Mirror/Etihad/Sponsorship.

[Ted Hughes]

Just seen it ont net. Says 80 mil. Check it out.

I've no time to paste on phone.

[Beefymcfc]

No time?

Well worth it.

[Slim]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... ip-5290985

The new agreement will be a boost to the coffers of the club who were last year fined after failing UEFA's FFP tests

Manchester City are about to strike it rich with a new £80million-a-year sponsorship deal with Etihad.

The Premier League champions, who are four years into a 10-year agreement worth £400million with the national airline of Abu Dhabi, are in the process of renegotiating the terms of the package.

The current deal is worth £40million-a-year to City, but includes sponsorship of the shirt, training kit and naming rights to the club’s expanding stadium and Academy complex.

With City paying the local council around £2million annually for the right to rebrand the stadium, it means they are currently earning less than most other top clubs get for shirt sponsorship alone.

Manchester United bank £47million a year from their agreement with Chevrolet, while Chelsea have just announced a deal with Japanese tyre manufacturer Yokohama Rubber that will net them £200million over five years.

With the worldwide interest in the Premier League showing no sign of slowing down following the new £5billion TV deal, City want to cash in on a sponsorship package that could double their current arrangement with Etihad.

UEFA have already ruled that City’s business relationship with Etihad is not a ‘related party’ arrangement, despite their Abu Dhabi connection, and therefore it does not break their Financial Fair Play Regulations.

City failed FFP last year and were fined £49million and ordered to operate under a restricted transfer budget as well as having their squad reduced for the Champions League.

[Green & Blue]

Sounds good to me

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

And, so it begins....

[Ted Hughes]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-citys-new-80million-per-year-sponsorship-5290985

The new agreement will be a boost to the coffers of the club who were last year fined after failing UEFA's FFP tests

Manchester City are about to strike it rich with a new £80million-a-year sponsorship deal with Etihad.

The Premier League champions, who are four years into a 10-year agreement worth £400million with the national airline of Abu Dhabi, are in the process of renegotiating the terms of the package.

The current deal is worth £40million-a-year to City, but includes sponsorship of the shirt, training kit and naming rights to the club’s expanding stadium and Academy complex.

With City paying the local council around £2million annually for the right to rebrand the stadium, it means they are currently earning less than most other top clubs get for shirt sponsorship alone.

Manchester United bank £47million a year from their agreement with Chevrolet, while Chelsea have just announced a deal with Japanese tyre manufacturer Yokohama Rubber that will net them £200million over five years.

With the worldwide interest in the Premier League showing no sign of slowing down following the new £5billion TV deal, City want to cash in on a sponsorship package that could double their current arrangement with Etihad.

UEFA have already ruled that City’s business relationship with Etihad is not a ‘related party’ arrangement, despite their Abu Dhabi connection, and therefore it does not break their Financial Fair Play Regulations.

City failed FFP last year and were fined £49million and ordered to operate under a restricted transfer budget as well as having their squad reduced for the Champions League.

Cheers.

Of course it's the Mirror, so it could be bollocks, but it would be unusual for them to make up a positive story about City.

And it would make complete sense the way they have just waited & seen how people such as the rags pushed up the value of sponsorship deals by various means, then just trump them. Nobody at UEFA can raise any kind of argument, as no rules have been broken & rags have determined what is a 'fair' rate, for a club who finishes 7th in the league.

[shortagain]

Need to get into Nike's ribs, they pay us bobbins compared to many others, not even as much as they were giving the filth before Adidas came in with stupid money. Not even as if the designs are mint as they just re-badge & colour the same shirt for all the teams the sponsor.

Its a 6 year deal from 2012 @ £12m pa. Arsenal get £30m off Puma, Liverpool £25m off Warrior, Chelsea £30m with Adidas, same as filths £75m deal, even Spurs get £10m off Under Armour, so our marketing team need to get busy

[lets all have a disco]

I think the partnership with Nike will continue and they will end up putting more money in.

[shortagain]

I think the partnership with Nike will continue and they will end up putting more money in.

As they only seem to have us, Barca & PSG of the high profile teams left in the stable, doubling it would be a good start, but with a much shorter term

[Bleed_Blue]

Not to complain about the money coming in, if its $80MM then it seems inflated.

[Ted Hughes]

Not to complain about the money coming in, if its $80MM then it seems inflated.

I wonder how many people had the word 'Etihad' in common usage before they sponsored City.

[Bleed_Blue]

Not to complain about the money coming in, if its $80MM then it seems inflated.

I wonder how many people had the word 'Etihad' in common usage before they sponsored City.

Their revenue was $6BN in 2013, so am sure there are a lot of people who heard it, also they are reasonably priced.

Most of their passengers are Asians, majority of them are manure, Arse, Spurs and Liverpool fans. I personally choose Etihad for their prices not because I am a city fan.
I am guessing they are expecting a major impact/publicity in Europe. Would be interesting to see their growth in Europe and Asia over the years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... OL20140303

[Ted Hughes]

Not to complain about the money coming in, if its $80MM then it seems inflated.

I wonder how many people had the word 'Etihad' in common usage before they sponsored City.

Their revenue was $6BN in 2013, so am sure there are a lot of people who heard it, also they are reasonably priced.

Most of their passengers are Asians, majority of them are manure, Arse, Spurs and Liverpool fans. I personally choose Etihad for their prices and because I am city fan.
I am guessing they are expecting a major impact/publicity in Europe. Would be interesting to see their growth in Europe and Asia over the years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... OL20140303

I recon their profile has increased enormously since the City connection. I doubt there is even a worthwhile comparison with any of the other stuff they sponsor, when you consider how many times their name is seen all around the world daily, because of the City connection, compared to isolated events previously.

[Wonderwall]

Not to complain about the money coming in, if its $80MM then it seems inflated.

I wonder how many people had the word 'Etihad' in common usage before they sponsored City.

Their revenue was $6BN in 2013, so am sure there are a lot of people who heard it, also they are reasonably priced.

Most of their passengers are Asians, majority of them are manure, Arse, Spurs and Liverpool fans. I personally choose Etihad for their prices not because I am a city fan.
I am guessing they are expecting a major impact/publicity in Europe. Would be interesting to see their growth in Europe and Asia over the years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... OL20140303

Liverpool fans eh, they are not happy about this deal on RAWK. They want it investigated LOL

[DoomMerchant]

Not to complain about the money coming in, if its $80MM then it seems inflated.

I wonder how many people had the word 'Etihad' in common usage before they sponsored City.

i'd never head of them in my life, but i also never travel to Asia, unfortunately.

I HAD heard of Emirates tho...largely due to their footy sponsorship.

'Murica, fuck yeah.

cheers

[Bleed_Blue]

Liverpool fans eh, they are not happy about this deal on RAWK. They want it investigated LOL

You do know different people have different line of thoughts and there might be city fans who might just want things to be done in a different way.

I for one do not want Ethiad sponsorhip to go PSG way where it is so unreasonable that its bullshit.

Everyone wants self sustainability and city to make profits.
Self sustainability should be no matter if Etihad is there or not.

[Ted Hughes]

Liverpool fans eh, they are not happy about this deal on RAWK. They want it investigated LOL

You do know different people have different line of thoughts and there might be city fans who might just want things to be done in a different way.

I for one do not want Ethiad sponsorhip to go PSG way where it is so unreasonable that its bullshit.

Everyone wants self sustainability and city to make profits.
Self sustainability should be no matter if Etihad is there or not.

If Chevrolet are giving the rags 30 mil just for shirts, the Etihad deal for the whole shebang should be about 150 imo. How many fucking Chevvy's are the rags going to sell ?

Also, FFP is bent & our owner should be allowed to invest as much as he sees fit, just like Liverpool's did, to get them their 'history' in the first place, & same with Arsenal.

[Dameerto]

Not to complain about the money coming in, if its $80MM then it seems inflated.

I wonder how many people had the word 'Etihad' in common usage before they sponsored City.

i'd never head of them in my life, but i also never travel to Asia, unfortunately.

I HAD heard of Emirates tho...largely due to their footy sponsorship.

'Murica, fuck yeah.

cheers

It's the same for Europe too - they had a decent profile in the Middle East (obviously) and Asia,but needed to get their name out globally - which we've helped with quite nicely.

[Blue Since 76]

Liverpool fans eh, they are not happy about this deal on RAWK. They want it investigated LOL

You do know different people have different line of thoughts and there might be city fans who might just want things to be done in a different way.

I for one do not want Ethiad sponsorhip to go PSG way where it is so unreasonable that its bullshit.

Everyone wants self sustainability and city to make profits.
Self sustainability should be no matter if Etihad is there or not.

So if it was coke say, what would be a reasonable price? Take into account what the rags, Liverpool, Chelsea etc are now getting for shirts or training shirts. Add in the stadium. And the whole campus site. Why is it not market value? Whilst we may not get a single sponsor at £80m, I'd suggest we could get that splitting them up and having multiple sponsors.

[DoomMerchant]

Some really amazing views of a market economy in this thread.

You'd think I was reading a forum from some ex Soviet block country with the attitude of some.

Buh-zarr.

Cheers