comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 13 minutes ago
So the biggest victims have been Spurs?
The first club to become a PLC, front-runners in the concept of football branding and the pioneers of monetizing the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, i am giving an example of a club that has grown organically to improve their position. I could cite many others but as a Spurs fan know their 'back story' a lot better..
But you could look at Liverpool, a club that are massive, have that global fan base, can attract global interest and investment, have operated in a very savvy way in the market, yet still struggle to compete with the spending power of City.
LFC could have achieved even more success in recent years but for City's success, and the line that City, reportedly, making is that they should be able to tap in to various other sources of revenue, because they lack that global position & history.
Now Liverpool also suffer some of the same limits, they cannot charge what London clubs charge for tickets, for example, BUT they cannot offset their shortfall here with middle east based pots of money because they have no such ties.
To me it is an interesting question because some, like City, are questioning the long established order of everything. Not accepting that just because you are globally massive, a thing achieved over decades of history, this should not mean that that advantage is protected by rules that limit where "new money clubs" get their money from. They see it is a protection of the established elite.
I think most fans accept that some clubs are bigger than others and that status has been won over years of history and success. That advantage is earned, and if others want to challenge it then they have to earn it too, not buy it.
I may be wrong in this, but this is coming from a fan who has seen our very best players cherry picked over the years by those higher up the food chain. But i would still prefer this to a a lottery of who happens to have attracted the wealthiest owners with the wealthiest connections in an unregulated system
“To me it is an interesting question because some, like City, are questioning the long established order of everything“
Eh? No they’re not, they’re questioning the very newly established order of things.
“LFC could have achieved even more success in recent years but for City's success, and the line that City, reportedly, making is that they should be able to tap in to various other sources of revenue, because they lack that global position & history.“
You have to add in the context of it only being with associated party transactions.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
The biggest issue for me is LFC, or any of the other 18 clubs have commercial deals that have to be negotiated with parties that are nothing to do with the club. Nike for example will try to get the best value deal for their business, so will LFC, and they'll probably meet in the middle.
Who are City negotiating with? They probably own most of the successful ventures in AD, Etihad for example, so are effectively negotiating with themselves. 'Yeah tough negotiations but we've decided this commercial deal is worth £20m a season'. How is this enhancing competition? Is there a real life legal example of this they are basing the current case on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the crux of it for me.
City want the rules changed so they can do deals with associated parties, and then the objectivity of such negotiations comes into question.
An interesting comparison is Ashley at NUFC and the Sports Direct Stadium. What's funny about that is that that was largely done to benefit Sports Direct, rather than to boost NUFCs revenues. Reportedly a £1m a season deal Currently they are getting about £7m a year from their sleeve sponsor
Since FFP was brought in to 'save football', especially the Premier League
United have won it twice
Liverpool have won it once
Arsenal haven't won it at all.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
“LFC could have achieved even more success in recent years but for City's success, and the line that City, reportedly, making is that they should be able to tap in to various other sources of revenue, because they lack that global position & history.“
You have to add in the context of it only being with associated party transactions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, but you also need to add to that context that the APT rules only came in in 2021 and City in their current action are seeking damages from lost revenues from deals that had to be ceased.....so they clearly has some APT action on the go before 2021 rule change
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 seconds ago
Since FFP was brought in to 'save football', especially the Premier League
United have won it twice
Liverpool have won it once
Arsenal haven't won it at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's your point !?
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 seconds ago
Since FFP was brought in to 'save football', especially the Premier League
United have won it twice
Liverpool have won it once
Arsenal haven't won it at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's your point !?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if it was introduced to protect the 'Established Elite', which is what most people who don't support these clubs think, it hasn't worked.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 seconds ago
Since FFP was brought in to 'save football', especially the Premier League
United have won it twice
Liverpool have won it once
Arsenal haven't won it at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's your point !?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if it was introduced to protect the 'Established Elite', which is what most people who don't support these clubs think, it hasn't worked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or it wasn't brought in to protect the established elite and you're starting to sound like QAnon head cases.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
The biggest issue for me is LFC, or any of the other 18 clubs have commercial deals that have to be negotiated with parties that are nothing to do with the club. Nike for example will try to get the best value deal for their business, so will LFC, and they'll probably meet in the middle.
Who are City negotiating with? They probably own most of the successful ventures in AD, Etihad for example, so are effectively negotiating with themselves. 'Yeah tough negotiations but we've decided this commercial deal is worth £20m a season'. How is this enhancing competition? Is there a real life legal example of this they are basing the current case on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the crux of it for me.
City want the rules changed so they can do deals with associated parties, and then the objectivity of such negotiations comes into question.
An interesting comparison is Ashley at NUFC and the Sports Direct Stadium. What's funny about that is that that was largely done to benefit Sports Direct, rather than to boost NUFCs revenues. Reportedly a £1m a season dealCurrently they are getting about £7m a year from their sleeve sponsor
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ashley one isn’t a comparable, that’s a related party, not an associated one.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
“LFC could have achieved even more success in recent years but for City's success, and the line that City, reportedly, making is that they should be able to tap in to various other sources of revenue, because they lack that global position & history.“
You have to add in the context of it only being with associated party transactions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, but you also need to add to that context that the APT rules only came in in 2021 and City in their current action are seeking damages from lost revenues from deals that had to be ceased.....so they clearly has some APT action on the go before 2021 rule change
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes of course they did, that’s pretty much why City are challenging it and if they’re backdating it then City probably will win that component of the case.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
The biggest issue for me is LFC, or any of the other 18 clubs have commercial deals that have to be negotiated with parties that are nothing to do with the club. Nike for example will try to get the best value deal for their business, so will LFC, and they'll probably meet in the middle.
Who are City negotiating with? They probably own most of the successful ventures in AD, Etihad for example, so are effectively negotiating with themselves. 'Yeah tough negotiations but we've decided this commercial deal is worth £20m a season'. How is this enhancing competition? Is there a real life legal example of this they are basing the current case on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it seeing as there’s no law for transactions between associated parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure it's definitely covered in the Companies Act. All companies must be able to demonstrate that related party transactions are done a fair value. Its why they are disclosed in the annual accounts.
Mind you, City have almost certainly got top lawyers to find a loophole
comment by jesus6662 (U8600)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
The biggest issue for me is LFC, or any of the other 18 clubs have commercial deals that have to be negotiated with parties that are nothing to do with the club. Nike for example will try to get the best value deal for their business, so will LFC, and they'll probably meet in the middle.
Who are City negotiating with? They probably own most of the successful ventures in AD, Etihad for example, so are effectively negotiating with themselves. 'Yeah tough negotiations but we've decided this commercial deal is worth £20m a season'. How is this enhancing competition? Is there a real life legal example of this they are basing the current case on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it seeing as there’s no law for transactions between associated parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure it's definitely covered in the Companies Act. All companies must be able to demonstrate that related party transactions are done a fair value. Its why they are disclosed in the annual accounts.
Mind you, City have almost certainly got top lawyers to find a loophole
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that’s related parties. That’s always been in place. We’re talking about associated parties.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by jesus6662 (U8600)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
The biggest issue for me is LFC, or any of the other 18 clubs have commercial deals that have to be negotiated with parties that are nothing to do with the club. Nike for example will try to get the best value deal for their business, so will LFC, and they'll probably meet in the middle.
Who are City negotiating with? They probably own most of the successful ventures in AD, Etihad for example, so are effectively negotiating with themselves. 'Yeah tough negotiations but we've decided this commercial deal is worth £20m a season'. How is this enhancing competition? Is there a real life legal example of this they are basing the current case on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it seeing as there’s no law for transactions between associated parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure it's definitely covered in the Companies Act. All companies must be able to demonstrate that related party transactions are done a fair value. Its why they are disclosed in the annual accounts.
Mind you, City have almost certainly got top lawyers to find a loophole
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that’s related parties. That’s always been in place. We’re talking about associated parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aren't they the same thing? Two companies with common ownership?
No. There is zero ownership in associated parties.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 hours, 10 minutes ago
“They see this as a disadvantage which they can offset by having access to more Middle Eastern money through sponsors based in that region who have very deep/limitless pockets.
DO people think thats a valid argument....that it's not fair because you are a bigger club, or London based, and they're not.“
In the context of the associated parties rules, it could well be a valid argument tbh depending on how they’re applying fair market value to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Valid yes, fair possibly not but no rule is going to be fair for everyone. I mean there's clubs who can't pull in the sponsorship the top clubs can but of allowed to have limitless sponsors, like City could potential have, it would be even more unfair.
However at this point City could probably get the biggest sponsorship money from outside their group anyhow but the owners obviously don't want to do that as they want to promote their other interests.
Fairness would be a cap on sponsorship money. You could apply that to many other areas also, transfer fees, wages etc.
City's 5 biggest sponsors:-
However at this point City could probably get the biggest sponsorship money from outside their group anyhow but the owners obviously don't want to do that as they want to promote their other interests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City's biggest sponsors
Etihad Airways. (UAE)
PUMA (Germany)
OKX. (China)
Asahi (Japan)
Nissan (Japan)
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 44 minutes ago
No. There is zero ownership in associated parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe there's a difference, and it can extend to influence rather than just ownership. So e.g. if there's significant influence on etihad to sponsor man City, that is fine so long as its done at fair value
comment by jesus6662 (U8600)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 44 minutes ago
No. There is zero ownership in associated parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe there's a difference, and it can extend to influence rather than just ownership. So e.g. if there's significant influence on etihad to sponsor man City, that is fine so long as its done at fair value
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well there’s quite obviously a difference. Ones an accounting standard that every company has to adhere to, the others a regulation that the PL have made up themselves. We don’t know the details to know specifically what part City are challenging.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 hours, 10 minutes ago
“They see this as a disadvantage which they can offset by having access to more Middle Eastern money through sponsors based in that region who have very deep/limitless pockets.
DO people think thats a valid argument....that it's not fair because you are a bigger club, or London based, and they're not.“
In the context of the associated parties rules, it could well be a valid argument tbh depending on how they’re applying fair market value to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Valid yes, fair possibly not but no rule is going to be fair for everyone. I mean there's clubs who can't pull in the sponsorship the top clubs can but of allowed to have limitless sponsors, like City could potential have, it would be even more unfair.
However at this point City could probably get the biggest sponsorship money from outside their group anyhow but the owners obviously don't want to do that as they want to promote their other interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with that. Despite the times article, I don’t actually think that City are arguing against fair market value anyway.
The key bit is how the define associated parties. They’d have been better off just saying all sponsorships are going to be assessed for fair value. Can see why people wouldn’t go for that though, which is why City might have a valid challenge.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 22 minutes ago
The key bit is how the define associated parties. They’d have been better off just saying all sponsorships are going to be assessed for fair value. Can see why people wouldn’t go for that though, which is why City might have a valid challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I don't see where the valid challenge is to be honest. I mean they can bring in caps on transfer fees, wages and all sorts of things if they wanted. Not like that happens in other markets. It's their rules and it's a vote which all clubs are bound by. Really can't see this going anywhere.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 19 minutes ago
The key bit is how the define associated parties. They’d have been better off just saying all sponsorships are going to be assessed for fair value. Can see why people wouldn’t go for that though, which is why City might have a valid challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's only tricky in the case of City and Newcastle because of the positions their respective owners also hold in their own countries. Money and wealth flows in one direction. Is of really a negotiation or an order for a company to pay over the odds?
The rest of the PL clubs usually aren't negotiating sponsorship deals with companies they own/are linked to. Even if they were they'd face more financial scrutiny in their country, the US or UK for example.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 22 minutes ago
The key bit is how the define associated parties. They’d have been better off just saying all sponsorships are going to be assessed for fair value. Can see why people wouldn’t go for that though, which is why City might have a valid challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I don't see where the valid challenge is to be honest. I mean they can bring in caps on transfer fees, wages and all sorts of things if they wanted. Not like that happens in other markets. It's their rules and it's a vote which all clubs are bound by. Really can't see this going anywhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They still have to abide by English law though, they can’t just put in whatever rule they like, and that’s what the next couple of weeks are testing. If they’re unlawful, they’ll have to change them. If they’re not then they’re good to go.
Sign in if you want to comment
FFP and Points Deductions etc
Page 2 of 4
posted on 7/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 13 minutes ago
So the biggest victims have been Spurs?
The first club to become a PLC, front-runners in the concept of football branding and the pioneers of monetizing the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, i am giving an example of a club that has grown organically to improve their position. I could cite many others but as a Spurs fan know their 'back story' a lot better..
But you could look at Liverpool, a club that are massive, have that global fan base, can attract global interest and investment, have operated in a very savvy way in the market, yet still struggle to compete with the spending power of City.
LFC could have achieved even more success in recent years but for City's success, and the line that City, reportedly, making is that they should be able to tap in to various other sources of revenue, because they lack that global position & history.
Now Liverpool also suffer some of the same limits, they cannot charge what London clubs charge for tickets, for example, BUT they cannot offset their shortfall here with middle east based pots of money because they have no such ties.
To me it is an interesting question because some, like City, are questioning the long established order of everything. Not accepting that just because you are globally massive, a thing achieved over decades of history, this should not mean that that advantage is protected by rules that limit where "new money clubs" get their money from. They see it is a protection of the established elite.
I think most fans accept that some clubs are bigger than others and that status has been won over years of history and success. That advantage is earned, and if others want to challenge it then they have to earn it too, not buy it.
I may be wrong in this, but this is coming from a fan who has seen our very best players cherry picked over the years by those higher up the food chain. But i would still prefer this to a a lottery of who happens to have attracted the wealthiest owners with the wealthiest connections in an unregulated system
posted on 7/6/24
“To me it is an interesting question because some, like City, are questioning the long established order of everything“
Eh? No they’re not, they’re questioning the very newly established order of things.
posted on 7/6/24
“LFC could have achieved even more success in recent years but for City's success, and the line that City, reportedly, making is that they should be able to tap in to various other sources of revenue, because they lack that global position & history.“
You have to add in the context of it only being with associated party transactions.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
The biggest issue for me is LFC, or any of the other 18 clubs have commercial deals that have to be negotiated with parties that are nothing to do with the club. Nike for example will try to get the best value deal for their business, so will LFC, and they'll probably meet in the middle.
Who are City negotiating with? They probably own most of the successful ventures in AD, Etihad for example, so are effectively negotiating with themselves. 'Yeah tough negotiations but we've decided this commercial deal is worth £20m a season'. How is this enhancing competition? Is there a real life legal example of this they are basing the current case on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the crux of it for me.
City want the rules changed so they can do deals with associated parties, and then the objectivity of such negotiations comes into question.
An interesting comparison is Ashley at NUFC and the Sports Direct Stadium. What's funny about that is that that was largely done to benefit Sports Direct, rather than to boost NUFCs revenues. Reportedly a £1m a season deal Currently they are getting about £7m a year from their sleeve sponsor
posted on 7/6/24
Since FFP was brought in to 'save football', especially the Premier League
United have won it twice
Liverpool have won it once
Arsenal haven't won it at all.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
“LFC could have achieved even more success in recent years but for City's success, and the line that City, reportedly, making is that they should be able to tap in to various other sources of revenue, because they lack that global position & history.“
You have to add in the context of it only being with associated party transactions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, but you also need to add to that context that the APT rules only came in in 2021 and City in their current action are seeking damages from lost revenues from deals that had to be ceased.....so they clearly has some APT action on the go before 2021 rule change
posted on 7/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 seconds ago
Since FFP was brought in to 'save football', especially the Premier League
United have won it twice
Liverpool have won it once
Arsenal haven't won it at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's your point !?
posted on 7/6/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 seconds ago
Since FFP was brought in to 'save football', especially the Premier League
United have won it twice
Liverpool have won it once
Arsenal haven't won it at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's your point !?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if it was introduced to protect the 'Established Elite', which is what most people who don't support these clubs think, it hasn't worked.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 seconds ago
Since FFP was brought in to 'save football', especially the Premier League
United have won it twice
Liverpool have won it once
Arsenal haven't won it at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's your point !?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if it was introduced to protect the 'Established Elite', which is what most people who don't support these clubs think, it hasn't worked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or it wasn't brought in to protect the established elite and you're starting to sound like QAnon head cases.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
The biggest issue for me is LFC, or any of the other 18 clubs have commercial deals that have to be negotiated with parties that are nothing to do with the club. Nike for example will try to get the best value deal for their business, so will LFC, and they'll probably meet in the middle.
Who are City negotiating with? They probably own most of the successful ventures in AD, Etihad for example, so are effectively negotiating with themselves. 'Yeah tough negotiations but we've decided this commercial deal is worth £20m a season'. How is this enhancing competition? Is there a real life legal example of this they are basing the current case on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the crux of it for me.
City want the rules changed so they can do deals with associated parties, and then the objectivity of such negotiations comes into question.
An interesting comparison is Ashley at NUFC and the Sports Direct Stadium. What's funny about that is that that was largely done to benefit Sports Direct, rather than to boost NUFCs revenues. Reportedly a £1m a season dealCurrently they are getting about £7m a year from their sleeve sponsor
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ashley one isn’t a comparable, that’s a related party, not an associated one.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
“LFC could have achieved even more success in recent years but for City's success, and the line that City, reportedly, making is that they should be able to tap in to various other sources of revenue, because they lack that global position & history.“
You have to add in the context of it only being with associated party transactions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, but you also need to add to that context that the APT rules only came in in 2021 and City in their current action are seeking damages from lost revenues from deals that had to be ceased.....so they clearly has some APT action on the go before 2021 rule change
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes of course they did, that’s pretty much why City are challenging it and if they’re backdating it then City probably will win that component of the case.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
The biggest issue for me is LFC, or any of the other 18 clubs have commercial deals that have to be negotiated with parties that are nothing to do with the club. Nike for example will try to get the best value deal for their business, so will LFC, and they'll probably meet in the middle.
Who are City negotiating with? They probably own most of the successful ventures in AD, Etihad for example, so are effectively negotiating with themselves. 'Yeah tough negotiations but we've decided this commercial deal is worth £20m a season'. How is this enhancing competition? Is there a real life legal example of this they are basing the current case on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it seeing as there’s no law for transactions between associated parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure it's definitely covered in the Companies Act. All companies must be able to demonstrate that related party transactions are done a fair value. Its why they are disclosed in the annual accounts.
Mind you, City have almost certainly got top lawyers to find a loophole
posted on 7/6/24
comment by jesus6662 (U8600)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
The biggest issue for me is LFC, or any of the other 18 clubs have commercial deals that have to be negotiated with parties that are nothing to do with the club. Nike for example will try to get the best value deal for their business, so will LFC, and they'll probably meet in the middle.
Who are City negotiating with? They probably own most of the successful ventures in AD, Etihad for example, so are effectively negotiating with themselves. 'Yeah tough negotiations but we've decided this commercial deal is worth £20m a season'. How is this enhancing competition? Is there a real life legal example of this they are basing the current case on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it seeing as there’s no law for transactions between associated parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure it's definitely covered in the Companies Act. All companies must be able to demonstrate that related party transactions are done a fair value. Its why they are disclosed in the annual accounts.
Mind you, City have almost certainly got top lawyers to find a loophole
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that’s related parties. That’s always been in place. We’re talking about associated parties.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by jesus6662 (U8600)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
The biggest issue for me is LFC, or any of the other 18 clubs have commercial deals that have to be negotiated with parties that are nothing to do with the club. Nike for example will try to get the best value deal for their business, so will LFC, and they'll probably meet in the middle.
Who are City negotiating with? They probably own most of the successful ventures in AD, Etihad for example, so are effectively negotiating with themselves. 'Yeah tough negotiations but we've decided this commercial deal is worth £20m a season'. How is this enhancing competition? Is there a real life legal example of this they are basing the current case on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it seeing as there’s no law for transactions between associated parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure it's definitely covered in the Companies Act. All companies must be able to demonstrate that related party transactions are done a fair value. Its why they are disclosed in the annual accounts.
Mind you, City have almost certainly got top lawyers to find a loophole
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that’s related parties. That’s always been in place. We’re talking about associated parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aren't they the same thing? Two companies with common ownership?
posted on 7/6/24
No. There is zero ownership in associated parties.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 hours, 10 minutes ago
“They see this as a disadvantage which they can offset by having access to more Middle Eastern money through sponsors based in that region who have very deep/limitless pockets.
DO people think thats a valid argument....that it's not fair because you are a bigger club, or London based, and they're not.“
In the context of the associated parties rules, it could well be a valid argument tbh depending on how they’re applying fair market value to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Valid yes, fair possibly not but no rule is going to be fair for everyone. I mean there's clubs who can't pull in the sponsorship the top clubs can but of allowed to have limitless sponsors, like City could potential have, it would be even more unfair.
However at this point City could probably get the biggest sponsorship money from outside their group anyhow but the owners obviously don't want to do that as they want to promote their other interests.
posted on 7/6/24
Fairness would be a cap on sponsorship money. You could apply that to many other areas also, transfer fees, wages etc.
posted on 7/6/24
City's 5 biggest sponsors:-
However at this point City could probably get the biggest sponsorship money from outside their group anyhow but the owners obviously don't want to do that as they want to promote their other interests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City's biggest sponsors
Etihad Airways. (UAE)
PUMA (Germany)
OKX. (China)
Asahi (Japan)
Nissan (Japan)
posted on 7/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 44 minutes ago
No. There is zero ownership in associated parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe there's a difference, and it can extend to influence rather than just ownership. So e.g. if there's significant influence on etihad to sponsor man City, that is fine so long as its done at fair value
posted on 7/6/24
comment by jesus6662 (U8600)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 44 minutes ago
No. There is zero ownership in associated parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe there's a difference, and it can extend to influence rather than just ownership. So e.g. if there's significant influence on etihad to sponsor man City, that is fine so long as its done at fair value
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well there’s quite obviously a difference. Ones an accounting standard that every company has to adhere to, the others a regulation that the PL have made up themselves. We don’t know the details to know specifically what part City are challenging.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 hours, 10 minutes ago
“They see this as a disadvantage which they can offset by having access to more Middle Eastern money through sponsors based in that region who have very deep/limitless pockets.
DO people think thats a valid argument....that it's not fair because you are a bigger club, or London based, and they're not.“
In the context of the associated parties rules, it could well be a valid argument tbh depending on how they’re applying fair market value to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Valid yes, fair possibly not but no rule is going to be fair for everyone. I mean there's clubs who can't pull in the sponsorship the top clubs can but of allowed to have limitless sponsors, like City could potential have, it would be even more unfair.
However at this point City could probably get the biggest sponsorship money from outside their group anyhow but the owners obviously don't want to do that as they want to promote their other interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with that. Despite the times article, I don’t actually think that City are arguing against fair market value anyway.
posted on 7/6/24
The key bit is how the define associated parties. They’d have been better off just saying all sponsorships are going to be assessed for fair value. Can see why people wouldn’t go for that though, which is why City might have a valid challenge.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 22 minutes ago
The key bit is how the define associated parties. They’d have been better off just saying all sponsorships are going to be assessed for fair value. Can see why people wouldn’t go for that though, which is why City might have a valid challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I don't see where the valid challenge is to be honest. I mean they can bring in caps on transfer fees, wages and all sorts of things if they wanted. Not like that happens in other markets. It's their rules and it's a vote which all clubs are bound by. Really can't see this going anywhere.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 19 minutes ago
The key bit is how the define associated parties. They’d have been better off just saying all sponsorships are going to be assessed for fair value. Can see why people wouldn’t go for that though, which is why City might have a valid challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's only tricky in the case of City and Newcastle because of the positions their respective owners also hold in their own countries. Money and wealth flows in one direction. Is of really a negotiation or an order for a company to pay over the odds?
The rest of the PL clubs usually aren't negotiating sponsorship deals with companies they own/are linked to. Even if they were they'd face more financial scrutiny in their country, the US or UK for example.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 22 minutes ago
The key bit is how the define associated parties. They’d have been better off just saying all sponsorships are going to be assessed for fair value. Can see why people wouldn’t go for that though, which is why City might have a valid challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I don't see where the valid challenge is to be honest. I mean they can bring in caps on transfer fees, wages and all sorts of things if they wanted. Not like that happens in other markets. It's their rules and it's a vote which all clubs are bound by. Really can't see this going anywhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They still have to abide by English law though, they can’t just put in whatever rule they like, and that’s what the next couple of weeks are testing. If they’re unlawful, they’ll have to change them. If they’re not then they’re good to go.
Page 2 of 4