An excellent (long) article by @swissramble
Even JWH complimented the author on his articles
Even JWH complimented the author on his articles
-
-
good article that, long but well worth the read.Comment
-
Top clubs want Manchester City's £400m sponsorship deal vetoed By Rob Draper
Last updated at 10:44 PM on 9th July 2011
Europe's leading clubs will petition UEFA to block Manchester City's new £400million endorsement deal.
They want City's ground and shirt sponsorship contract with Etihad Airlines outlawed because they believe it has been artificially inflated in an attempt to balance the books.
UEFA's new Financial Fair Play rules insist clubs live within their means and City, who have incurred losses of £213.5m over the last two years, had little hope of complying before the huge deal.
The governing body also demand that clubs demonstrate they have received market value for any deal, to prevent owners from subsidising clubs through companies that are closely associated with them. UEFA's Independent Club Financial Control Panel will investigate the Etihad deal but rivals want to pressure them into action. If UEFA do outlaw the deal, boss Roberto Mancini could see his spending plans curtailed.
Opposition clubs have been emboldened by the fact the contract is a world record, outstripping even the remarkable £18m-a-year stadium naming rights deal the New Yorks Mets, a much-more established sports brand, have with Citibank.
The fact that Etihad was set up by the Emir of Abu Dhabi, Sheik Khalifa, who is the brother of City's owner, Sheik Mansour, has also fuelled their suspicions.
Etihad is the national airline carrier of Abu Dhabi and itself has never made a profit since it was formed in 2003, though it is expected to make money this year.
man city arent a big club, they dont have a worldwide fan base, they've got a rich owner who wants to spend loads to take city to the top. This sponsorship reeks of a conflict of interest and no wonder David Gill is ****ting in his pants.
The article says that Etihad has never made a profit and they want to spunk £400m on City. If Uefa, FIFA, CONCACAF, EFCICTO dont do something about this there's something wrong with football. Personally, i dont think city will be allowed in to the champions league as an example of a club that tried to **** with the establishment and got its poxy fingers burnt.Last edited by el matador; 09-07-11, 11:18 PM.[B]Sir Isaac Newton knew the universal law of karma - any action has its equal and opposite reaction.[B]Comment
-
City are the kind of club Uefa COULD ban from the CL, without much complaint from the TV companies/sponsors. A CL without Barca/Madrid/Man Utd etc, and the sponsors & TV companies would go potty.
Without City? Meh.Comment
-
But then that's biased towards those teams and unfair against City isn't it?Originally posted by Craig_H View Post
What just because City haven't been as successful as the above means UEFA should ban them.
This is what pisses me off in this day and age, too much money and power to clubs and tv companies and favourtism.
Things change in life and the same applies in football. City will be massive in a few years I reckon and we will be too and money will talk then.
Sad state of affairs.Klopp on LFC vs MUFC (March 9th 2016) - "This is why I love football. This is why we watched it when we were young. I can still not have enough of it."
Always, keep your face to the sun, and shadows will fall behind you.Comment
-
I didnt say it was fair and justOriginally posted by Slinky Skills View Post
But it's reality, Uefa will lose ****loads of tv revenues if they lose the broadcasters' support and the broadcasters are only interested in ratings, for their own ability to sell advertising slots.
No MUFC/Barcelona/Madrid etc in the CL, would have a majorly negative impact on ratings, which would **** up the broadcasters' ability to generate the kind of advertising revenues they do now. A lack of City in the CL wouldnt have any real impact on this.
That's the reality of it.Comment
-
Originally posted by Craig_H View PostI didnt say it was fair and just But it's reality, Uefa will lose ****loads of tv revenues if they lose the broadcasters' support and the broadcasters are only interested in ratings, for their own ability to sell advertising slots.
No MUFC/Barcelona/Madrid etc in the CL, would have a majorly negative impact on ratings, which would **** up the broadcasters' ability to generate the kind of advertising revenues they do now. A lack of City in the CL wouldnt have any real impact on this.
That's the reality of it.
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
-
Originally posted by Craig_H View PostI didnt say it was fair and just But it's reality, Uefa will lose ****loads of tv revenues if they lose the broadcasters' support and the broadcasters are only interested in ratings, for their own ability to sell advertising slots.
No MUFC/Barcelona/Madrid etc in the CL, would have a majorly negative impact on ratings, which would **** up the broadcasters' ability to generate the kind of advertising revenues they do now. A lack of City in the CL wouldnt have any real impact on this.
That's the reality of it. it's not right at all and just shows the corruption that exists at the top of the game but it's the harsh reality of how things are these days.
Christ I remember a couple of years ago UEFA decided to seed teams for the play-offs to get into to the Euro's when a number of the top teams had struggled to get throught the groups, why? exactly the same reasons tv revenue and sponsorship of the tournament.Comment
-
It's a clear and flagrant abuse of the FFP. As John Henry said, how much were the losing bids for? Oh that's right, there weren't any.
UEFA being UEFA though , I fully expect them to let city away with it.Last edited by G; 10-07-11, 10:44 AM.Comment
Comment