When I first heard it, I thought it was a good deal - and is much much better than what we've been getting since the move from Highbury, so it should help us improve our standing - but the more I think of it, and as you say above we should have gotten a lot more considering the stadium naming rights are until 2028 or something - also I'm sure I heard somewhere that Liverpools shirt sponsorship deal alone is worth £50m a season (but I could be wrong).
I can see UEFA putting a block on Citeh's deal but it will be interesting to see what they will do if Barca or Real Madrid pull a similar stunt
That's the main issue. Both Real and Barca seem to be getting free money from the government and Bank's. How is that fair? We criticise Man City, but what about those two? It will be interesting to see what FFP does. If it doesn't curb rediculous spending, then i can't see Arsenal ever being competitive with their current financial model. The only way around it would be to follow suit, the Usmanov way, a way that i wouldn't be too happy about.
If/When FFP comes in it will be intersting to see how UEFA deal with clubs who try to exploit loopholes.I seem to remember a story that Madrid were £300 million in debt but the Spanish government purchased their training ground for the same amount which allowed Madrid to clear their debt
Absolutely digusting. How government funds can be used for such trivial means. Are we now suprised why the Spanish nation is in such financial trouble? More and more people are out of work and young people in Spain can't even get a job, let alone a first job. But as long as Real Madrid and Barca are financial stable, then it's all hunkydory...
Did Chelsea not do something similar in their last accounts, turned 160 million of debt into equity, which is basically romans way of writing of 160 million of Chelsea's debt, any other club would have to pay that debt of for years.
It's OK writing off debt as you still have to break even. I think Chelsea's last accounts showed them making a profit but they included the £millions Chelsea made from winning the CL.Their accounts do not show the money spent on Hazard,Oscar etc.If Chelsea don't make the CL knockout stage this season i think they could have a serious problem. Both ourselves and Man Utd are carrying £millions of debt but we are making a profit aand thus would not fall foul of FFP
It was the council, same thing in my book as their money should be used for the city and not overpaying Real Madrid for their training ground. They even investigated it as they thought they overpaid, but they dropped the case. Shocking that a public body would overpay for such worthlessness. (May 8, 2001): Real Madrid Sells Training Ground to City to Clear Debt, Fund Player Purchases http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a050801RealSellTraining#a050801RealSellTraining The Spanish football club Real Madrid sells its training ground to the city council for €480m to wipe out a €290m debt. Under the agreement, the football club will relocate to a new training complex on the outskirts of the city by 2004 March 3, 2004: EU Begins Investigation of Transaction that Cleared Real Madrid’s Debt http://www.historycommons.org/conte...tesMadrid#a030304CommissionInvestigatesMadrid The European Union announces it has begun a preliminary investigation into the sale of Real Madrid’s training ground to the city council in 2001 (see (May 8, 2001)). The sale netted €480m, which wiped out the football club’s €290m debt and enabled it to buy players such as Zinedine Zidane, Ronaldo, Luis Figo, and David Beckham. “We believe Madrid’s regional authorities may have overpaid,” says Tilman Luder, the EU’s competition spokesman. He also warns that the club may have to pay back some money if the price exceeded the market value. “We have sent a questionnaire to the Spanish government: to find out why they bought this land, at what price, and if they can prove it was at the market price. We suspect that the purchase price was influenced by the fact that this property had been reclassified, which increased its value,” says Luder. If Spain’s response to the questionnaire is not satisfactory, the EU may launch a formal investigation. (Nash 3/4/2010) The EU will later drop the matter (see (November 9, 2004)).
The tie up with stadium naming rights does indeed dampen this deal a little bit. But, it's still a massive increase from previous one and hopefully they use that extra money to invest in the team.
Man city's deal will probably pass, it is 400 million over 10 years, for shirt sponsorship and naming rights, working out at 40 million a season, our deal works out at roughly 30 million a season, while man u are reportedly going to get 40 million for shirt sponsorship from next season. The city deal is not as mad as people make out. As pointed out is more the fact that etihad is owned by the UAE royal family that is the problem.
While it might seem complicating because the owner of Etihad are related to the owners of City, but can you really stop it because of that? So let's say your brother owns a club, and you own your company, is it really illegal of you, or should you be banned, from being able to sponsor that club just because your related to blood? I'm quite sure Etihad could make a case for why it's good for them to sponsor City, City are a big club now, and so Etihad were looking for good sponsorship deals, the other big clubs are taken for now with their own good sponsors, and so City was the right marketing move for Etihad, so I don't really think you can ban it because of blood relations, that seems very daft for me, and sets a very bad precedent.
The £400 million deal with Etihad is for naming rights for the council house.Just because they are being bankrolled by a Sheik it does not make them a big club.No club in the world is getting what Citeh are for stadium naming rights.
I seem to remember there being an issue about etihad not making a profit in 5 years, begging the question how could a company that does not make a profit afford such a deal.
City are a big club, tell me, if you're a major company, who'd you want to sponsor, West Brom, or City? Let's be realistic here. City have world class players, and that =buying lot's of jersey's, and attracting the glory hunters who like that, so if you think City aren't a big and appealing club for sponsorship, you obviously then don't know what you're talking about and are simply viewing things through Arsenal biased glasses, rather than actual reality business eye glasses. No club in the world are getting what City is getting, and? So what? That doesn't make it illegal, so if one day Arsenal get the best deal, does it make it illegal? It's 400 million over 10 years, that's not really that extreme when looked at from that.
They have made their first profit as of this year, and it's not just about profit, last year they had revenues of over 2.5 billon dollars.
