..because Uefa assess the deals and are completely happy with City's (unlike PSG's). Aside from pointless conjecture what other yardstick would you suggest people use?
BBC Sport: La Liga asks Uefa to investigate Man City's financial fair play
- Thread starter #07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
The UEFA deemed them legal which shouldn't be conflated with not inflated. Your deals with Abu Dhabi are inflated and for some of us it's not really a problem, Revan is one of those people by the way.
The pointless conjecture is that there is 0 change that City can fairly have a higher commercial revenue than Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal. Those clubs sell more shirts, have significantly higher shirt sponsors, have double the social media followers (thus more fans) but I am going to somehow believe that City has really a higher commercial revenue.
I don't care either way, I just find it hilarious. If it was up to me, I would have allowed owners to put as much money as they want in the clubs (while also forcing to point 2-3 times as much in a locked bank account) just in case they change their mind and leave the club in the mess (in this way protecting the club from that).
Your major sponsors are the ones mentioned in JPRouve's post. Those are Nike, Nexen, Aabar, Etihad, SAP, TCA Abu Dhabi, Etisalat and Nissan. I think the rest can be dismissed, they can't add much in terms of revenue. It's not just for City, but for any other club. It's like for me saying that Beats by Dre and Hublot made it possible for Chelsea to sign Morata.
Well they ain't wrong if that's the case.
I think you'll find that most City fans agree that the Etihad deal was above market value vs the profile of the club when it was first signed but since then City have won 2 league titles in the most popular league in the world, 2 league cups (we'd won the FA Cup a couple of months before the deal was announced), and had 6 (soon to be 7) consecutive Champions League campaigns. If all that hasn't raised the profile of the club significantly then I don't know what will. And it's a 2-way thing in all fairness. City's profile wasn't as high back then but how many of us had heard of Etihad? These days, every football fan in the country know who Etihad are and in the first season of that deal what better way to raise the profile of both City and Etihad than the title run-in including the Monday night derby when hundreds of millions of fans tuned in from across the globe? These days I believe the deal is under-valued but back then right at the very start I agree that it was over-valued.
As for shirt sales, point taken but there are plenty of other ways to raise a club's profile these days. Shirt sale numbers are paltry for all clubs compared to numbers of fans worldwide yet social media coverage and City's YouTube channel gets a huge amount of hits. Something like 10 million views for that Harlem Shake vid the players did the other year. Shit like that isn't for me but obviously it appeals to the younger generation who lap it up. City are also reportedly the second most followed club behind United on China's most popular social media platform whose name escapes me so I don't think we lag that far behind the clubs you mention when it comes to the social media side of things.
I'm actually of the belief that when it comes to the numbers of fans that each club has, in purely business terms all football clubs have quite poor revenues and could do more to increase them. United were the forerunners at the turn of the 90's when it came to merchandising, etc, and ironically it was Michael Knighton that told the likes of Martin Edwards that you should be generating way more money out of your global fanbase. Liverpool missed a trick there and were years behind on that score but these days clubs are generating hundreds of millions of revenue out of hundreds of millions of fans but the bulk of that revenue doesn't even come from the fans.
In summary, I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph but that's far too sensible a suggestion to be considered by the powers that be!
Every little helps though and it all adds up in the end. I'm not claiming they all give us £5m a year or more.
You are a bigger brand than you were 10 years ago. You do still lag notably behind Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal in every way used to measure marketing value. That isn't even mentioning United.
The general idea and the one I pointed to earlier is that despite this your revenue is a lot higher than all three of them. If you think that is based purely on having a much better commercial department then fair enough.
To me it essentially feels like Netflix paying 50m to have product placement on a decent sized Netflix movie for accounting purposes and then saying it is as legitimate of a deal as Apple paying 10m for product placement in The Avengers.
The problem here is that it's not a legitimacy question. Because the reality is that if you don't put the extra 40m, you don't have the same product and that difference will have a huge influence on the visibility of the movie and the visibility of the product you placed in it.
In my opinion, people should use TV commercials as example, these are really expensive TV commercials and you notice that rarely people question how much TV commercials costs. As a reminder Chanel paid 33m in 2004 for a TV ad.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion mate but according to this impartial link from 2015 http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/top-50-football-club-brands-2015 City's brand value was the 4th highest in world football, above the 3 clubs you mention. Personally, even I think that was too high but there's obviously a methodology behind the calculations (in fact, one of the tabs above the table explains that methodology).
Last edited:
Well there are two types of legitimacy, you are talking about the legitimacy in benefiting the self funded product. Of course it is of benefit to City (or our hypothetical Netflix movie) but I was talking about the legitimacy of whether it falls in line with the business practice of peers. I think what has to be decided by the powers that be long term is whether they want clubs to fall in line or whether they want it to become no holds barred spending. I think FFP in it's current format is a half measure that doesn't help clubs that follow either philosophy.
But what are the business practices you are referring to? Nothing says that two clubs have to follow the same business model, it's not even said that a club has to be a business at all.
Of course mate and I also don't think it is a serious issue in practical terms because I do not believe your owners will leave anytime soon which is the only time any of this would become especially relevant. I took a look at that link and the issue is that they use current turnover as one of their key measurements which I obviously am dubious over, they also use projections which is an issue because I do not disagree that City could become a much bigger brand over the next 10 years (I think they will). As you said, you don't believe the accuracy of that table. I for one think Barcelona are a much bigger brand than City and Celtic are a much bigger brand than a lot of the top 25.
As a City fan what would you want to happen with FFP going forward?
Well the two practices when you boil it down would be a club that operates like a business whose goal is to make a profit or a club that have no interest in making a profit and just want to win. You are exactly right in saying a club shouldn't have to operate like a business but FFP definitely flies in the face of that.
I personally am lucky enough to support one of very few (2 or 3) clubs who I think will always be able to compete financially without outside assistance so it doesn't really effect me. I do personally think something has to be put in place which is effective though, I think it will end up creating a massive gap between the few very rich clubs and the rest if that isn't done. If transfer activity keeps rising at the same rate it has the last few years then by 2027 the 18.5m Watford payed for Andre Gray would be roughly 48m.
Yeah, the Barca thing is pretty mental and Celtic would be higher up the list if they weren't hamstrung by such a poor TV deal when compared to the English clubs.
I'm not against the concept of FFP per se. Oddly, the likes of Revan appear to be more against it than me but he makes a fantastic point that the current regs don't really legislate for unscrupulous owners taking over clubs. It would be hypocritical of me to advocate a system that prevents other clubs doing what City have done and at least the latest UEFA incarnation of the rules has offered more leeway on that regarding new owners of clubs.
What many of us tend to overlook is that FFP has other aspects to it as well as the break-even section. There are harsh penalties for clubs that don't pay what they owe other clubs for example.
I also would like to see some kind of financial fair play for us, the fans. We've had some success in negotiating a cap of £30 on away tickets in the PL for the duration of the current TV deal as a result of a co-ordinated campaign by the FSF and fan groups up and down the country. Not quite the £20 we wanted but it's a start nonetheless.
Last edited:
La Liga president back at it in today's press conference:
Quotes taken from Simon Stone's twitter https://twitter.com/sistoney67
Go Feck yourself La Liga.
I wonder if anyone has told Tebas that it's none other than Abu Dhabi that is bankrolling the redevelopment of the stadium that his beloved Real Madrid play in yet
And skriking about the distribution of CL income? How about a fairer distribution of TV money in La Liga first?
And skriking about the distribution of CL income? How about a fairer distribution of TV money in La Liga first?
Makes a great point, Uefa should tighten the rules on related party sponsorship.
The redevelopment won't be free.The stadium will change the name.I wonder if anyone has told Tebas that it's none other than Abu Dhabi that is bankrolling the redevelopment of the stadium that his beloved Real Madrid play in yet
And skriking about the distribution of CL income? How about a fairer distribution of TV money in La Liga first?
Personally I would have avoided the deal but It has nothing to do with Tebas complaints.
Mate, my point is that by criticising City getting Abu Dhabi money while at the same time Real Madrid receives Abu Dhabi money (as well as Dubai money through the Emirates deal), Tebas could well be jeopardising that stadium sponsorship deal which surely isn't something that is going to go down too well at Real. I wouldn't be surprised if Perez gets on the phone to him after this. In any case, from what I can tell Real and City enjoy a decent relationship.
Don't get me wrong, I can understand his concerns about marquee players leaving the Spanish League as a man in his position would like those players to stay in La Liga but his comments are showing an astonishing lack of self awareness.
They're probably constrained by EU law in the matter, only so much they can do. Why don't UEFA just impose a maximum spending cap. No club can spend more than x amount in a window, or x amount over a period of time. Problem solved.
Based on the most recent quotes from Tebas it's quite clear they are worried that Man City will sign Messi on a free transfer. His whole argument seems to be thrown at them rather than PSG now.
I agree it is a worry for the whole of football what PSG and City are doing but La Liga are complete hypocrites. They have a system so Barcelona and Real Madrid have kept their monolopy and all the money. This has left their league uncompetitive and they can't achieve the same TV rights as the Premier League.
Plus both clubs have received state aid themselves:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ens-millions-illegal-state-subsidies-Brussels
Tebas simply brushed this aside when it was mentioned to him. "That's an argument my little kids would use," he added. "Why are you giving them biscuits and not me biscuits?'. The whole episode is laughable.
I agree it is a worry for the whole of football what PSG and City are doing but La Liga are complete hypocrites. They have a system so Barcelona and Real Madrid have kept their monolopy and all the money. This has left their league uncompetitive and they can't achieve the same TV rights as the Premier League.
Plus both clubs have received state aid themselves:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ens-millions-illegal-state-subsidies-Brussels
Tebas simply brushed this aside when it was mentioned to him. "That's an argument my little kids would use," he added. "Why are you giving them biscuits and not me biscuits?'. The whole episode is laughable.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't state aid against EU law?
It's pretty difficult to classify these sponsorship deals as state aid though.
It's pretty difficult to classify these sponsorship deals as state aid though.
Easy to bypass isn't it? What will stop City from signing a player for NYFC and move the player to MCFC for lower fee? or Girona and MCFC?
I'll be honest, I don't like Tebas or LaLiga, where was he when Madrid was getting help?
However, I worry about us when our rivals can throw 500m+ at a single player.
Even though Messi would be going on a free, the overall cost of a deal would be approaching that figure.
It's believed the deal he's agreed with Barca nets him a total of 65m per annum.
Including sign-on bonuses, we're looking at 400m+.
However, I worry about us when our rivals can throw 500m+ at a single player.
Even though Messi would be going on a free, the overall cost of a deal would be approaching that figure.
It's believed the deal he's agreed with Barca nets him a total of 65m per annum.
Including sign-on bonuses, we're looking at 400m+.
No, your owners have unlimited access to money than no other person on this planet has or can compete with. It has nothing to do with ambition, most people can't just risk £1 billion on a project and if it fails keep pumping in money until it does.
Only when the state doesn't own the company. You noticed that the EU has no problem with EADS, SNCF or the BBC.
Still - will be interesting to see the absolute state of Barcelona when they lose messi on a free next summer. Total implosion going on there.
Because you can't really set a rule that only affects a very limited number of clubs, if you set the limit at 2-300m, only about 5 clubs can afford that anyway.
Thanks, but how do we classify, City and PSG?
I'm not sure the EU will see it as state-aid.
I think in this case Tebas is saying what Florentino wants him to say as he did before with Neymar and Barsa.
Florentino is aware,he changed the rules of the club to avoid sheiks, and from years ago the transfer policy is totally different.
I remember when last year the press wrote about Verratti-Madrid and quickly they tweeted denying any interest and of course the relationship with City and their untouchable players.I don't think the stadium deal will break because of it.
ACS(Florentino's company) has other business in Abu Dhabi
Private companies owned by private company that is owned by a non-European country.
State-aid considerations only applies to European countries
They are publicly owned companies/Sports associations, like Super Rugby franchises.
The state of Qatar owns more of the UK than the queen (apparently). I would guess the EU rule relates to a member state attempting to distort the EU market by funding domestic industry. Clearly, a separate issue to the football one.
Your point is fundamentally wrong, Real madrid can sell their stadium rights to anyone else but do PSG or city get the same amount of money from commercial deals that they get from their own countries?
You think too small just about players leaving, what he is saying is basically city are doping albiet financially. It distorts competition as they cannot compete with countries funding clubs. Which is absolutely right. Some english fans might laugh at it because its spain, but had it been ajax complaining then whole football hipster world would have gotten behind them.
The simple thing is city without Abu dabhi is nothing, they could hardly support buying 100 million players, they use window dressing in their accounts to make fit with FFP. Every one and their dogs know that. Its the rules of UEFA that need changing and made more stricter.
If the same company had to offer a sponsorship to Madrid or city, they would pay twice the amount or more to madrid.
I'd say the more money someone puts into something, the more ambition they have. That's all I was saying. If I wanted to make a million pounds buying and selling shares, I'm not going to achieve that ambition by investing no more than £1000. If you don't think City's owner isn't ambitious with all the investment in both playing staff and infrastructure then that's a pretty odd thing to come out with. Take a walk around East Manchester sometime and you'll see an area that has undergone one hell of a transition both from a footballing point of view and a non-footballing aspect.
As for your first line, well it's a bit of a moot point but there are others in the world that are richer than him
Thanks. I just wanted to confirm Tebas has no basis for asking the EU to investigate.
Any idea why it has taken La Liga 9 years to make this complaint? Funny how they weren't arsed when they weren't losing their best players. As for the rest, that was discussed at length on this thread last night. I posted a link from 2015 which showed City's brand value was the 4th highest in the world which debunks the idea that City need to be be propped up by Abu Dhabi to flourish. 2008 yes, but 2017 no.
Last edited:
He didn't open his fat mouth while we were putting up with Chelsea since '04 and City since '09.
Without having to compete against the above we'd have 4 more Premier League trophies.
Without having to compete against the above we'd have 4 more Premier League trophies.