The on topic thread

[moomba]

that's the FA's fault

The concept of FFP was initially bought in to control club debt. It was changed by the old G14 clubs, and Platini bent over and let them.

The other thing that was dropped as a result of FFP was plans to redistribute champions league revenue in a fairer manner, across all clubs not just the elite.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

your customer base is tiny.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

The concept of FFP was initially bought in to control club debt. It was changed by the old G14 clubs, and Platini bent over and let them.

The other thing that was dropped as a result of FFP was plans to redistribute champions league revenue in a fairer manner, across all clubs not just the elite.

not talking about FFP. The FA should never have allowed the Glazers to take over United.

 

[moomba]

not talking about FFP. The FA should never have allowed the Glazers to take over United.

Agree with that. UEFA as well if they were serious about protecting clubs (as they said) would have banned leveraged buyouts outright.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

I don't think PSG's is a sponsorship FWIW.

Our deal with Etihad was never woefully overvalued when compared to our rivals.

Yes it was. You had about half the global following you have now and even that is tiny compared to your peers.

PSG's deal is a sponsorship but fails FFP due to unrealistic value.

 

[moomba]

Yes it was. You had about half the global following you have now and even that is tiny compared to your peers.

PSG's deal is a sponsorship but fails FFP due to unrealistic value.

Emirates is their main sponsor. I think the Qatar Tourism thing was structured differently, in that it's a straight commercial deal where PSG get paid to promote Qatar, and provide advice to QTA etc. It's very dodgy.

It got flagged up with FFP because it was backdated, not because of the value of it.

 

[Magma]

didnt/doesnt atletico have something similar to that with azerbaijan?

 

[Established1870]

Agree with that. UEFA as well if they were serious about protecting clubs (as they said) would have banned leveraged buyouts outright.

If FIFA can ban 3rd party ownership then surely they can ban this.

On the topic of City and value, their supporter base is on par or directly below about 10 clubs in Britain and just about all of them earn a fraction of what City get in sponsorship, so yes, City are overpaid and not underpaid in sponsorship.

 

[Established1870]

didnt/doesnt atletico have something similar to that with azerbaijan?

Do Azerbaijan own Atletico?

 

[moomba]

Yes it was. You had about half the global following you have now and even that is tiny compared to your peers.

You'll believe what you want I guess. It's a 10 year deal, and IMO Etihad did pretty well to get the price they did.

 

[Magma]

If FIFA can ban 3rd party ownership then surely they can ban this.

On the topic of City and value, their supporter base is on par or directly below about 10 clubs in Britain and just about all of them earn a fraction of what City get in sponsorship, so yes, City are overpaid and not underpaid in sponsorship.

since when did supporter base numbers affect club values and exposure on the world stage?

 

[Bojan KantKick]

You'll believe what you want I guess. It's a 10 year deal, and IMO Etihad did pretty well to get the price they did.

Do you think your fanbase is at a similar level to the other clubs in the top 6?

 

[Bojan KantKick]

since when did supporter base numbers affect club values and exposure on the world stage?

since forever

 

[Magma]

since forever

but it's completely irrelevant these days when top end clubs make two bits of **** all from their fans.

companies pay for clubs who are near the top of their domestic competitions and are involved in the champions league. that's how it is. richard mille arent aiming to sell their watches to the working class of manchester.

 

[moomba]

On the topic of City and value, their supporter base is on par or directly below about 10 clubs in Britain and just about all of them earn a fraction of what City get in sponsorship, so yes, City are overpaid and not underpaid in sponsorship.

We have the 5th highest shirt sponsorship according to this http://www.totalsportek.com/football/premier-league-shirt-sponsorship-deals/

Presume they apportioned our sponsorship with Etihad between stadium, training ground and shirt sponsor.

Given we're in the champions league every year, have played in 4 cup finals in the past 6 years, generally hover around the top of the league and have been involved in some of the highest rated games in premier league history I reckon I can safely assume a big increase coming up. Especially when you look at how much the market has grown in the latest year or two.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

but it's completely irrelevant these days when top end clubs make two bits of **** all from their fans.

companies pay for clubs who are near the top of their domestic competitions and are involved in the champions league. that's how it is. richard mille arent aiming to sell their watches to the working class of manchester.

global fanbase, not domestic. Domestic fanbase is largely irrelevant in the prem to sponsorship.

Etihad want people who watch city games to fly with them. They aren't marketing it to poms.

 

[moomba]

Do you think your fanbase is at a similar level to the other clubs in the top 6?

I'd say behind United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal and on a par with the likes of Spurs, Everton.

 

[Magma]

global fanbase, not domestic. Domestic fanbase is largely irrelevant in the prem to sponsorship.

Etihad want people who watch city games to fly with them. They aren't marketing it to poms.

well i assume a fair few people watched the champions league semi final and saw etihad on our shirts then.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

City v Utd FFP and tangential ownership debate:

 

[Bojan KantKick]

well i assume a fair few people watched the champions league semi final and saw etihad on our shirts then.

most likely. Shame they don't tune it to most of your other games unless you are playing a big club.

When you signed your original etihad deal, United games accounted for 52% of global prem viewing figures. By the time 2021 comes along, I'd be surprised if we weren't getting 100m+ from Chevy.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

I'd say behind United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal and on a par with the likes of Spurs, Everton.

isn't that where your shirt sponsorship is placed? 5th?

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

City v Utd FFP and tangential ownership debate:

City fans just dont want to admit that there club has **** all value to non friendly companies

 

[Magma]

most likely. Shame they don't tune it to most of your other games unless you are playing a big club.

When you signed your original etihad deal, United games accounted for 52% of global prem viewing figures. By the time 2021 comes along, I'd be surprised if we weren't getting 100m+ from Chevy.

where can you find them?

apparently in the uk we're the 2nd most watched side. or at least in 2015.

 

[moomba]

isn't that where your shirt sponsorship is placed? 5th?

Apparently so.

 

[moomba]

City fans just dont want to admit that there club has **** all value to non friendly companies

I'm pleased that we are on friendly terms with all of our sponsors. Good business practice.