Etihad themselves?

That’s what I can’t quite understand about the allegation itself.

Boris, our deal with Etihad was blown out of the water 5 years or so ago with the shirt sponsorship deals (alone) that other clubs were signing.

Exactly Melton. The value of the Etihad deal, which Fields focused on earlier, misses the point of the current situation.

Kit deals are the ones that should be up for comparison for all clubs.

The big manufacturers are all multi-nationals so there can't be accusations of collusion.

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 hours, 23 minutes ago
Thanks Melton. Understand why related party investment has to come under more scrutiny.

That brings me back to my earlier point made to Fields. If Etihad are a related party to Mansour, then why would Mansour (as the allegation makes) subsidise the Etihad deal through ADUG, and not through Etihad themselves?

That’s what I can’t quite understand about the allegation itself.

Boris, our deal with Etihad was blown out of the water 5 years or so ago with the shirt sponsorship deals (alone) that other clubs were signing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it makes no sense to say that, Etihad and Mansour are not related at all - if they were, this would actually all have been much easier and wouldn’t get anywhere near this as the transfer would have just been from Etihad to us.

What’s more likely to have happened, if there has been wrongdoing, is that Etihad asked Mansour to cover it through Adug due to wanting their own books to look better. At the time of the emails, that would have made sense as Etihad were, to be completely honest, pretending to be a profitable company. Since the green skies case though, they haven’t at all (they’ve made huge losses the last few years). Again, people need to remember all of the allegations are linked to reporting periods six or seven years ago, not recently.

I just hope we have more than just arguing the technicalities of it though, both in terms of already being punished for it already at the time and it also being past the duration they can investigate. As much as they are legitimate points to make, I personally would want to know that Etihad were solely liable, given that is what we and they have both stated.

“I just hope we have more than just arguing the technicalities of it though, both in terms of already being punished for it already at the time and it also being past the duration they can investigate.”

I agree. If it goes against the club there is a conversation to be had, I hope we will be able to have it on here too without it becoming inane, but see what happens first I suppose.

comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
“I just hope we have more than just arguing the technicalities of it though, both in terms of already being punished for it already at the time and it also being past the duration they can investigate.”

I agree. If it goes against the club there is a conversation to be had, I hope we will be able to have it on here too without it becoming inane, but see what happens first I suppose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, I'm not sure on here will lead to a decent conversation about it if it does go that way!

I thought this was an interesting article.

Seems we had a good realtionship with Bayern Munich at one time, now they hate us with a vengence. Something must have happened to sour that relationship.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/football-documents-show-secret-plans-for-elite-league-of-top-clubs-a-1236447.html

Probably didn’t help when Boateng engineered his own move there

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 day, 2 hours ago
I do understand the conflict of interests.

But it makes no sense for Mansour to top up a deal through his company ADUG, who actually do own City. That is explicitly and rightfully not allowed. The club, the owners undoubtedly know this.

Especially when he could, if what you say is true, quite easily put the money directly into Etihad, who do not own City. And, as long as the deal represents fair market value (UEFA themselves don’t regard it to be “too excessive” ), that would be allowed. (Irrespective of how shady you or I would deem that to be).

The whole allegation, based on stolen emails obtained by a man who is currently in prison (facing a trial for numerous counts of hacking, sabotage, and fraud), raises so many questions in and of itself.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am no expert on this cases whatsoever. My question is, if a second company, regardless of ownership, is topping up the sponsorship deal of a club then surely that is evidence that the Sponsorship is inflated and not fair MV. Etihad gets presence and exposure for their money. What does whoever tops up the deal get for their money and if its nothing then the deal is inflated because its subsidised, and anything that is subsidised isnf fair MV.

The Etihad deal was deemed fair market value, wasn’t it?

If Etihad’s bad management led to them being unable to pay the sponsorship, and thus needed outside investment to pay it, that’s a different matter - and one which is being looked at.

In a less high profile sport than Premier League football then Eithad may have withdrawn their sponsorship, but if a comapny has access to credit then it can use it where it feels appropriate.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 day, 2 hours ago
I do understand the conflict of interests.

But it makes no sense for Mansour to top up a deal through his company ADUG, who actually do own City. That is explicitly and rightfully not allowed. The club, the owners undoubtedly know this.

Especially when he could, if what you say is true, quite easily put the money directly into Etihad, who do not own City. And, as long as the deal represents fair market value (UEFA themselves don’t regard it to be “too excessive” ), that would be allowed. (Irrespective of how shady you or I would deem that to be).

The whole allegation, based on stolen emails obtained by a man who is currently in prison (facing a trial for numerous counts of hacking, sabotage, and fraud), raises so many questions in and of itself.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am no expert on this cases whatsoever. My question is, if a second company, regardless of ownership, is topping up the sponsorship deal of a club then surely that is evidence that the Sponsorship is inflated and not fair MV. Etihad gets presence and exposure for their money. What does whoever tops up the deal get for their money and if its nothing then the deal is inflated because its subsidised, and anything that is subsidised isnf fair MV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It all depends on who the company is though. If, say, Cadbury’s decide to sponsor a football team and then one season they say the money itself will come from a different company, why would the football team care?

In terms of market value, it doesn’t say anything about that at all. All it says is whether that company was able to pay what they committed to.

I should have read on, what Darren said already would have done!

Both parties have agreed to hold the hearing behind closed doors.

There must be a compromise in the offing.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator