Anti FFP action starts legal challenge

[Anubis]

This is where it just becomes a farce.

 

Becomes?

[clangers]

Just have a flat universal annual transfer budget limit for all clubs in Europe. All financial transactions must be transparently shown on the books of the clubs. Stop trying to legitimise old vested interest against new money. Calling it 'fair' is preposterous, I see little about the way many of the elite clubs are funded as fair.

 

The objectives are FFP are entirely reasonable, no one club should have a disproportionate influence financially to be able to corrupt sporting integrity so just cap everyone irrespective of a clubs history, size of support, wealthy benefactor, geographical location or disproportionate TV money.

[Dr Nowt]

Becomes?

 

True enough.

[Cardie]

Just have a flat universal annual transfer budget limit for all clubs in Europe.

What do you set it?

 

less than a million pound a year to make it inclusive and worthwhile for the vast number of tiny clubs with next to no budget?

 

Less than ten to keep the small clubs engaged but enough to separate this group from the group of tiny clubs above above and drag all clubs above them down?

 

20-30 million etc etc?

 

 

 

[ratcatcher]

The simple test for UEFA regarding city's 'deals' is whether they are setting or attaining record amounts of money for them.

 

A club like city cant go from small sponsorship deals to world record setting or close to those generated by, hate to say it, the likes of real, united or bayern overnight.

 

Clubs like those mentioned can command world record deals because they've attained success, home and abroad for 10 and 20 years. New johnny on the block doesnt sudden get parity with these overnight unless there's dodgey dealing.

 

In what other sport does a relative newcomer sign up to sponsorship deals equal to the top echelons? It doesnt happen in F1, it doesnt happen in tennis. It doesnt happen period. Except in football apparently.

[FanchesterCity]

The simple test for UEFA regarding city's 'deals' is whether they are setting or attaining record amounts of money for them.

 

A club like city cant go from small sponsorship deals to world record setting or close to those generated by, hate to say it, the likes of real, united or bayern overnight.

 

Clubs like those mentioned can command world record deals because they've attained success, home and abroad for 10 and 20 years. New johnny on the block doesnt sudden get parity with these overnight unless there's dodgey dealing.

 

In what other sport does a relative newcomer sign up to sponsorship deals equal to the top echelons? It doesnt happen in F1, it doesnt happen in tennis. It doesnt happen period. Except in football apparently.

 

That's not really true, and it's why F1 teams like Red Bull can win sponsorship deals that match and in some cases exceed those of Ferrari.

 

An awful lot depends on the nature of the company sponsoring and what they want to be associated with, but any team that is in CL, winning trophies, has a clean image, and is gaining a lot of exposure will attract sponsors.

 

Of course, the moment that team stops delivering, the sponsors will drop them like a tonne of bricks, but that's how it goes. Here today, gone tomorrow. One Direction get sponsorships deals every bit as easily as the Rolling Stones.

 

For most sponsors, it doesn't really matter if a team has 1 miliion fan base, or 100 million, it's about the overall exposure they gain. Since most exposure in football is via TV, they don't care about the size of a club, it has little bearing.

 

Then you have the issue of 'fair market value'. It's not always enough to look at existing deals, as many of them are not like for like. For instance, United have different deals for stadium, shirt and training ground, but City have one deal for the lot.  United's training ground is hidden away, City's is now right next to the ground, incorporates a school, and is used by the public and women's team too. 

 

Of course, there's a huge debate to be had about the actual value, but there are fundamental differences between deals across many clubs (and we aren't privvy to get out clauses and caveats etc). 

[ratcatcher]

That's not really true, and it's why F1 teams like Red Bull can win sponsorship deals that match and in some cases exceed those of Ferrari.

 

An awful lot depends on the nature of the company sponsoring and what they want to be associated with, but any team that is in CL, winning trophies, has a clean image, and is gaining a lot of exposure will attract sponsors.

 

Of course, the moment that team stops delivering, the sponsors will drop them like a tonne of bricks, but that's how it goes. Here today, gone tomorrow. One Direction get sponsorships deals every bit as easily as the Rolling Stones.

 

For most sponsors, it doesn't really matter if a team has 1 miliion fan base, or 100 million, it's about the overall exposure they gain. Since most exposure in football is via TV, they don't care about the size of a club, it has little bearing.

 

Then you have the issue of 'fair market value'. It's not always enough to look at existing deals, as many of them are not like for like. For instance, United have different deals for stadium, shirt and training ground, but City have one deal for the lot.  United's training ground is hidden away, City's is now right next to the ground, incorporates a school, and is used by the public and women's team too. 

 

Of course, there's a huge debate to be had about the actual value, but there are fundamental differences between deals across many clubs (and we aren't privvy to get out clauses and caveats etc). 

 

Red bull have been in F1 since 2005. They've grown organically within F1 and didnt suddenly start landing sponsorship deals the same as Ferrari overnight so no, it isnt wrong.

 

You are correct about who is doing the sponsorship and that's my point. City's deals are in the main incestuous Qatari Mansoor linked companies.

 

An airline that had never made a profits in 10 years suddenly gives city a near £400m record sponsorship deal? And people cannot see that's totally unfounded for a club of city's size, standing and reputation? Dont make me laugh.

 

Sure, if city are regular title winners over a 5 to 10 year period and CL winners in a similar timeframe, Id have no issue whatsoever them \ you getting that type of deal.

 

But city's standing in football doesnt warrant it yet. Ergo, its artificial and dodgey as fuck.

[xerxes]

I don’t think that UEFA is in any position to judge what the benefits of sponsoring, say Man City, to an emerging global airline , or country are.

 

Close to home, the money that Warrior offered us was, and still is, uncommercial. A point made by Adidas at the time. But if a commercial company wants to take a punt, should anyone stop them?

 

Commercial deals are always playing leapfrog. In retrospect, Emirates sponsorship of the new Arsenal Stadium grossly undervalued the benefits they would get, but who was to know?

 

It would be a mistake to assume that past deals represent some sort of fair benchmark, or that new ground breaking deals cannot be commercial. B&H paid out what was regarded as ridiculous money for golf sponsorship many years ago- and reap the benefits to this day.

 

One of the benefits that NESV’s ownership was supposed to offer was their expertise in ground sponsorship and sports merchandising, neither has been in evidence.

[ratcatcher]

Id say as its UEFA's competition they are fucking well placed to judge on whether deals are pukka or not.

[xerxes]

Id say as its UEFA's competition they are fucking well placed to judge on whether deals are pukka or not.

UEFA are a sporting body, not global economists. They have no expertise whatsoever in judging the value of emerging branding (who has?).

 

If you factor in the fact that City are PL champions, with an established CL presence, and several globally known players, they have every reason to be battling it out for the best of the sponsorships.

[ratcatcher]

Its UEFA's competition, they set the rules for their competition.

 

But let's put to bed one of your points founded on part truth and presented as an absolute.

 

LFC's deal with Warrior soon to be New Balance a deal that is "uncommercial. A point made by Adidasis...."   

 

Glaring incomplete and inaccurate statement. Adidas had conned LFC due to Parry's ineptitude and kept all overseas sales income from the kit. LFC wanted to change that and drive a deal in line with the club's standing based on global shirt sales of which the club was only bettered by Real Madrid in the adidas stable at the time.

 

Adidas said the club wanted too much but were quite happy to continue a deal on the old way below standard. Not surprisingly, LFC said take a hike.

[aws]

A team of forensic accountants appointed by UEFA with access to details of every sponsorship deal entered into by all the major clubs would be better placed than anyone to judge what is within the range of market value and what isn't.

[Jose Jones]

Red bull have been in F1 since 2005. They've grown organically within F1 and didnt suddenly start landing sponsorship deals the same as Ferrari overnight so no, it isnt wrong.

 

You are correct about who is doing the sponsorship and that's my point. City's deals are in the main incestuous Qatari Mansoor linked companies.

 

An airline that had never made a profits in 10 years suddenly gives city a near £400m record sponsorship deal? And people cannot see that's totally unfounded for a club of city's size, standing and reputation? Dont make me laugh.

 

Sure, if city are regular title winners over a 5 to 10 year period and CL winners in a similar timeframe, Id have no issue whatsoever them \ you getting that type of deal.

 

But city's standing in football doesnt warrant it yet. Ergo, its artificial and dodgey as fuck.

 

The main thing with Man City's Etihad deals is that the Abu Dhabi royal family own Eithad and they also own Man City.  Ergo, it's pretty fucking obvious that the deals are primarily cash injections designed to try and get around FFP.

It would be like if Prince Andrew owned Charlton and then Duchy Originals paid half a billion pounds to sponsor their shirt.

[xerxes]

A team of forensic accountants appointed by UEFA with access to details of every sponsorship deal entered into by all the major clubs would be better placed than anyone to judge what is within the range of market value and what isn't.

It isn't UEFA's job to judge the commercial judgement of a company's strategic sponsorship deals. all you can do is look at historic deals which are leapfrogged by lesser or greater amounts.

 

Some sponsorship deals turn out to be great value for the sponsors, some less so, but it is not UEFA's job to make that judgement.

 

It is possible to say that if Abrahamovic buys a hospitality box at Stamford Bridge for £100m it is artificially inflated because the other boxes are £100,000. It is a like for like comparison.

 

But who is to say what the value is of creating global brand of a Middle East airline over 10 years for instance?

[xerxes]

Its UEFA's competition, they set the rules for their competition.

 

But let's put to bed one of your points founded on part truth and presented as an absolute.

 

LFC's deal with Warrior soon to be New Balance a deal that is "uncommercial. A point made by Adidas...."

The ability of UEFA to set rules is not in question. The enforceability is.

 

You miss the point on the Warrior deal. A team of accountants might properly have judged Warriors bid uncommercial. At the time, it was. But it was a punt on their behalf, a gamble that by the end the deal would stack. Which is why retrospective judgements on sponsorship deals will always be behind the curve.

[Trumo]

Just go on City's website and go to their partners page. Down the left is a list of sponsors, most of which are similar to what clubs like ourselves have, with online betting partners, motoring partners, energy drinks partners, alcohol partners, computer game partners and so on. City's partners appear to be listed in order of how much the partnerships are worth as the most prominent are at the top. The top 5 listed are Etihad (airline), Nike (sportswear), Etisalat (telecommunications), TCA Abu Dhabi (tourism and culture) and aabar (investment fund). 4 of those 5 are based in Abu Dhabi and ultimately controlled by City's owners.

 

Our club has partners from all over the world and also appear to list them in order of the value of the deals and their prominence, but only Warrior/New Balance have any links with our owners FSG. Dunkin Donuts and Subway for example might be US-based but they don't have direct links to FSG.

 

Our club is putting its partnership opportunities out to tender and sourcing from all over the world. City's owners are using various organisations under their control in Abu Dhabi to pump money into the club. Where have they put their opportunities out to tender to gauge market rate? I'm almost certain that if Abu Dhabi had control of one of the major sportswear manufacturers, it'd be them sponsoring City.

[eeyore]

That's not really true, and it's why F1 teams like Red Bull can win sponsorship deals that match and in some cases exceed those of Ferrari.

 

An awful lot depends on the nature of the company sponsoring and what they want to be associated with, but any team that is in CL, winning trophies, has a clean image, and is gaining a lot of exposure will attract sponsors.

 

Of course, the moment that team stops delivering, the sponsors will drop them like a tonne of bricks, but that's how it goes. Here today, gone tomorrow. One Direction get sponsorships deals every bit as easily as the Rolling Stones.

 

For most sponsors, it doesn't really matter if a team has 1 miliion fan base, or 100 million, it's about the overall exposure they gain. Since most exposure in football is via TV, they don't care about the size of a club, it has little bearing.

 

Then you have the issue of 'fair market value'. It's not always enough to look at existing deals, as many of them are not like for like. For instance, United have different deals for stadium, shirt and training ground, but City have one deal for the lot. United's training ground is hidden away, City's is now right next to the ground, incorporates a school, and is used by the public and women's team too.

 

Of course, there's a huge debate to be had about the actual value, but there are fundamental differences between deals across many clubs (and we aren't privvy to get out clauses and caveats etc).

Shut the fuck up. Your owners sponsor you and inflate it massively to fund your ridiculous wages.

[ratcatcher]

Just go on City's website and go to their partners page. Down the left is a list of sponsors, most of which are similar to what clubs like ourselves have, with online betting partners, motoring partners, energy drinks partners, alcohol partners, computer game partners and so on. City's partners appear to be listed in order of how much the partnerships are worth as the most prominent are at the top. The top 5 listed are Etihad (airline), Nike (sportswear), Etisalat (telecommunications), TCA Abu Dhabi (tourism and culture) and aabar (investment fund). 4 of those 5 are based in Abu Dhabi and ultimately controlled by City's owners.

 

Our club has partners from all over the world and also appear to list them in order of the value of the deals and their prominence, but only Warrior/New Balance have any links with our owners FSG. Dunkin Donuts and Subway for example might be US-based but they don't have direct links to FSG.

 

Our club is putting its partnership opportunities out to tender and sourcing from all over the world. City's owners are using various organisations under their control in Abu Dhabi to pump money into the club. Where have they put their opportunities out to tender to gauge market rate? I'm almost certain that if Abu Dhabi had control of one of the major sportswear manufacturers, it'd be them sponsoring City.

 

This. Its patently clear that city's major sponsorship deals are incestuous. As I said, an airline that had never made a profit suddenly finds £400m down the back of the sofa (a large sofa too!) to sponsor city? And an airline run by one of mansoor's relatives to boot?

 

xerxes idiotic assertion that LFC's deal was not 'commercial' because adidas in effect, said so is just that, idiotic.

[xerxes]

Just go on City's website and go to their partners page etc

Fair points.

 

City are unquestionably pushing the boundaries. Where they ( and PSG) are becoming smarter is in picking sponsorship areas which are much harder to quantify.

 

Your final point about sportswear manufacturers is well made- watch this space.

[xerxes]

xerxes idiotic assertion that LFC's deal was not 'commercial' because adidas in effect, said so is just that, idiotic.

I said no such thing.

 

I did say that Warriors bid was uncommercial, not because Adidas said so, but because it was.

 

It was a punt, a gamble that although it didn't stack as a stand-alone deal, it would provide a commercial bridgehead for future more profitable deals for them. Fair enough. That's business. And UEFA have no business risk managing Warriors' football/ European sportswear strategy.

 

Making up things which other people say just so that you can disagree with them, either because you don't understand, or just fancy an argument, is pretty tedious.

[ratcatcher]

Not commercial = uncommercial.

[Barrington Womble]

I have absolutely no issue if city want to fund their club in this way, they are just getting around stupid rules - and it is their right to attempt to work with the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it. How I look at it is simple. There was a time when rich owners funded clubs via loans (be it interest free at times) and then when they pulled the plug, were under no obligation to continue to pump money into the clubs and honour the debts they had run up with other clubs via transfers on the drip and the players contracts. If City sign a deal over 10 years with etihad and other Abu Dhabi sovereign fund companies, providing that deal is watertight and ensures city will continue to get cash flow to cover their debts once the owners get bored, who are we to complain about that? 

[ratcatcher]

Its all about opinions I guess but it boils down to do people want football to become (if it isnt already), the play thing of a very small, select number of extremely wealthy individuals at the wider expense of, for the want of a better description, 'market forces'?

 

I dont have a problem with a club spending what it earns, even use an acceptable amount in loans. But I do have a problem with a club being given artificially arranged 'deals' for it to become the top of the pile, start hovering up young and other players to prevent other clubs buying them, tieing up deals with other clubs to become 'feeders' for it etc, etc.

 

Once all this shit is in place, it cant be undone and pandora's box will be well and truely open.

[Barrington Womble]

Its all about opinions I guess but it boils down to do people want football to become (if it isnt already), the play thing of a very small, select number of extremely wealthy individuals at the wider expense of, for the want of a better description, 'market forces'?

 

I dont have a problem with a club spending what it earns, even use an acceptable amount in loans. But I do have a problem with a club being given artificially arranged 'deals' for it to become the top of the pile, start hovering up young and other players to prevent other clubs buying them, tieing up deals with other clubs to become 'feeders' for it etc, etc.

 

Once all this shit is in place, it cant be undone and pandora's box will be well and truely open.

football has always been a play thing for the rich, it is just now it is such a wealthy and global sport, instead of it being the rich fella from your neighbourhood or city, it's now the plaything of the richest people on the planet. or own club was formed out of wealthy people falling out over money. 

[ratcatcher]

football has always been a play thing for the rich, it is just now it is such a wealthy and global sport, instead of it being the rich fella from your neighbourhood or city, it's now the plaything of the richest people on the planet. or own club was formed out of wealthy people falling out over money. 

 

No actually it hasnt and our club was formed over a disagreement on rent not how much money the owner was expected to pump into it. Despite someone constantly mentioning the likes of bob lord, very few owners pumped serious money into their club in an effort to gain success on the pitch especially in the top flight.

 

Lord never injected his own cash into Burnley. He was too smart and too tight for that game. Jack Hayward the former Wolves owner called himself the 'golden tit' because of the money he poured into the club. Back in the 70's Portsmouth tried splashing the cash (no surprise there) when they were 2nd division but Im not sure if that was the owner or the club.

 

During our pomp, no one pumped money into the club, it was all what we earned and a few loans from the bank. moores underwrote the centenary and kop developments. He may have loaned the club money for a couple of players but nothing excessive.

 

louis edwardes and his son at united never pumped serious money into that club either. The money flowed into the club when they floated and won far too many PL titles while we fiddled as rome burned.

 

Its only since abramovic came in that mega rich owners have pumped money into 'their' club. The playing field has been seriously skewed towards their clubs. How many clubs can afford to pay £50m for one player never mind two? Answer city, chelsea and united. Only one of that 3 is self financing but that doesnt really matter when only 3 clubs can afford to win the title.