The Banter Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich_L said:
Thing is though, the Qatar foundation paid 30 million euros a year just to sponsor Barca's shirts. Yes they are the 'best' team in the world right now, but they aren't competing in any more competitions than the top 4 of the Premiership, for example.

Man Utd recently agreed a shirt sponsorship deal of 20 million pounds per year - and again yes they are a bigger 'brand' but they are still competing in exactly the same competitions.

Not saying that the announced deal isn't a lot, but given the teams which City are aiming to challenge and emulate and their recent sponsorship deals the amount doesn't seem astronomical.
Click to expand...

It makes little difference what competitions you're in. Go around the world and ask people who Man City are and you'd be surprised at the amount of people that either haven't heard of them or worse, mistake them for Utd.

City aren't a global brand that are recognised around the world and therefore the value of sponsorship deals signed by clubs that are, have no relevance on City's deals.

It's no coincidence that this agreement has been signed with an Abu Dhabi state owned company. No independent company would pay City anything like the numbers of this current Etihad deal.
 
I love some of you guys on here, saying exactly what i wanted to say but ended up being too worked up to get the words out properly..

Or in other words
God im starting to hate City
 
Aye, this is extremely dodgy and it's so obvious what Man City are doing.

I hope UEFA can find a way to shaft them, but I doubt it.
 
Makes no difference if they get the whole £300m up front or not. In regards to the FFP regs, it will still be recorded as ~£30m per year or whatever the deal is.
 
BaZ87 said:
It makes little difference what competitions you're in. Go around the world and ask people who Man City are and you'd be surprised at the amount of people that either haven't heard of them or worse, mistake them for Utd.

City aren't a global brand that are recognised around the world and therefore the value of sponsorship deals signed by clubs that are, have no relevance on City's deals.

It's no coincidence that this agreement has been signed with an Abu Dhabi state owned company. No independent company would pay City anything like the numbers of this current Etihad deal.
Click to expand...
The competitions they are in gives a good idea of what level the club is competing at - are they a mid-table struggler, a relegation candidate, a perennial Europa candidate like Spurs/Villa etc.

City aren't a global brand but you could quite easily build a case that is exactly what they are aiming to do - they have achieved access to the European 'elite', they are making headlines for their transfer targets and signings.

Don't get me wrong I don't think it is a 'fair' market value for sponsorship but equally UEFA will have a hell of a time 'proving' what a fair market value actually is when you look at clubs who City are aiming (and arguably succeeding in terms of things like CL qualification, cup successes) to compete with.

Man Utd - 20 million/year
Liverpool - 20 million/year
Chelsea (15 million approx?)
Juventus - 15 million/year
Bayern - 17 million/year

And that's just shirt sponsorship.

It's all very well saying that no private company will pay $x to sponsor it, but unless there is a transparent tendering process there is no way of knowing what companies would actually be willing to pay for stadium naming + shirt sponsorship. If anything I'm just saying how it's far from straight-forward how UEFA will actually come up with a 'fair market value' for a deal like this and that although it is surely excessive I have no doubt there will be a certain reluctance to swing the axe too readily when evaluating 'fair value'.
 
I fully understand that it's nigh on impossible for UEFA to legally prove that this isn't a legit deal but it quite obviously isn't.

All the sides you've mentioned except Chelsea (and there Samsung deal is actually only worth £10m per year) are huge clubs that are recognised all over the world. City may want to become that size but they're not now so how can they justify getting comparable commercial deals to Liverpool and Utd?

It's being reported that this deal will be split ~£20m shirt and £10m stadium:
- City previously earned less than £3m per year for their kit deal - granted they're growing as a club and with Spurs's deal last year (when they made the CL too) as a benchmark, they could have realistically increased that to around £10m per year.
- It's very difficult to work out what a realistic price would have been for the stadium side of the deal as it's not very common in football and because this is a renaming of an existing stadium rather than a new build. Arsenal are only getting ~£3.5m per year but that was a while ago and Bayern get just over £5m but again that was a few years back too. The most recent deal that I know of is Galatasaray's new stadium that earns them just under £7m per year and while they're not a global side (like City) they are the biggest side in Turkey and City clearly aren't over here. Looking at American naming rights deals (where it's far more common); deals to rename existing stadiums are tiny compared to deals on new builds so given that City's ground has had 2 names (Eastlands & City of Manchester Stadium) already, it's hard to see how they could even get the £3.5m that Arsenal currently earn.

So £10m shirt and £3.5m stadium; even if you round it up to £15m, this current deal is still twice as much as what I would have imagined City could have earned.
Alpherah said:
From next season Liverpool's shirt deal is £25 mill :D
Click to expand...

That's our kit manufacturing deal and that's still not been confirmed yet. Our shirt sponsorship deal is £81m over 4 years although we have some other smaller deals with Standard Chartered which some say could earn us another ~£3m per year.
 
Last edited:
Absolute blinder played by City and after a quick scan of the most recent page you've all managed to completely miss the point whilst falling over one another to stick the boot into Biz again. No surprises there then :p

This IS NOT 'just' a stadium/shirt sponsorship deal. This can be in no way compared with what the Emirates have with Arsenal, what Qatar have with Barcelona, or what anyone have with anyone else.

This deal incorporates sponsorship for an entire AREA. A whole project of massive development integral to Manchester City and the City of Manchester itself, all of it coming under the Etihad banner. You can't put it to a fair market value test because there is nothing else like it to compare it too. Like I said in the transfer thread yesterday, the plans for City are massive. Far bigger than buying an expensive first team squad and playing real life FM.
 
Again, it's near impossible to prove but it's only common sense to understand that if City (realistically) could have only earned sub £5m to sponsor a football stadium with all the coverage it gets, they're not going to get a great deal from sponsorships of some shops and offices immediately around the stadium (which is all that counts to FFP) which will get little to no media coverage.
 
Last edited:
Adrianr said:
Absolute blinder played by City and after a quick scan of the most recent page you've all managed to completely miss the point whilst falling over one another to stick the boot into Biz again. No surprises there then :p

This IS NOT 'just' a stadium/shirt sponsorship deal. This can be in no way compared with what the Emirates have with Arsenal, what Qatar have with Barcelona, or what anyone have with anyone else.

This deal incorporates sponsorship for an entire AREA. A whole project of massive development integral to Manchester City and the City of Manchester itself, all of it coming under the Etihad banner. You can't put it to a fair market value test because there is nothing else like it to compare it too. Like I said in the transfer thread yesterday, the plans for City are massive. Far bigger than buying an expensive first team squad and playing real life FM.
Click to expand...

Any more info on this? what are they doing buying half of manchester and turning it into Dubai?

do they know it's not exactly a tourist hotspot and is cold and rainy?
 
IIRC Chelsea have fairly recently re-negotiated their deal which was 10 million previously so I was estimating around 15 million or thereabouts. Spurs is around 10-12 million per year too I think.

Honestly I can't see UEFA docking sponsorship below the 15 million per season mark given that City are competing in the Champs League now. For stadium naming rights I think 5 million is probably a fair value all things considered, but then as you say it's not particularly common so probably 5-10million is a range to be considering - so around 20-25 million per year IMO is where UEFA would probably draw the line.

I think the area around the 'Etihad' stadium is going to be renamed the 'Etihad Campus' which will encompass stuff like hospitality hotels, a training complex etc.

I guess the point is although it's a 'crazy' figure, when you break it up and look at other teams in comparison it's not quite as outrageous as it initially seems.
 
Last edited:
Rich_L said:
IIRC Chelsea have fairly recently re-negotiated their deal which was 10 million previously so I was estimating around 15 million or thereabouts. Spurs is around 10-12 million per year too I think.
Click to expand...

I forgot that Spurs have a seperate Cup sponsor which would bring their total up to around £12m but I've not seen any report claiming Chelsea earn more than £10m per year, even after it was renewed in 2009.

Rich_L said:
Honestly I can't see UEFA docking sponsorship below the 15 million per season mark given that City are competing in the Champs League now..
Click to expand...

I can't see UEFA doing anything at all. I've said all along that I have major doubts over whether UEFA would enforce these FFP regulations.
Rich_L said:
For stadium naming rights I think 5 million is probably a fair value all things considered, but then as you say it's not particularly common so probably 5-10million is a range to be considering - so around 20-25 million per year IMO is where UEFA would probably draw the line.

I think the area around the 'Etihad' stadium is going to be renamed the 'Etihad Campus' which will encompass stuff like hospitality hotels, a training complex etc.

I guess the point is although it's a 'crazy' figure, when you break it up and look at other teams in comparison it's not quite as outrageous as it initially seems.
Click to expand...

When you break it down it still is a crazy figure though. When Bayern Munich - a far bigger side both domestically and internationally - only earn £5m per year from a brand new unnamed stadium, how can City - a far smaller side domestically and internationally - in an already named stadium (2 names in fact) earn a similar figure? £15m per year for shirt and stadium is more than generous imo.

This whole 'Etihad Campus' thing is pretty worthless too. It won't get 1% of the media coverage that the stadium will get and if £5m is the true going rate for sponsoring the stadium, I can't see how they'd get much for the surrounding area of the stadium. They'd be better off advertising on billboards around the country.

edit: and this is being reported as more than £300m over 10 years. I've seen 1 report saying it could be worth £400m.
 
BaZ87 said:
I forgot that Spurs have a seperate Cup sponsor which would bring their total up to around £12m but I've not seen any report claiming Chelsea earn more than £10m per year, even after it was renewed in 2009.
Click to expand...
This is the one I'm going off and most of the news sources about the renewal seem to indicate that both parties report that it is an increased deal - I haven't seen a figure anywhere but just estimating based on their previous deal and the deals signed by Utd/Liverpool - http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/new_deal_but_chelsea_cant_compete_with_manchester_united/

I can't see UEFA doing anything at all. I've said all along that I have major doubts over whether UEFA would enforce these FFP regulations.
Click to expand...
True - though there's a difference between for example 'enforcing' a fair market value and making a decision versus acting on the implications of that when arriving at the overall profit/loss figure.

Also this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways) gives a little more detail - namely that the Council are nabbing a sweet 4 million a year which I imagine would be deducted from any revenue that the club gets - although they also value the deal at 400 million soo.....
 
Is there a difference? UEFA won't enforce a fair market value as the want clubs to meet the breakeven figure so they don't have to make a decision on whether to exclude them from Europe.

It looks like all the rags are running the £400m figure and it sounds like Etihad might be (part)funding the construction of the Etihad Campus in return for naming rights of the campus rather than a straight forward sponsorship, in which case I'm not sure whether that money can be shown as an earning under FFP.

Until more details are known it's difficult to know how much City are getting and how but 1 thing is for certain, they'd have only got it from a Abu Dhabi state owned company.
 
Some city fans on bluemoon seem to think its £400mill over 10 years and £200 mill upfront to fund the building of the local infrastructure.

With City involved, im almost at the point of believing them.

BaZ87 said:
It looks like all the rags are running the £400m figure and it sounds like Etihad might be (part)funding the construction of the Etihad Campus in return for naming rights of the campus rather than a straight forward sponsorship, in which case I'm not sure whether that money can be shown as an earning under FFP.
Click to expand...

If City pull it off, its going to be hilarious (in a bad way) 5 years down the line when every 'wealthy' owner with a club in Europe is buying up property in a 20 mile radius around the stadium in an attempt to pull the same stunt.
 
Last edited:
IMO yes - there is a difference between UEFA saying "That's only worth 10 million therefore you are 20 million in the red so no Champs League for you" versus "That's only worth 10 million therefore you are 20 million under the target so you have 5 years to rectify it with leave to appeal due to special circumstances or we will reconsider your entry into the Champs League" versus "Hmmmm, yes it's a touch expensive but never mind ok, you have balanced finances y0" :p

My question is more about how UEFA will actually come up with these 'fair market values' in the first place when there are so many factors in coming up with a deal, a lot of which are unique to the deal such as timing of the sponsorship, duration, the club's current position, the clubs history, the clubs 10 year spending plan and vision and suchlike - and that's without added factors like the ViagraSpam company might have to offer 3 times as much as a footwear company for sponsorship because the team would rather not be associated with that name, for example :p
 
UEFA have already given clubs years to get their finances in order and are even introducing the regulations in stages. Where's the fair in financial fairplay if 31 of the 32 CL clubs meet the regulations if City are given more time?

As for how UEFA will determine what is a fair market value? God knows but short of paying £50m for a season ticket, they're not going to do anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom