Rosenrot Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Hate the commercialisation of football so so much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Hmmmm considering the council own it and City got it for free you would like to see more of it going to them but I suppose I am surprised they are getting any. Not sure on the exact amount going to the council actually. SSN said Man City were getting £100m for a 10 year deal and that because of their current deal they'd have to pay £4m per season to the council for the next 5 years. But that may just be because there current deal with the council only lasts for 5 years. Any new deal and they may have to keep paying, so it could end up as £4m per season for 10 years to the council. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCONA Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Just booking some flights with Etihad now 'cos Man City's stadium bears their name Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 £10 million a season?! Incredible. Man City will only see £6-£8m of that though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCONA Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 only Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 £10 million a season?! Incredible. Man City will only see £6-£8m of that though. Which would cover the wages of about 3 players for a month or two. Waste of time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Al Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 A way to get round the new financial regulations of Platini and co., anyone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 only In comparison to £10m Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 A way to get round the new financial regulations of Platini and co., anyone? That's going to be a big part of it yeah, though this will hardly make a dent. Still worth doing financially of course, but I would have expected a better deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliGupter Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Doesn't "Etihad" translate to "United"? Union. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Al Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I presume that this is just the beginning. I'm sure that they can 'agree' a deal for let's say 300m +, but it will raise too much questions and the goal finally [to have much increased T/O in order to pay more fees and wages] won't be achieved. So they are doing it step by step. Morons, as our beloved club will continue to suffer under Fat Ash - add the Gulf financial engineering on top of that and we'll fight in the mini League of bottom half for years to come... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Are you suggesting this is some kind of fake deal paid for by the Man City owners to artificially increase the clubs revenue? I seriously doubt that, its a genuine Sponsorship and obviously the best deal they could get. Man City are certainly going to be trying their best to increase revenue as much as possible in order to stay within the new rules. But I also think they'll need to decrease their spending to achieve it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Doesn't "Etihad" translate to "United"? Union. Metro seems to think it translates to United... Man City unwittingly name Etihad Stadium 'in honour' of rivals United Manchester City have unveiled shirt sponsors Etihad Airways as their new stadium naming rights partner - but soon became the butt of online jokes after word spread that Etihad means 'united' when translated from Arabic to English. The blunder is sure to draw a wry smile from the Red half of Manchester, but it's City who will be laughing all the way to the bank with the ten-year deal set to net the club up to £100million. Money hasn't been an issue since Sheikh Mansour took ownership of the Blues, with a reported £1billion invested in the club. New financial fair play rules set to be enforced by Uefa for the upcoming season had City administrators keen to balance the books after a record loss of £121.3million was posted for the last financial year. Champions League qualification has raised City fans' hopes that more silverware is around the corner. But bragging rights count for just as much and a kind of 'home advantage' may well have been handed to Sir Alex Ferguson when his side goes to Etihad (United) Stadium for the Manchester derby. It's the sort of embarrassing chuckle money can't buy for the Red Devils... The re-branding was announced today by City chief executive Garry Cook who said: 'We are delighted to be expanding our relationship with Etihad Airways through this comprehensive partnership agreement.' We're not sure the fans feel the same way. Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/oddballs/868740-manchester-city-unwittingly-name-etihad-stadium-in-honour-of-rivals-united#ixzz1Rawi6UXw If so, then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amir_9 Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Etihad means Union or a Unity. Not United. That would be Motahed (United). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Etihad means Union or a Unity. Not United. That would be Motahed (United). The UK press don't let pesky things like facts get in the way of a story. You should know better! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GAMMELL Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Fucking horrible pricks either way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Jerusalem Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Etihad means Union or a Unity. Not United. That would be Motahed (United). http://i55.tinypic.com/30136sk.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Why worry about things such as details and accuracy when writing an article, classic old English journalism Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Etihad means Union or a Unity. Not United. That would be Motahed (United). http://i55.tinypic.com/30136sk.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Lemmy's band? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Are you suggesting this is some kind of fake deal paid for by the Man City owners to artificially increase the clubs revenue? I seriously doubt that, its a genuine Sponsorship and obviously the best deal they could get. Man City are certainly going to be trying their best to increase revenue as much as possible in order to stay within the new rules. But I also think they'll need to decrease their spending to achieve it. The figure that's quoted in the times is £400m over 10 years, although that seems to include things like the development of land around the ground as well. I think we can take it as read that City will try to stretch the rules of Financial Fair Play as far as they can. This sponsorship looks dodgy because Etihad Airlines and Man City are both owned by the Abu Dhabi Government. UEFA have given themselves the power to reject subsidies that are disguised as sponsorships, but how tough they'll be, remains to be seen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Are you suggesting this is some kind of fake deal paid for by the Man City owners to artificially increase the clubs revenue? I seriously doubt that, its a genuine Sponsorship and obviously the best deal they could get. Man City are certainly going to be trying their best to increase revenue as much as possible in order to stay within the new rules. But I also think they'll need to decrease their spending to achieve it. The figure that's quoted in the times is £400m over 10 years, although that seems to include things like the development of land around the ground as well. I think we can take it as read that City will try to stretch the rules of Financial Fair Play as far as they can. This sponsorship looks dodgy because Etihad Airlines and Man City are both owned by the Abu Dhabi Government. UEFA have given themselves the power to reject subsidies that are disguised as sponsorships, but how tough they'll be, remains to be seen. here's how they are hoping to get round it..http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/city-seal-sponsorship-deal-worth-400m-with-etihad-2309387.html.. Manchester City have sealed one of world's most ambitious sports sponsorship deals, which is structured in a way which gives them a substantial chance of complying with Uefa's new financial fair play (FFP) rules and avoiding future expulsion from European competition. City's extension of its sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways is worth up to £400m to the club over 10 years and saw the City of Manchester Stadium become the Etihad Stadium, as of yesterday. But the most significant part of the deal is City's proposed purchase of a vast area of east Manchester from the cash-strapped local city council, which enables the club to create a potentially huge area of facilities, all of which can accrue sponsorship revenues. City hope that the area, currently wasteland, will form part of the new "Etihad Campus" to include the club's relocated training ground, youth set-up, a sports science facility and an Etihad call centre, as well as the City Square retail space already created. This area can "grow and grow," City chief executive Garry Cook said yesterday. The costs of infrastructure projects – including the £20m over five years which the local council are being paid for the land – are not counted when Uefa analyses a club's incomings and outgoings to ensure its losses do not exceed those stipulated by the FFP regime – so the new campus creates an abundance of sponsorship opportunities but effectively no cost to create them. It can enable the club to drag itself away from latest losses of £121m, run up during the breakneck pursuit of a Champions League place, and towards the break-even figure Uefa demands. Related articles City's campus project buys club breathing space Search the news archive for more stories Cook yesterday declined to detail the breakdown of the deal, though by allowing sponsorship of the club's shirt, stadium and the campus facilities – if planning permission is secured – they have surpassed the $300m (£186m) that JP Morgan Chase has reputedly agreed to pay over 10 years to have its name on the new Madison Square Garden, which is due to open in 2013 and Citigroup's deal with the New York Mets of about $400m (£248m) over 20 years. Uefa's head of club licensing, Andrea Traverso – the man tasked with introducing the FFP system by president Michel Platini – has pledged that he will rigorously seek out any attempts by wealthy benefactors to use sponsorship deals to inflate the balance sheets of teams they own. But though City's £40m-a-year deal dwarfs that struck by other Premier League clubs – Tottenham and Chelsea have so far failed to secure £10-15m deals; Arsenal's shirt and stadium deal with Emirates was £100m over 15 years – the Etihad Campus element will allow City to argue strongly that their deal is about far more than the club's shirt and stadium and that owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan is not using Etihad as a device for investing in City. Etihad is government-owned – in other words, owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family, but chief executive John Hogan said yesterday that the seven-year-old carrier which has been voted airline of the year for the past two years, is an independent business. "If this deal didn't add up, I would not be doing it," he said. "We are a stand-alone business owned by the Emiracy but we are responsible for out own activities." City chief executive Garry Cook said: "We have had several meetings with Uefa. They are very supportive of our plans." Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel, under the chairmanship of former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, will examine all sponsorship deals to ensure they fall within market rates. But it may be difficult for Uefa to follow the cash trail on Etihad's sponsorship deal. Bloomberg established last night that Etihad's annual accounts do not detail sponsorship spend. That means it is unclear whether the £40m going to City will be accounted for. The perimeter advertising at City's stadium is already dominated by Abu Dhabi companies, with the telecommunication company Etisalat, Aaabar Investments PJSC, the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority key contributors to a 400 per cent rise in revenues from sponsors and partners, to £32.4m last year. Cook said it was "clearly evident" that there was a strong Abu Dhabi bias. "If other partners from outside the Abu Dhabi want to join us we will consider that, but like all propositions they have to be the right proposition," he said. Mr Traverso was unavailable to discuss City, though a Uefa spokesman said the organisation was "aware of the situation and our experts will make assessments of fair value of any sponsorship deals using benchmarks." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Are you suggesting this is some kind of fake deal paid for by the Man City owners to artificially increase the clubs revenue? I seriously doubt that, its a genuine Sponsorship and obviously the best deal they could get. Man City are certainly going to be trying their best to increase revenue as much as possible in order to stay within the new rules. But I also think they'll need to decrease their spending to achieve it. The figure that's quoted in the times is £400m over 10 years, although that seems to include things like the development of land around the ground as well. I think we can take it as read that City will try to stretch the rules of Financial Fair Play as far as they can. This sponsorship looks dodgy because Etihad Airlines and Man City are both owned by the Abu Dhabi Government. UEFA have given themselves the power to reject subsidies that are disguised as sponsorships, but how tough they'll be, remains to be seen. here's how they are hoping to get round it..http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/city-seal-sponsorship-deal-worth-400m-with-etihad-2309387.html.. Manchester City have sealed one of world's most ambitious sports sponsorship deals, which is structured in a way which gives them a substantial chance of complying with Uefa's new financial fair play (FFP) rules and avoiding future expulsion from European competition. City's extension of its sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways is worth up to £400m to the club over 10 years and saw the City of Manchester Stadium become the Etihad Stadium, as of yesterday. But the most significant part of the deal is City's proposed purchase of a vast area of east Manchester from the cash-strapped local city council, which enables the club to create a potentially huge area of facilities, all of which can accrue sponsorship revenues. City hope that the area, currently wasteland, will form part of the new "Etihad Campus" to include the club's relocated training ground, youth set-up, a sports science facility and an Etihad call centre, as well as the City Square retail space already created. This area can "grow and grow," City chief executive Garry Cook said yesterday. The costs of infrastructure projects – including the £20m over five years which the local council are being paid for the land – are not counted when Uefa analyses a club's incomings and outgoings to ensure its losses do not exceed those stipulated by the FFP regime – so the new campus creates an abundance of sponsorship opportunities but effectively no cost to create them. It can enable the club to drag itself away from latest losses of £121m, run up during the breakneck pursuit of a Champions League place, and towards the break-even figure Uefa demands. Related articles City's campus project buys club breathing space Search the news archive for more stories Cook yesterday declined to detail the breakdown of the deal, though by allowing sponsorship of the club's shirt, stadium and the campus facilities – if planning permission is secured – they have surpassed the $300m (£186m) that JP Morgan Chase has reputedly agreed to pay over 10 years to have its name on the new Madison Square Garden, which is due to open in 2013 and Citigroup's deal with the New York Mets of about $400m (£248m) over 20 years. Uefa's head of club licensing, Andrea Traverso – the man tasked with introducing the FFP system by president Michel Platini – has pledged that he will rigorously seek out any attempts by wealthy benefactors to use sponsorship deals to inflate the balance sheets of teams they own. But though City's £40m-a-year deal dwarfs that struck by other Premier League clubs – Tottenham and Chelsea have so far failed to secure £10-15m deals; Arsenal's shirt and stadium deal with Emirates was £100m over 15 years – the Etihad Campus element will allow City to argue strongly that their deal is about far more than the club's shirt and stadium and that owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan is not using Etihad as a device for investing in City. Etihad is government-owned – in other words, owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family, but chief executive John Hogan said yesterday that the seven-year-old carrier which has been voted airline of the year for the past two years, is an independent business. "If this deal didn't add up, I would not be doing it," he said. "We are a stand-alone business owned by the Emiracy but we are responsible for out own activities." City chief executive Garry Cook said: "We have had several meetings with Uefa. They are very supportive of our plans." Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel, under the chairmanship of former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, will examine all sponsorship deals to ensure they fall within market rates. But it may be difficult for Uefa to follow the cash trail on Etihad's sponsorship deal. Bloomberg established last night that Etihad's annual accounts do not detail sponsorship spend. That means it is unclear whether the £40m going to City will be accounted for. The perimeter advertising at City's stadium is already dominated by Abu Dhabi companies, with the telecommunication company Etisalat, Aaabar Investments PJSC, the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority key contributors to a 400 per cent rise in revenues from sponsors and partners, to £32.4m last year. Cook said it was "clearly evident" that there was a strong Abu Dhabi bias. "If other partners from outside the Abu Dhabi want to join us we will consider that, but like all propositions they have to be the right proposition," he said. Mr Traverso was unavailable to discuss City, though a Uefa spokesman said the organisation was "aware of the situation and our experts will make assessments of fair value of any sponsorship deals using benchmarks." If I've read this right, they're arguing that the element of the £400m which is going towards developing the 'campus' is going to the infrastructure rather than the football side, and is therefore immune from FFP scrutiny. However, I'd have thought that the 'infrastructure' rule was there to allow clubs to develop their stadiums, training facilities etc The rule isn't there to allow the club's owner to start up a separate business with only a tenuous link to the football club, and then allow the profits or benefits of that enterprise to go to the club. If that's what they're proposing, then that sounds like cheating to me. It also sounds dodgy that those Abu Dhabi companies are paying large sums to be co-sponsors. You wonder what links they have with the Abu Dhabi government. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amir_9 Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Etihad means Union or a Unity. Not United. That would be Motahed (United). http://i55.tinypic.com/30136sk.jpg HAHA nice one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Mario Balotelli subbed after 30 minutes after going clean through then trying to backheel the finish - Angry exchanges with Mancini. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now