Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
It's Abu Dhabi, not Dubai.
im pretty sure dubai is the place with all the expensive buildings and such things, the company may be from abu dhabi, but there plans are akin to dubai
![Wink ;) ;)](/styles/default/xenforo/vbSmilies/Normal/wink.gif)
It's Abu Dhabi, not Dubai.
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
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.
Regarding City's naming rights..
![]()
Something fishy about this deal, sorry.Etihad is the national airline of Abu Dhabi, whose ruler is the half-brotherof City's owner Sheikh Mansour.
Probably (possibly) been mentioned, but earlier on a certain City fan from these boards asked how the national airline of a different country is City sponsoring themselves.. well, from the UEFA article on the situation:
Something fishy about this deal, sorry.
E. Related party, related party transactions and fair value of related party transactions
1. A related party is a person or entity that is related to the entity that is preparing its financial statements (the ‘reporting entity’).
2. A person or a close member of that person’s family is related to a reporting entity if that person:
a) has control or joint control over the reporting entity;
b) has significant influence over the reporting entity; or
c) is a member of the key management personnel of the reporting entity or of a parent of the reporting entity.
3. An entity is related to a reporting entity if any of the following conditions apply:
a) The entity and the reporting entity are members of the same group (which means that each parent, subsidiary and fellow subsidiary is related to the others);
b) One entity is an associate or joint venture of the other entity (or an associate or joint venture of a member of a group of which the other entity is a member);
c) Both entities are joint ventures of the same third party;
d) One entity is a joint venture of a third entity and the other entity is an associate of the third entity;
e) The entity is a post-employment benefit plan for the benefit of employees of either the reporting entity or an entity related to the reporting entity. If the reporting entity is itself such a plan, the sponsoring employers are also related to the reporting entity;
f) The entity is controlled or jointly controlled by a person identified in paragraph 2; or
g) A person identified in paragraph 2(a) has significant influence over the entity or is a member of the key management personnel of the entity (or of a parent of the entity).
4. With reference to paragraphs 1 to 3 above, the following definitions apply:
a) Close members of the family of a person are those family members who may be expected to influence, or be influenced by, that individual in their dealings with the entity. They may include that person’s children and spouse or domestic partner, children of that person’s spouse or domestic partner, and dependants of that person or that person’s spouse or domestic partner.
As has been reported over the last few days, it's looking increasingly likely that we're going to be leaving Anfield:
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/lfc-statement-on-stadium
I just went on Ladbrokes website to place a £100 bet on Brighton to win the Championship.
Not going to bother now as they are only 16/1 !!!!!!!!!!!
Ridiculous
I was hoping for at least 33/1 to actually win the league
why would the lower odds stop you from putting on such a bet, surely £1600 is still a similar amount to win?![]()