The financial experts which all big investors bring with them are experienced in all sorts of international "tax fiddles" and none of them, be it at City or Chelsea, or anywhere else will lose a wink of sleep over the UEFA/FIFA regulations. If the Inland Revenue started to take a real close look-then they might start to sweat a bit. But should the IR be in the business of closing football clubs? we are a nation of sport lovers-what would happen if nearly every second club was being forced to the wall by HM Taxman?
The trouble is, the big fish tend to get themselves off the hook, whereas the smaller fry end up in the pan.

Sounds like superb business acumen.

Confused why Romania Toffee highlights "tax fiddles" above though.

All clubs these days will act strictly within accounting laws and regulations and will have thorough audits and audit certificates to prove it. It is not in their interest to try and fleece the tax man. Besides, selling their stadium naming rights has nothing to do with the Inland Revenue. They'll sell the rights and pay tax on the income. Simple.

All Man City are doing here, is increasing their revenue.

The new financial fair play regulations require them to balance their books and "operate more responsibly by not spending more than they earn, while settling their liabilities punctually."

Selling the stadium naming rights will bring in millions and offset some of the losses.

Didn't Arsenal do exactly the same, bringing in +£100m from Emirates Airline.

I wouldn't care if we played at the "Early Learning Centre Ground" if it meant we had the cash in the bank.

Gone are the days of being overly sentimental.

The problems will start if a link between the owners and the company paying the sponsorship is found.

Also the funds received must be within 'normal levels' for a deal of it's type.

The new UEFA rules were mainly brought in to tackle the English big spenders, so I can't see them not having a good rummage around the very club's books they set out to restrict.

UEFA have already said that if any 'work around' solutions are found by clubs, they will alter the rules to close the door.

I think a few people are in for a surprise or two.

Seeing as the Sheik's half brother is Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan (Emir of Abu Dhabi) and the country is branching out from oil I am sure this is not a 'fixed' deal in any way. Sure the £15M a year deal will pay all the £200k a week deals

I wonder which Abu Dhabi owned shipyard is building the Skeik's new super yacht Swift 141

Of course there's a link between owners and sponsors

It's a state owned airline and the head of state is the City owner's half brother.

But that doesn't really matter if it's all been set up within the rules. They've been the main City sponsors for over 2 years so if there were any financial alarm bells ringing, they would have been set off by now.

Ahh, BB I've only just come across the story.

arent etihad and the owners affiliated anyway

You're easily pleased. Now get a tissue!

I fear this [post is moving away from the real point of concern - Kenwright Out!

My first thought about these new rulings was, 'What's to stop clubs selling a box to their Chairman (or associates) for £200 million per season'.

Now if that was my first thought then I seriously hope it's popped into UEFA's mind. If such goings on are legal then they might as well scrap the whole ruling.

Another thing I thought was what happens with Real and Barca. For some ridiculous reason they are allowed to negotiate their own TV rights while the rest of their league have to simply take what they are given. How is that ever going to be a competitive division?

If that issue isn't addressed then this ruling isn't about ludacris amounts of money in the game...it's actually about bringing English football down a peg or two

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Phil, any deals done must be comparable in cost to the 'expected amount' normally received for that service or product. The situation you cited would never be allowed to happen.

As for the Real/Barca situation, those two have been having it away for years. Real was the plaything of Franco and therefore was untouchable, and Barca sold their training ground to the local government for the market price and bought it back for €1.

Funny how they never kicked a fuss about that, what with FIFA saying that governments should not be involved in football.....

2004 - Arsenal - Emirates, shirt AND stadium sponsorship £100m over 15 years (£6.6m p/a)

2009 - Man Utd - Aon Corp, shirt sponsorshiop £80m over 4 years (£20m p/a)

2009 Man City, Etihad Air, shirt sponsorship £2.3m p/a

If the stadium naming deal is allowed to go ahead (and it will, albeit possibly at a lower amount), it will still only be around £15m per year. All they will have to prove is that the sponsors did not pay an 'inflated price'

In today's ridonculous footballiig world, £15m p/a to sponsor what is fast becomming one of the most powerful clubs in the world, is far from inflated.

In today's ridonculous footballiig world, £15m p/a to sponsor what is fast becomming one of the most powerful clubs in the world, is far from inflated.

---------

Very true mate. However do we know the details of the naming rights? If Man City have two companies (in cahoot) competing for the rights, both willing to pay £100M per season then what's to stop them?

Also...how can Man City even do this? They don't own the stadium do they?!
Very true mate. Have details been released about the M

philsablue

You were almost in danger of repeating yourself there mate

You're right, we don;t know the details, but I would imagine there would be a few suitors willing to sponsor Man City. They'll go with the best offer, which will probably be the bro-in-law's airline. If it's not, they'll still get the huge income from someone else.

I don't know who owns the stadium but if the club doesn;t own it, they will pay for the lease on the land and the buildings. What it's called will be down to the club.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Good point raised by our crispy friend.

They will need significant revenue increases (or sales of assets) to offset the huge losses they incur year on year.

Also...how can Man City even do this? They don't own the stadium do they?!
Very true mate. Have details been released about the M



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

We pay 3m per year for all stadium rights and matchday profits etc.

For any Everton fans interested this will reveal our true get out of jail free card http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/transfer-news/Manchester-City-Roque-Santa-Cruz-linked-Qatar-Al-Sadd-and-Sheik-Mansours-UAE-side-Al-Jazira-article760944.html

To summarise, our owner also owns a club in the UAE who are planning to buy Santa Cruz. As you can imagine this could be a way of making a profit on players we have overpaid for in the past legally if the player is willing to move over there.

Yeah that's pretty crooked.

I hear Boston Red Sox are lining up a £45M bid for Aquillaini too!

With the utmost respect,the naivity of the posters who presumed City`s owners knew less than they did,even given certain posters uber intelligence in a myriad of subjects,shines out like a beacon.
Naive? Very much so.

Face it armchair accountants are no match for people running massive businesses that's why they are where they are and we argue on here all day!

I don't really get what you're on about here CONCERNED EVERTONIAN.

"posters who presumed City`s owners knew less than they did"

I think he's got the wrong end of the stick

If it's not a conspiracy theory, he's not interested.

BK out BK out BK out. He's lying to us!!!!!

And Loz, you're on the wrong board again kiddo. Silly rascal