Football club finances / FFP

[ADL9798]

Following our lead? We're allowed to seek sponsorships from UAE companies, just as Liverpool and Man United are allowed to seek sponsorships from American companies.

If anything I would say some of the Liverpool sponsorships are more open to abuse as FSG could easily inflate the Liverpool sponsorships from Warrior, Dunkin Donuts etc and decrease the sponsorships of the Redsox by the same companies.

It all goes into the same pot, but the Redsox aren't restricted by FFP so who cares if they get a bit less and Liverpool get a bit more.

Big difference between a private holding company like FSG developing commercial relationships with other private companies; and Man City (owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family) being sponsored by Etihad Airways (also owned and administrated by the Abu Dhabi royal family) or PSG (owned by the Qatari royal family) being sponsored by the Qatari Tourism Authority (also owned and administrated by the Qatari royal family), indirectly taking money out of the back pocket and putting it in the hip pocket of the same pair of pants and allowing the owners to continue financing their respective clubs (within the laws of Financial Fair Play I might add).

Like I said, you've both found an obvious loophole in what UEFA thought was a watertight system and good luck to you. It's a very clever & creative move from the boards of both clubs, but I don't know why you keep trying to claim that those agreements are actually 'independent' or in any way comparable to the sponsorship arrangements seen at 99% of other clubs. Maybe if FSG also owned a big telecommunications company or something along those lines which also sponsored Liverpool you might have a point. To be honest I just love the idea of the UEFA board members tearing the hair out of their toupées as the 2 clubs I imagine they were intending to restrict with these rules run rings around them with these huge deals. Well played.

 

[moomba]

Big difference between a private holding company like FSG developing commercial relationships with other private companies; and Man City (owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family) being sponsored by Etihad Airways (also owned and administrated by the Abu Dhabi royal family) or PSG (owned by the Qatari royal family) being sponsored by the Qatari Tourism Authority (also owned and administrated by the Qatari royal family), indirectly taking money out of the back pocket and putting it in the hip pocket of the same pair of pants and allowing the owners to continue financing their respective clubs (within the laws of Financial Fair Play I might add).

Man City isn't owned by the Abu Dhabi Royal family.

Like I said, you've both found an obvious loophole in what UEFA thought was a watertight system and good luck to you. It's a very clever & creative move from the boards of both clubs, but I don't know why you keep trying to claim that those agreements are actually 'independent' or in any way comparable to the sponsorship arrangements seen at 99% of other clubs. Maybe if FSG also owned a big telecommunications company or something along those lines which also sponsored Liverpool you might have a point. To be honest I just love the idea of the UEFA board members tearing the hair out of their toupées as the 2 clubs I imagine they were intending to restrict with these rules run rings around them with these huge deals. Well played.

They are independent according to the laws of the land and accounting standards used in the UK and Europe. Etihad (who incidentally have their European headquarters in Manchester and have had for years) have no influence over the running of our club. Sheikh Mansour has no control over the running of Etihad. No directors or owners of Etihad are directors or owners of Man City, and vice versa.

And even if it was a related party transaction it wouldn't change anything. £40m a year (if it's that) for shirt, stadium and 80 acres of East Manchester cannot seriously be considered as above market value given the deals in place at other clubs.

Personally I think Etihad have got a cracking deal. 7th Wembley appearance in the Etihad shirt coming up. Champions league, league and FA Cup to come. I expect we'll be asking a lot more when we renegotiate.

 

[Cooldude]

what UEFA thought was a watertight system.

HAHAHAHAHA surely they didn't, right...

If UEFA told me it's gonna be sunny today I'd be wearing 5 rain coats with a massive umbrella inside an ark

 

[Zidane98]

Would be interested to see what the unsuccessful bidders offered for the City sponsorship rights. Doubt it would be anywhere near what was offered by Etihad.

 

[moomba]

Would be interested to see what the unsuccessful bidders offered for the City sponsorship rights. Doubt it would be anywhere near what was offered by Etihad.

Just like Liverpool and Warrior I suspect we didnt put an ad in the paper inviting bids.

Or was it just coincidence that Warrior, dunkin donuts, baskin & Robins etc just happenened to be the highest bidders for Liverpool contracts as well as the Redsox.

If our sponsorship was renegotiated today it would be worth more than we get now.

 

[ADL9798]

Man City isn't owned by the Abu Dhabi Royal family.

Indirectly, yes. My understanding is that City is owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). This group is owned by Sheikh Mansour who as the brother of the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and a fully fledged member of the royal family, is able to draw from the £500 billion Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund and invest in projects which he believes will increase the profile of Abu Dhabi and assist the nation in diversifying their economy to safeguard against a future where it is anticipated that oil might not be as valuable a commodity as it is today (look up the '2030 Abu Dhabi Economic Vision').

From the supporter's perspective this is great news, as it means that the owners aren't solely focused on making money out of Manchester City as we see with some other clubs. Their #1 priority with this investment is to ensure the Abu Dhabi 'brand' is recognizable all over the world and the best way to do this is to develop Manchester City into one of the biggest and most successful clubs in the world.

With regards to FFP, for legal and accounting purposes ADUG is a private equity firm which uses Sheikh Mansour's private fortune. They make no differentiation between the money he has earnt through his businesses and the state wealth he is entitled to invest where he sees fit as a member of the Royal Family. Therefore, UEFA will never be able to prove a link between City, it's owners and Etihad Airways. That doesn't mean the link doesn't exist, it clearly does, it just means that Mansour's lawyers have worked the system in their favour and have outpointed UEFA superbly to ensure they encounter no obstacles on the road to achieving their goal.

They are independent according to the laws of the land and accounting standards used in the UK and Europe. Etihad (who incidentally have their European headquarters in Manchester and have had for years) have no influence over the running of our club. Sheikh Mansour has no control over the running of Etihad. No directors or owners of Etihad are directors or owners of Man City, and vice versa.

According to the laws of the land and UEFA's rules on related party sponsorship deals they are independent, you're absolutely right. However it's difficult to overlook the fact that the chairman of Etihad Airways is Sheikh Mansour's brother, and that Etihad is one of many state owned companies which are all managed by members of the Abu Dhabi royal family. Essentially the presence of that private equity firm as Manchester City's parent company ensures that you pass all of UEFA's rules but to say there's no link at all? Haha mate are you working for City's PR team?

 

[ADL9798]

 

[Magma]

pretty sure there should be more focus on paris st germain having FORTY THREE MILLION more in commercial revenue than real madrid. real bloody madrid. and 17 mil more than the team that won everything in front of them.

if anyone can look at that and still believe that ffp was ever meant to be anything except a way to make the big boys bigger then i just don't know anymore

 

[ADL9798]

Broken down into commercial revenue, the biggest earners are:

1. Paris St Germain (254.7)
2. Bayern Munich (237.1)
3. Real Madrid (211.6)
4. Manchester United (177.9)
5. Barcelona (176.8)
6. Manchester City (166.9)
7. Liverpool (114)
8. Borussia Dortmund (109)
9. Chelsea (97.9)
10. AC Milan (96.2)
11. Schalke (92.8)
12. Arsenal (72.8)
13. Galatasaray (69.7)
14. Juventus (68.4)
15. Internazionale (67.9)
16. Hamburger SV (67.5)
17. Fenerbache (55.7)
18. Tottenham (52.4)
19. Atletico de Madrid (40)
20. AS Roma (38.3)

 

[moomba]

Indirectly, yes. My understanding is that City is owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). This group is owned by Sheikh Mansour who as the brother of the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and a fully fledged member of the royal family, is able to draw from the £500 billion Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund and invest in projects which he believes will increase the profile of Abu Dhabi and assist the nation in diversifying their economy to safeguard against a future where it is anticipated that oil might not be as valuable a commodity as it is today (look up the '2030 Abu Dhabi Economic Vision').

From the supporter's perspective this is great news, as it means that the owners aren't solely focused on making money out of Manchester City as we see with some other clubs. Their #1 priority with this investment is to ensure the Abu Dhabi 'brand' is recognizable all over the world and the best way to do this is to develop Manchester City into one of the biggest and most successful clubs in the world.

With regards to FFP, for legal and accounting purposes ADUG is a private equity firm which uses Sheikh Mansour's private fortune. They make no differentiation between the money he has earnt through his businesses and the state wealth he is entitled to invest where he sees fit as a member of the Royal Family. Therefore, UEFA will never be able to prove a link between City, it's owners and Etihad Airways. That doesn't mean the link doesn't exist, it clearly does, it just means that Mansour's lawyers have worked the system in their favour and have outpointed UEFA superbly to ensure they encounter no obstacles on the road to achieving their goal.

So you've made a presumption based on no evidence whatsoever.

I'm amazed that you understand that ADUG make no differentiation between Mansours money and state money as they were set up for the specific purpose of buying the club and have never made any public statement whatsoever.

According to the laws of the land and UEFA's rules on related party sponsorship deals they are independent, you're absolutely right. However it's difficult to overlook the fact that the chairman of Etihad Airways is Sheikh Mansour's brother, and that Etihad is one of many state owned companies which are all managed by members of the Abu Dhabi royal family. Essentially the presence of that private equity firm as Manchester City's parent company ensures that you pass all of UEFA's rules but to say there's no link at all? Haha mate are you working for City's PR team?

By every accounting standard in the UK and Europe the two are not related parties just as Warrior and FSG are not related parties despite their significant mutual interests in America. End of story and you don't need PR to point that out.

 

[iluvparis]

View attachment 41201

Don't the Italians go to any of the games?

 

[ADL9798]

So you've made a presumption based on no evidence whatsoever.

No, I've used common sense based on the available evidence, where do you think that Mansour's money is coming from? Hidden treasure out in the desert? He's not buying Man City with his own personal fortune to use as a plaything like Abramovich, it's an investment made in the interests of Abu Dhabi as a nation therefore it makes sense that the financing would originate from the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, before being directed through this private equity firm and into the club.

I'm amazed that you understand that ADUG make no differentiation between Mansours money and state money as they were set up for the specific purpose of buying the club and have never made any public statement whatsoever.

Sorry I meant 'they' as in UEFA would be unable to make a differentiation when it comes to whether the ADUG money comes from Mansour's private fortune vs sovereign wealth. That was the whole point of Mansour setting up a private equity firm as Manchester City's parent company rather than just having it as a state owned asset (like Etihad). If it was state owned then UEFA may have had a leg to stand on when it came to assessing the Etihad deal with regards to related parties etc, as it is Mansour's lawyers have perfectly engineered it and the deal is above board.

PSG's Qatari owners have followed a similar strategy although they've been slightly more blatant about it!

 

[moomba]

No, I've used common sense based on the available evidence, where do you think that Mansour's money is coming from? Hidden treasure out in the desert? He's not buying Man City with his own personal fortune to use as a plaything like Abramovich, it's an investment made in the interests of Abu Dhabi as a nation therefore it makes sense that the financing would originate from the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, before being directed through this private equity firm and into the club.

I'm fine with you guessing, but you could at least acknowledge that you are guessing.

In his initial statement to supporters Sheikh Mansour clarified that it was a personal investment, and he was the only stakeholder in ADUG.

If you have evidence to the contrary then by all means share. But you probably should stop spouting guesswork as if it was fact.

Sorry I meant 'they' as in UEFA would be unable to make a differentiation when it comes to whether the ADUG money comes from Mansour's private fortune vs sovereign wealth. That was the whole point of Mansour setting up a private equity firm as Manchester City's parent company rather than just having it as a state owned asset (like Etihad). If it was state owned then UEFA may have had a leg to stand on when it came to assessing the Etihad deal with regards to related parties etc, as it is Mansour's lawyers have perfectly engineered it and the deal is above board.

PSG's Qatari owners have followed a similar strategy although they've been slightly more blatant about it!

So the whole point of using ADUG as an investment vehicle was to get around a rule that didnt exist when it was established. Solid logic there.

 

[moomba]

Our report has been released http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2014/January/Club-annual-report

In summary:
- Revenue £271m
- Debt reduced to £0
- Losses down from £97.9m to £51.6m

So we've got to get the combined loss of £149.5m over the last two years down to around £38m to pass FFP from memory. Take out £30-35m in spending on facilities, infrastructure and youth development and (I believe) £70m on pre-June 2010 obligations and we're pretty close to the mark. I'm sure something will be briefed regarding FFP in the near future.

 

[Magma]

all the 'accountants' on twitter will be out in force.

 

[moomba]

Journo's are suggesting we've passed. I think the pre-June 2010 exemption is a one off so we'll need to improve next season as well. But with the new TV deal and a better champs league performance we've made a good start.

 

[moomba]

all the 'accountants' on twitter will be out in force.

I do actually think twitter might drown in a flood of tears. Brilliant reading.

 

[chef]

Interesting article on City.........
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-uefas-financial-fair-play-rules-9097609.html

 

[moomba]

Interesting article on City.........
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-uefas-financial-fair-play-rules-9097609.html

They might think it's unusual, but we can sell image rights to any external company and theres nothing UEFA can do about it. It wasnt sold to a subsidiary (as is being inferred) as it would then have needed to have been declared as a related party transaction.

I'm sure the IP sale will be looked at for fair value, but doesnt seem overly excessive. IIRC it wasnt sold to Melbourne Heart or NYCFC, but to the City Football Group that will charge members of the group as they see fit.

 

[moomba]

Hee hee. Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal are all ready to appeal to UEFA to try and get us kicked out of Europe. Sure United won't be too far behind.

Good luck with that guys.

 

[Zidane98]

Just like Liverpool and Warrior I suspect we didnt put an ad in the paper inviting bids.

Or was it just coincidence that Warrior, dunkin donuts, baskin & Robins etc just happenened to be the highest bidders for Liverpool contracts as well as the Redsox.

If our sponsorship was renegotiated today it would be worth more than we get now.

Realistically you are behind Man U, Arsenal & Liverpool in terms of marketing & commercial appeal - all 3 have massive worldwide supporter bases, I would suggest that your sponsorship deal is inflated if it is significantly more then those 3 clubs. Arsenal receive 30 million a year for kit & stadium naming rights from Emirates who are a far greater commercial concern than Etihad. City are clearly not as commercially attractive as Arsenal and get 40 million a year for kit/stadium naming rights (on a stadium they do not own) so IMO your sponsorship deal is inflated.


It does look like UEFA will do nothing about inflated sponsor deals as PSG's sponsorship by Qatar tourism authority is a far more blatant disregard for FFP albeit technically legal.


And a massive lol at comparing the relationship of dunkin donuts/FSG to Etihad / Sheikh Mansour (brother is director). The only thing Dunkin Donuts have in common is that they sponsor both sporting clubs owned by FSG. Big difference.

 

[Zidane98]

Hee hee. Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal are all ready to appeal to UEFA to try and get us kicked out of Europe. Sure United won't be too far behind.

Good luck with that guys.

Don't know why Chelsea are appealing. Yes they made a profit in 11/12 thanks to winning the Champions League but last season they went back to a loss of 50 million pound.

City are cheating by breaking FFP rules so UEFA should show some balls and enforce their rules if they are truly serious about FFP which I doubt they are. They should be looking at PSG first before City IMO.

 

[chef]

I guess Chelsea's appealing as we are trying to abide by the rules.

 

[Zidane98]

I guess Chelsea's appealing as we are trying to abide by the rules.

That would probably explain the Mata sale. The Roman/Chelsea of old would of just hung on to a quality player even if he didn't fit in. Good on him if he is trying to run the club responsibly and within FFP rules.

 

[Magma]

which ffp rules are we breaking