Naming rights for stadiums

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 minutes ago

Of course it matters what it's for. Because

1) A percentage of that money is going to Manchester Council - so that will be money that the club itself doesn't receive.

....................

Why is it going to Manchester Councill. Is it to cover a debt that you owe them?

.........................

Re2) The percentage of that money is being invested into the Etihad campus. And any infrastructure investment (and indeed cost) is not included in the FFP.

.........................

No, but it is still money that you are spending, that has not been generated by the club. So it can clearly be seen as 'bending the rules'. Nothing wrong wit that by the way.

..............................

So the only relevant factor out of the deal that is relevant to this discussion, and indeed relevant to the whole concept of the FFP, is the shirt sponsorship revenue and stadium rights revenue. And it is this figure that relates to the market value, and how it compares to other clubs.

We know that Liverpool (for example) recently signed a £20m per year shirt sponsorship deal. Well, how much does City's shirt sponsorship deal compare to that? The answer is, we don't know this yet, because the figure has not been publically disclosed. Meaning, you, I, or anyone else can not say whether the shirt sponsorship deal is at the "high end of the market" or not.

....................

Thanks for confirming my high end of market comments. We got there in the end.

.......................


Not to mention of course, that the total figure of £400m has actually been dismissed as being incorrect by the club itself anyway.

............................

You must know what the figure is, as you admitted to being privvy to the financial statement.

What is it?

Remember, all along here I have never claimed City have done anything against the rules, just pushed the envelope.

"Why is it going to Manchester Councill"

I don't know.

"No, but it is still money that you are spending, that has not been generated by the club. So it can clearly be seen as 'bending the rules'."

No it isn't bending the rules. The FFP clearly states that any amount of money, be it money that the club has generated or not, can be invested into club infrastructure (youth development, ground development, training facility development, etc), and this will not impact upon the FFP regulations in any way whatsoever. In short, there's no bending of the rules, because club infrastructure redevelopment are exempt from the rules that the FFP proposes.

"You must know what the figure is, as you admitted to being privvy to the financial statement"

No. The financial statement I am privvy to is the last financial statement publically disclosed. This is for the year ending 2010. The recent sponsorship deal was announced after that.

"all along here I have never claimed City have done anything against the rules, just pushed the envelope."

I know. And all my point is, if we don't know what the actual figures of the recent sponsorship deal are, and more importantly how it breaks down, then it's impossible to say whether the deal pushes the envelope or not. Or indeed whether the deal is at the high end of the market or not.

If United signed a similar deal (stadium naming rights, shirt sponsorship, a United complex, and a percentage given to the council), then in my opinion it would be a deal that would far exceed £400m over 10 years. For a start, based on what United currently receive, £200m would be set aside for the shirt sponsorship alone. And you can bet your bottom dollar that any new shirt sponsorship deal the club signs will be worth more than £20m per year anyway.

Thanks for confirming my high end of market comments. We got there in the end.

----------------------------------

Excuse me? If you think I've confirmed your "high end" comments, then you've completely missed the point. I quite clearly stated that it can NOT be said whether City's deal is high end or not.

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago

"Why is it going to Manchester Councill"

I don't know.

...............

Before we go any further, maybe you should find out.

My guess is you bought the naming rights to the stadium from them, considering they are the owners of it.

Oh, and for the record - your comment "it is still money that you are spending, that has not been generated by the club" is incorrect anyway. For any money that a club receives through sponsorship is regarded as money that that club has generated.

My guess is you bought the naming rights to the stadium from them, considering they are the owners of it.

--------------------------------------

Yeah, that would make sense.

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 0 seconds ago

My guess is you bought the naming rights to the stadium from them, considering they are the owners of it.

--------------------------------------

Yeah, that would make sense.

.................

Now, don't you find your new sponsors paying for that, even a little bit fishy?

As I have maintained throughout this thread, I don't think your owners have broken the financial rules.

They have put this out there to test UEFA, to see what UEFA will do.

This sponsorship deal alone, will likely not cover the costs of your players wages and transfer fees over the next ten years.

"Now, don't you find your new sponsors paying for that, even a little bit fishy?"

Erm, no. Why do you?

"This sponsorship deal alone, will likely not cover the costs of your players wages and transfer fees over the next ten years."

No sponsorship deal alone would cover the costs of any club's wages and transfer fees. Fortunately, clubs don't have to rely only on sponsorship to cover such costs.

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago

"Now, don't you find your new sponsors paying for that, even a little bit fishy?"

Erm, no. Why do you?

............

Ever so slightly.

...................

Fortunately, clubs don't have to rely only on sponsorship to cover such costs.

........................

I would pretty much say that a vast majority of them do.

Very few of them can rely on TV money and prize money as well as gate receipts.

Look at Chelsea as a prime example of this.

"Ever so slightly."

Why?

"I would pretty much say that a vast majority of them do"

I would say that the vast majority of clubs don't rely on sponsorship alone to cover wages and transfer fees. I would rather say that clubs rely on ALL aspects of revenue (match-day revenue, tv rights, merchandise, sponsorship, etc) in order to cover their expenses. Some clubs (City obviously being one of them) have been fortunate enough to have owners who have been prepared (or rather in a position) to invest in order to improve the club.