Home
Blog
Careers
Forums
Downloads
FM24 Real Name Fix
FM23 Real Name Fix
FM24 New Leagues
FM23 New Leagues
FM24 Tactics
FM24 Data Update
FM Database
FM Guides
FM Shortlists
FM24/25 Update Wonderkids
FM24/25 Update Free Players
FM24/25 Update Bargains
FM24/25 Update Players to avoid
FM24/25 Update Club Budgets
FM24/25 Update Club Facilities
Graphics
Installation Guides
Records
Prediction League
Fantasy Football
Search
Slashman X
bluemoon.
No, I don't know exactly, it's generally reported as being between £40 and 50m a year which was I referred to it as £40m p/a. Even if it was a related party transaction (it's not) then considering the breadth of the deal, City could still make a compelling argument that it is 'fair value' especially so when you consider some of the ridiculous sponsorship deals that have been signed recently and are being mooted for the near future.
Carroll.
bluemoon.
Good question and one I have absolutely no idea about.
Ninja
And yet the balance of probility indicates that despite your insistances (and I'm not sure talking about deals signed in the future is at all a convincing rebuttal to the argument that it wasn't vastly inflated in the past) is that Uefa are giving it short thrift.
Ninja
I would imagine that that would be closed down on, but I'm not sure there's ever a way to close loopholes completely.
Slashman X
Yes, UEFA are not arguing with it at all, glad you agree
Ninja
What on earth are you talking about?
Slashman X
I honestly don't know why you're arguing this, UEFA investigated it over 2 years ago and deemed it ok. And the amount being paid is not over the top at all compared to other deals
Ninja
What I meant was clearly that they have little time for it.
Source for your second point? Doesn't agree with anything being written since January at least.
Anyway, this site seems to have it pretty much spot on and is exactly what I'm saying. http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk
Slashman X
They don't "clearly" do anything.
My source is that they started investigating it basically as soon as it was done and not a peep had been made since.
How is that "spot on" and exactly what you're saying?
I'd say no. That post just appears to be speculation for the most part, doesn't even acknowledge the notion that City won't accept the "plea-bargain"
bluemoon.
No the balance of probability is that UEFA have an issue with some part of our figures. The balance of speculation is that they have a problem with the Etihad deal.
True to a degree but UEFA are going to be trying to work out whether it has been 'vastly inflated' and they aren't just going to do that by looking at other deals signed in mid-2011. If they have any sense whatsoever they'll also be looking at deals signed since then but covering the same sort of period - e.g. United's £22.5m p/a training kit and training ground deal (via Telegraph) or Liverpool's £25m p/a deal with Warrior (via Guardian) or Chelsea's £30m p/a deal with Adidas (Daily Mail) - after that I don't think it's a massive jump to assume that they would try and establish what the sort of figures major companies (the likes of Nike, Adidas etc) would be willing to pay at the moment for a large sponsorship deal for a recent title-winner. After doing that, all but the most blinkered would have to agree that a figure of around £40-50m is not really 'vastly inflated' for a deal that covers kit, stadium and training ground.
bluemoon.
Ed Thompson, the bloke who runs that site, is a complete idiot. There was a long and surprisingly informative (and admittedly vitriolic) thread on Bluemoon a while back about the different ways he failed to understand FFP, not least with what constitutes a related party transaction. IIRC the bloke from Swiss Ramble even made an appearance.
Ninja
I didn't say they did try reading it again.
Of course it's speculation, everything is speculation because we have no intimate knowledge of what's actually going on, my problem is with you arguing as if you are an authority on the matter (baring in mind the last time you did that was to tell us all that City would be absolutely fine and it was all media hype, something which, clearly, is not true).
This is the first time FFP has come into force so investigation into matters are for the first time actually becoming relevant. 'Not hearing otherwise' is a shoddy basis for which to base an argument that it's been accepted.
Factually all I've said is that it's being reported that this deal is an important factor in why City have failed, you and then blue moon are then coming in and saying definitively that it's not. My point is simply that you can't, and don't know that but you are responding as if I'm saying something else.
Slashman X
I'll think you find I always said City were going to fail initially, then use the appeals process to take advantage of the June '10 write-offs
bmg033
Ninja
A clear example of when statistics can be misleading.
Slashman X
We've also used the least amount of players in the league (I think)
Ninja
Yeah you'll be ok with it I reckon. Richard Wright probably doubled his pants at the thought he'll be second choice in Europe.
Edit: spunked his pants. Autocorrects a bitch.
Slashman X
It's more the Home Grown stuff we're worried about.
Might lead to hanging on to Richards for another season
Ninja
Yeah, Richards, Barry and Lescott have done well out of today.
Could see you selling some though with the wage restrictions though and replacing them with cheaper options going forward so you can actually improve the quality of the first team.
Slashman X
Added to Hart, Milner, Clichy, Rodwell, Wright with possibly Sinclair or Richards
Slashman X
Carroll.
Based Jorge
Slashman X
tmatthew
Slashman X
Slashman X
Slashman X
Yaya to UFC confirmed