What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
Pretty much I'm afraid from what I now understand. As said UEFA, whose rules they are, did not impose any sanction what so ever in any form. They obviously feel it was okay. It's also been mooted that many critics at the time now consider it good value due to the unprecedented rise in commercial activity from City.
You're better off asking the City lads Melton and Ripley, they know their stuff, and pretty much educated me by the end of it.
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/257581
Melton posted this to me a couple of days ago. I wrote the speech mark stuff at the top. I've got to admit he makes a compelling argument.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 day, 22 hours ago
"I'm sure the deal does stack up more or less, I certainly have no problem with it, but to think people would not question (and everyone did , I suspect even yourself) a company sponsoring a relatives football team to the amount that would attune huge spending and the risk FFP sanctions is unreasonable."
I'll be perfectly honest, I did question it. I questioned the Warrior and Chevrolet deals as well though. If one isn't market value, then none of them are. None of them are getting investigated, or can be investigated, though, ergo it doesn't really matter.
Just to go into the Etihad deal a bit further, the official figures have not been released, but looking at the accounts released this year, it is estimated to be 350 million pounds for a decade, so 35 million per year.
Now splitting it into the three parts. Shirt sponsorship - United are jsut over 25 million, Liverpool are 25, Barcelona 26, Bayern 24. The key part to shirt sponsorship is exposure, which comes from viewing figures, far more than it does from shirt sales, which account for very little in the grand scheme of things. Ill quote the next bit to show how exposure has grown, and this is just in the last year since winning the title.
"There has been an increase of 133 percent in global TV audience for live matches featuring the club and a 57 percent increase in the live City games telecasted across United Kingdom since 2008/09 season. In addition, on YouTube, their account garnered the maximum views of all clubs last term. Not to forget, the club has the maximum number of followers of European teams on the two main micro-blogging sites in China"
Lets say 20% less than any of the clubs I mentioned before and call it 20 million per season, pretty fair considering the exposure and amount of televised games worldwide we now feature in.
Now the stadium rights. More difficult to work out, Arsenals deal with the Emirates was just bad on all levels, but looking at Dortmund, they get 3.5 million per year, Etihad pay between 4-5 million for the stadium in Australia, and the Redskins stadium is worth 4.6.
Despite the fact the premier league has greater worldwide exposure than all of that, lets call it 4 million. So thats 24 million in total.
All that is left is the campus, which will be the jewel in the crown for us. A 7000 seater stadium, the relocation of the first team there, 400 youngsters on the books and a college campus. United got 180 million for an 8 year deal from AON to rename Carrington and sponsor the training kit, and that is without any of the additional benefits the Etihad Campus is bringing.
Considering that works out at 22.5 million per season, if we work out what is left of the 35 million per year Etihad is paying in totality, it works out at 11. Half the price for far far more.
So, in essence, broken down like this -
20 million - Shirt Sponsor
4 million - Stadium Naming Rights
11 million - Etihad Campus
Do you really still think it is massively above the realms of fair market value...? I'd actually argue, considering the carrington deal, we could have got more.
Hope you are still reading this thread as that took a bit of research!
I think FFP at all levels is ultimately good for football.
Clubs will try and find ways to get round it but they won't all succeed, and generally clubs will ultimately start to get their business in order.
Just today it has come out that QPR paid more in wages in their last accounts than Borussia Dortmund. How can that be anything other than ludicrous?
FFP is not just about the big clubs in Europe.
Its also about the football league getting their clubs houses in order, trying to put a stop to the spiralling wages going out of control to clubs turnover, and meaning a fair playing field for those clubs which are run properly already so the Leicesters and QPR's of the world can't just sign another loads of players they can't afford and distort competition.
Its not perfect, but whats the alternative?
FFP will not work.
THIS is a perfect example of why it wont http://www.cityam.com/article/psg-new-570m-deal-stretches-credibility-says-uefa-ffp-expert
they can moan about its creditbility, but how can they decide to exclude a commercial sponsor, regardless of its links to the owners?
if they start saying that some sponsorship is too much then they are restricting the business from growing its revenue so it only serves to protect the already wealthy clubs.
FFP is a joke and always has been. If implemented properly, it would only serve to create an even bigger gap
lucas
Uefa have been investigating the PSG Qatar deal and (while details have yet to be announced) it is likely that PSG will be banned from UEFA competitions from 2014/15.
Uefa have been investigating the PSG Qatar deal and (while details have yet to be announced) it is likely that PSG will be banned from UEFA competitions from 2014/15.
if you believe that, you will believe anything.
I would put whatever you want on PSG not getting banned from the CL
lucas
PSG's hopes (of avoiding a ban) hinge on the deal not being deemed as a related party transaction, and given that PSG are 100% owned by the Qatar group it is probable that they indeed will be the first high profile club to be banned.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126) posted 6 minutes ago
lucas
Uefa have been investigating the PSG Qatar deal and (while details have yet to be announced) it is likely that PSG will be banned from UEFA competitions from 2014/15.
==
Platini kick out a french club from the CL
Arouna
What has Platini got to do with Uefa's Financial Control body?
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126) posted 32 minutes ago
Arouna
What has Platini got to do with Uefa's Financial Control body?
==
Hey, if he has nothing to do with it then I would expect PSG to be out......
Have a feeling that PSG have shot themselves in the foot as the deal appears to be artificially inflated.
The Qatar tourist authority's accounts (benefactor) evidence that they could not financially afford to sponsor PSG to the amounts they have been.
If the deal was restructured (to a lesser amount) PSG would fail the break even rule anyway.
Have a feeling that PSG have shot themselves in the foot as the deal appears to be artificially inflated.
The Qatar tourist authority's accounts (benefactor) evidence that they could not financially afford to sponsor PSG to the amounts they have been.
If the deal was restructured (to a lesser amount) PSG would fail the break even rule anyway.
The point is, people can pay what they like to sponsor somebody.
To suddenly start deciding how much people are allowed to sponsor, or who is allowed to sponsor, is not workable.
How far do they investigate sponsorship? what if its not a related party but its a , you sponsor my club for x amount and I will do x amount of business with you away from football? How can they control that?
Its just a farce. FFP was a braindead idea that UEFA seem intent on stumbling along with.
Watch what happens if they TRY and kick out a big name....they wont
What has Platini got to do with Uefa's Financial Control body?
Michel Platini warns European clubs he will take them to court to force through Financial Fair Play
Michel Platini, Uefa’s president, has issued a powerful message to those European clubs who do not balance their books that he will see them first around the negotiating table and then, if no agreement is reached, he will see them in court.
So he proposes to sit round a table and if no agreement is reached, he will see them in court?
why the need for an agreement if the parameters are clear?
sounds to me like its a "make your donation" and off you pop!
No chance on this planet that platini will oversee PSG getting thrown out of europe...no chance at all
lucas leiva
I think you have misunderstood the transaction (PSG) somewhat.
The Qatar Tourist Authority did not (and could not) generate enough revenue to sponsor PSG to a fraction of the deal that was brokered.
Uefa are investigating where the money came from as it certainly wasn't from the Qatar Tourist Authority as per the PSG accounts.
Platini has no remit within Uefa's Financial Control body.
The Qatar Tourist Authority did not (and could not) generate enough revenue to sponsor PSG to a fraction of the deal that was brokered.
==
Can the government not help the tourist board in this case? Plus they wouldn't be the first organisation to invest money they dont generate to be able to increase revenue.
Arouna
If that had been the case PSG would have had to declare it at the time (government supplement) which they did not.
PSG also alleged that the Qatar Tourist Authority were not affiliated with their owners (thus trying to circumvent the Related Party Transaction FFP requirements) which has also been proven to be false.
Also forgot to mention that the deal was agreed in the 2012 season but in PSG's returns it was backdated a year prior to it being signed.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126) posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Arouna
If that had been the case PSG would have had to declare it at the time (government supplement) which they did not.
PSG also alleged that the Qatar Tourist Authority were not affiliated with their owners (thus trying to circumvent the Related Party Transaction FFP requirements) which has also been proven to be false
==
I am not saying that it is the case, but have you never seen a company invest money it doesnt have to try and generate extra income? All UEFA are doing is protecting the large/established clubs and with Platini not liking the power/wealth of the PL.
Arouna
Can’t understand why some keep flogging this ‘Platini’ and anti PL nonsense which undoubtedly has been fuelled by some ill-informed journalists.
FFP sanctions are not issued by Uefa. Uefa outsourced all investgations/punishments to an independent body (led by former heads of the European court - the top court in Europe). This is to protect Uefa from potential legal action and also evidence their impartiality.
If FFP was in anyway biased or prejudiced (by Uefa)why have Uefa allowed the investigation/punishments to be determined independently?
The PSG Qatari (sp) deal is not that complicated. I am no accountant but can see the attempted PSG cover up. Forbes did a piece on it a while back if you want to source it.
Sign in if you want to comment
Loss? What loss?
Page 4 of 4
posted on 6/3/14
What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
Pretty much I'm afraid from what I now understand. As said UEFA, whose rules they are, did not impose any sanction what so ever in any form. They obviously feel it was okay. It's also been mooted that many critics at the time now consider it good value due to the unprecedented rise in commercial activity from City.
You're better off asking the City lads Melton and Ripley, they know their stuff, and pretty much educated me by the end of it.
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/257581
posted on 6/3/14
Melton posted this to me a couple of days ago. I wrote the speech mark stuff at the top. I've got to admit he makes a compelling argument.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 day, 22 hours ago
"I'm sure the deal does stack up more or less, I certainly have no problem with it, but to think people would not question (and everyone did , I suspect even yourself) a company sponsoring a relatives football team to the amount that would attune huge spending and the risk FFP sanctions is unreasonable."
I'll be perfectly honest, I did question it. I questioned the Warrior and Chevrolet deals as well though. If one isn't market value, then none of them are. None of them are getting investigated, or can be investigated, though, ergo it doesn't really matter.
Just to go into the Etihad deal a bit further, the official figures have not been released, but looking at the accounts released this year, it is estimated to be 350 million pounds for a decade, so 35 million per year.
Now splitting it into the three parts. Shirt sponsorship - United are jsut over 25 million, Liverpool are 25, Barcelona 26, Bayern 24. The key part to shirt sponsorship is exposure, which comes from viewing figures, far more than it does from shirt sales, which account for very little in the grand scheme of things. Ill quote the next bit to show how exposure has grown, and this is just in the last year since winning the title.
"There has been an increase of 133 percent in global TV audience for live matches featuring the club and a 57 percent increase in the live City games telecasted across United Kingdom since 2008/09 season. In addition, on YouTube, their account garnered the maximum views of all clubs last term. Not to forget, the club has the maximum number of followers of European teams on the two main micro-blogging sites in China"
Lets say 20% less than any of the clubs I mentioned before and call it 20 million per season, pretty fair considering the exposure and amount of televised games worldwide we now feature in.
Now the stadium rights. More difficult to work out, Arsenals deal with the Emirates was just bad on all levels, but looking at Dortmund, they get 3.5 million per year, Etihad pay between 4-5 million for the stadium in Australia, and the Redskins stadium is worth 4.6.
Despite the fact the premier league has greater worldwide exposure than all of that, lets call it 4 million. So thats 24 million in total.
All that is left is the campus, which will be the jewel in the crown for us. A 7000 seater stadium, the relocation of the first team there, 400 youngsters on the books and a college campus. United got 180 million for an 8 year deal from AON to rename Carrington and sponsor the training kit, and that is without any of the additional benefits the Etihad Campus is bringing.
Considering that works out at 22.5 million per season, if we work out what is left of the 35 million per year Etihad is paying in totality, it works out at 11. Half the price for far far more.
So, in essence, broken down like this -
20 million - Shirt Sponsor
4 million - Stadium Naming Rights
11 million - Etihad Campus
Do you really still think it is massively above the realms of fair market value...? I'd actually argue, considering the carrington deal, we could have got more.
Hope you are still reading this thread as that took a bit of research!
posted on 6/3/14
Good stuff RH
posted on 6/3/14
I think FFP at all levels is ultimately good for football.
Clubs will try and find ways to get round it but they won't all succeed, and generally clubs will ultimately start to get their business in order.
Just today it has come out that QPR paid more in wages in their last accounts than Borussia Dortmund. How can that be anything other than ludicrous?
FFP is not just about the big clubs in Europe.
Its also about the football league getting their clubs houses in order, trying to put a stop to the spiralling wages going out of control to clubs turnover, and meaning a fair playing field for those clubs which are run properly already so the Leicesters and QPR's of the world can't just sign another loads of players they can't afford and distort competition.
Its not perfect, but whats the alternative?
posted on 6/3/14
FFP will not work.
THIS is a perfect example of why it wont http://www.cityam.com/article/psg-new-570m-deal-stretches-credibility-says-uefa-ffp-expert
they can moan about its creditbility, but how can they decide to exclude a commercial sponsor, regardless of its links to the owners?
if they start saying that some sponsorship is too much then they are restricting the business from growing its revenue so it only serves to protect the already wealthy clubs.
FFP is a joke and always has been. If implemented properly, it would only serve to create an even bigger gap
posted on 7/3/14
lucas
Uefa have been investigating the PSG Qatar deal and (while details have yet to be announced) it is likely that PSG will be banned from UEFA competitions from 2014/15.
posted on 7/3/14
Uefa have been investigating the PSG Qatar deal and (while details have yet to be announced) it is likely that PSG will be banned from UEFA competitions from 2014/15.
if you believe that, you will believe anything.
I would put whatever you want on PSG not getting banned from the CL
posted on 7/3/14
lucas
PSG's hopes (of avoiding a ban) hinge on the deal not being deemed as a related party transaction, and given that PSG are 100% owned by the Qatar group it is probable that they indeed will be the first high profile club to be banned.
posted on 7/3/14
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126) posted 6 minutes ago
lucas
Uefa have been investigating the PSG Qatar deal and (while details have yet to be announced) it is likely that PSG will be banned from UEFA competitions from 2014/15.
==
Platini kick out a french club from the CL
posted on 7/3/14
Arouna
What has Platini got to do with Uefa's Financial Control body?
posted on 7/3/14
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126) posted 32 minutes ago
Arouna
What has Platini got to do with Uefa's Financial Control body?
==
Hey, if he has nothing to do with it then I would expect PSG to be out......
posted on 7/3/14
Have a feeling that PSG have shot themselves in the foot as the deal appears to be artificially inflated.
The Qatar tourist authority's accounts (benefactor) evidence that they could not financially afford to sponsor PSG to the amounts they have been.
If the deal was restructured (to a lesser amount) PSG would fail the break even rule anyway.
posted on 7/3/14
Have a feeling that PSG have shot themselves in the foot as the deal appears to be artificially inflated.
The Qatar tourist authority's accounts (benefactor) evidence that they could not financially afford to sponsor PSG to the amounts they have been.
If the deal was restructured (to a lesser amount) PSG would fail the break even rule anyway.
The point is, people can pay what they like to sponsor somebody.
To suddenly start deciding how much people are allowed to sponsor, or who is allowed to sponsor, is not workable.
How far do they investigate sponsorship? what if its not a related party but its a , you sponsor my club for x amount and I will do x amount of business with you away from football? How can they control that?
Its just a farce. FFP was a braindead idea that UEFA seem intent on stumbling along with.
Watch what happens if they TRY and kick out a big name....they wont
posted on 7/3/14
What has Platini got to do with Uefa's Financial Control body?
Michel Platini warns European clubs he will take them to court to force through Financial Fair Play
Michel Platini, Uefa’s president, has issued a powerful message to those European clubs who do not balance their books that he will see them first around the negotiating table and then, if no agreement is reached, he will see them in court.
So he proposes to sit round a table and if no agreement is reached, he will see them in court?
why the need for an agreement if the parameters are clear?
sounds to me like its a "make your donation" and off you pop!
No chance on this planet that platini will oversee PSG getting thrown out of europe...no chance at all
posted on 10/3/14
lucas leiva
I think you have misunderstood the transaction (PSG) somewhat.
The Qatar Tourist Authority did not (and could not) generate enough revenue to sponsor PSG to a fraction of the deal that was brokered.
Uefa are investigating where the money came from as it certainly wasn't from the Qatar Tourist Authority as per the PSG accounts.
Platini has no remit within Uefa's Financial Control body.
posted on 10/3/14
The Qatar Tourist Authority did not (and could not) generate enough revenue to sponsor PSG to a fraction of the deal that was brokered.
==
Can the government not help the tourist board in this case? Plus they wouldn't be the first organisation to invest money they dont generate to be able to increase revenue.
posted on 10/3/14
Arouna
If that had been the case PSG would have had to declare it at the time (government supplement) which they did not.
PSG also alleged that the Qatar Tourist Authority were not affiliated with their owners (thus trying to circumvent the Related Party Transaction FFP requirements) which has also been proven to be false.
posted on 10/3/14
Also forgot to mention that the deal was agreed in the 2012 season but in PSG's returns it was backdated a year prior to it being signed.
posted on 10/3/14
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126) posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Arouna
If that had been the case PSG would have had to declare it at the time (government supplement) which they did not.
PSG also alleged that the Qatar Tourist Authority were not affiliated with their owners (thus trying to circumvent the Related Party Transaction FFP requirements) which has also been proven to be false
==
I am not saying that it is the case, but have you never seen a company invest money it doesnt have to try and generate extra income? All UEFA are doing is protecting the large/established clubs and with Platini not liking the power/wealth of the PL.
posted on 10/3/14
Arouna
Can’t understand why some keep flogging this ‘Platini’ and anti PL nonsense which undoubtedly has been fuelled by some ill-informed journalists.
FFP sanctions are not issued by Uefa. Uefa outsourced all investgations/punishments to an independent body (led by former heads of the European court - the top court in Europe). This is to protect Uefa from potential legal action and also evidence their impartiality.
If FFP was in anyway biased or prejudiced (by Uefa)why have Uefa allowed the investigation/punishments to be determined independently?
The PSG Qatari (sp) deal is not that complicated. I am no accountant but can see the attempted PSG cover up. Forbes did a piece on it a while back if you want to source it.
Page 4 of 4