Etihad Have Bought The Naming Rights To The Stadium

[dazby]

Read the article svenny. All the answers are there.

Which one?

The one that Svensational highlighted that clearly states that the Etihad Stadium he looked up on wikipedia refers to the one in Melbourne Australia. Yes, there will be more than one Etihad stadium in the world.

[walmai]

So, do you actually need this money?

[DoomMerchant]

So, do you actually need this money?

Without it we'd be nailed on for relegation

Cheers

[walmai]

So, do you actually need this money?

Without it we'd be nailed on for relegation

Cheers

From the top 4?

[Michigan Blue]

Good read, this.

City campus project buys club breathing space
Sponsorship opportunities created by 80-acre east Manchester development can wipe out huge losses
By Ian Herbert, Northern Football Correspondent
Saturday, 9 July 2011

The denizens of Old Trafford have had some fun with Etihad's sponsorship of Manchester City.

They'll tell you that the Abu Dhabi airline's name translates as "United" – even though it is actually Arabic for "Unity". After the wisecracks, though, comes the sobering reality, from a United perspective, of what a deal worth a little more than £300m, rising to £400m over ten years, might actually mean to the balance of power in British football.

After the stadium naming-rights deal provided the headlines yesterday morning, the general view from within the boardrooms of the Premier League's elite clubs was that having a Champions League venue named after your business is a privilege worth £10m a year and that the £40m-a-year figure City have procured from Etihad is higher than expected. For their part City say the stadium rights are just a part of the deal.

It is the other part which is the really smart bit. The new 80-acre "Etihad Campus" which City intend to create, if public consultation and the planning process go well, will enable them to create a lucrative new array of facilities. More sponsors may arrive with them and because the costs of creating them will not be factored into Uefa's assessment of a club's profit or loss, City can effectively build them for nothing. The only limit on it is the scope of Abu Dhabi imagination – and the Yas Marina Formula One track has given us an insight into that. Whether other clubs like it or not, City's owners have found a way to make their wealth continue working for them.

A picture of how the area prosaically known before as Openshaw West will look may take shape with an announcement as early as next month. Remediation work was started on the brownfield sight several months ago and it is likely to be where City's training ground is relocated. The future of the current Carrington base, across the fields from United's training ground, has looked in doubt since City embarked on a study of the world's best sports training facilities, 18 months ago. The Platt Lane academy could also be relocated, finally severing City's link with Moss Side, as well as Etihad's new call centre, to be located in Manchester from early 2012.

The steady stream of Etihad sponsorship opportunities this presents will justify to Uefa yesterday's £400m deal and perhaps offer scope for the sum to grow even bigger, if City need the money. Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel, under the chairmanship of the former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, is in place to ensure "fair value" in sponsorship deals – but it is hard to see this being judged unfair, as nothing like it has been done before.

City cannot keep building forever. But Openshaw gives them the breathing space and the building space. The potential unlocked by the 80-acre area eases the pressures created by the astronomical player wages that City's chief Garry Cook has taken on during the club's pursuit of a Champions League place.

With a squad for European football still being assembled, the Financial Fair Play regulations have perhaps come five years too soon for a club which in October will post a rise in their £121m 2009-10 losses, as they account for the £96.6m net expenditure plus wages of Jerome Boateng, David Silva, Yaya Touré, Aleksandar Kolarov, Mario Balotelli and James Milner, who arrived too late to go into last year's published results.

Privately, City have always been comfortable with their ability to fall in line with FFP, which will oblige clubs to post no more than £45m losses over the next three years, and the commercial opportunity from the broad acres around their ground has always been the reason why.

How comfortable other clubs will be with their strategy is less certain. The suspicion that City's balance sheet is bein artificially inflated by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan makes full accounting transparency for the Etihad deal vita. The Abu Dhabi royal family owns the seven -year-old airline and has absorbed its losses. It was unclear last night whether Etihad – which, though in private ownership, does publish its annual accounts – would begin itemising sponsorship spend, including the new City deal.

Rival clubs such as Bayern Munich are annoyed after finding it far harder than they imagined to get hold of players City want to retain – Boateng in the Germans' case. "They are going to have 48 players under contract," Bayern chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge said only yesterday. "But you can only name 25 and last year they lost £123m. Under the new rules, with these numbers you wouldn't get a licence, that's for sure. Maybe they know a trick I do not."

The £400m deal is likely to see City through the Uefa challenge, though. The mood from Uefa is that clubs will be helped, not punished; that expulsion from Europe is a last resort – and by no means likely if a club fail to meet the loss target, but are cooperating and financially are moving in the right direction.

The consolation for United supporters is that City may not be able to boast they secured the most lucrative sponsorship deal for too long. United believe they can secure a world-record kit deal of £450m before their agreement with Nike expires in 2015. But Cook and the Abu Dhabis have redefined the term "sponsorship deal" and proved what a commercial power they are. Unity is a commodity that will remain in short supply across the two footballing halves of Manchester.

Big Sponsorship Deals

Arsenal

The closest to City's deal is between Arsenal and Emirates: for 15 years of naming rights and nine years of shirt sponsorship Arsenal received £100m.

Barcelona

The largest shirt deal in history was sealed this year: Barcelona will get £125m over five years for shirt sponsorship.

Manchester United and Liverpool

Both teams agreed £80m shirt sponsorship deals over four years, starting in the 2010-11 seasons.

Naming rights abroad

American sport has seen some naming rights deals nearly as big as those for the Etihad Campus:

*Citigroup sponsored New York Mets' ground Citi Field in a $400m (£250m) deal over 20 years.

*Barclays did a similar 20-year $400m deal for New Jersey Nets' new ground.

*Farmers Insurance Group have a 30-year $700m deal for an NFL stadium in Los Angeles that has not been built.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 09397.html

[guv111]

The excitement I'm currently feeling is all the more delicious when I see what the "antis" stooping to.

A lovely comment on today's Independent website:

Stick your homo ARAB money where it belongs!!

How can these disgraces to Human rights, or like Abromavich at Chelsea with blood money stolen from the people be allowed to own clubs and live in thsi country

Disgusting

In one breath he manages to be both racist and homophobic, and in the next he talks about human rights. These idiots are worried.

[john@staustell]

My god !!! people are really screwing over this !! Having loads of banter with some Spuds fans. I had to remind them about their double sponsored deal on their home shirt last season.These fookin idiots actually think they make all their cash on the gates..laughable.

I think many were holding onto this ffp rule to be something that could stop us in our tracks.Pissed right on their cornflakes. lol

I've always said that other clubs' fans, fed by the dafter and more hysterical media hacks like Ollie Holt, never got to grips with how big the Sheik's plans are. they just thought he was lobbing in a few quid to buy players. Rather than world domination by financial means.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

The excitement I'm currently feeling is all the more delicious when I see what the "antis" stooping to.

A lovely comment on today's Independent website:

Stick your homo ARAB money where it belongs!!

How can these disgraces to Human rights, or like Abromavich at Chelsea with blood money stolen from the people be allowed to own clubs and live in thsi country

Disgusting

In one breath he manages to be both racist and homophobic, and in the next he talks about human rights. These idiots are worried.

How are this people allowed to live in Britain???? I mean, yeah, fuck them and offering jobs for hundreds of people who in turn pay their taxes to Britain. Fuck them for helping their local communities through these football clubs. And if it's like that, should they just ban foreign ownership in British companies altogether? Or should it be expanded further and ban any foreign company working in Britain.

Also, our owners don't actually live in Britain.

[Ted Hughes]

The excitement I'm currently feeling is all the more delicious when I see what the "antis" stooping to.

A lovely comment on today's Independent website:

Stick your homo ARAB money where it belongs!!

How can these disgraces to Human rights, or like Abromavich at Chelsea with blood money stolen from the people be allowed to own clubs and live in thsi country

Disgusting

In one breath he manages to be both racist and homophobic, and in the next he talks about human rights. These idiots are worried.

How are this people allowed to live in Britain???? I mean, yeah, fuck them and offering jobs for hundreds of people who in turn pay their taxes to Britain. Fuck them for helping their local communities through these football clubs. And if it's like that, should they just ban foreign ownership in British companies altogether? Or should it be expanded further and ban any foreign company working in Britain.

Also, our owners don't actually live in Britain.

The majority of people will see this partnership & the other things which will no doubt happen in the future, as a huge positive for Manchester & for the country but not only that, this partnership will end up being a positive influence worldwide.

Then you have the racists, thick heads & jealous football fans (especially bitter rags of course) who will seethe & spew their bile for a period of time, before resignation eventually sets in & it dawns on them just how unstoppable this is.

It shouldn't be forgotton how the press & corrupt officials such as Platini have tried to hamper this relationship at every turn & have basically pandered to scum rather than accept that huge investment into a sporting & community environment is a good thing for everyone apart from those with vested interests in it's failure.

[Wooders]

I kept telling this to my mate (he's a rag of course) that the FFP rules will be dealt with and that our owner is actually a shrewd businessman, not some cash happy billionaire that wants something to sink his fortune into and have a bit of fun

they always said there was big plans for city, what a shame most people can't see beyond "buying loads of players and not knowing their place in the football class system"

[Ted Hughes]

By the way, if the name 'Etihad Stadium' does translate to 'United Stadium' as the rags are claiming, how the fuck will their fans know where to go when they arrive in Manchester? I can see now, why they're so concerned about it.

[avoidconfusion]

The Daily Fail claims a host of other clubs want to petition against this deal hahaha....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... etoed.html

[Blue Since 76]

I'm still concerned about when he gets bored next year and just walks away, leaving us with no money.

That's what every rag and dipper I speak to tells me anyway.

[frozen_pea]

Daily Fail article:

Top clubs want Manchester City's £400m sponsorship deal vetoed

By Rob Draper

Last updated at 10:44 PM on 9th July 2011

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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z1ReTWfxGu

My comment (lets see if it gets posted):

I thought I would no longer see journalism of this quality after Sunday when the NoTW is shut down. Did Rob Draper jump from there early?

Any sources or the names of these "Top European Clubs"?

No mention at all of the redevelopment in the local area and all the other business, media and international co-operation the deal entails. (details of that available here: http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/20 ... nouncement).

No mention that it's the first ever deal of its kind and therefore cannot be compared to any other stadium naming rights.

Doesn't mention shirt sponsorship. Market value (Liverpool and Manchester United) is at £20m* per season so £200 million, half of this money can be for shirt sponsorship alone and be classed as market value.

"Etihad is the national airline carrier of Abu Dhabi" That's odd as Abu Dhabi is a state and not a nation so it can't be the national airline of a non nation?




* I didn't add my source to the comment, but for you guys, here they are:
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/07/29/put-your-shirt-on-it-liverpool-and-manchester-united-surging-ahead-in-sponsor-stakes-290705/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/6193079/Liverpool-lead-shirt-sponsor-deal-alongside-rivals-Manchester-United.html

[blues2win]

Ridiculous story. Personally I'm rather disappointed he didn't take UEFA to court over the unfair play rules. What legal right has Platini got to limit the ability of ADUG to invest in its own businesses?

[Wooders]

Ridiculous story. Personally I'm rather disappointed he didn't take UEFA to court over the unfair play rules. What legal right has Platini got to limit the ability of ADUG to invest in its own businesses?

he doesn't have any - but he does have the right to exclude teams from certain competitions if the fiscal requirements are not met

[ashton287]

haha i can imagine twatini having a right fucking hissy fit when he was informed about the deal.

*Spitting his warm milk all over his iggle piggle dressing gown*
SACRE BLEEUUUUU...ZIS CANNOT BE ALLOWEDDD.

A picture of the sheikh on the toilet ready to wipe his arse with a stack of papers entitled Fifa Fair Play Rules comes to mind aswell.

[blues2win]

Wooders. That has not been tested in court. It could well be argued that the UEFA rules effectively amount to an illegal restraint of trade.

[Blue Since 76]

Daily Fail article:

Top clubs want Manchester City's £400m sponsorship deal vetoed

By Rob Draper

Last updated at 10:44 PM on 9th July 2011

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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z1ReTWfxGu

My comment (lets see if it gets posted):

I thought I would no longer see journalism of this quality after Sunday when the NoTW is shut down. Did Rob Draper jump from there early?

Any sources or the names of these "Top European Clubs"?

No mention at all of the redevelopment in the local area and all the other business, media and international co-operation the deal entails. (details of that available here: http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/20 ... nouncement).

No mention that it's the first ever deal of its kind and therefore cannot be compared to any other stadium naming rights.

Doesn't mention shirt sponsorship. Market value (Liverpool and Manchester United) is at £20m* per season so £200 million, half of this money can be for shirt sponsorship alone and be classed as market value.

"Etihad is the national airline carrier of Abu Dhabi" That's odd as Abu Dhabi is a state and not a nation so it can't be the national airline of a non nation?




* I didn't add my source to the comment, but for you guys, here they are:
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/07/29/put-your-shirt-on-it-liverpool-and-manchester-united-surging-ahead-in-sponsor-stakes-290705/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/6193079/Liverpool-lead-shirt-sponsor-deal-alongside-rivals-Manchester-United.html

Precisely. If Liverpool can get £20m a season when not even in the CL, we can claim the same and the sponsorship covers the extension of the shirt contract. There hasn't been a similar stadium rights deal, either. Arsenal seem to have severely undersold theirs and the rest in England have been smaller clubs. There will be CL games, plus premier league games played at the Etihad Stadium, hopefully for the full 10 years. I see no reason why that should be significantly less than the shirt deal. If Anfield or the swamp was to be renamed, how much do you reckon you'd have to pay?

On top of which, some of the sponsorship is to cover the rest of the 'campus', whatever that turns out to be. No one has done that previously so it's value is ??

UEFA will be aware that they'd get nowhere and it would open up all sorts of legal claims about 'market value' everytime someone got the new highest amount.

The whole thing is flawed and City have just ridden the first coach and horses through and more will do the same. If it fails, there are plenty more ways around it and you can't keep changing the rules to make them all illegal. The only thing UEFA seems to be happy with is borrowing loads of cash and then making ordinary fans pay through the nose for their tickets - fair play? My arse.

[freshie]

A good article in the Mail by Martin Samuel which attempts to conter the bile spewed by most of the red tops regarding our sponsorship deal

Financial fair play is merely a way to stifle City

By Martin Samuel

Last updated at 12:03 AM on 11th July 2011

Perhaps UEFA could be persuaded to rule on a fair price for Manchester City defender Jerome Boateng. Those guys seem to know the value of everything these days.

They know how much a stadium naming rights deal is worth at a club that may - or may not - be on the brink of becoming one of the most significant in Europe.

They know what a kit deal should mean to a team that may - or may not - be about to win Europe's richest domestic league.
Welcome to the Etihad Stadium: Manchester City struck a huge £400m deal to rename Eastlands last week

Welcome to the Etihad Stadium: Manchester City struck a huge £400m deal to rename Eastlands last week

And they can put a precise price on a fledgling project involving transport infrastructure, retail and sports education in the Greater Manchester area that may - or may not - create a new and vibrant entrepreneurial hub to the east of the city.

Indeed, it is hard to imagine why we continue listening to those bozos who made such a pig's ear of judging the financial fortunes of the Mediterranean countries, when all the finest economic forecasters in Europe can be found hanging around Michel Platini's office in Nyon.

UEFA have announced they will look into Manchester City's £400million, 10-year sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, to see if financial fair play rules have been contravened.
Squabble: City and Bayern Munich are in dispute over the transfer value of Jerome Boateng (left)

Squabble: City and Bayern Munich are in dispute over the transfer value of Jerome Boateng (left)

'Our experts will make assessments of fair value using benchmarks,' said a spokesman.

What benchmarks are these?

City are all about potential right now. They could be anything, or nothing. They could usurp Barcelona or end up in the Europa League next season. And there is no precedent for City as a major European force. What would be the going rate, were City to win the modern Champions League? Who knows? They have never even been in it before.

Yet there is already pressure over the Etihad deal from the old European elite, who feel threatened. They want the arrangement investigated because of very obvious links between Etihad and Manchester City. The airline is owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, whose ruler, Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan is the half brother of City's owner Sheik Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan.

The claim is the figures have been artificially inflated to help City comply with UEFA's financial rules. And maybe they have; but so what? Business is about contacts. There are plenty of deals struck at a certain price because one side is playing a long game, hoping to do better down the line. A company might agree a significant discount to reel in a wealthy client; another might make a generous offer to establish a relationship and benefit in the future.

The microcosm is giving a busy tradesman a generous tip at first, in the hope of then being able to call on his services and time more regularly.

Clearly, these examples do not apply to Etihad and City, but they might apply to other major clubs in Europe and to a business that wanted a foot in the door at, say, Manchester United or Real Madrid.

What would UEFA do then? Ban their clubs from cutting a good deal? It will be interesting to see such restrictive measures tested in court. Bayern Munich chief executive Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, is believed to be among those protesting against the Manchester City deal behind the scenes, but he has vested interests on several fronts.

Right now, there is a significant rift between the clubs over Germany defender Boateng: Munich have offered £12m, City want nearer £20m. 'City demand a price which is not realistic,' Rummenigge says.

So now you see how it works. The big clubs want City's sponsorship by Etihad suppressed, but also wish to steal their players on the cheap. So City get gypped two ways - it is almost as if the clubs are scared of their capacity to generate money.

As chairman of the European Club Association, Rummenigge rarely misses a chance to raise an issue happily to Bayern Munich's advantage, and this is no exception. Not satisfied with Munich's immense wealth and standing in the domestic and European game - which will only be further cemented by the financial fair play rule - Rummenigge wishes to take out all interlopers, too.

City represent the greatest threat to that established order and, therefore, must be stopped.

Munich want a return to the days when the big clubs could just bully their way to a cheap deal. In Rummenigge's mind, City are impudent upstarts, their business unworthy of a £400m sponsorship, their players unworthy of a £20m bid; and UEFA are complicit in this arrogance.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... z1RkV83RSF