BBC Sport: La Liga asks Uefa to investigate Man City's financial fair play

[M18CTID]

Every company from UAE is a related party to the City owners. I don't need UEFA to confirm or disprove it for me, I wasn't born yesterday and know how things work in that part of the world. Tomorrow City will get five more companies from Abu Dhabi to sponsor them and "renegotiate" existing deals and suddenly they'll have even more money to spend.

The fact that City fans refuse to admit the most obvious thing is staggering. Just keep telling yourselves that you have a great business plan and that's the real reason behind your infinite source of money.

There's not a single City fan that believes the deals with AD companies were randomly picked out of the Yellow Pages. But that wasn't his point - his point was that UEFA use IAS24 accountancy standards to determine what is a related party and what is not. Anything that is determined to be a related party has a fair value applied to it. When City were punished in 2014, Etihad was not deemed to be a related party using IAS24 (yes, yes, I know it's the national airline of our owner's country so he didn't play a game of pin the tail on the donkey and decide to pick out a company at random to be our flagship sponsor), but it seems that 2 of our second-tier sponsors were (presumably 2 of Etisalat, Aabar, and the AD Tourist Authority) because the club agreed with UEFA not to increase the value of those 2 deals over a specified period of time (I don't know how long this was but I'm guessing it's while we remained under sanction).

What people need to get their heads around is that City are less and less reliant on money from AD-related sponsors with each passing day - I'm guessing here but I'd say they make up no more than 15%-20% of total club revenue, whereas back in 2011 when the Etihad deal was first signed our revenue from AD-related companies represented a much higher percentage. The profile of the club has risen hugely in recent years which means we're able to attract more sponsorship deals from other parts of the world, plus other revenue streams have risen exponentially, in particular the PL TV deal. The oft-repeated mantra that if "the Sheikh walks away, City are fcuked" is outdated. In 2010 maybe, but not now. Unless he sold the club to someone like Peter Ridsdale or the Oyston family of course.

 

[M18CTID]

RPT is a legal definition, it's not one UEFA can decide to set. If some of City's sponsorship deals do not fall under that term, irrespective of apparent links to Abu Dhabi, then you need to complain to Brussels about the definition, not UEFA.

The most amusing thing is a Chelsea fan who seems to be on some moral crusade against City's investment. Chelsea's success is entirely down to Abramovich yet you seem to begrudge other teams benefiting from such investment. The whole reason Chelsea can comply with FFP today and still challenge at the top, is because of Abramovich. The whole reason City can comply with FFP and still challenge at the top, is because of Abu Dhabi; and, I might add, I've yet to meet a City fan who denies this last point. So what's your problem?

He tried to claim in a previous thread that City fans don't acknowledge that our recent rise has been down to our owner, at which point I pointed out that was absolute nonsense. Funny thing is, it felt like he was trying to dilute Abramovich's influence on Chelsea's successes at the same time!

 

[JohnnyKills]

Oh come off it Let's say, I can see into the future. I then offer a United fan a deal. I say you can win the same amount of trophies as one of Spurs/Sevilla/Monaco over the next ten years, or, you can stick with whatever you have won in those ten years. How many would trade under the belief Spurs/Sevilla/Monaco have won more than them? Very few, I can guarantee that. And why? Because they know United have the revenue and spending power that the other three do not, and never will unless they receive outside investment.

Mate Spurs, Sevilla and Monaco are regularly in European competition and challenging for the cups. All three of them are routinely among the top 20 teams in Europe.

If you're writing off those clubs (and Leicester's league title) you're basically saying that only regular domestic and European trophies are good enough. So you're talking about the level of Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and, at a pinch, United.

I grew up in the Manchester area and know a lot of City fans. They're generally a good bunch who know their football, and don't spout the nonsense you get from Liverpool fans. But come on - your fanbase can only sustain regular crowds of 30-40,000, and has done throughout your entire history. You were a byword for mismanagement from Peter Swales' takeover c.1980 to the Abu Dhabi takeover of 2008. For most of City's recent history you've been best-known for sacking managers and spending outrageous sums on the likes of Alan Kernaghan and Lee Bradbury while letting better players (Hinchcliffe etc) go for next to nothing.

Why should City be able to jump the queue to the very top of the game and elbow aside clubs which have a bigger fanbase than them and/or have made far better decisions, on and off the pitch?

We started off talking about sustainability. All those clubs you're writing off are examples of sustainable, sensible strategy. A club which allows itself to become a political pawn in return for money is not.

 

[antihenry]

RPT is a legal definition, it's not one UEFA can decide to set. If some of City's sponsorship deals do not fall under that term, irrespective of apparent links to Abu Dhabi, then you need to complain to Brussels about the definition, not UEFA.

The most amusing thing is a Chelsea fan who seems to be on some moral crusade against City's investment. Chelsea's success is entirely down to Abramovich yet you seem to begrudge other teams benefiting from such investment. The whole reason Chelsea can comply with FFP today and still challenge at the top, is because of Abramovich. The whole reason City can comply with FFP and still challenge at the top, is because of Abu Dhabi; and, I might add, I've yet to meet a City fan who denies this last point. So what's your problem?

I don't have a moral crusade against anybody. And I know Chelsea owes their success to Abramovich, the fact that I never ever denied. And I'm not against investing in football, that's what keeps things interesting.

The difference is, Chelsea stopped dipping in the owner's pockets years ago and were forced to employ a business model that would allow them to rely on themselves and stay competitive at the same time, which is quite difficult. City never did. You're still living in your own artificial universe, propped up by contracts from UAE companies that create an illusion that you're much more successful than you really are. You want to know what your club's really worth? Take away all the owner related sponsors and let's see how you can fare in the real world.

 

[M18CTID]

Mate Spurs, Sevilla and Monaco are regularly in European competition and challenging for the cups. All three of them are routinely among the top 20 teams in Europe.

If you're writing off those clubs (and Leicester's league title) you're basically saying that only regular domestic and European trophies are good enough. So you're talking about the level of Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and, at a pinch, United.

I grew up in the Manchester area and know a lot of City fans. They're generally a good bunch who know their football, and don't spout the nonsense you get from Liverpool fans. But come on - your fanbase can only sustain regular crowds of 30-40,000, and has done throughout your entire history. You were a byword for mismanagement from Peter Swales' takeover c.1980 to the Abu Dhabi takeover of 2008. For most of City's recent history you've been best-known for sacking managers and spending outrageous sums on the likes of Alan Kernaghan and Lee Bradbury while letting better players (Hinchcliffe etc) go for next to nothing.

Why should City be able to jump the queue to the very top of the game and elbow aside clubs which have a bigger fanbase than them and/or have made far better decisions, on and off the pitch?

We started off talking about sustainability. All those clubs you're writing off are examples of sustainable, sensible strategy. A club which allows itself to become a political pawn in return for money is not.

Pretty sure you're both talking at cross purposes here. It's all about who has the most ambition I guess. City's owner has more ambition than the owners of those other clubs - that much is obvious when you look at how much he has invested and how it's been invested (not all of it wisely on the playing side I'll add but I'm talking more specifically about infrastructure with a view to long-term returns). As such, he expects a bigger return. If we had less ambitious owners then clearly the expectations would be lower.

From a supporter's point of view, I don't quite share those same expectations. I mean, why should I? I've followed City all over the country during the lowest ebb in our history so it would be a bit rich of me to expect us to win the quadruple every year. Football doesn't work like that and I don't follow City for the glory, although I'd be lying if I hadn't enjoyed most of what's happened these past 9 years. However, it's not unreasonable as a fan to have a significant level of expectation of the team relative to resources at our disposal. I guess what I'm saying is that if City came a distant 3rd in the PL again this year then most fans might still be in Guardiola's corner but it might not be enough to save his job in the eyes of the club.

As for Swales, well he turned one of the top 3 or 4 clubs in the country at the time he took over as chairman in 1973 into a complete and utter laughing stock over the next 20 years. A bit unfair to put that one on the fans though. Just like it's unfair to put the Glazer takeover on the United fans.

 

[Sad Chris]

Even KM saw I was only joking with that comment. I've been here over 8 years by the way

So who did you support before City got all shiny?

 

[M18CTID]

I don't have a moral crusade against anybody. And I know Chelsea owes their success to Abramovich, the fact that I never ever denied. And I'm not against investing in football, that's what keeps things interesting.

The difference is, Chelsea stopped dipping in the owner's pockets years ago and were forced to employ a business model that would allow them to rely on themselves and stay competitive at the same time, which is quite difficult. City never did. You're still living in your own artificial universe, propped up by contracts from UAE companies that create an illusion that you're much more successful than you really are. You want to know what your club's really worth? Take away all the owner related sponsors and let's see how you can fare in the real world.

This is where your argument falls down. If we had to replace the Etihad deal today and go out on the open market, what makes you think we couldn't get a similar or better deal? The deal is for shirt, stadium, and campus sponsorship and is worth about £40 million a year. That's under-valued in today's footballing world. We could easily get that and more from a non-AD related company. Christ, we get £5 million a year from Nexen Tire just for having their tiny logo on our player's shirt sleeves. Everton get something like £17 million a year just for sponsorship of their training ground by Moshiri's mate Usmanov's company, a deal that almost completely slipped under the radar when it was announced earlier this year.

 

[M18CTID]

So who did you support before City got all shiny?

Chelsea

 

[JPRouve]

Pretty sure you're both talking at cross purposes here. It's all about who has the most ambition I guess. City's owner has more ambition than the owners of those other clubs - that much is obvious when you look at how much he has invested and how it's been invested (not all of it wisely on the playing side I'll add but I'm talking more specifically about infrastructure with a view to long-term returns). As such, he expects a bigger return. If we had less ambitious owners then clearly the expectations would be lower.

Be real here and this applies to all the other EPL fans who conveniently forgot that clubs from other leagues have a bigger hurdle when it comes to FFP than EPL clubs because Sky and BT are only in England. To match english clubs spending Monaco and Sevilla owners would have to spend more money because they don't have the same prize money and they don't have the same TV money either. If they did that, they would be in huge trouble regarding FFP, that's why the entire thing is bogus, there is nothing fair about it.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

I think when people are talking about City's "dodgy" deals they are simply saying that they have not been obtained through the natural market. That much is obvious of course but the point I would disagree with City fans about is whether or not they represent fair market value. When you look at the fact that in the last 10 years United's turnover has increased around 125% and City's has increased 445% (rounding up .1%) that seems a little strange. Especially considering we have won notably more in that period and have been regularly lauded for our commercial work above any other club.

Manchester United are responsible for 52% of the entire global audience that watches the Premier League, average 1.4 million shirt sales per year and have three times the followers City have on social media. Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool are also responsible for a larger chunk of TV Viewership, all average more shirt sales yearly (I am assuming with Liverpool as I do not have their numbers) and double your social media followers.

These things shouldn't mean a great deal to a fan but they are very important to anyone wishing to receive fair market value when entering into any commercial agreement with a club. The fact that City's revenue is higher than anyone who is not Man Utd, Barcelona, Madrid or Bayern and soon catching up indicates that a large number of their sponsors do not care about receiving fair market value. I think someone indicated that if this owner related sponsorship went away over night that City would be able to replace them with unrelated deals of a similar value, I think you'd be very surprised.

 

[M18CTID]

Be real here and this applies to all the other EPL fans who conveniently forgot that clubs from other leagues have a bigger hurdle when it comes to FFP than EPL clubs because Sky and BT are only in England. To match english clubs spending Monaco and Sevilla owners would have to spend more money because they don't have the same prize money and they don't have the same TV money either. If they did that, they would be in huge trouble regarding FFP, that's why the entire thing is bogus, there is nothing fair about it.

That wasn't really my point. Football owners have differing scales of ambitions was my point.

Look, I fully agree that all PL clubs have an advantage over their continental counterparts with the TV deal but you can't blame the Premier League for marketing their product around the world so successfully. There was a time when it wasn't thus and most of the money was in Spain and Italy. I don't seem to recall anyone feeling sorry for the English clubs back then.

 

[BobbyManc]

I don't have a moral crusade against anybody. And I know Chelsea owes their success to Abramovich, the fact that I never ever denied. And I'm not against investing in football, that's what keeps things interesting.

The difference is, Chelsea stopped dipping in the owner's pockets years ago and were forced to employ a business model that would allow them to rely on themselves and stay competitive at the same time, which is quite difficult. City never did. You're still living in your own artificial universe, propped up by contracts from UAE companies that create an illusion that you're much more successful than you really are. You want to know what your club's really worth? Take away all the owner related sponsors and let's see how you can fare in the real world.

No, the difference is that Chelsea were taken over from a much more advantageous position than City and started spending a few years before City as well. Had FFP been introduced a couple of years earlier, Chelsea would be in the same boat as City, and Abramovich would have opposed it instead of supporting it. Your club is still in debt to Abramovich for circa £1bn. If that's not living in an artificial universe, I don't know what is. You want to know what your club is really worth? Go ask Abramovich to leave your club and demand repayment, then let's see how Chelsea fare in the real world.

 

[Danillaco]

Pointless to ask a City fan a question you know the answer to.

It's obviously the sweetheart deals they have with the likes of Etisalat, Etihad, TCA Abu Dhabi, Arabtec, Aabar, First Gulf Bank & Saudi Hollandi Bank. They've been smart in that each deal on its own isn't blatantly ridiculous (ala PSG) which means Uefa will find it exceptionally difficult to revalue, but collectively only a complete moron would believe that Manchester City could achieve a commercial revenue of £180m (15/16 figures) quickly surpassing much larger and more successful clubs with a much larger global fan base like Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool & Chelsea.

This club that no-one had heard of a decade ago are now literally only behind Bayern, Madrid & United in terms of commercial income (if you likewise discard PSG and their ridiculous deals). Their commercial revenue in 2009 for example was £18m

The part of their deal that illustrates their actual commercial strength is their kit deal at £12m. As there doesn't seem to be an Adu Dhabi based kit manufacturer they're had to settle for a market rate deal much lower than any of the larger clubs with more commercial appeal.

Likewise it becomes obvious when you see the two biggest commercial revenue streams - their shirt and kit deals, represent merely 18% of their total commercial income. That's compared with Spurs 45%, Liverpool 46%, United 49%, Arsenal 56%, & Chelsea 60%. Are we supposed to believe that these supposed commercial wizards at City, suddenly become brain-dead when it comes to the sponsorship deals that attract the most attention? Or that clubs like United and Chelsea who have been phenomenal in terms of securing great contracts for their two biggest streams, are suddenly way behind City comparatively when it comes to their £146m revenue for a few billboards?

I'm no fan of Uefa or of FFP and I'm not only delighted City have found a way to circumvent the rules, but am thankful they've done so as it allows for a much more competitive league. However anyone who believes City's commercial revenues wouldn't be cut down by c. £100m without Mansours ownership are delusional.

I'm keen to see their next commercial figures, as to fund their latest shopping spree even their 15/16 commercial revenue of £178m is insufficient. I expect that to comfortably surpass £200m, with the aforementioned UAE firms uplifting their contracts to keep the illusion of fiscal responsibility alive for FFP purposes.

This is a great post!

 

[BobbyManc]

I think when people are talking about City's "dodgy" deals they are simply saying that they have not been obtained through the natural market. That much is obvious of course but the point I would disagree with City fans about is whether or not they represent fair market value. When you look at the fact that in the last 10 years United's turnover has increased around 125% and City's has increased 445% (rounding up .1%) that seems a little strange. Especially considering we have won notably more in that period and have been regularly lauded for our commercial work above any other club.

Ermm, not really. About ten years ago, United were winning league titles and the Champions League. About ten years ago, it was an achievement for City to finish in the top ten. United's revenue could only grow so much, whereas City's had lots of potential to grow once we started competing at the top. That's not to deny the role of Abu Dhabi and related sponsors in that revenue, but even disregarding that, our revenue was always going to increase as a percentage considerably more than United's for that time period.

 

[M18CTID]

No, the difference is that Chelsea were taken over from a much more advantageous position than City and started spending a few years before City as well. Had FFP been introduced a couple of years earlier, Chelsea would be in the same boat as City, and Abramovich would have opposed it instead of supporting it. Your club is still in debt to Abramovich for circa £1bn. If that's not living in an artificial universe, I don't know what is. You want to know what your club is really worth? Go ask Abramovich to leave your club and demand repayment, then let's see how Chelsea fare in the real world.

Boom. A much worse situation than City.

And yeah, flip the dates around and let's say City were bought in 2003 by Mansour and Chelsea in 2008 by Abramovich. I don't think Roman would be in such a rush to ask Platini to implement FFP.

 

[antihenry]

No, the difference is that Chelsea were taken over from a much more advantageous position than City and started spending a few years before City as well. Had FFP been introduced a couple of years earlier, Chelsea would be in the same boat as City, and Abramovich would have opposed it instead of supporting it. Your club is still in debt to Abramovich for circa £1bn. If that's not living in an artificial universe, I don't know what is. You want to know what your club is really worth? Go ask Abramovich to leave your club and demand repayment, then let's see how Chelsea fare in the real world.

If the FFP was introduced a couple of years earlier, Chelsea would have changed their approach a couple of years earlier. The FFP was announced years before it was implemented and UEFA even delayed the full introduction of the FFP Regulations to give clubs more time to adjust. Chelsea used that time to find a legit method of staying competitive while City decided to keep doing what they were doing right from the start, only on much bigger and intricate scale.

About the advantage of the takeover happening five years earlier I agree. But it doesn't change my argument about your club still living off your owner's pockets. Chelsea haven't in quite some time. If you want to talk about history, go to RAWK. I'm talking about now.

 

[Danillaco]

There's not a single City fan that believes the deals with AD companies were randomly picked out of the Yellow Pages. But that wasn't his point - his point was that UEFA use IAS24 accountancy standards to determine what is a related party and what is not. Anything that is determined to be a related party has a fair value applied to it. When City were punished in 2014, Etihad was not deemed to be a related party using IAS24 (yes, yes, I know it's the national airline of our owner's country so he didn't play a game of pin the tail on the donkey and decide to pick out a company at random to be our flagship sponsor), but it seems that 2 of our second-tier sponsors were (presumably 2 of Etisalat, Aabar, and the AD Tourist Authority) because the club agreed with UEFA not to increase the value of those 2 deals over a specified period of time (I don't know how long this was but I'm guessing it's while we remained under sanction).

What people need to get their heads around is that City are less and less reliant on money from AD-related sponsors with each passing day - I'm guessing here but I'd say they make up no more than 15%-20% of total club revenue, whereas back in 2011 when the Etihad deal was first signed our revenue from AD-related companies represented a much higher percentage. The profile of the club has risen hugely in recent years which means we're able to attract more sponsorship deals from other parts of the world, plus other revenue streams have risen exponentially, in particular the PL TV deal. The oft-repeated mantra that if "the Sheikh walks away, City are fcuked" is outdated. In 2010 maybe, but not now. Unless he sold the club to someone like Peter Ridsdale or the Oyston family of course.

When you keep throwing cash out of the window to break spending records time and again you are not.

You may be having more revenue, better "legit" sponsor and kit deals, but my impression is that they didn't grow enough to grant them less reliability on arab money.

In my ignorance, am I right to say that oil money represent at least 50% of the club total revenue? If so, I can reasonably say that if the sheik walks away, you are screwed. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[M18CTID]

If the FFP was introduced a couple of years earlier, Chelsea would have changed their approach a couple of years earlier. The FFP was announced years before it was implemented and UEFA even delayed the full introduction of the FFP Regulations to give clubs more time to adjust. Chelsea used that time to find a legit method of staying competitive while City decided to keep doing what they were doing right from the start, only on much bigger and intricate scale.

About the advantage of the takeover happening five years earlier I agree. But it doesn't change my argument about your club still living off your owner's pockets. Chelsea haven't in quite some time. If you want to talk about history, go to RAWK. I'm talking about now.

So am I, and as of now City are in a less precarious situation than Chelsea all things considered. There's no immediate threat to either club of course but with things like a new stadium rebuild to fund, there's a fair bit of extra risk attached at Chelsea than there is at City. And, while Abramovich is unlikely to call in that £1bn or so as things stand, if the worst was to happen there's no guarantee that those who inherit his fortune won't decide to call it in at some point. All hypothetical of course.

 

[M18CTID]

When you keep throwing cash out of the window to break spending records time and again you are not.

You may be having more revenue, better "legit" sponsor and kit deals, but my impression is that they didn't grow enough to grant them less reliability on arab money.

In my ignorance, am I right to say that oil money represent at least 50% of the club total revenue? If so, I can reasonably say that if the sheik walks away, you are screwed. Wouldn't you agree?

It's nowhere near 50% these days. 2009/2010 maybe but not now. In fact, UEFA's latest update of the FFP regs as I've already pointed out limits it to 30% max. Personally, I reckon it's no more than 20% tops.

 

[Gee Male]

I don't have a moral crusade against anybody. And I know Chelsea owes their success to Abramovich, the fact that I never ever denied. And I'm not against investing in football, that's what keeps things interesting.

The difference is, Chelsea stopped dipping in the owner's pockets years ago and were forced to employ a business model that would allow them to rely on themselves and stay competitive at the same time, which is quite difficult. City never did. You're still living in your own artificial universe, propped up by contracts from UAE companies that create an illusion that you're much more successful than you really are. You want to know what your club's really worth? Take away all the owner related sponsors and let's see how you can fare in the real world.

So with this post in mind, what do you think of Chelsea's sponsor Gazprom?

 

[JPRouve]

That wasn't really my point. Football owners have differing scales of ambitions was my point.

Look, I fully agree that all PL clubs have an advantage over their continental counterparts with the TV deal but you can't blame the Premier League for marketing their product around the world so successfully. There was a time when it wasn't thus and most of the money was in Spain and Italy. I don't seem to recall anyone feeling sorry for the English clubs back then.

I'm not blaming the EPL and I don't feel sorry for anyone.

I'm just pointing out that people(UEFA included) have a very simplistic view when it comes to football finances and owners decisions. Your point about a lack of ambition is an example of it, your club have had problems with FFP despite the fact that you benefit from huge financial boost compared to the teams you mentioned and you still end up with a frankly stupid conclusion that the difference was the ambition, no the difference is the hundreds of millions delta that you gain for the same level of performances.
Now about that last point, football is one of those activities with high barriers to entry. To be profitable you need to be marketable to be marketable you need to be at the top and to be at the top you need to put forward huge amounts of money and that's not even enough because a lot of elements that are out of club's control will influence your profitability; for example TV deals, the rights to build a new stadium(to comply with UEFA standards but also the league you are playing in.
The UEFA is happy to pretend that all clubs should be subjected to the same restrictive financial rules but at the same time they put clubs in different situations, for example the third team in Spain is guaranteed to have 13m from the UEFA but the third team from France is only guaranteed 3m, it means that the french team effectively have to do more with less.

And once again I'm not complaining about that, football has always been that way but it's baffling to see people trying to pretend otherwise, football is not fair, FFP isn't fair and the UEFA has never been fair.

 

[antihenry]

It's nowhere near 50% these days. 2009/2010 maybe but not now. In fact, UEFA's latest update of the FFP regs as I've already pointed out limits it to 30% max. Personally, I reckon it's no more than 20% tops.

So Etisalat, Etihad, TCA Abu Dhabi, Arabtec, Aabar, First Gulf Bank & Saudi Hollandi Bank only count for 20% of your income?

 

[JohnnyKills]

Pretty sure you're both talking at cross purposes here. It's all about who has the most ambition I guess. City's owner has more ambition than the owners of those other clubs - that much is obvious when you look at how much he has invested and how it's been invested (not all of it wisely on the playing side I'll add but I'm talking more specifically about infrastructure with a view to long-term returns). As such, he expects a bigger return. If we had less ambitious owners then clearly the expectations would be lower.

From a supporter's point of view, I don't quite share those same expectations. I mean, why should I? I've followed City all over the country during the lowest ebb in our history so it would be a bit rich of me to expect us to win the quadruple every year. Football doesn't work like that and I don't follow City for the glory, although I'd be lying if I hadn't enjoyed most of what's happened these past 9 years. However, it's not unreasonable as a fan to have a significant level of expectation of the team relative to resources at our disposal. I guess what I'm saying is that if City came a distant 3rd in the PL again this year then most fans might still be in Guardiola's corner but it might not be enough to save his job in the eyes of the club.

As for Swales, well he turned one of the top 3 or 4 clubs in the country at the time he took over as chairman in 1973 into a complete and utter laughing stock over the next 20 years. A bit unfair to put that one on the fans though. Just like it's unfair to put the Glazer takeover on the United fans.

Fair post mate, didn't realise Swales had been there that long tbh. Still remember that combover.

 

[antihenry]

So with this post in mind, what do you think of Chelsea's sponsor Gazprom?

"2011/12 Champions League winners Chelsea Football Club have announced the signing of Russian energy giant Gazprom as the club's global energy partner.

The agreement, will see Gazprom supplying gas and electricity to the Premier League club for the next three years".

That sponsorship ended in 2015, if I'm not mistaken. Abramovich sold Gazprom seven years earlier. Gazprom signed a deal with UEFA to be one of Champions League official sponsors in 2012 and sponsoring Chelsea as a 2012 winner of the competition made sense, I'd imagine. They were never one of the major sponsors of CFC as they are to Schalke, for example. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2016/05/10/gazprom-refuels-schalke-04-e120m-shirt-deal-2022/

 

[M18CTID]

I'm not blaming the EPL and I don't feel sorry for anyone.

I'm just pointing out that people(UEFA included) have a very simplistic view when it comes to football finances and owners decisions. Your point about a lack of ambition is an example of it, your club have had problems with FFP despite the fact that you benefit from huge financial boost compared to the teams you mentioned and you still end up with a frankly stupid conclusion that the difference was the ambition, no the difference is the hundreds of millions delta that you gain for the same level of performances.
Now about that last point, football is one of those activities with high barriers to entry. To be profitable you need to be marketable to be marketable you need to be at the top and to be at the top you need to put forward huge amounts of money and that's not even enough because a lot of elements that are out of club's control will influence your profitability; for example TV deals, the rights to build a new stadium(to comply with UEFA standards but also the league you are playing in.
The UEFA is happy to pretend that all clubs should be subjected to the same restrictive financial rules but at the same time they put clubs in different situations, for example the third team in Spain is guaranteed to have 13m from the UEFA but the third team from France is only guaranteed 3m, it means that the french team effectively have to do more with less.

And once again I'm not complaining about that, football has always been that way but it's baffling to see people trying to pretend otherwise, football is not fair, FFP isn't fair and the UEFA has never been fair.

I don't think it's stupid to assume that different owners have different ambitions - that much is 100% true. For example, if you or I were to buy our local club I doubt our ambitions would be the same as someone who bought a much bigger club.

Absolutely agree on pretty much everything else you said though. None of it is fair whichever angle you look at it from. You can't have a one size fits all set of FFP regs rolled out over multiple countries when there are differing levels of income/different tax laws, etc.

 

[M18CTID]

So with this post in mind, what do you think of Chelsea's sponsor Gazprom?

I've been through that one with him weeks ago mate. He claimed it was just to supply Chelsea's gas and electricity so I asked him why Chelsea didn't just use uswitch instead. I think it was lost on him

 

[M18CTID]

So Etisalat, Etihad, TCA Abu Dhabi, Arabtec, Aabar, First Gulf Bank & Saudi Hollandi Bank only count for 20% of your income?

That's exactly what I'm saying

 

[M18CTID]

Fair post mate, didn't realise Swales had been there that long tbh. Still remember that combover.

Don't forget the Cuban heels mate

 

[::sonny::]

Why do they care?

Distortion of the market due to state-aid

 

[antihenry]

I've been through that one with him weeks ago mate. He claimed it was just to supply Chelsea's gas and electricity so I asked him why Chelsea didn't just use uswitch instead. I think it was lost on him

Read again. Chelsea won the Champions League in 2012. The new CL official sponsor also became the club's sponsor, which made sense. Gazprom by that time had no connection to Abramovich anymore If City won the CL and Etihad came in as the tournament sponsor and the club's sponsor for the following three years, I wouldn't be surprised. Don't know how much Chelsea got from Gazprom but our annual financial statements didn't indicate any major changes, so it couldn't have been much. In any case, it lasted only three years and was over by 2015.

 

[antihenry]

That's exactly what I'm saying

So where does the other 80% come from?

 

[M18CTID]

So where does the other 80% come from?

TV money, PL and CL prize money, match day revenue, corporate hospitality revenue, our kit supplier, and sponsorship money from other areas of the planet. You know - the same revenue streams that all other clubs in the league have access to. It's not rocket science really.

 

[antihenry]

TV money, PL and CL prize money, match day revenue, corporate hospitality revenue, our kit supplier, and sponsorship money from other areas of the planet. You know - the same revenue streams that all other clubs in the league have access to. It's not rocket science really.

Can you give me some figures, approximately how much.

 

[M18CTID]

Can you give me some figures, approximately how much.

Link to the Guardian article on our latest published accounts:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp..../manchester-city-record-income-2015-16-season

I can't find a breakdown of the value of non-AD sponsorship deals so it's up to you if you believe it or not. Figures for the other revenue streams are mentioned though.

 

[antihenry]

Link to the Guardian article on our latest published accounts:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp..../manchester-city-record-income-2015-16-season

I can't find a breakdown of the value of non-AD sponsorship deals so it's up to you if you believe it or not. Figures for the other revenue streams are mentioned though.

Your current Nike deal is 20m per year, Nexen as your sleeve sponsor is another 20. Don't know how much you get from Nissan but probably less than those two. Can't find any other major sponsors not tied to your owner. Did I miss any non-UAE sponsors?

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Every company from UAE is a related party to the City owners. I don't need UEFA to confirm or disprove it for me, I wasn't born yesterday and know how things work in that part of the world. Tomorrow City will get five more companies from Abu Dhabi to sponsor them and "renegotiate" existing deals and suddenly they'll have even more money to spend.

The fact that City fans refuse to admit the most obvious thing is staggering. Just keep telling yourselves that you have a great business plan and that's the real reason behind your infinite source of money.

Agreed on this bit. By all means argue that it's just a business and they can do what they want. Don't try and convince us that it's because they're well run and can make the money without doping, it's insulting.

close thread. There is really nothing more to be said here. Anyone saying otherwise is the usual deluded city fan on here or a fan of one of the state owned clubs.

 

[JPRouve]

Your current Nike deal is 20m per year, Nexen as your sleeve sponsor is another 20. Don't know how much you get from Nissan but probably less than those two. Can't find any other major sponsors not tied to your owner. Did I miss any non-UAE sponsors?

According to the article 52m come from matchdays, 161m from TV, 177 from sponsors. Their major sponsors are Nike, Nexen, Aabar, Etihad, SAP, TCA Abu Dhabi, Etisalat and Nissan and the minor sponsors are WIX, EASport, Hays, Betsafe, Qnet, Valvoline and WEGA.

 

[M18CTID]

Your current Nike deal is 20m per year, Nexen as your sleeve sponsor is another 20. Don't know how much you get from Nissan but probably less than those two. Can't find any other major sponsors not tied to your owner. Did I miss any non-UAE sponsors?

I don't think we get £20m off Nexen for sleeve sponsorship. Pretty sure it's less than that. Could be £20m all told though as they have extensive advertising inside the ground plus they sponsor the bridge linking the CFA to the stadium. Also, the Nike deal is £12m a year (see, I'm being a good boy here and down-valuing some of our non-AD revenue) but that kit deal is imminently due to be re-negotiated with rumours abound that we're switching to Under Armour.

Further to JP Rouve's post, here's a more extensive list of commercial partners. Plenty of non-UAE companies in this lot:

Aabar, Arabtec, Astra, Betsafe, Digicel, EA SPORTS, Etihad, Etisalat, First Gulf Bank, Hays, Healthpoint, Heineken, Jiwasraya, LG, Nexen, Nike, Nissan, Pak Lighting, PZ Cussons, QNET, SAP, SHB Bank, Soccerworld, Star Beer, TCA Abu Dhabi, Tecate, Tempobet, UBTECH, Veqta, Vitality, Wega, Wix, Whaley Technology, Wolf Blasts.

 

[Gentleman Jim]

RPT is a legal definition, it's not one UEFA can decide to set. If some of City's sponsorship deals do not fall under that term, irrespective of apparent links to Abu Dhabi, then you need to complain to Brussels about the definition, not UEFA.

The most amusing thing is a Chelsea fan who seems to be on some moral crusade against City's investment. Chelsea's success is entirely down to Abramovich yet you seem to begrudge other teams benefiting from such investment. The whole reason Chelsea can comply with FFP today and still challenge at the top, is because of Abramovich. The whole reason City can comply with FFP and still challenge at the top, is because of Abu Dhabi; and, I might add, I've yet to meet a City fan who denies this last point. So what's your problem?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of City and PSG's finances I'm staggered that it's a Chelsea affiliated posted who is squealing the loudest.
Pots and kettles, old bean.

 

[Revan]

Pointless to ask a City fan a question you know the answer to.

It's obviously the sweetheart deals they have with the likes of Etisalat, Etihad, TCA Abu Dhabi, Arabtec, Aabar, First Gulf Bank & Saudi Hollandi Bank. They've been smart in that each deal on its own isn't blatantly ridiculous (ala PSG) which means Uefa will find it exceptionally difficult to revalue, but collectively only a complete moron would believe that Manchester City could achieve a commercial revenue of £180m (15/16 figures) quickly surpassing much larger and more successful clubs with a much larger global fan base like Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool & Chelsea.

This club that no-one had heard of a decade ago are now literally only behind Bayern, Madrid & United in terms of commercial income (if you likewise discard PSG and their ridiculous deals). Their commercial revenue in 2009 for example was £18m

The part of their deal that illustrates their actual commercial strength is their kit deal at £12m. As there doesn't seem to be an Adu Dhabi based kit manufacturer they're had to settle for a market rate deal much lower than any of the larger clubs with more commercial appeal.

Likewise it becomes obvious when you see the two biggest commercial revenue streams - their shirt and kit deals, represent merely 18% of their total commercial income. That's compared with Spurs 45%, Liverpool 46%, United 49%, Arsenal 56%, & Chelsea 60%. Are we supposed to believe that these supposed commercial wizards at City, suddenly become brain-dead when it comes to the sponsorship deals that attract the most attention? Or that clubs like United and Chelsea who have been phenomenal in terms of securing great contracts for their two biggest streams, are suddenly way behind City comparatively when it comes to their £146m revenue for a few billboards?

I'm no fan of Uefa or of FFP and I'm not only delighted City have found a way to circumvent the rules, but am thankful they've done so as it allows for a much more competitive league. However anyone who believes City's commercial revenues wouldn't be cut down by c. £100m without Mansours ownership are delusional.

I'm keen to see their next commercial figures, as to fund their latest shopping spree even their 15/16 commercial revenue of £178m is insufficient. I expect that to comfortably surpass £200m, with the aforementioned UAE firms uplifting their contracts to keep the illusion of fiscal responsibility alive for FFP purposes.

Like always I agree with your post about finances. I was always against FFP for the elite clubs, and I am happy that City and PSG have found ways around then (even better considering that pisses off La Liga) but always found it hilarious how City fans claim that their deals aren't inflated from UAE related companies.