Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Man City to test Fair play rules

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
    #61
    It depends on what you mean by usurp the big boys, but whether or not they ever have the 'glamour' or fanbase of a top European giant, they will still win things.

    They hadnt won anything for nearly 40 years, and now they've won the cup within a couple of years of new ownership, which is clearly no coincidence. They'll keep spending and they'll keep winning. Nobody can say for sure what they'll win and when, but it's without doubt that they will be leading contenders for both the league and the CL for the foreseeable future, and sooner or later, they will be winning certainly the league IMO. The CL, being a cup competition, requires a bit more and as Chelsea and indeed Real Madrid have shown, without a bit of luck, it is one trophy that can be horribly elusive.

    So yeah, in terms of actually WINNING the CL - nobody can say for definite, but City will certainly be experiencing the latter stages of it in the next few years. Whether they win it or not remains to be seen, but i'd sure as hell love to be contending for it year in, year out as we used to do a few years back. City will be and that's simply because the amount of money they've spent will take any club to that level, given enough time.

    Comment

      #62
      Apparently, Etihad has never made an annual profit since it was formed, is HOPING to break even this year, and looking to make an annual profit for the first time, in 2012....and yet, they can afford to pay City £400m for these naming rights....

      "Financial Fair Play"

      Comment

        #63
        If UEFA allow this, they may as well rip up the financial fair play rules and chuck them in the bin now.
        The only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can't ignore it, top it; if you can't top it, laugh at it; if you can't laugh at it, it's probably deserved.

        Comment

          #64
          Originally posted by Exiled_red View Post
          If UEFA allow this, they may as well rip up the financial fair play rules and chuck them in the bin now.


          It's time for UEFA to prove themselves. ****ing billionaires who has so much money to spend on average players and ridiculos wages!!
          "Justice has been done."

          Comment

            #65
            I still don't understand how the lessee of a building can sell the naming rights to it?!
            Thanks for the memories Rafa - YNWA!

            Comment

              #66
              ffp. MY ARSE!

              5yrs ago, Arsenal did their stadium naming deal, 100mill over 15yrs, 5yrs on...and Citeh do their deal...500mill over 5yrs, so Citeh are getting what Arsenal got for 15yrs.... every, single, season! Which is 100mill!

              Is that really a fair interpretation of inflation for such deals ? I'll answer.....Is it bollocks!

              Comment

                #67
                Even our owner made comment about Wengers comments today.Clubs are not liking this one bit but my guess is they'll be let away with it cos UEFA are a shower of cunts.

                However I still cling to the small hope that UEFA will crucify them for it since they hate all English clubs and their massive wealth

                Comment

                  #68
                  Originally posted by Vermilion View Post
                  ffp. MY ARSE!

                  5yrs ago, Arsenal did their stadium naming deal, 100mill over 15yrs, 5yrs on...and Citeh do their deal...500mill over 5yrs, so Citeh are getting what Arsenal got for 15yrs.... every, single, season! Which is 100mill!

                  Is that really a fair interpretation of inflation for such deals ? I'll answer.....Is it bollocks!
                  There's an article on the BBC site today suggesting the cost of sponsorship deals in sport has actually gone down in recent years. The article is about cycling but the point made is a general one, although admittedly it specifically excludes "major deals".
                  .
                  Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



                  May the Lord bless this post.

                  Comment

                    #69
                    Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
                    There's an article on the BBC site today suggesting the cost of sponsorship deals in sport has actually gone down in recent years. The article is about cycling but the point made is a general one, although admittedly it specifically excludes "major deals".
                    It's absolutley farcical, City have basically just found a way to pump 100mill into the club every single season, on top of everything else they 'earn'.

                    If this is allowed, ffp is defunct already.

                    Comment

                      #70
                      Originally posted by PoolG View Post
                      Even our owner made comment about Wengers comments today.Clubs are not liking this one bit but my guess is they'll be let away with it cos UEFA are a shower of cunts.

                      However I still cling to the small hope that UEFA will crucify them for it since they hate all English clubs and their massive wealth
                      Trey Nyoni: countdown to stardom- 2 years 1year 0.5 years

                      Comment

                        #71
                        It's a complicated deal this one, and I still haven't seen it spelt out properly anywhere beyond headline grabbing one liners.

                        There's various components, naming rights for the stadium but then there's this whole other 'sports village' aspect to it. If a chunk of the money is for building/establishing this then not so bad, but if it is to name/sponsor it on top of building it then I think even UEFA will have to do something.

                        Chelsea have their hotel complex, with profits subsidising the club, this could be along those lines, a kind of bursary.

                        As mentioned I think we are lucky that its Man City doing this rather than Utd or Real Madrid etc as City a far more easily used as the example with less impact on sponsorships or 'political' uprising within the group of big clubs.
                        "that is my opinion and that is more important than what anyone else has to say about it" - Mr A.Fergusson, Oct 2011

                        Comment

                          #72
                          A long but good article about it here


                          http://andersred.blogspot.com/2011/07/look-at-manchester-citys-commercial.html

                          Comment

                            #73
                            Originally posted by BillobShaisley View Post
                            It's a complicated deal this one, and I still haven't seen it spelt out properly anywhere beyond headline grabbing one liners.

                            There's various components, naming rights for the stadium but then there's this whole other 'sports village' aspect to it. If a chunk of the money is for building/establishing this then not so bad, but if it is to name/sponsor it on top of building it then I think even UEFA will have to do something.

                            Chelsea have their hotel complex, with profits subsidising the club, this could be along those lines, a kind of bursary.

                            As mentioned I think we are lucky that its Man City doing this rather than Utd or Real Madrid etc as City a far more easily used as the example with less impact on sponsorships or 'political' uprising within the group of big clubs.

                            I thought that non-footballing income was to be kept seperate and not count as revenue generated by the club under the FFPR. So something like Chelsea Village (or whatever) couldn't be used to boost the clubs spending. (Presumably this stops owners linking other businesses to the club to get around the rules)
                            The only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can't ignore it, top it; if you can't top it, laugh at it; if you can't laugh at it, it's probably deserved.

                            Comment

                              #74
                              Originally posted by PoolG View Post
                              A long but good article about it here


                              http://andersred.blogspot.com/2011/0...ommercial.html
                              Another one here:

                              http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/07/manchester-citys-incredible-deal-know.html
                              "The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind."
                              -- William Blake

                              Comment

                                #75
                                Originally posted by BillobShaisley View Post
                                It's a complicated deal this one, and I still haven't seen it spelt out properly anywhere beyond headline grabbing one liners.

                                There's various components, naming rights for the stadium but then there's this whole other 'sports village' aspect to it. If a chunk of the money is for building/establishing this then not so bad, but if it is to name/sponsor it on top of building it then I think even UEFA will have to do something.

                                Chelsea have their hotel complex, with profits subsidising the club, this could be along those lines, a kind of bursary.

                                As mentioned I think we are lucky that its Man City doing this rather than Utd or Real Madrid etc as City a far more easily used as the example with less impact on sponsorships or 'political' uprising within the group of big clubs.
                                Income from peripheral businesses such as hotels does not count towards FPP.
                                Oh I don't know.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                                Working...
                                X