The on topic thread

[moomba]

Our response to Tebas fwiw.

 

[ADL9798]

The distinction isnt made in EU competition law relating to state aid.

I wasnt seriously suggesting Liverpool would be in any trouble fwiw.

I do however question a competition policy that allows Liverpool do gain sponsorship from Malaysias national airline, United to be sponsored by the majority government owned airline of Russia and Arsenal sponsored by Dubais national airline but sees our sponsorship with Etihad as anti competitive because it's from the same place as our owner.

But people desperately hoping for EU help are grasping at straws anyway. The rules apply to state aid from member states only. Mansour is not a state let alone a member state of the EU.

But who knows, I could be wrong. Will be fun to see.

We're not owned by the Malaysian government.

The issue people have previously had with City's Etihad and PSG's Qatar Tourism Authority sponsorships isn't that they are state owned companies in itself, but that these companies are owned by states that also own the clubs. Most other clubs have to follow a market based approach to securing the highest possible sponsorship deal for their club.

PSG and City on the other hand are effectively sponsored by their owners, creating a vehicle to enhance their revenue base that isn't available to most other clubs/owners.

Are PSG going to fail FFP on the back of the Mbappe and Neymar signings? No, because the owners are quite obviously just going to increase the Qatar Tourism sponsorship until their revenue covers it, and UEFA have set the precedent to allow it.

Still don't understand how either deal passes the Related Party Transaction clause under FFP, but they did, so there you go. I look forward to the games' first €500m player 2 years from now.

 

[moomba]

We're not owned by the Malaysian government.

The issue people have previously had with City's Etihad and PSG's Qatar Tourism Authority sponsorships isn't that they are state owned companies in itself, but that these companies are owned by states that also own the clubs. Most other clubs have to follow a market based approach to securing the highest possible sponsorship deal for their club.

PSG and City on the other hand are effectively sponsored by their owners, creating a vehicle to enhance their revenue base that isn't available to most other clubs/owners.

Are PSG going to fail FFP on the back of the Mbappe and Neymar signings? No, because the owners are quite obviously just going to increase the Qatar Tourism sponsorship until their revenue covers it, and UEFA have set the precedent to allow it.

Still don't understand how either deal passes the Related Party Transaction clause under FFP, but they did, so there you go. I look forward to the games' first €500m player 2 years from now.

Whether people believe it or not, we are a privately owned club, not a state owned club. That was stated pretty clearly when the takeover happened and long before FFP was invented to stop us.

Secondly, Sheikh Mansour has no direct influence or control over any of our sponsors, and as such they are not related parties according to international accounting laws and FFP regs. He doesn't have a significant ownership of any of them and doesn't sit on the board (or have his board members sit on the board). People will choose to believe what they want I guess and I'm sure many people believe that he runs every business in Abu Dhabi. I would't know what his influence there is, but according to the rules it's not a related party transaction.

Perhaps most importantly related party sponsorships are not banned under FFP. Bet365 sponsor Stoke. King Power owns Leicester. As long as the sponsorships are fair market value there isn't a problem. Perhaps the biggest pointer of the legitimacy of our sponsorship with Etihad is that 7 years down the track it hasn't been renegotiated, and right now is hugely undervalued. And even if it was deemed that the Etihad sponsorship was a related party transaction there's nothing UEFA would do about it because we get the same (almost certainly less) than we would if we were sponsored by someone else.

FWIW in the first FFP monitoring period UEFA accepted the Etihad sponsorship fully. They ruled that we couldn't add any more second tier sponsors from Abu Dhabi, or increase the value of those sponsorships. As far as I know we haven't.

PSG I think lost some of their sponsorship because it was backdated.

As for the first €500m player, that'll happen I'm sure. But our record signing is just over £50m. Probably less than you'll pay for Keita. People seem to be keen to throw us in with PSG since Neymar though.

 

[SM]

Whether people believe it or not, we are a privately owned club, not a state owned club. That was stated pretty clearly when the takeover happened and long before FFP was invented to stop us.

Secondly, Sheikh Mansour has no direct influence or control over any of our sponsors, and as such they are not related parties according to international accounting laws and FFP regs. He doesn't have a significant ownership of any of them and doesn't sit on the board (or have his board members sit on the board). People will choose to believe what they want I guess and I'm sure many people believe that he runs every business in Abu Dhabi. I would't know what his influence there is, but according to the rules it's not a related party transaction.

Perhaps most importantly related party sponsorships are not banned under FFP. Bet365 sponsor Stoke. King Power owns Leicester. As long as the sponsorships are fair market value there isn't a problem. Perhaps the biggest pointer of the legitimacy of our sponsorship with Etihad is that 7 years down the track it hasn't been renegotiated, and right now is hugely undervalued. And even if it was deemed that the Etihad sponsorship was a related party transaction there's nothing UEFA would do about it because we get the same (almost certainly less) than we would if we were sponsored by someone else.

FWIW in the first FFP monitoring period UEFA accepted the Etihad sponsorship fully. They ruled that we couldn't add any more second tier sponsors from Abu Dhabi, or increase the value of those sponsorships. As far as I know we haven't.

PSG I think lost some of their sponsorship because it was backdated.

As for the first €500m player, that'll happen I'm sure. But our record signing is just over £50m. Probably less than you'll pay for Keita. People seem to be keen to throw us in with PSG since Neymar though.

That's not the definition.

Your owner and the chair of Etihad's board of directors are both members of the Abu Dhabi ruling family.

Manchester City and Etihad are related parties.

 

[moomba]

That's not the definition.

Your owner and the chair of Etihad's board of directors are both members of the Abu Dhabi ruling family.

Manchester City and Etihad are related parties.

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf

 

[SM]

View attachment 412874

What do you think point 2 and 3 f) mean?

 

[moomba]

What do you think point 2 and 3 f) mean?

It doesn't apply to Mansour as far as I can see.

He doesn't have control or joint control over Etihad
There's no evidence to suggest he has significant influence over their activities
He's not a member of the management team of Etihad or their parent company

 

[Bojan KantKick]

#rekt

 

[Bojan KantKick]

'A person or a close member of the persons family....' How close do you want Moomba. Mansours half brother is chairman of Etihad.

 

[SM]

It doesn't apply to Mansour as far as I can see.

He doesn't have control or joint control over Etihad
There's no evidence to suggest he has significant influence over their activities
He's not a member of the management team of Etihad or their parent company

Huh?

Read it again.

Mansour, who has control over Manchester City is related to Zayed Al Nahyan, making Zayed Al Nahyan a related party of Manchester City per point 2.

Zayed Al Nahyan has control over Etihad, making Etihad a related party of both Mansour and Manchester City as per point 3 f).

 

[moomba]

'A person or a close member of the persons family....' How close do you want Moomba. Mansours half brother is chairman of Etihad.

a) Close members of the family of a person are those family members who may be expected to influence, or be influenced by, that individual in their dealings with the entity. They may include that person’s children and spouse or domestic partner, children of that person’s spouse or domestic partner, and dependants of that person or that person’s spouse or domestic partner.

 

[moomba]

Huh?

Read it again.

Mansour, who has control over Manchester City is related to Zayed Al Nahyan, making Zayed Al Nahyan a related party of Manchester City per point 2.

Zayed Al Nahyan has control over Etihad, making Etihad a related party of both Mansour and Manchester City as per point 3 f).

As answered above. But as I mentioned before, even if you deemed Etihad a related party it still doesn't mean they can't sponsor us, and for it to be allowed as income for the purposes of FFP.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

So you agree that it's bullshit that you get away with it but you get away with it because they are half brothers rather than the sheiks child yeah

 

[SM]

As answered above.

A close family member is still a related party mate. Close family being parents or siblings.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

I'll have to get Woody and Gill to close that City/PSG loophole.

 

[SM]

.

"Include" means not limited to last time I checked.

 

[moomba]

So you agree that it's bullshit that you get away with it but you get away with it because they are half brothers rather than the sheiks child yeah

According to the rules it's not a related party.

But I don't know that it's a case of getting away with it. As I mentioned before it's an undervalued sponsorship and has been for several years (as a lot of long term sponsorships end up being). So even if it was deemed related party it would be accepted by UEFA anyway.

Don't see why a company owned by a relative of a football club owner should be banned from sponsoring it if they see value in it.

 

[moomba]

I'll have to get Woody and Gill to close that City/PSG loophole.

I'm sure they don't need your prompting. Ha ha.

 

[Magma]

so at the worst, we remove the etihad sponsorship?

could probably get a better deal elsewhere too.

 

[SM]

According to the rules it's not a related party.

But I don't know that it's a case of getting away with it. As I mentioned before it's an undervalued sponsorship and has been for several years (as a lot of long term sponsorships end up being). So even if it was deemed related party it would be accepted by UEFA anyway.

Don't see why a company owned by a relative of a football club owner should be banned from sponsoring it if they see value in it.

Who said there was anything wrong with it? I just pointed out they are related parties. As long as it's conducted at arm's length then they can be as related as you want.

 

[moomba]

Who said there was anything wrong with it? I just pointed out they are related parties. As long as it's conducted at arm's length then they can be as related as you want.

Lets agree to disagree.

 

[SM]

Lets agree to disagree.

I don't think you understand that I'm essentially agreeing with you.. I just don't understand why you're trying to deny it's a related party.

 

[moomba]

I don't think you understand that I'm essentially agreeing with you.. I just don't understand why you're trying to deny it's a related party.

Because in my opinion it isn't. In the clubs opinion it isn't as they do not list Etihad in the transactions with related parties section of their accounts. In yours it is.

So let's agree to disagree on that.

 

[FAITH]

[/QUOTE]

 

[Art Vandelay_]

'A person or a close member of the persons family....' How close do you want Moomba. Mansours half brother is chairman of Etihad.

Too far removed. Needs to be a full brother to qualify