The mancityfans.net football forum

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Socrates wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Particularly interesting is the specific bit that it's MENA, Russia, India, and Serbia.

Meaning we have other deals for other regions.

This is where Platini & his mates will end up eating shit.

while the Etihad deal has been agreed to be fair value, we already agreed that any increase in second tier sponsorships from Abu Dhabi will not be included in future breakeven calculations

No mention of not taking on new sponsors from Abu Dhabi as far as I can see, (no way on earth would that be legal) just not increasing the smaller related ones we already have which would destroy the effect of any sanction or wage cap before it happened.


So it has no relevence here at all & no relevence to any other future sponsorship deals . (This one has no related party by the way.)
Those regions are not mentioned by accident, we are going to see huge increases in sponsorship, as was always the case since the day this bollocks arrived, & there is fuck all UEFA can do about it.

Forgotton how to spell relevance for some reason but you know what i mean.

Can we increase the Etihad deal this year, Ted? Especially now it's been accepted and is hugely undervalued in my opinion compared to the deals the rags and arsenal have recently brokered?

Absolutely no idea how the Etihad deal has been structured, I know nowt whatsoever about it.

But it seemed to be suggested that it could be increased year by year when news first broke of course. Interesting that there is no mention from UEFA that it can't be, but they have mentioned the other two smaller deals must not be increased. So presumably if we did have an greement with Etihad to increase the deal, we could do.

I imagine it will go up significantly when the Campus opens, but I'm just guessing.

Thanks, Ted. The whole thing seems arbitrary on UEFA's part. Can't wait to see what they make of Loserpool's accounts next season, I'd imagine the arbitrariness will favour them.

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:Thanks, Ted. The whole thing seems arbitrary on UEFA's part. Can't wait to see what they make of Loserpool's accounts next season, I'd imagine the arbitrariness will favour them.

I can gurantee that their fans will be on the comments pages, screaming about us 'cheating' right now & knowing those thick cunts, probably asking for the title to be awarded to them. All this time, if they were audited, they would fail as well!

Ted Hughes wrote:

Socrates wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Particularly interesting is the specific bit that it's MENA, Russia, India, and Serbia.

Meaning we have other deals for other regions.

This is where Platini & his mates will end up eating shit.

while the Etihad deal has been agreed to be fair value, we already agreed that any increase in second tier sponsorships from Abu Dhabi will not be included in future breakeven calculations

No mention of not taking on new sponsors from Abu Dhabi as far as I can see, (no way on earth would that be legal) just not increasing the smaller related ones we already have which would destroy the effect of any sanction or wage cap before it happened.


So it has no relevence here at all & no relevence to any other future sponsorship deals . (This one has no related party by the way.)
Those regions are not mentioned by accident, we are going to see huge increases in sponsorship, as was always the case since the day this bollocks arrived, & there is fuck all UEFA can do about it.

Forgotton how to spell relevance for some reason but you know what i mean.

Relevance is that as soon as new AD sponsors are brought in UEFA will limit what we can count from them based on the other deals.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Socrates wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Particularly interesting is the specific bit that it's MENA, Russia, India, and Serbia.

Meaning we have other deals for other regions.

This is where Platini & his mates will end up eating shit.

while the Etihad deal has been agreed to be fair value, we already agreed that any increase in second tier sponsorships from Abu Dhabi will not be included in future breakeven calculations

No mention of not taking on new sponsors from Abu Dhabi as far as I can see, (no way on earth would that be legal) just not increasing the smaller related ones we already have which would destroy the effect of any sanction or wage cap before it happened.


So it has no relevence here at all & no relevence to any other future sponsorship deals . (This one has no related party by the way.)
Those regions are not mentioned by accident, we are going to see huge increases in sponsorship, as was always the case since the day this bollocks arrived, & there is fuck all UEFA can do about it.

Forgotton how to spell relevance for some reason but you know what i mean.

Can we increase the Etihad deal this year, Ted? Especially now it's been accepted and is hugely undervalued in my opinion compared to the deals the rags and arsenal have recently brokered?

Absolutely no idea how the Etihad deal has been structured, I know nowt whatsoever about it.

But it seemed to be suggested that it could be increased year by year when news first broke of course. Interesting that there is no mention from UEFA that it can't be, but they have mentioned the other two smaller deals must not be increased. So presumably if we did have an greement with Etihad to increase the deal, we could do.

I imagine it will go up significantly when the Campus opens, but I'm just guessing.

Agree, this deal could be renegotiated and the deal struck with PSG would set a high benchmark for primary sponsorship.

Socrates wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Socrates wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Particularly interesting is the specific bit that it's MENA, Russia, India, and Serbia.

Meaning we have other deals for other regions.

This is where Platini & his mates will end up eating shit.

while the Etihad deal has been agreed to be fair value, we already agreed that any increase in second tier sponsorships from Abu Dhabi will not be included in future breakeven calculations

No mention of not taking on new sponsors from Abu Dhabi as far as I can see, (no way on earth would that be legal) just not increasing the smaller related ones we already have which would destroy the effect of any sanction or wage cap before it happened.


So it has no relevence here at all & no relevence to any other future sponsorship deals . (This one has no related party by the way.)
Those regions are not mentioned by accident, we are going to see huge increases in sponsorship, as was always the case since the day this bollocks arrived, & there is fuck all UEFA can do about it.

Forgotton how to spell relevance for some reason but you know what i mean.

Relevance is that as soon as new AD sponsors are brought in UEFA will limit what we can count from them based on the other deals.

No it's just those two we have already, in order to stop us dodging the fine.

Found the ruling: "In order to avoid dispute and for the avoidance of doubt, Manchester City has agreed that for the period of the settlement it will not seek to improve the financial terms of two second tier commercial partnerships."

Edit: we have Aaabaar & the AD tourist authority I think.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Socrates wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Socrates wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Particularly interesting is the specific bit that it's MENA, Russia, India, and Serbia.

Meaning we have other deals for other regions.

This is where Platini & his mates will end up eating shit.

while the Etihad deal has been agreed to be fair value, we already agreed that any increase in second tier sponsorships from Abu Dhabi will not be included in future breakeven calculations

No mention of not taking on new sponsors from Abu Dhabi as far as I can see, (no way on earth would that be legal) just not increasing the smaller related ones we already have which would destroy the effect of any sanction or wage cap before it happened.


So it has no relevence here at all & no relevence to any other future sponsorship deals . (This one has no related party by the way.)
Those regions are not mentioned by accident, we are going to see huge increases in sponsorship, as was always the case since the day this bollocks arrived, & there is fuck all UEFA can do about it.

Forgotton how to spell relevance for some reason but you know what i mean.

Relevance is that as soon as new AD sponsors are brought in UEFA will limit what we can count from them based on the other deals.

No it's just those two we have already, in order to stop us dodging the fine.

Found the ruling: "In order to avoid dispute and for the avoidance of doubt, Manchester City has agreed that for the period of the settlement it will not seek to improve the financial terms of two second tier commercial partnerships."

Edit: we have Aaabaar & the AD tourist authority I think.

Yep but they will use that as precedent to benchmark any future deals too.

Socrates wrote:
Yep but they will use that as precedent to benchmark any future deals too.

How can they ?

Then they have to stop Utd having sponsorship from US, Bayern, Real Madrid, what about Berlusconi etc ?

The EU wants to cancel investment from all Abu Dhabi companies ?

They've lost. We won. It's over.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Socrates wrote:
Yep but they will use that as precedent to benchmark any future deals too.

How can they ?

Then they have to stop Utd having sponsorship from US, Bayern, Real Madrid, what about Berlusconi etc ?

The EU wants to cancel investment from all Abu Dhabi companies ?

They've lost. We won. It's over.

How can they? Erm, same way they just did...

Socrates wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Socrates wrote:
Yep but they will use that as precedent to benchmark any future deals too.

How can they ?

Then they have to stop Utd having sponsorship from US, Bayern, Real Madrid, what about Berlusconi etc ?

The EU wants to cancel investment from all Abu Dhabi companies ?

They've lost. We won. It's over.

How can they? Erm, same way they just did...

That's stupid.

They just came to an agreement to limit the INCREASE in value of TWO sponsorship deals, FOR THE PERIOD OF THE SETTLEMENT.

Not outlaw any future deals or even limit those two increasing in the future.

Right, just to put this nonsense to bed once and for all:

City's £400million Etihad sponsorship deal was passed by UEFA but the club have agreed not to increase the value of two "second-tier commercial partnerships" with other parties related to their Abu Dhabi-based owners.

WE HAVE: Etisalat, Aabaar, Abu Dhabi tourist authority.

That's THREE. so obviously, TWO of those are deemed to be 'related' & we have agreed not to increase them during the settlement period.

The other one, isn't mentioned AT ALL.

Therefore, there is no reason to think we will be impaired in any way in the future, with new sponsorship deals.

So, to go back to the original point; it's interesting that this new deal specifically mentions certain markets.

We won but let them seemingly save face whilst at the same time not damaging our relationship with UEFA beyond repair. The club statement was fucking ace.

Ted Hughes wrote:Right, just to put this nonsense to bed once and for all:

City's £400million Etihad sponsorship deal was passed by UEFA but the club have agreed not to increase the value of two "second-tier commercial partnerships" with other parties related to their Abu Dhabi-based owners.

WE HAVE: Etisalat, Aabaar, Abu Dhabi tourist authority.

That's THREE. so obviously, TWO of those are deemed to be 'related' & we have agreed not to increase them during the settlement period.

The other one, isn't mentioned AT ALL.

Therefore, there is no reason to think we will be impaired in any way in the future, with new sponsorship deals.

So, to go back to the original point; it's interesting that this new deal specifically mentions certain markets.

Yep but we can't view such deals as limitless opportunities to raise funds. They have clearly set some benchmarks. They will apply the same benchmarks in the future. FFP is an annual process, if you think they are finished scrutinising us you are sadly mistaken.

Crossie wrote:We won but let them seemingly save face whilst at the same time not damaging our relationship with UEFA beyond repair. The club statement was fucking ace.

Exactly, 16 mil fine, but we are allowed a 16 mil loss? Doesn't that mean if we were not fined and received all the CL prize money, we would need to break even? But I guess break even and no fine doesn't look good for UEFA

Socrates wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Right, just to put this nonsense to bed once and for all:

City's £400million Etihad sponsorship deal was passed by UEFA but the club have agreed not to increase the value of two "second-tier commercial partnerships" with other parties related to their Abu Dhabi-based owners.

WE HAVE: Etisalat, Aabaar, Abu Dhabi tourist authority.

That's THREE. so obviously, TWO of those are deemed to be 'related' & we have agreed not to increase them during the settlement period.

The other one, isn't mentioned AT ALL.

Therefore, there is no reason to think we will be impaired in any way in the future, with new sponsorship deals.

So, to go back to the original point; it's interesting that this new deal specifically mentions certain markets.

Yep but we can't view such deals as limitless opportunities to raise funds. They have clearly set some benchmarks. They will apply the same benchmarks in the future. FFP is an annual process, if you think they are finished scrutinising us you are sadly mistaken.

The 'benchmarks' will have to be set in accordance with the same criteria they apply to other clubs.

We are probably vastly undervalued with the Etihad deal in lieu of the apparent PSG allowance, but if ten companies in Abu Dhabi who have no 'related party' connection, want to sponsor us for £10 mil per season each, there is fuck all UEFA can do about it, anymore than they can stop American companies from sponsoring Utd & Liverpool.

They had a corrupt panel set up hoping to stitch us up & have shit out with it. That was always their only hope for really stopping us, from day one.

It's pretty certain we'll get big interest from companies around the world anyway. I recon they have something in the pipeline & that MAY be the reason that this latest deal is restricted to certain markets. It leaves a lot of the world still to go at.

Ted Hughes wrote:
The 'benchmarks' will have to be set in accordance with the same criteria they apply to other clubs.

We are probably vastly undervalued with the Etihad deal in lieu of the apparent PSG allowance, but if ten companies in Abu Dhabi who have no 'related party' connection, want to sponsor us for £10 mil per season each, there is fuck all UEFA can do about it, anymore than they can stop American companies from sponsoring Utd & Liverpool.

They had a corrupt panel set up hoping to stitch us up & have shit out with it. That was always their only hope for really stopping us, from day one.

It's pretty certain we'll get big interest from companies around the world anyway. I recon they have something in the pipeline & that MAY be the reason that this latest deal is restricted to certain markets. It leaves a lot of the world still to go at.

We may struggle to get away with another deal by a company owned by a member of the AD Royal Family, but there's no reason another company based there couldn't sponsor us at market value. However, there's little reason we can't attract sponsors from overseas now, just as this latest deal has and the likes of the rags deals have set market value for those.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Socrates wrote:
Yep but they will use that as precedent to benchmark any future deals too.

How can they ?

Then they have to stop Utd having sponsorship from US, Bayern, Real Madrid, what about Berlusconi etc ?

The EU wants to cancel investment from all Abu Dhabi companies ?

They've lost. We won. It's over.

Not really Ted because if you break even nobody goes digging into the accounts it seems. Only certain clubs were investigated. We have now managed to get ourselves under investigation for the next couple of years, after that they'll forget about us.

john@staustell wrote:
Not really Ted because if you break even nobody goes digging into the accounts it seems. Only certain clubs were investigated. We have now managed to get ourselves under investigation for the next couple of years, after that they'll forget about us.

UEFA will never 'forget' about us.

Having the likes of Gill on board and Wenger moaning will see to that

nottsblue wrote:

john@staustell wrote:
Not really Ted because if you break even nobody goes digging into the accounts it seems. Only certain clubs were investigated. We have now managed to get ourselves under investigation for the next couple of years, after that they'll forget about us.

UEFA will never 'forget' about us.

Having the likes of Gill on board and Wenger moaning will see to that

They can investigate all they fucking want.

It will make no difference. They tried, they lost.

Ted Hughes wrote:

nottsblue wrote:

john@staustell wrote:
Not really Ted because if you break even nobody goes digging into the accounts it seems. Only certain clubs were investigated. We have now managed to get ourselves under investigation for the next couple of years, after that they'll forget about us.

UEFA will never 'forget' about us.

Having the likes of Gill on board and Wenger moaning will see to that

They can investigate all they fucking want.

It will make no difference. They tried, they lost.

How did they lose? They placed limits on our ability to spend money, should the need arise, that will last for years!