There don't seem to be many opportunities for legal grandstanding in the process. UEFA make a judgement - if the club doesn't like it it's only appeal is to the CAS. To date, in this and other matters, the CAS has taken the view that the rules were known to all participants - if a club chooses to ignore them, that's the club's problem.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
There don't seem to be many opportunities for legal grandstanding in the process. UEFA make a judgement - if the club doesn't like it it's only appeal is to the CAS. To date, in this and other matters, the CAS has taken the view that the rules were known to all participants - if a club chooses to ignore them, that's the club's problem.
Yep. Like the lawyers of all the other clubs that UEFA has chucked out of its competitions.
Your argument owes more to wishful thinking than facts. There isn't going to be an arena for all these high-priced legal eagles to strut their stuff. UEFA will make a decision behind closed doors. The clubs can appeal to CAS, I guess, but Uefa have already garnered a lot of high level political support for this initiative, and CAS will most likely choose to go along. Even if they take a contrary line and uphold the Sheiks and dodgy Russian billionaires, their decisions are not binding.
As has always been the case, there is no entitlement to enter UEFA competitions. They are by invitation.
As such, UEFA are not obliged to prove anything to outside agencies. Their decision is final.
As such, UEFA are not obliged to prove anything to outside agencies. Their decision is final.
Indeed, this was how UEFA were able to impose a blanket ban on all English clubs in Europe in the mid 80's rather than just Liverpool.
That commercial revenue for City is just ridiculous.
This is what UEFA said about the situation back in February, and itll be interesting to see if they actually have the balls to carry out the sanctions or if they yield because the clubs suggest that hey are 'trying' to comply:
This is what UEFA said about the situation back in February, and itll be interesting to see if they actually have the balls to carry out the sanctions or if they yield because the clubs suggest that hey are 'trying' to comply:
We'll have to wait and see. My opinion is that City's revenue has been ramping up from essentially 0 to £110m over 4 years. The vast majority of this revenue is with companies related to their owner/Abu Dhabi and there has been no word so far that any of it is being ignored for FFP purposes.
I ask you two question:
Firstly, why would City be signing all these sponsorship deals if they thought they'd be thrown out of the Champions League regardless? City have almost certainly had learned minds scrutinising the regulations and have continued to sign these agreements - this suggests to me that they have a good idea that it won't be thrown out.
Secondly, City started signing these agreements nearly 4 years ago and none of them have yet been deemed none-compliant. Why would Uefa not have nipped this in the bud years ago when it was a simple £5-10m BS Commercial agreement? If they had done it back then, they wouldn't have had to trawl through hundreds of agreements, as City, PSG etc would never have signed them (knowing they wouldn't comply). In my mind it's like a tiny leak that could have been simply plugged years ago, but is now a gushing waterfall that would be extremely difficult and costly to put right. Add into this the fact that City and PSG claim to have an "open dialogue" with Uefa and that they are working together to achieve FFP compliance. Surely this "open dialogue" would currently include Uefa saying - "all your sponsorships are BS"?
I agree with anders' view on his blogpost: http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/mcfcs-financial-results-waiting-for-bt.html
"I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves whether City would have managed to get to almost £100m of partnership revenues if they hadn't been owned by a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family. Perhaps Etihad, TCA Abu Dhabi, aabar and Etisalat would have all signed up as City's sponsors if Thaksin Shinawatra or even Franny Lee was the owner..... Such debates are pretty superfluous, other clubs have established the benchmark for commercial income at £100m or more per annum and a legally well advised MCFC will no doubt meet that benchmark as long as the club is owned by ADUG."
Couldn't this all go in the ffp thead? Also, if city can get sponsorship and are not going into debt then fair play.
Forget City, PSG's 200m per year ridiculous deal should not be allowed, if UEFA are even a bit serious about this.
But why though? I honestly couldn't care how they get their sponsorship and I think UEFA should only be using FFP to try to stop clubs fecking themselves with debt.
That is exactly what they are doing. PSG getting a £200m sponsorship deal affects every other football club. Cause - Effect.
Wrong thread for this anyway.
A lot of that 200m gets trickled down to other clubs through them spending stupid money on players. This hasn't really effected United though IMO because we still have our wage structure and since City and PSG went stupid it's not increased the wage ceiling significantly more than before. Sure the sugar daddy clubs have an unfair advantage when it comes to transfers and salary available but I don't think it's had the enormous effect everyone thinks it has had.
The thing you are missing is this:
Before FFP if the owners of City, PSG, Chelsea etc.. suddenly walked way, then the clubs would pretty much end up going in to bankcruptcy.
Now, with FFP, with enough revenue coming in, then that shouldn't be an issue. Unless of course the deals are commercial deals pretty much by the owners themselves in order to get around FFP.
Whats to stop the commercial partners going at the same time, or not renewing etc.. - at the end of the day, it isn't sustainable because the commercial partners are "fake" and pretty much just a way to get around FFP - at the end of the day, as soon as one of these lot give up and walk, the club they owned would be fecked.
I'm not missing that at all. As I said if they have the revenue coming in through things like sponsorship however fake the figures are in terms of the actual value of the sponsorship then they are relatively stable. They are not effecting other clubs in any real negative way other than the clubs not being able to compete with them for certain players. The post you quoted and the answer you gave don't seem to have any bearing as one is about the clubs impact on itself and the other is on the clubs impact on other clubs.
Sorry, quoted wrong post
But yeah, I disagree - I think the fact they are "fake" and not really secure should mean for the intents and purposes of stability they should be normalised. And the FFP rules are meant to do the same.
If City's owner was to leave yesterday, do you think banks will be wanting to lend them money using the sponsorships for the ex-owner as the main source of means to repay such loans? Definately not. So it's completely relevant.
I dunno. Clearly if their owners were to pull out they'd be in deep shit, but not in the same depth of shit as someone like Portsmouth who were up to their bollocks in debt. Chelsea have now stabilised somewhat and I'm sure that's City's plan too, spend big for a few seasons and then try to maintain after the initial expense.
I seen that but by no means would that be a global commercial partner which leads me to believe there is something bigger about to be announced.
Aeroflot replaces Turkish Airways. Terms not disclosed.
Yep , the club are saying they have close to 18 million fans in Russia , never knew there were so many.
Really historically safe airline, Aeroflot.
How will the money from the new TV deal affect us?
A £25m increment in the TV money at the least.
The TV revenue for the winner of the league can touch a £100m.
It'll mean we have more money.
Which is why it pays to spend big now, or to try to keep Rooney playing and just run down his contract.
Period of exclusivity with Nike ends at the end of July so might get interesting over the next few days.
No idea if that means there will be an announcement around then but we should hear stories about other interested parties meeting with utd if no deal has been reached.
No idea if that means there will be an announcement around then but we should hear stories about other interested parties meeting with utd if no deal has been reached.
I'd be very suprised if we changed from Nike - I reckon they will pay whatever it takes to keep us
Wouldn't be surprised if Fabregas was a smoke screen for Woody working on a deal with Nike.
Hey we aren't going full tin foil or anything....
As long as it isn't Warrior
Nike would have to be mad to lose United. One of their biggest brands. Then again, I wouldn't put it past us to let the exclusivity period drop just to see what the other players had to say and how much they were offering.
They could have chosen a better match
Bit expensive that.
Missed this. Wow, thats a great partnership .... true is huge in Thailand, which is SE Asia's most football mad country.
too much to hope for that we strike a deal with adidas I fear
If we have a new mega kit deal imminent, that must be the cash Woodward alluded to. Enough to fund a return for Ronnie!!
We really can hold our kit providers to ransom. Not only are we the most desirable sports brand in the world, but the top European football teams are finely balanced at the moment. Nike has two - us and Barcelona - and Adidas has two - Madrid and Bayern. For either provider to lose one of those big four to the other would be a serious blow.
Woody working on a deal with Nike is a smoke screen for an amphibious assault on the Syrian beaches.
- Status