Football is truly ruined at the top level if they can get away with this
Man City sell COMS naming rights to Etihad
- Thread starter Sir Matt
- Start date
etihad does mean united and there is another word for union in arabic that is naqaba
Im sure they will also sell naming rights to each stand, 1st, 2nd, 3rd team bus, training center etc..
this was always going to happen and if it falls within UEFA rules , then so what.
What's Arabic for "cheating cnuts?"
If that's the case it will be. £20m per season for shirt sponsorship is the same as United and Liverpool get, so that's made sure it qualifies as "fair market value". Not sure about what stadium naming rights usually cost, but £10m sounds about right. I think their deal with Umbro is only worth about £5m a year though, so they might try to improve on that. That's a total (so far) of £35m per year in major sponsorships, United get about £43m per year currently from Nike and Aon. They still have a lot to do in regards to increasing non-sponsorship revenues. I've never thought they'd have too much trouble with the financial fair play regs though, they are too easy to get around. Besides, we know what UEFA are like, they repeatedly let teams that have been banned for far more serious matters such as match fixing back into the Champions League, so I don't think any club is going to be too worried about the new rules.
I heard this too, I do think though you could legitimately translate the word as United though as union & unity would probably be in the thesaurus under united.
So, Shitty will play at the United stadium, brilliant, I like it!
Yes. 'United' is not a different derivation, but the past participle of the verb 'to unite'. Therefore the Arab word reflects the same stem. I don't know any Arabic, but saying it doesn't mean united is surely a bit like saying that 'death' is not the same word as 'dead'. As in once city play in a stadium called Unity/ United it's the sure sign of death/dead aspirations.
Games against you lot to be henceforth known as 'Dhabis'.
Football's been ruined for years. And didn't we always know the so-called UEFA financial fair play regulations would be entirely toothless?
When the Abu Dhabi royal family bought City through ADUG it was a clear sign these proposed regulations would be nothing more than an exercise in futility. They'd never invest this heavily in City if there were even a remote possibility of the UEFA FFP rules interfering with their project.
It's as if the Premier League/FA don't care where the money's coming from as long as there's plenty of it.
They obviously couldn't care less.
Seeing no problem with Thaksin Shinawatra's acquisition of City in 2007 says all one needs to know.
£400 mil just to name a stadium 
News: Manchester City and Etihad sign most lucrative sports sponsorship deal in history - News - MirrorFootball.co.uk
News: Manchester City and Etihad sign most lucrative sports sponsorship deal in history - News - MirrorFootball.co.uk
As I read it the deal for shirt sponsorship is rising from £3.2m to £20m per annum? Surely that will arouse suspicions?
The fact that all of Manchester City's sponsors are related are somewhat related to their owners should be more suspicious.
Quite obviously not an arms length value. At least this way we'll see UEFA's reaction to it, they'll be forced to, rather than just glossing over a slightly inflated value.
If I was being sponsored under a foreign name the first thing I would do is to check what the translation was. That's a major mistake which we'll be able to laugh at for years to come. City, the gift that keeps on giving.
It will not. It still counts towards what the regulation(s) considers as fair value - even if the deal is struck with connected parties.
They have been very clever splitting the deal into many sections which will make it very hard to object against.
Fair market value should place some value on the team getting the deal. If Malaga(or City) got their owners to give them a £20m shirt deal, that's massively overvalued because the clubs aren't on the same level as United, Barca, Madrid, etc. No unrelated sponsor would be willing to give City that much money for a shirt deal.That's what I initially thought too. UEFA will take a look at this and set a precedence - other clubs will be up in their faces asking for clarification of the regulations.
more details about the proposed the deal and Arsenal Supporters Trust plans to oppose it....
m.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways?cat=football&type=article
m.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways?cat=football&type=article
UEFA will take a look at the deal and say it falls within the range of acceptable 'fair market value'. They'll also consider ADUG and Etihad Airways to be separate entities, despite the sockpuppeting (as per Steve's post) we all know is going on.
and fair play to the Red who edited Etihad's wiki page (Take a peek before it's gone!) --Etihad means "snide council house" in Arabic
Etihad Airways - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Like I said, there's nothing wrong with this deal as it currently stands if we take what Tariq Panja has reported as truth - which we should. UEFA will have to clarify what's ok and what's not in terms of entities and sock-puppeting (lovely phrase!)UEFA will take a look at the deal and say it falls within the range of acceptable 'fair market value'. They'll also consider ADUG and Etihad Airways to be separate entities, despite the sockpuppeting (as per Steve's post) we all know is going on.
Etihad means "snide council house" in Arabic
Etihad Airways - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Snide council house - Ha! Goond one.
There's no way of doing that fairly. UEFA can't have a "United and Liverpool can sign £20m shirt sponsorship deals but City can't because they are shite" rule, can they? They can only say that there has been a precident set and £20m represents a top line fee comparable with other English clubs. Therefore any English or European clubs can say there is fair market value if they sign a similar deal, regardless of the prestige of the club.
I have a feeling that everyone will know that this is clearly a dodgy backhander made official but UEFA can't and won't do shit to stop it and FFP will be found to be a load of hot air.
It'd be impossible to implement, but the whole idea of having a club owner "sponsor" it in everything it does is a joke. They don't need a group of people to seek sponsorship deals from companies because every entity within the Emirati Sovereign Wealth Fund is a sponsor of City. It makes a mockery of the entire idea of financial fair play.
United and other major clubs spend a lot of money to attract and secure top-notch sponsors. While the rest of the Premier League makes peanuts on its in-stadium advertising, United makes several times the others by a combination of football and financial work. Now, because United built up that list of sponsors over the years, Mansour could just pay the same amount of money we earn in "sponsorship" and have Etihad ads posted everywhere in the stadium despite the fact that no non-related entity would put up that amount of money to sponsor a club. By UEFA rules, it would be ok since United make that much money through in-stadium adverts. Even if they diversify their advertising between a few of the different SWF companies, it's still the same thing. Mansour can just match whatever United, Barca, Madrid, and the German teams(who make tons in advertising).
Oh for feck's sake, this is ridiculous shit. They should technically be able to get away with it even.
Ethihad have paid about 10 times over the odds for their deals with City. Right at a time when UEFA seemed to have a solution to Citys monoply. Its seems like a very fishy deal indeed with not a shred of fair play about it.
I'm sure City will get away with it, even though i'm sure even the most bluenose of City fans would except that they are really pushing the FFP rules with this one.
Several reasons why it should be seen as dodgy.
- The stadium is not owned by them, yet a company is willing to pay this money for a stadium that is only rented.
- The campus, although City have plans for retail units, training facilities, tourist attractions. None of these are in place yet and wont be till 2015. So far they are only paying for a fan zone and some facilities in SportsCity. How ever the individual units within the campus will not be rebranded.
- UEFA will have to look at the detail of Shirt Sponsorship. A team that was only sponsorede £2.6 mil in 2009, should not be able to get just under 10x that amount (if rumours are to be believed) a few years later. Especially for a club thats only won one trophy and only just got into the CL in that time.
- Stadium naming rights will have to be looked at. Spurs, Newcastle, Chelsea and Liverpool have all struggled to get naming sponsors. Arsenal do, but they only got £100 mil over 15 years, and about 40% was for shirt sponsorship. Bayern Munich only get £4 mil for the Allianz Arena.
- If the Airline made the decision on this figures by its own choice, how could a company that never made a profit, sponsor a team for those figures. Where is the money coming from?
Several reasons why it should be seen as dodgy.
- The stadium is not owned by them, yet a company is willing to pay this money for a stadium that is only rented.
- The campus, although City have plans for retail units, training facilities, tourist attractions. None of these are in place yet and wont be till 2015. So far they are only paying for a fan zone and some facilities in SportsCity. How ever the individual units within the campus will not be rebranded.
- UEFA will have to look at the detail of Shirt Sponsorship. A team that was only sponsorede £2.6 mil in 2009, should not be able to get just under 10x that amount (if rumours are to be believed) a few years later. Especially for a club thats only won one trophy and only just got into the CL in that time.
- Stadium naming rights will have to be looked at. Spurs, Newcastle, Chelsea and Liverpool have all struggled to get naming sponsors. Arsenal do, but they only got £100 mil over 15 years, and about 40% was for shirt sponsorship. Bayern Munich only get £4 mil for the Allianz Arena.
- If the Airline made the decision on this figures by its own choice, how could a company that never made a profit, sponsor a team for those figures. Where is the money coming from?
If clubs like City clearly exploit loop holes to get around FFP won't UEFA eventually just make even those routes impossible?
Well I'd think each loophole will be exploited once and thusly closed. Itll be enough to go on another spree this summer and still fall under FFP requirements. Don't know what they'll do in a few years though when they become older like the current Chowsy team
Is this campus that Sportcity development? If so, I'm not too sure this is an awful thing. £400million seems an awful lot of money over 10 years but haven't they just locked away a lot of their commercial potential for the next 10 years for the sake of £20mill shirt/£20mill stadium and sportcity rights? I'd have thought our next shirt sponsorship deal alone would be pushing towards 30mill/season leaving not a huge disparity between us, then it's a case of what else do they have to sell really? telecoms deals will be trickier as fair market value appears to top end them at 5mill a year say and outside their own territory how much influence are they going to have on forcing through these deals?
It's obvious they've massively overinflated it, but in a sense surely what they've just done has put a crimper on them overtaking our commercial potential? They haven't seemingly got that much else they can sell (for huge amounts) and while they are going to get a lot closer to us commercially, their expenditure already exceeds ours by a fair margin.
It's all faintly embarrassing though.
It's obvious they've massively overinflated it, but in a sense surely what they've just done has put a crimper on them overtaking our commercial potential? They haven't seemingly got that much else they can sell (for huge amounts) and while they are going to get a lot closer to us commercially, their expenditure already exceeds ours by a fair margin.
It's all faintly embarrassing though.
It's also massively overvalued compared to the Emirates deal since that was named from the start. There's a lot less value in renaming a stadium that people have been referring to as the City of Manchester, Eastlands, or the council house than there is a spanking new stadium.
What about introducing the idea that there must be multiple bids to gain a real idea of the market value? No unconnected company would ever pay close to this so if they were forced to show the value of other bids then the lack of 'market value' would be clear.
I'm pretty sure they have something similar in the US in the way they handle bids for construction work.
I'm pretty sure they have something similar in the US in the way they handle bids for construction work.
That discussions been had a million times. Personally, for £200m, I wouldn't be too bothered if they sold the naming rights to Old Trafford. It would still be known as Old Trafford to every United fan around the world and pretty much every football fan. The only people that would refer to it as it's new name are the broadcasters and ABU's in a sorry attempt to wind us up.
I said much earlier that this would happen - in Abu Dhabi -pretty well every major business out there is owned by the ruling family and every other business is majority owned by a local who is beholding to the family. . They even have massive influence in the other Emirates .So they control everything and if they say pay to any Company the rapid response s how much and where
Any sponsorship deal emanating from a UAE company to another UAE company should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion. UEFA know this but will they react properly - I very much doubt
Any sponsorship deal emanating from a UAE company to another UAE company should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion. UEFA know this but will they react properly - I very much doubt