Why would they? If Wigan sold the naming rights to their stadium for a few million, UEFA would not bat an eyelid.
-------------------------------
Actually they would. For if Wigan received a few million per year for re-naming their stadium, they'd actually be receiving more than Arsenal have for re-naming their stadium. Nevertheless, looking into every deal will be standard procedure for UEFA. That's one of the fundamental claims that UEFA have made in regards to the FFP.
Well you're wrong. For 1/10th of our wages amounts to around £11m-£12m
.....................
That would probably just cover Tevez.
Why would I care, look it up if you want to know, or write to your club finance officer.
--------------------------
Well you must care at least a little bit. Otherwise why are you even engaging in discussion with me about it?
"To boost your income, so that you do not fail FFP. Pretty obvious really."
You misunderstand. The amount that City have received - what are they receiving this amount for? How does your figure of £400m break down? What does it relate to?
Based on your comments, it's clear that you have at least an opinion on how the figures break down. So I'm asking you what your idea of how these figures break down is.
That would probably just cover Tevez.
---------------------------------
And?
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 6 minutes ago
That would probably just cover Tevez.
---------------------------------
And?
..............
Are you saying Tevez is one tenth of your squad?
Based on the last financial report released, our wage bill was £118m. 1/10th of £118m is £11.8m. Hence why I wrote "For 1/10th of our wages amounts to around £11m-£12m".
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 minutes ago
Based on the last financial report released, our wage bill was £118m.
.................
What was your income in that report?
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 minutes ago
£125m
.................
So, what with the amount you have paid on transfer fees, then you have a considerable amount to make up to come within FFP.
Hense the Stadium deal.
You misunderstand. The amount that City have received - what are they receiving this amount for? How does your figure of £400m break down? What does it relate to?
...............
What difference does it possibly make?
It is income.
What difference does it possibly make?
------------------------------------------
Because it relates to your comment in regards to how City's deal compares to other clubs such as Real, Barcelona, United, and Liverpool.
So out of this alleged £400m figure over 10 years, how much of it relates to:
The amount per year that the club will receive for the stadium rights?
The amount per year that the club will receive for the shirt sponsorship?
How much per year will be given to Manchester Council?
How much per year is set aside for the Etihad campus?
If you don't know what these figures are, that is how the deal breaks down, then you can't possibly know that (to quote yourself) "the stadium naming rights and shirt deal combined over a period of ten years are at the very high end of market value".
So, what with the amount you have paid on transfer fees, then you have a considerable amount to make up to come within FFP.
Hense the Stadium deal.
-------------------------------
Not forgetting the increase in match-day revenue, tv rights, merchandise, and of course participation in the most lucrative club competition in football today.
And for the record, the majority of our spending in the past? Not affected at all by the FFP. In fact, it's the reason why we spent so much in such a short period of time - to get the vast majority of our spending done before the FFP even comes into effect.
If you don't know what these figures are, that is how the deal breaks down, then you can't possibly know that (to quote yourself) "the stadium naming rights and shirt deal combined over a period of ten years are at the very high end of market value".
....................................
Can you tell me who has got better deals?
No, I can't. Because I have no idea how the figure breaks down.
And it's becoming clearer with every post that neither do you.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 18 seconds ago
No, I can't. Because I have no idea how the figure breaks down.
................
Again, what difference does it make? 400 million over ten years is 400 million.
Only teams like United, Liverpool, Barca and Real are likely to receive deals of that magnitude.
Thus the high end of the market comment.
Or do you think Newcastle, Spurs or Villa would be likely to get such deals?
None of this is rocket science.
And once again, the alleged £400m figure is not solely for shirt sponsorship and stadium rights.
So it makes all the difference. The point really is obvious. If we don't know how the deal actually breaks down, and how much the club is receiving for shirt sponsorship and stadium rights, then it is impossible to say how it compares to the shirt sponsorship and/or (where applicable) stadium rights at other clubs.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 17 seconds ago
And once again, the alleged £400m figure is not solely for shirt sponsorship and stadium rights.
.............
It doesn't matter what it is for. What part of that are you still, after two hours, having trouble with?
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.
2) 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.
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.
Not to mention of course, that the total figure of £400m has actually been dismissed as being incorrect by the club itself anyway.
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.
Sign in if you want to comment
Naming rights for stadiums
Page 2 of 3
posted on 8/11/11
Why would they? If Wigan sold the naming rights to their stadium for a few million, UEFA would not bat an eyelid.
-------------------------------
Actually they would. For if Wigan received a few million per year for re-naming their stadium, they'd actually be receiving more than Arsenal have for re-naming their stadium. Nevertheless, looking into every deal will be standard procedure for UEFA. That's one of the fundamental claims that UEFA have made in regards to the FFP.
posted on 8/11/11
Well you're wrong. For 1/10th of our wages amounts to around £11m-£12m
.....................
That would probably just cover Tevez.
posted on 8/11/11
Why would I care, look it up if you want to know, or write to your club finance officer.
--------------------------
Well you must care at least a little bit. Otherwise why are you even engaging in discussion with me about it?
"To boost your income, so that you do not fail FFP. Pretty obvious really."
You misunderstand. The amount that City have received - what are they receiving this amount for? How does your figure of £400m break down? What does it relate to?
Based on your comments, it's clear that you have at least an opinion on how the figures break down. So I'm asking you what your idea of how these figures break down is.
posted on 8/11/11
That would probably just cover Tevez.
---------------------------------
And?
posted on 8/11/11
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 6 minutes ago
That would probably just cover Tevez.
---------------------------------
And?
..............
Are you saying Tevez is one tenth of your squad?
posted on 8/11/11
Based on the last financial report released, our wage bill was £118m. 1/10th of £118m is £11.8m. Hence why I wrote "For 1/10th of our wages amounts to around £11m-£12m".
posted on 8/11/11
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 minutes ago
Based on the last financial report released, our wage bill was £118m.
.................
What was your income in that report?
posted on 8/11/11
£125m
posted on 8/11/11
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 minutes ago
£125m
.................
So, what with the amount you have paid on transfer fees, then you have a considerable amount to make up to come within FFP.
Hense the Stadium deal.
posted on 8/11/11
You misunderstand. The amount that City have received - what are they receiving this amount for? How does your figure of £400m break down? What does it relate to?
...............
What difference does it possibly make?
It is income.
posted on 8/11/11
What difference does it possibly make?
------------------------------------------
Because it relates to your comment in regards to how City's deal compares to other clubs such as Real, Barcelona, United, and Liverpool.
So out of this alleged £400m figure over 10 years, how much of it relates to:
The amount per year that the club will receive for the stadium rights?
The amount per year that the club will receive for the shirt sponsorship?
How much per year will be given to Manchester Council?
How much per year is set aside for the Etihad campus?
If you don't know what these figures are, that is how the deal breaks down, then you can't possibly know that (to quote yourself) "the stadium naming rights and shirt deal combined over a period of ten years are at the very high end of market value".
posted on 8/11/11
So, what with the amount you have paid on transfer fees, then you have a considerable amount to make up to come within FFP.
Hense the Stadium deal.
-------------------------------
Not forgetting the increase in match-day revenue, tv rights, merchandise, and of course participation in the most lucrative club competition in football today.
And for the record, the majority of our spending in the past? Not affected at all by the FFP. In fact, it's the reason why we spent so much in such a short period of time - to get the vast majority of our spending done before the FFP even comes into effect.
posted on 8/11/11
If you don't know what these figures are, that is how the deal breaks down, then you can't possibly know that (to quote yourself) "the stadium naming rights and shirt deal combined over a period of ten years are at the very high end of market value".
....................................
Can you tell me who has got better deals?
posted on 8/11/11
No, I can't. Because I have no idea how the figure breaks down.
And it's becoming clearer with every post that neither do you.
posted on 8/11/11
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 18 seconds ago
No, I can't. Because I have no idea how the figure breaks down.
................
Again, what difference does it make? 400 million over ten years is 400 million.
Only teams like United, Liverpool, Barca and Real are likely to receive deals of that magnitude.
Thus the high end of the market comment.
Or do you think Newcastle, Spurs or Villa would be likely to get such deals?
None of this is rocket science.
posted on 8/11/11
And once again, the alleged £400m figure is not solely for shirt sponsorship and stadium rights.
So it makes all the difference. The point really is obvious. If we don't know how the deal actually breaks down, and how much the club is receiving for shirt sponsorship and stadium rights, then it is impossible to say how it compares to the shirt sponsorship and/or (where applicable) stadium rights at other clubs.
posted on 8/11/11
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 17 seconds ago
And once again, the alleged £400m figure is not solely for shirt sponsorship and stadium rights.
.............
It doesn't matter what it is for. What part of that are you still, after two hours, having trouble with?
posted on 8/11/11
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.
2) 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.
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.
Not to mention of course, that the total figure of £400m has actually been dismissed as being incorrect by the club itself anyway.
posted on 8/11/11
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.
posted on 8/11/11
"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.
posted on 8/11/11
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.
posted on 8/11/11
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.
posted on 8/11/11
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.
posted on 8/11/11
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.
posted on 8/11/11
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.
Page 2 of 3